Christian Absolutely DISMANTLES Atheist (in a debate) | Part 6 of 8
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 чер 2024
- This is my Second Rebuttal in my debate with Dustin (@TheNonAlchemist) on whether horrendous suffering disproves God.
Playlist of the whole debate: • DEBATE: Does Suffering...
00:00 Opening
00:19 Introduction
00:38 General Remarks
02:07 Premise One
04:06 Premise Two
07:44 Premise Four
12:33 Outroduction
Special thanks to Joe Schmid for providing helpful comments on earlier drafts of the script.
FREE STUFF -------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CCFREESTUFF
GIVING -------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on UA-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
SOCIAL -------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchristianity.com
MY GEAR -----------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
Recording/Interview Software: bit.ly/3E3CGsI
CONTACT ----------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
To clear up any possible confusions about the way we are presenting this debate, the full debate is being presented in 8 individual videos which will be posted 1 a day on our respective channels over the course of 8 days. Here's the schedule for all of the videos:
Mon, July 24 @ 12pm Central: Dustin's Opening Statement on Dustin's channel
Tue, July 25 @ 12pm Central: Cam's Opening Statement on Cam's channel
Wed, July 26 @ 12pm Central: Dustin's First Rebuttal on Dustin's channel
Thurs, July 27 @ 12pm Central: Cam's First Rebuttal on Cam's channel
Fri, July 28 @ 10am Central: Dustin's Second Rebuttal on Dustin's channel
Fri, July 28 @ 7pm Central: Cam's Second Rebuttal on Cam's channel
Sat, July 29 @ 10am Central: Dustin's Closing Statement on Dustin's channel
Sat, July 29 @ 7pm Central: Cam's Closing Statement on Cam's channel
Lastly, here's the playlist to every video in the debate (if you don't see all the videos, that's because they haven't all been added yet): ua-cam.com/video/DwnKgh9nVjc/v-deo.html
This format is a good idea. But not if you are disagreeing about who has the burden of proof...
Anyone who makes a claim has the burden... any claim.
@@soldier7332 yup, the question is when and for what... not who.
Man I am so tired of this can of worms. Let’s just have each side present their case. It bogs down the debate on both sides to keep bickering about this
@soldier7332 they could consult a logician... they had literally months for that. Or they could have said something like "Okay, I disagree with you, but if I had the burden of proof, I would justify my claims with the following evidence: something that makes sense
The disagreement isn’t about who has the burden of proof. I accept the primary burden and lead with my chin. The disagreement in this context is about what constitutes a good argument
I love the debate format! Keeping up with the latest response every day is great. It provides time for good thought.
Your failure to define God's perfect omnipotence is so bad that it allows you to consider a perfectly impotent god to be all-powerful.
All means all, what don't you get sheesh
@@christopherb6656 For Cameron, all means "all-most nothing"
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 so you say.
Excellent video CC
how to be an apologist: label your opponents argument not an argument and move on
I think Epicurus still provides a good objection to this whole consideration of suffering.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
RE suffering
Since a baseball is possibly dangerous traveling 100 mph like a rock,
why not use wiffle balls instead ?
We are in “ a reality ” that is only “ part ” of Eternity.
The view from Eternity of All games is different from the view of 1 pitch.
In a dream the runner can jump over MT Olympus and land in the mouth of a lion and still win the race.
@@termikesmike but there is a problem here. The convincing problem that concludes this god isn’t good is actual designed suffering
That's simplistic. It assumes the highest good is to essentially be at maximal euphoria and without pain or fear ever. It's a kind of omnidirectional perpetual super-orgasm on cocaine.
That sounds nice if you're a shallow idiot, but it's indistinguishable from meaninglessness nihilistic apathetic white noise.
The argument of suffering has repeatedly appealed to ALL suffering aa unacceptable for an omnibenevolent God... and suffering is subjective. To a pampered person, even inconveniences are intolerable. To others, they're content with poverty, disease and mortality. And since physical pain is a necessity of biological life as it's merely information to avoid danger or seek help for injury. Saying pain is totally optional is to essentially demand that God is either bad or else we MUST be immortal and perpetually appeased.
It's ridiculous.
