Hi @kannants2651! It’s great to hear that the video got you thinking. The problem of evil is definitely one of those topics that can make us reflect deeply on our beliefs, the nature of the world, and the complexities of life. Feel free to share more of your thoughts or questions if you have them! This is a space for open discussion, and we’d love to hear what’s on your mind. Thanks for watching and engaging with us!
The question is who is responsible for evil, well you've got this god, who was the only thing that existed prior to the universe according to Christians. He created the world exactly as he wants it to be. He created human beings exactly how he wants them to be and human beings in the world produce evil and of course this was not a surprise, god doesn't just know what he's doing in the moment , he knows the future as well. He knew what was going to happen. So he created the world, he created humans knowing perfectly well that the end result of this is gonna be a bunch of evil, in the Christian world view objective evil and he signed off on that and said yeah that's exactly what I want, let's go ahead and create that and somehow despite this the argument is being made that god is not the one responsible for the consequences. I don't see how that makes sense, he intentionally creates an evil world and he's not responsible for what he intentionally did. God made the world complete, with the evil in it, with perfect foreknowledge and total intent. It's not that he made a world that he thought would be perfect and free from evil and then he helplessly watched as it just went all wrong. How could he possibly have seen that coming? No if someone did that that's not god. Not as Christians describe god, that is fallible, ignorant,- powerful sure but certainly not all-powerful entity. No if there's a world with even the tiniest shred of evil in it - which is an objective thing, it's objectively measurable quantifiable right. Objective morality it's not a matter of opinion, if there's even one drop of evil god wanted it there, god put it there. He had every opportunity to make the world free of evil, but evil is here because that is what god wanted, gods will be done.
Hi @SalemK-ty4ti, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic. You raise some compelling points about the nature of God, the existence of evil, and the responsibilities involved in creating a world where suffering exists. This is a central issue in philosophy of religion and has been debated for centuries. The crux of your argument seems to be that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good, then He is ultimately responsible for the presence of evil in the world. After all, as you pointed out, if God created the universe with full knowledge of all future outcomes, including the existence of evil, it seems to imply that He intended for evil to exist. This perspective highlights a significant tension within theistic beliefs, particularly the Christian worldview, and is often a starting point for discussions about the problem of evil. One way some theologians and philosophers address this issue is by arguing that the existence of evil is a necessary consequence of granting humans free will. The idea is that God created humans with the capacity to choose freely, even if that choice results in evil actions. According to this view, the value of free will and the potential for genuine love and moral goodness is so great that it justifies the risk of evil. However, as you’ve pointed out, this doesn’t fully address why an all-knowing God would create a world where He knew evil would result. Another approach is the idea that evil and suffering might play a role in a larger divine plan that we, as humans, cannot fully comprehend. Some argue that our limited perspective prevents us from seeing the ultimate purpose behind what we perceive as evil. This viewpoint can be frustrating, as it doesn’t provide a clear answer and can seem like an evasion of responsibility. There are also more radical theological perspectives, like Process Theology, which suggest that God is not all-powerful in the classical sense and is working within the constraints of the universe to combat evil. This redefines traditional attributes of God but offers a different way to think about divine responsibility. At the end of the day, the problem of evil is a profound and challenging question that doesn’t have easy answers. It forces us to think deeply about the nature of God, free will, and the moral fabric of the universe. Your comment raises important issues that are worth considering and discussing further. It’s through conversations like these that we can explore these difficult questions and better understand different perspectives. Thanks again for contributing to this discussion!
