The moral and emotional argument against God's existence.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- Does the existence of evil and suffering in the world negate the presence of a benevolent God?
#thepassionoftheChrist #rootsminiseries(2016) #apocalypto #foxnews #oprah #israeldefenceforces
Try the free video editor CapCut to create videos! www.capcut.com...
The question that we should be asking is "What end result does the having of freewill intends to achieve that could not be achieved abinitio by an All Powerful, All Loving God, that will justify the suffering, chaos and problems the world has been going through from time immemorial?"
Some say god created this experience for us to prove ourselves and free will is part of that. I did not grow up with religion in my life but I did learn to pray after I was dying and survived. Why am I still here? I learned to respect prayer in many religious forms and some of said to me that may be why I went through what I did. But we can't hope to know until the end can we? Unless you use free will to believe what speaks to you.
The problem of suffering is there to show that there is a tension between the attribute "benevolent", "all-powerfull" and "all-knowing". The "free-will" response seems insufficient to answer for natural suffering. It's not based on emotion ;)
Also, if free will is that important, then the story of Jonah makes no sense. If benevolent, why did Jobs children have to die just to settle a bet between Satan and God? The critique is about internal consistency. Internal consistency is quite important when there is an underlying threat of violence if you don't believe what you can't understand, and when wars are being fought about what everything means. (edit for spelling)
If anyone is interested in considering a thoughtful reply to the type of argumentation expressed in this video, I would highly recommend watching Dr. Randel Rouser's recent video, titled _Evangelical apologist attempts to make the problem of evil disappear._ Rouser is a Christian, btw
Thank you for being a good example. I get very angry and sad at this kind of video, and I really should stop clicking on them, but reading your helpful comment made me calm down a bit before writing a long and angry reply. Thoughtful is a very good word sometimes. Take care.
Atheism does not assert that "In the absence of evidence justifying gods permission of such suffering, skepticism is justified." Atheism asserts "I don't believe that any god I have heard described exists".
Some atheists, Christians, deists, and other people of all manner of belief systems, point out the inherent problem with claiming your god is "all loving" AND "all knowing" AND "all powerful", while there is suffering in the world, because a being with those attributes should be incapable of allowing any suffering at all. But this is not a claim of ATHEISM, this is just an issue some people have noticed and talk about on occasion.
Also, free will does not work as an excuse, because a god with the given attributes could create a world where everyone has free will, yet no suffering is possible. An example of this is most peoples concept of heaven. So since such a being could do this, and would do this if it had the attributes described, the fact it hasn't done this tells us that it doesn't exist, at least not with these attributes.
A disagreeable video. If God exist, please prove it. If he cannot be described, cannot be perceived, cannot be explained, he is hypothetical. He may be real, but until proven so, his existence should always remain as a maybe.
then I will ask you, how do you want someone to prove to you God exists ?
@@swenpark8598 That's for them to figure out. Christian don't want atheists to become religious, they want atheists to believe in THEIR specific interpretation of the bible and not in any other religion.
Faith comes from confidence, if you don't sound more plausible than anyone else trying to explain deeper truths about the universe, then there is no reason to take your word for it.
And before trying to convert atheists, Christians should get together and get their stories straight. The fact that none of them can even agree on their own religion, what story is literal or not, which rules were only meant for times long past and which still apply, what lesson is to be taken from a passage, means that even if we found proof that the christian god is real, we would still have very little idea of what that actually implies.
Even if we found out that lightning strikes are literally thrown by a man-shaped entity, you'd still have to prove it's not Thor, Zeus, or a being we didn't even write about in any myth.
So to your question : short of big G himself coming down and having a very extensive AMA, no proof will suffice. And even then, it could still be a trickster with god-like powers having a laugh.
The universe cant be come from nothing. God exists all around us with hes sign made everything contingent and cant be come from nothing.
If you were to agree that the universe cant be come from nothing. Then you will ask. Well there must be something that catalyst the creation of universe but what it is? Well i simply answered that it is a God.
Then you will wondered again, if god creates this universe then who creates God ? I simply answered God stand on its own. But how did i know this ? Well lets imagine if God was created. If God was created we are not calling him God. Rather we called God to entity that created this God. Then question still remains.. well who created that God who created this God? The question would go on loop to question who creates the creator. But Theres must be something at beginning before it is all of this exist.
And from there we can conclude that God is stand on itself without being created by another entity. This was the basis idea of Avicena proof of concept. In the book that he wrote Al isharat wa al-Tanbihat. If you wanna go more details about this go study hes book. Because he also proofing the contingency of universe. He done it without a religios doctrines for the book is not religious books, but its rather a science book.
Next time u hear someone says "I rather believe in science than an imaginary friend 🤓" this shows how unacknowledged they are
@@swenpark8598irrefutable evidence such as research, pictures, statistics and so on. I mean i couldnt be bothered about existence of God. Im just saying that for sake of argument, you can't say he exist simply because you cant explain certain things
@@meemoozee you want irrefutable evidence I understand, but here is the problem, nothing can be proven with irrefutable evidence. Yes you can prove God with scripture, documents, historical evidence, but you can’t prove anything at 100 %, it’s not reasonably possible. For example, if you based your life on 100 % proof, it would mean that every time you buy something at the supermarket to eat, you would put it in a lab to search for any poisons or any things that could be dangerous, which I assume is not the case. Why ? Because you trust the product. You trust the persons who makes this food, who transported it, who designed it, you don’t know them but still, you trusted them. And it’s the same case with God. Yes there’s proof to show the existence of God, that he is here with us and that he loves us, but you also have to have faith and trust, like you do everyday of your life.
I hope you understood the problem of your question, but if you want me to show you proof of the existence of God, I’ll be happy to help you.
Objective source of morality is natural selection. Some morality helps society to prosper more, some less. Prospering civilization spreads better and spreads its morality. Modern societies are descendants of societies with objectively better morality. Others didn't make it.
The video even shows an example of it. Civilization which was relatively ferocious towards its people (Aztecs) doesn't exist anymore. It has lost to relatively cohesive civilization which is still there basically.
Of cource, morality is not the only trait that determines the outcome of natural selection, it is just part of it. Perhaps is was not decisive in the example.
The critique is not evidence against God. It's a way to show that God, according to how He is described by Christians and defined by our language, is illogical. If I say "I have a basketball in my front pocket", and you say "can you show me? Because I don't think a basketball would fit in your pocket?", I can't say that it's a very, very small basketball. Because basketballs are not very very small. Then we have to agree to change the definition of basketball.
Sure, we can say that it's a basketball for ants, a magic basketball that can change size etc, but that is not our common understanding of basketball.
And in support of your argument you show clips of people setting out to kill or killing others because their own "transcendent" gods tells them to. Well allrighty then.
God does not oppose evil. He created it.
Isaiah 45:7
King James Version
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.