These notions of highest good isn't even good, it's evil. An Omnibenevolent being wouldn't cater to such demands as they're morally evil. In scripture God himself suffers, despite having no physical needs that make it necessary for him. His reason for suffering IS his goodness. He has a characteristic called "long-suffering". The highest good doesn't selfishly vie suffering as something to escape, but to transcend.
@@reality1958 re “ actual designed suffering “
Do you mean ‘birth defects’ or/and other ‘hardships’ ?
The problem with that argument is further understanding of the ‘rules of the event’(in the game).
If you choose to go into the “Fun House “ you are choosing the ‘results ‘= designed suffering. Knowing what's going to happen defeats the purpose of the 'experience' ....
@@termikesmike a baby didn’t choose to get a brain tumor.
You're right about the conjunction of the premises
Perhaps if we substitute “things I don’t like much and things I do like a bit” for “horrendous suffering and greatest good” we will see what we are really dealing with is word pokery. Remember never mix your metaphors, never beat about the bush and always call a spade a shovel. “He who hath no stones, let him throw himself at the glass house”.
It's weird because the atheist in the debate was trying very hard to illustrate what horrendous suffering is, and the christian never responded on that level
@@tylerattwood9392 another “weird” thing is we only see one person in this so called “debate”, is the Atheist shy?. If you want to watch someone dismantled ? Watch. C.E.Hitchens and W.L.Craig debating.
Great format! Been watching them as they come out.
Do you believe that there is horrendous suffering that is essentially meaningless?
I recently read Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl. He was able to derive meaning from his suffering. But there were countless others around him who might not have. He mentioned the survivors returning to empty homes with no one to welcome them because their families didn't make it. Does the fact that some survivors were able to derive some meaning really balance out the horror?
If meaningless horrific suffering exists, or even if all instances of horrific suffering can have some amount of meaning derived from them, was that really God's perfect plan?
The most important point in my opinion is that an all-powerful God should be able to achieve the highest possible good without allowing suffering. So, whether there can be meaning in suffering is irrelevant to me. The objection from the greater good doesn't work.
Important questions. The part regarding Victor Frankl misses something, although you kind of touch on it at the end. Just because some victims of suffering are unable to derive meaning from their suffering, that does not mean we can logically conclude that there was no meaning to be found. As far as God’s perfect plan, it’s important to remember that this world is post-edenic. Meaning God offered a world without suffering, and we are the one’s that blew it. Now it can be argued God knew we would blow it, but knowledge does not necessarily entail causation. And once again from a Christian worldview, the whole ordeal is about God’s glory, God’s redemptive purpose, God’s plan, not our lack of suffering. But from the Christian worldview there will be complete redemption and reconciliation for all suffering for God’s glory AND the good of those who love Him. So yes it’s very plausible that a world like what we see could be apart of God’s perfect plan.
@@loganwillett2835 In your view, did god have perfect knowledge of all possible futures before he created the world?
It seems to me that even if someone doesn’t get any good out of his suffering right then, out of it right then doesn’t mean it won’t provide greater good later to himself or others at a later point.
As for whether it was Gods perfect plan, it seems an appeal to free will and the rejection of the Edenic Safety resolves that. God’s working with what we chose, not what He chose.
@@danielboone8256 What human choice causes deadly cancer in children, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes? What about the suffering that leads to neither any good or a relationship with god?
An omnipotent God would be able to bring about the greatest good without horrendous suffering.
An omni benevolently God would want to bring about the greatest good without horrendous suffering.
An omniscient God would know how to bring about the greatest good without horrendous suffering.
If God has all three of these omni properties then horrendous suffering would not be necessary to bring about the greatest good.
From your limited perspective, yes.
@@Keinho7 Would you care to explain which part of the logic above fails when viewed from, I guess, an unlimited perspective, and how you know this given you, like me, also have a limited perspective. Your answer seems to amount to "yeah, we don't understand it, but God does, so it must be ok" and I don't see any reason to accept that.
Unless you were being sarcastic and I completely missed it, then...yeah, my bad.
I think what the YTber is saying is. If You personally required the experience of an horrendous act, inorder to then/later express/experience the greatest good, then God's willingness to create you would also allot his creation of that possible outcome. However, given free will exists, Idk how to account for that making GOD less Omni potent, aware, and powerful😎
@@toniwels8195that argument works equally well for an evil god who allows us to enjoy happiness so that the ultimate suffering can occur.