@@gibsononbooks I don't think you fully understood what I wrote. One, I never said the Christian god created the universe, I said according to Christians they say the god they believe in created the world. There is not even one good piece of evidence that any gods exist. So before anyone can even try to claim that the god they believe in created the world they must 1st be able to demonstrate that this god(s) actually exist. But anyways - if this god does exist as describe by it's believers then of course this god wanted evil to exist, if he didn't then he wouldn't have created this world. He is fully responsible for what he created since he knew full well that this would be the result. Let me give you an example. Talk about robots & free will? Let's do a thought experiment. In the future say we have a company that manufactures robots with AI. To help the robots learn better the company gives their robots free will. This company also wants to get these robots to the market as quickly as possible so they rush them into productions even thought the company knows there is a flaw with these robots, which is "some of these robots will kill people". Now for the most part these robots do good, but a few of these flawed robots kill some people. The company building the robots knew this would happen and they had them means to make the robots so this wouldn't happen, but it would have delayed the robots from getting to market quickly, so they chose to sell the robots flawed and never bothered to fix it. When people come to them and say hey, why are you selling these robots that you knew would kill some people? The company says hey, it is not our fault the robots kill, they have free will, you should be blaming the robots and not us. The people say yeah, but you had the technology and means to make them so they wouldn't kill. The company says yes, we did know about this flaw in the robots, that some of these robots would kill people. The company even says they could have even made the robots with free will, but without the ability to kill people, but that they needed to get them to market 1st so they knowingly left them with the ability to kill. They had the means and know how to do this. But the company says it not our fault it is the fault of the flawed robots we created because they have free will. To sum up - - The company made flawed robots with free will. - The company had the means to make the robots with free will but without the capability of killing people. - The company knew some of the flawed robots they created would kill people. - The company says it is not their fault that some of the flawed robots they created killed people because the robots have free will. - The company says they are a loving company and care utmost for the safety of their customers. Is anyone really going to believe the company is not at fault here? Is anyone really going to believe the company loves and cares about its customers safety? In other words god is all knowing and all powerful according to the bible, which means he could have created us with free will but without the ability to do wrong. But god said nope, I am going to create humans with both free will and the ability to do wrong. After all he created heaven with both free will but without any evil in it. I know how hard this is for you to cope with but all you apologist do is make excuses for the god you believe in and/or out right make up lies about your god.
@@SalemK-ty4ti Hi @SalemK-ty4ti, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and for providing a detailed example to illustrate your point. I appreciate the clarity you bring to the discussion. Let’s dive into some of the points you’ve raised, as they touch on several important philosophical and theological questions. Firstly, I understand that you’re highlighting a fundamental issue: the need for evidence of God's existence before we discuss the nature and actions of that God. This is a valid and important point. In philosophy of religion, this is often referred to as the challenge of proving God’s existence prior to making claims about God's nature or actions. Many people share your view that without clear evidence of a deity’s existence, discussions about divine intent or morality can feel hypothetical or ungrounded. Your analogy with the robots is also quite compelling. It’s a strong illustration of the problem many see with the Free Will Defense: if a creator has the power to prevent harm but chooses not to, knowing that harm will occur, they seem to bear responsibility for the outcomes. This analogy suggests that, in a world where God is omniscient and omnipotent, the existence of evil might imply that God either intends for evil to occur or is willing to accept its occurrence for some greater reason. However, there are several layers to this discussion that many theologians and philosophers have explored. One point to consider is the nature of free will and moral growth. Some argue that genuine free will requires the possibility of making wrong choices; without the potential for evil, free will might not truly be free. The analogy of the robots could be adjusted to include this perspective: if the robots could only ever make good choices, would they truly have free will, or would they simply be following a predetermined path? For some, the ability to choose wrong is essential for the possibility of choosing right and for moral development. Another perspective to consider is that of the greater good or soul-making theodicy, which suggests that suffering and evil can lead to greater goods that we may not fully understand. This argument posits that in a world with challenges and moral struggles, individuals have the opportunity to grow, develop virtues, and engage in meaningful actions. In your robot analogy, it could be argued that, while the company is clearly responsible for the flaws, the decision might have been made to allow for the robots to develop in ways that wouldn’t be possible if they were programmed only to do good. However, as you noted, this still leaves us with significant moral concerns about the initial creation choices and the seeming contradiction with a loving creator. As for the existence of evil in heaven, traditional Christian theology posits that heaven is a different realm entirely, often beyond our current understanding, where the conditions of free will and moral choices may not apply in the same way they do on Earth. This does introduce a lot of complexity and, admittedly, doesn't always provide a satisfying answer to the problem of evil here on Earth. You’re right that these discussions can feel like excuses or evasions to many, especially when the stakes are so personal and profound. Ultimately, these questions remain some of the most challenging in philosophy and theology, and there aren’t easy answers that will satisfy everyone. But these discussions are important because they push us to think deeply about the nature of existence, the meaning of life, and our own beliefs. Thank you again for engaging so thoughtfully. These are tough conversations, but they are also the ones that often bring about the deepest reflections and understandings. I hope we can continue to explore these ideas together, respecting the diversity of views that people bring to such fundamental questions.