The first and most important question should have been: what is horrendous evil?
That’s one of the things I was thinking
That was covered by the atheist several times with several answers. For some reason, Cameron didn't respond to that...
I must say the more colourful room makes it more easy to watch.
I was getting the impression that Dustin meant premise 1 to be referring to the greatest good somehow relating to God in any way, which would include self-sacrifice, wouldn’t it?
When you don’t have a definition of what to believe it becomes impossible to even discuss it.
7:00
Is the Viktor Frankl example supposed to be empirical evidence that suffering brought someone closer to god, or empirical evidence that people claim that it does?
If Cameron thinks it’s the former, does he also think that atheists who reports realizing that they never heard from God, and it was actually only their internal monologue, is evidence that god doesn’t exist?
If it’s the latter, then, surely he must realize that claims are pretty weak forms of evidence…
I'm glad you brought up the fact that it is the conjunction of the premises that needs to be more probable than not.
Even if Dustin was able to show that each of his premises had a 70% chance of being true, with 4 premises, that would still only give his argument around a 30% chance of being true? I would call that a defeat.
Yeah just because each of the premises are more likely than not doesn't mean that they're likely all true. The conjunction must be probably for the conclusion to be probably (assuming the argument is valid)
Thats assuming independence. If one of these are true that makes the other more likely true, no? Then you cant just multiply the four 70%s
@@Greyz174 I don't know why that would be the case. I'm not saying it's impossible but you'd need an argument. Premise Independence seems like the null hypothesis to me.
And for the purposes of my previous comment it could be 70% for each premise after factoring in independence. I was just musing that the bar for demonstrating the conclusion is higher than more likely than not for each premise.
P2 - necessarily if God then prevent suffering doesnt mean that people wont experience God
P3 - necessarily if God then preventing suffering means people wont realize their deepest good
Both of them have the common part about suffering not being necessary to achieve the ends. If suffering is not necessary for one its probably not necessary for the other. Not necessarily but its more likely that if theres a reason that applies to one that reason would be the same for the other, or at least be similar and have bearing on whatever makes the other true
@@hearts285sorry that wasnt in argument form too tedious for the moment hope its ok but i can update any of it if you need
SimpliSITer
This title is hilarious. I guess our boy here doesn't get that Dustin totally bested him.
The title may be boisterous, but it is accurate.
I wish i could have a one on one with the host of this channel, i do find the view points interesting. I will say i am not a practicing "Christian" nor would i call myself one. I have travelled the left hand path into Satanism, and have more or less settled into Buddhism as my philosophical view point. I just always found the premise of one "God" to be silly and rather insulting.
You could have a one-on-one with me. I'm a philosophy grad student albeit one with a much less popular UA-cam channel.
@@MaverickChristian You know i miss the PM feature of youtube, was quite the boon in these cases. I would have sent you a PM with my phone number. I love history for instance so being able to have such talks with others is always fun to me.
God is playing a game of Super Chess with an AI He created
And it doesn’t matter if He wins or looses.
How about "Awesomely handsome Christian (single, by the way) absolutely pwned cretin heathen like the boss he totally is" for a title?
Sounds quite credible, if you ask me.
Some transparency would be good. Both of you are utilizing professional philosophers
Absolutely LOVE how your debate titles get more assertive the less rationale you can bring to bear to back up your delusion! You dismiss that this is 'the only best possible world'! How can there be more than one "best"? Followed by laughable equivocation fallacies to defend 'lacking'.
Hey, just something to chew on.
Free will or freedom of choice is a good think
If God is good then he would allow for free will
If you or anyone else chooses something bad or evil then a good God should respect your choice and not prevent you from doing so. Even if it leads to suffering.
Your bad, evil, selfish (however you wish to word bad) choice lead to suffering. Should God have stopped from making that choice?
Im only 2 minutes in and this talk of proving the existence of cats is preparing me to watch another video coz its going over my head. Nobody needs proof anyway
Where is the "Christian Absolutely DISMANTLES Atheist?
Great job, Cameron. People are still complaining about the discussion on the burden of proof, but there’s so much more than this in the debate. And there’s no problem in having to address that issue, because it is indeed relevant and people often don’t get it. Keep up the good work.
Both sides have a burden of proof. Only agnostics don't have a burden of proof.
Zero supporting empirical evidence, the problem of evil, or the problem of hiddenness would alone make ANY of the Abrahamic Gods (I'm not picking on Christianity specifically) unpalatable to the rational person, when you combine them they make it unpalatable to anyone except a person who desperately wants to believe or someone brought up with those ideas.
I know you claimed to win the debate here (never a good sign for the debater who makes that claim themselves) but I can feel that you know it isn't true. 😉
I think you guys have a differing definition of God's perfection.
We believe that theists view God as perfectly good. To my understanding, perfect means complete i.e. lacking nothing.
Therefore if a theist claims that God is perfectly good, that means they are saying God is completely good i.e. God contains all good.
On the other hand you believe God lacks some goods before creation making him incomplete i.e. imperfect.
I am for this debate, it's good to have opposing views clash. However, I still find it mind boggling how theists believe and attempt to defend an all loving, all powerful, compassionate God allowing for children to die of cancer everyday, thousands to die of starvation and dehydration everyday, thousands being trafficked everyday, and so much more horrendous suffering. The idea that all suffering has a purpose to me is ludicrous. A lot of suffering happens for no reason at all and the individuals suffering simply perish, never inspiring change in others or having the chance to change themselves. All these big words and fancy premises all trying to justify why there might be some reason for all this tremendous suffering; it's truly mind blowing. If tremendous suffering can't change the individual because they died, and if that death couldn't change anyone because no one was around to be influenced, then it happened for no reason. But I'm sure theists will say God has his reasons, of course he does. The so called creator of the universe who created us and needs nothing from us somehow has a reason for unnecessary horrendous suffering to occur.
@@CMVMicI heard something similar to this. I believe it was WLC who said it is necessary for the world to be the way it is because God has structured it so that a “maximally great number of free people will come to know Christ and be saved”. I used to believe this but in hindsight it’s ridiculous.
First of all. Free will.
Second of all. Sin.
Third of all.
God suffered to give us a way out.
Jesus suffered, died, and rose again so that we may have eternal life.
The problem is remedied.
A side note,
Atheism doesn't explain suffering.
You literally need to acknowledge God's existence in order to blame Him for suffering.
If you don't believe God exists, then you cannot blame God for suffering.
Atheists pick and choose what they want to believe, without any consistency or critical thinking.
You DON'T believe God exists.
You can't blame something that doesn't exist for suffering.
Imagine if you blamed unicorns for suffering.
Unicorns don't exist in reality, they CANNOT cause anything in the real world. The problem of evil is a problem for Atheists, not for Christians.
Either God does not exist, and you can't blame him for suffering, OR God DOES exist, and the Earth isn't billions of years old, evolution is a false religion, Atheism is a delusion, and you're inherently wrong about every thing, and if that is true, then you cannot trust the logic of some one who is delusional, and being unable to perceive reality makes you unable to trust your reasoning skills
It just shows that you don't understand the Christian message.
Lack of understanding reflects on you, not anyone else
@@davidbell2547 then please tell me, what is this Christian message that allows for children to die of cancer and other crazy amounts of suffering?
Gaslighting
As an atheist the nature of god was absolutely the biggest concern in my deconstruction. During the process though questions are asked and these question need resolutions.
Should this video have helped halt my deconstruction? No, it would have quickened the process. I would view Cam as gaslighting and avoiding the problem before us.
The mere existence of the problem without a solution renders the belief in a personal god as unreasonable considering God created a unverse where the toughest argument against god’s existence can’t be resolved.
If we arrive at an unresolvable obstacle, the problem of evil, on the path to a personal god then god isn’t a personal god.
Evil isn’t an unresolvable problem. I think that God made us with free will (limited free will, we aren’t absolute) and with this free will he wants us to make the decision for ourselves whether we get closer to him or get closer to the devil.
God would like for all his children to go to heaven but you must make that choice and live your life accordingly. Life is a test for yourself, and some people decide to do evil things. If god interfered every time someone did something evil, it defeats the purpose of the test and giving you free will to begin with.