@@gibsononbooks 1. If humans cannot fully comprehend the divine plan then no one can say this god is good. 2. If evil is a necessary consequence of free will then Heaven must have evil in it or there is no free will in heaven. 3. If someone tells you that God is not all-powerfull and has constraints then they are not talking about the Christian god. 4. The problem of evil is not at all profound and challenging if no gods exist and you look at it from the point of view of a natural world view. Then everything makes complete sense. No need to make excusses or lies. We the people are responsible for our own actions.
@@gibsononbooks You missed my point when you say " that heaven is a different realm entirely, often beyond our current understanding, where the conditions of free will and moral choices may not apply in the same way they do on Earth." You seem to understand that the Christian god has the ability to make a different realm entirely where free will and moral choices can be made without evil. In other words god could have made our world like heaven with both free will and no evil but didn't. And again if it's beyond our understanding then you have no right to say it is for good because you don't know. Also, there's not one piece of good evidence that souls exist just like there is no good evidence that any gods exist. Again, if you look at the world from a natural world view then these all have easy answers. Also, the meaning of life comes from each individual and what they give it. People that say otherwise must 1st prove their claim by demonstrating it and if they can't then we shouldn't believe them.
I'm already thinking about that
Hi @kannants2651! It’s great to hear that the video got you thinking. The problem of evil is definitely one of those topics that can make us reflect deeply on our beliefs, the nature of the world, and the complexities of life. Feel free to share more of your thoughts or questions if you have them! This is a space for open discussion, and we’d love to hear what’s on your mind. Thanks for watching and engaging with us!
The question is who is responsible for evil, well you've got this god, who was the only thing that existed prior to the universe according to Christians. He created the world exactly as he wants it to be. He created human beings exactly how he wants them to be and human beings in the world produce evil and of course this was not a surprise, god doesn't just know what he's doing in the moment , he knows the future as well. He knew what was going to happen. So he created the world, he created humans knowing perfectly well that the end result of this is gonna be a bunch of evil, in the Christian world view objective evil and he signed off on that and said yeah that's exactly what I want, let's go ahead and create that and somehow despite this the argument is being made that god is not the one responsible for the consequences. I don't see how that makes sense, he intentionally creates an evil world and he's not responsible for what he intentionally did.
God made the world complete, with the evil in it, with perfect foreknowledge and total intent. It's not that he made a world that he thought would be perfect and free from evil and then he helplessly watched as it just went all wrong. How could he possibly have seen that coming? No if someone did that that's not god. Not as Christians describe god, that is fallible, ignorant,- powerful sure but certainly not all-powerful entity. No if there's a world with even the tiniest shred of evil in it - which is an objective thing, it's objectively measurable quantifiable right. Objective morality it's not a matter of opinion, if there's even one drop of evil god wanted it there, god put it there. He had every opportunity to make the world free of evil, but evil is here because that is what god wanted, gods will be done.
Hi @SalemK-ty4ti, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic. You raise some compelling points about the nature of God, the existence of evil, and the responsibilities involved in creating a world where suffering exists. This is a central issue in philosophy of religion and has been debated for centuries.