Evil is merely a biproduct of free will, and god wanting you to choose him, to choose heaven.
@@DreadGarden
My issue is that the problem is avoided (like Cam in this series) or a thin argument based on the actions of an individual is given (like your response). Both fail but you are absolutely more honest in your response. You do believe that your response is adequate.
God allows sin in nature for two reasons free will and contrast of wills. Free will should exist so we can choose to be with God instead existing as purely subordinate creatures with God. Contrast of wills is essentially saying their can't be light without dark and vice versa. Furthermore, We can't see how good God is without seeing how bad the absence of God would be. If God created us with the knowledge of sin, but without experiencing sin it would be a contradiction. You can't explain how something is bad without knowing that bad is something to avoid through experience . Example being if I told you that touching your hand on something that is hot is bad because it is painful you wouldn't know that pain is something to avoid without experiencing it.
Moreover, God cannot have a certain type of meaningfull relationship with perfect creatures. Perfect creatures cannot be forgiven, taught moral truths, experience humor, and cable of learning from mistakes due to their very nature of their being. Being created as perfect creatures isn't a bad thing, but it ironically lacks certain qualitys that beings may want to have. That's why I think God created us in an imperfect world, and will have us be reborn into a perfect one. With Earth and the possibility of heaven we can have our cake and eat it too.
@@AWalkOnDirt I guess my question would be why do you think my argument fails? Im curious.
As for Cam, I like the guests he has on for his shows, but he himself is not intelligent enough to debate. He avoids arguments he doesn’t like, and then just asserts that he’s right or what he’s saying is true. I used to be an atheist and people like Cam in arguments like the video pushed me away from Christianity for a long time.
@@DreadGarden What about horrible unnecesary suffering? Natural desasters, diseases, genetic conditions, stillbirths and sudden infant death, heart attacks in healthy people ... there's so many kinds of suffering where there is no one at fault at all. If god really exists and is all good and all knowing and all powerful, all those things happen not only with his knowledge, but by his will as he is supposedly powerful enough to prevent them.
And then there is the question of free will. Did god have perfect knowledge of every possible future when he created the world? Then he either chose this one we live in specificly (and if he did, free will is an illusion) or he used his omnipotence to keep himself from knowing (which might be logically impossible, I'm not sure on this). Funnily, I wouldn't say there's free will without god, either.
Faith always defeats reason among the faithful.
Everyone knows that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of an invisible, unknowable, Hebrew god named Yahweh.
Epicurus did not consider that a loving all powerful God may still have a good reason for allowing evil, even if we don't know what that reason is. And given that God has chosen to grant humans with a measure of free will, gratuitous evil might well result, which God in his wisdom would allow within a greater plan for ultimate good.
Yes, God may have unknown reasons to allow gratuitous evil.
God also, equally, may have unknown reasons to prevent gratuitous evil
How about a god who chooses to inflict suffering?
So explain how kids suffering and dying of cancer is for the greater good.
@@jacoblee5796 indeed!
@@jacoblee5796 I dunno, I'm not God
Cam, you just keep getting better and better. Well done.
The atheist answer to suffering is to avoid it and if you have to suffer then suck it up.
There are ways to wrap your mind around painful situations and make it so you dont suffer from them. Not like a button click but you can tune your mind into reality properly and have less and less situations cause suffering for you
The atheist answer to suffering is that it is actually pointless... So the best thing you can do is to intervine and interact to actually change things. There is no greater good for extreme stuffering, so we must not tollarate it and intervine whenever possible to stop it....
@@Devious_Dave Suffering has a purpose for the Christian such as increasing dependence on God and he knows it temporary.
Cameron: I'm disappointed with Dustin.
Me an agnostic: Me too, man.
I don’t really get why Dustin didn’t present an evidential argument from evil (kinda like Draper). It would’ve been much more compelling and effective. I understand he’s concerned about time, but each video is only 8 minutes long. If the RR and CC debate showed anything, it’s that videos can be 30+ minutes during this format. In fact, I really think they should be.
@@soldier7332 most of the time I would like for God to be real, but heaven does scare me a bit. Not gonna lie, watching Cameron's channel has increased my belief in the probability of theism. But I'm still agnostic.
@@soldier7332i want there not to be a god that burns people forever that would be neat
@@Efesus67
I don’t see how increasing probability of god is possible through CC’s argumentation. Explain exactly how was the super nature established or made more likely to exist?
True (I'm also an agnostic), this argument ultimately doesn't work for me. He could have used the evolutionary or the teleological evil arguments
@Cameron I think you guys needed to have a final in person discussion to harsh out where you are missing each others points. I feel you are talking past each other. You don't even understand why your empirical evidence is irrelevant. The reason is because the argument about horrific suffering is based on arguing that God could have created the world differently not on how it is now. So though we agree that your empirical evidence is true, the argument is that God did not need to create that disposition in that person in the first place. God could have created a world where that person who needed horrific suffering doesn't need it just like you and the rest of the majority of Christians dont need it. In that sense God created a world with more suffering than was needed. To me as an atheist, the creation of unnecessary suffering is evil. So if God made this decision that make him evil. The christian God has a base characteristic of being kind and loving i.e. not evil. Therefore if this world we are in was created by a God, then that God would not be the Christian God since that would be a contradiction.
Jesus Christ is Lord, I saw Him!
What does this have to do with christianity if they argue about a "general god of theocracy"? Like, what? Can you imagine Jesus arguing in this manner? I know, he wasn't arguing with atheists, but still. Relying on human philosophies and logics?
Bible already gives an excellent answer to the question in title. Everyone has sinned and is separated from God. Somehow Bible has zero difficulty with presence of evil and existance of God, but these guys just keep arguing about abstract undefined god using underdeveloped human logic.
Besides, why would God be infinitely good? Where does this come from? He can be tiranic maniac and sadist. Why not? God doesn't owe anything to anyone! If God was evil, of course then there would be evil in the world! How would that disprove existance of God? Whole debate is pointless and nonsensical, imo
Cam, you seem to not understand the argument being made in any way whatsoever. You say people saying horrific suffering brought them closer to God is empirical evidence that horrific suffering is necessary for some people to get close to God. This is not the case, just because A can bring about B does not mean that A is necessary for B.
And if we did show that we lived in a universe in which it was necessary for people to suffer horrifically to become closer to what they believe is God, that would still not undercut the argument. You just automatically equate "people feeling closer to God" with "people being closer to the tri-omni God I believe exists". But the entire point of Dustin's argument is that if horrific suffering were necessary to get closer to whatever God may exist, that necessarily entails that that God is not tri-omni. You need to engage with that argument, otherwise all your examples of horrific suffering making people feel closer to God is just further evidence that if there is a God it isn't the God of traditional theism.
You have the burden of proof and you have not satisfied it.
Sorry but this format Is a really really bad idea.... I hope you will do conventional debates in the future again. This is just a bloody dragged out mess
Hardly, it's a pretty well formatted and structured series.
@@inquisitiveferret5690I think it is fine but could use significantly quicker releases, something like every 6 hours or so.
@@Eliza-rg4vw Just wait a week and come back, and you can binge them all at your leisure.
Your arguments in this video are some of the worst so far. Nearly all were invalid
Ouch. Why don’t you just say it like you feel it instead of couching it in such flowery language, innuendo, and intrigue….
I think you’re complimenting him… like when buddies say “you’re the worst!” Really they mean “you’re awesome!”
Anyhow… I really e joyed your in-depth analysis. You really explained each argument and why you see them as you do. Super illuminating. Really great work you did there…!
God is not "perfectly rational", God is Love.
Except for all the floods, infinite torture in hell, misogyny, slavery, blood sacrifice, homophobia, child abuse.
@@UMBR. RE: "Except for all the floods," = this deserves discussion.
RE: " infinite torture in hell," = this is total bs and like the rest of your comment 'not from God' but your own 'reasoning'
RE:" misogyny, slavery, blood sacrifice, homophobia, child abuse"
all flowing from humans with 'free will'.
Yet my comment is in response to God being "perfectly rational".
I'll let you discuss 'floods' with someone else .....
He is both
@Vistacism don't make surface-level interpretations
@TheBrunarr 🤣 this is literally stuff that is in the bible.