The crux of your argument seems to be that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good, then He is ultimately responsible for the presence of evil in the world. After all, as you pointed out, if God created the universe with full knowledge of all future outcomes, including the existence of evil, it seems to imply that He intended for evil to exist. This perspective highlights a significant tension within theistic beliefs, particularly the Christian worldview, and is often a starting point for discussions about the problem of evil.
One way some theologians and philosophers address this issue is by arguing that the existence of evil is a necessary consequence of granting humans free will. The idea is that God created humans with the capacity to choose freely, even if that choice results in evil actions. According to this view, the value of free will and the potential for genuine love and moral goodness is so great that it justifies the risk of evil. However, as you’ve pointed out, this doesn’t fully address why an all-knowing God would create a world where He knew evil would result.
Another approach is the idea that evil and suffering might play a role in a larger divine plan that we, as humans, cannot fully comprehend. Some argue that our limited perspective prevents us from seeing the ultimate purpose behind what we perceive as evil. This viewpoint can be frustrating, as it doesn’t provide a clear answer and can seem like an evasion of responsibility.
There are also more radical theological perspectives, like Process Theology, which suggest that God is not all-powerful in the classical sense and is working within the constraints of the universe to combat evil. This redefines traditional attributes of God but offers a different way to think about divine responsibility.
At the end of the day, the problem of evil is a profound and challenging question that doesn’t have easy answers. It forces us to think deeply about the nature of God, free will, and the moral fabric of the universe. Your comment raises important issues that are worth considering and discussing further. It’s through conversations like these that we can explore these difficult questions and better understand different perspectives. Thanks again for contributing to this discussion!
@@gibsononbooks I don't think you fully understood what I wrote. One, I never said the Christian god created the universe, I said according to Christians they say the god they believe in created the world. There is not even one good piece of evidence that any gods exist. So before anyone can even try to claim that the god they believe in created the world they must 1st be able to demonstrate that this god(s) actually exist.
But anyways - if this god does exist as describe by it's believers then of course this god wanted evil to exist, if he didn't then he wouldn't have created this world. He is fully responsible for what he created since he knew full well that this would be the result. Let me give you an example.
Talk about robots & free will? Let's do a thought experiment. In the future say we have a company that manufactures robots with AI. To help the robots learn better the company gives their robots free will. This company also wants to get these robots to the market as quickly as possible so they rush them into productions even thought the company knows there is a flaw with these robots, which is "some of these robots will kill people". Now for the most part these robots do good, but a few of these flawed robots kill some people. The company building the robots knew this would happen and they had them means to make the robots so this wouldn't happen, but it would have delayed the robots from getting to market quickly, so they chose to sell the robots flawed and never bothered to fix it. When people come to them and say hey, why are you selling these robots that you knew would kill some people? The company says hey, it is not our fault the robots kill, they have free will, you should be blaming the robots and not us. The people say yeah, but you had the technology and means to make them so they wouldn't kill. The company says yes, we did know about this flaw in the robots, that some of these robots would kill people. The company even says they could have even made the robots with free will, but without the ability to kill people, but that they needed to get them to market 1st so they knowingly left them with the ability to kill. They had the means and know how to do this. But the company says it not our fault it is the fault of the flawed robots we created because they have free will. To sum up - - The company made flawed robots with free will. - The company had the means to make the robots with free will but without the capability of killing people. - The company knew some of the flawed robots they created would kill people. - The company says it is not their fault that some of the flawed robots they created killed people because the robots have free will. - The company says they are a loving company and care utmost for the safety of their customers. Is anyone really going to believe the company is not at fault here? Is anyone really going to believe the company loves and cares about its customers safety? In other words god is all knowing and all powerful according to the bible, which means he could have created us with free will but without the ability to do wrong. But god said nope, I am going to create humans with both free will and the ability to do wrong. After all he created heaven with both free will but without any evil in it.
I know how hard this is for you to cope with but all you apologist do is make excuses for the god you believe in and/or out right make up lies about your god.