Surface level interpretation is what you are doing when you say "god is love".
Shots fired at the Faithiest Atheist
Thanks for conceding that the Xtian god is not benevolent or loving
.
LOL
What is an Extian? Who are you referring to !
Cameron, re-read the premise he's giving you, it doesnt even make sense, it refers to 'finite' people, its got atheism built into the premise. We believe we are 'infinite', and suffering may be necessary to save us, so it's intergral for salvation not just for the good of 'finite' people. Suffering for finite people, who cares and what does it matter? You're missing the lies at the core of the premise, its denying the beliefs of our faith while assuming atheism is true to begin with
The phrase "atheism is/is not true" makes no sense. Atheism is literally the position of *not believing in a presented god*. It makes no claims about anything beyond the individual's "I do not believe." Atheists exist, so by that token Atheism is true: it is true that there are people who identify as atheists. And someone stating their position in their premise is not lying. Something is NOT a lie just because it stands in opposition to your position.
Also, you don't care about the suffering of people. Well done for openly admitting your lack of morality and lack of care for people and their well-being. You do not use someone's length of existence to determine whether or not they are worthy of care. You determine if someone is worthy of care based on your relationship with them and how they treat you.
@@UMBR. hi, I believe all people are worthy of care by virtue of the fact that they have worth simply for existing, how they treat me or my relationship to them is irrelevant and wouldnt change that belief, that's just you imposing your standards to decide if a person is worthy of care, which I disagree with.
And for the record when i said 'who cares' with respect to people suffering, it was in the context of it being meaningless not saying that people shouldnt care for others, so u didnt even understand the point i was making. Anyway, take care
@@user-lh5li8ll7i Then you will understand my conclusion that you don't care for people when you say exactly what you said - "Suffering for finite people, who cares and what does it matter?". I understand exactly what you said, but your contradictory post-hoc rationalisation clears things up.
@@UMBR. you dont understand what I said and you just exposed your own standards.
I'll explain it clearly for you so u understand, the idea of suffering if we are finite is ultimately meaningless, suffering teaches u something? 'So what' ' who cares' when u die you're dead and gone and it meant nothing, so what was the point? that' s what I meant. As opposed to if we are infinite now the suffering can be understood in a redemptive fashion with eternal consequences
@@user-lh5li8ll7i Then your original wording was problematic. "Who cares" implies "I don't care" or "no one cares"; thus "every person suffering, who cares it doesn't matter" implies you are saying you don't care and it does not matter. But what you actually mean is that in an ultimate, cosmic sense, suffering serves no purpose. That is quite different to "who cares". I understood your original wording, but your intended meaning was not conveyed very well through it. That is not my problem.
An omnipotent God would be able to bring about the greatest good without horrendous suffering.
An omni benevolently God would want to bring about the greatest good without horrendous suffering.
An omniscient God would know how to bring about the greatest good without horrendous suffering.
If God has all three of these omni properties then horrendous suffering would not be necessary to bring about the greatest good.
I agree with you but it's more than that. It is not even like horrendous suffering exists IN SPITE of this god's plan. It is not like it is an unfortunate side-effect, an unintended mistake. Quite the opposite. Horrendous suffering seems to be very much an INTENDED part of this god's plan. He WANTS us to suffer. Floods, child-abuse, homophobia, blood sacrifice, misogyny, slavery, infinite torture in hell, and perhaps worst of all... the absolute worst suffering that could be inflicted... not being allowed to eat shellfish. This god may be omnipotent, but he is not omnibenevolent. This god is actually an:
Immoral
Violent
Malevolent
Malicious
Masochistic
Aggressive
Narcissistic
Toxic
Gas-lighting bully.
He puts us where we are, and then blames us and punishes us for being here. Calls us "sinners". Why people STILL advocate for this fictional arsehole is beyond me.
What is horrendous evil?
@@rocio8851 I was talking about horrendous suffering, not horrendous evil, but they are similar things so that's fine. I believe Dustin laid it out in one of his earlier videos, but basically it is suffering to a very high degree. The example given was a child being slowly hung to death while his friends and family are forced to watch. The question is why would a omni God allow that if it is not necessary to bring about the greatest good?