@@SalemK-ty4ti Hi @SalemK-ty4ti, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and for providing a detailed example to illustrate your point. I appreciate the clarity you bring to the discussion. Let’s dive into some of the points you’ve raised, as they touch on several important philosophical and theological questions.
Firstly, I understand that you’re highlighting a fundamental issue: the need for evidence of God's existence before we discuss the nature and actions of that God. This is a valid and important point. In philosophy of religion, this is often referred to as the challenge of proving God’s existence prior to making claims about God's nature or actions. Many people share your view that without clear evidence of a deity’s existence, discussions about divine intent or morality can feel hypothetical or ungrounded.
Your analogy with the robots is also quite compelling. It’s a strong illustration of the problem many see with the Free Will Defense: if a creator has the power to prevent harm but chooses not to, knowing that harm will occur, they seem to bear responsibility for the outcomes. This analogy suggests that, in a world where God is omniscient and omnipotent, the existence of evil might imply that God either intends for evil to occur or is willing to accept its occurrence for some greater reason.
However, there are several layers to this discussion that many theologians and philosophers have explored. One point to consider is the nature of free will and moral growth. Some argue that genuine free will requires the possibility of making wrong choices; without the potential for evil, free will might not truly be free. The analogy of the robots could be adjusted to include this perspective: if the robots could only ever make good choices, would they truly have free will, or would they simply be following a predetermined path? For some, the ability to choose wrong is essential for the possibility of choosing right and for moral development.
Another perspective to consider is that of the greater good or soul-making theodicy, which suggests that suffering and evil can lead to greater goods that we may not fully understand. This argument posits that in a world with challenges and moral struggles, individuals have the opportunity to grow, develop virtues, and engage in meaningful actions. In your robot analogy, it could be argued that, while the company is clearly responsible for the flaws, the decision might have been made to allow for the robots to develop in ways that wouldn’t be possible if they were programmed only to do good. However, as you noted, this still leaves us with significant moral concerns about the initial creation choices and the seeming contradiction with a loving creator.
As for the existence of evil in heaven, traditional Christian theology posits that heaven is a different realm entirely, often beyond our current understanding, where the conditions of free will and moral choices may not apply in the same way they do on Earth. This does introduce a lot of complexity and, admittedly, doesn't always provide a satisfying answer to the problem of evil here on Earth.
You’re right that these discussions can feel like excuses or evasions to many, especially when the stakes are so personal and profound. Ultimately, these questions remain some of the most challenging in philosophy and theology, and there aren’t easy answers that will satisfy everyone. But these discussions are important because they push us to think deeply about the nature of existence, the meaning of life, and our own beliefs.
Thank you again for engaging so thoughtfully. These are tough conversations, but they are also the ones that often bring about the deepest reflections and understandings. I hope we can continue to explore these ideas together, respecting the diversity of views that people bring to such fundamental questions.
@@gibsononbooks 1. If humans cannot fully comprehend the divine plan then no one can say this god is good.
2. If evil is a necessary consequence of free will then Heaven must have evil in it or there is no free will in heaven.
3. If someone tells you that God is not all-powerfull and has constraints then they are not talking about the Christian god.
4. The problem of evil is not at all profound and challenging if no gods exist and you look at it from the point of view of a natural world view. Then everything makes complete sense. No need to make excusses or lies. We the people are responsible for our own actions.
@@gibsononbooks You missed my point when you say " that heaven is a different realm entirely, often beyond our current understanding, where the conditions of free will and moral choices may not apply in the same way they do on Earth." You seem to understand that the Christian god has the ability to make a different realm entirely where free will and moral choices can be made without evil. In other words god could have made our world like heaven with both free will and no evil but didn't. And again if it's beyond our understanding then you have no right to say it is for good because you don't know.
Also, there's not one piece of good evidence that souls exist just like there is no good evidence that any gods exist.
Again, if you look at the world from a natural world view then these all have easy answers.
Also, the meaning of life comes from each individual and what they give it. People that say otherwise must 1st prove their claim by demonstrating it and if they can't then we shouldn't believe them.