Apologist Takes Atheist to School (in a debate) | Part 4 of 8
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 чер 2024
- This is my First Rebuttal in formal debate between myself (Cameron Bertuzzi) and Dustin ( @TheNonAlchemist ) on whether horrendous suffering disproves God.
Playlist of the whole debate: • DEBATE: Does Suffering...
00:00 Opening
00:23 Introduction
00:47 General Remarks
03:20 Premise One
05:24 Premise Two
09:38 Premise Four
12:36 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
You really shouldn't be this smug while completely missing the forest for the trees. His first premise is a definition he's taken from your side, so you really shouldn't be this intent to dismantle it. I'm almost certain that this is why he'd say the first premise should be non-controversial and your "attack" seems mighty ad-hoc. The point of his second premise is, that an omnipotent god can do it without suffering. And no matter how many holocaust survivors got closer to god, all Dustin needs is a single child that starved to death in fear and agony without getting any spiritual benefit to satisfy his conditions. Your criticism of his fourth premise still ignores the omnipotence of god. If you only look at the syllogism, you're right, of course - but that's ignoring context.
Next debate, can you stop with the verbal flourish and the posturing and instead understand your opponents arguments and really engage with them? Since we all know that you in fact DO possess the necessary skills, your behavior comes across as incredibly dishonest. We KNOW you're smarter than this, Cameron!
I also love the way this is being done. It is the ultimate debate format, time given to each opponent to collect their thoughts and respond accordingly. No 'personality battles' no 'I can think quicker than you so I win'.
However, what a disgusting worldview you are defending! Holocaust survivors who felt closer to (your) God, as a result of the trauma they were put through, is a defence of the 'morality' of the Christian God! The trouble is, you probably sleep well at night believing this cr@p. I wouldn't!
This guy is not really a Christian, he's an atheist pretending to be a Christian so that others will buy his products and send him money. Isn't that right, CapturingChristianity?
Why are you begging Christians to send you money, sir?
Bro Cameron how many Christian doctrines are you going to reject in order to make your defense?
You've already thrown out the idea that the greatest good of a person is achieved through relationship with God.
Now you're rejecting the doctrine of Aseity or God's self-sufficiency in which he is maximally good independent of any creation.
You complain that Dustin is making Assertions rather than arguing for his premises. But the reason is those assertions are *christian* assertions, so they should be granted! It's bizzare to me how you're rejecting them.
Look, of course they don't follow from the omnigod hypothesis (unless we consider the fact that any proposition can be derived from a contradiction). He can't argue for them. But they're christian claims, and are part of the christian definition of god. Why? Because Christianity says so. You can't expect better than that, christianity isn't based on reason, it's based on assertion.
Hi Cameron,
Just a few quick points from a Catholic with a Ph.D. in philosophy. I haven't yet watched Dustin's videos, but I will say that you've made a few telling points in the debate so far. That said, I'd like to make a few suggestions.
1. "Horrendous evil" needs to be defined more carefully. The way I see it, horrendous evil is much more than an enormous amount of suffering. Horrendous evil might be better termed "soul-breaking evil" as opposed to "soul-making evil." It's the kind of evil that produces permanent trauma, leaving the victim a mere shell of their former self. It's the kind of evil that kills faith, hope and love. Think of Room 101 in "1984," and you'll see what I mean. (In George Orwell's story, Winston Smith didn't believe in God, but even if he had, crying out to God wouldn't have helped him in Room 101.) Not everyone who went to Auschwitz experienced that kind of evil personally - i.e. their own "Room 101." The guards at Auschwitz certainly did torture people, but their primary aim was to exterminate people (especially the Jews of Europe: about one million died in Auschwitz alone). Mass killing destroys families, but by itself, it isn't enough to break the human spirit, and many of the survivors went on to start families of their own, after their release. Good for them! A better example of horrendous evil would be Pitesti prison in Romania (1949-1951), which has been described as the largest and most intensive brainwashing torture experiment in the Eastern Bloc. It was systematically dehumanizing. Prisoners were forced to stare at lightbulbs, eat feces, suffer electric shocks and head butt each other. They were also encouraged to inform on each other and torture fellow inmates. Many committed suicide. This was a soul-breaking evil for everyone who went there. You can read more about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pite%C8%99ti_Prison .
What's most appalling about the deaths at Pitesti is not the pain that the prisoners underwent or even the humiliation, but the complete absence of God. During the beatings and tortures they endured, many prisoners must have called out to God for consolation. But the heavens were silent, and the consolation never came. These people died without experiencing even a tiny ray of hope, totally bereft of any sense of the presence of God. Maybe, for all we know, they met God on the other side. But on this side of eternity, as far as we can tell, they died deaths of despair. That is what appalls me most.
2. I really think you might go a bit easy on Dustin with his Premise 1. After all, it's straight out of the Baltimore Catechism (Q. 3):
Q. Why did God make us?
A. God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven.
And here's the Catholic Catechism, paragraph 1:
"God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life... He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength."
This sounds a lot like Dustin's statement that our deepest good is a personal relationship with God. Why quibble?
3. How about Premise Two ("If God exists, horrific suffering isn't necessary for any person to have their deepest relationship with God")? You did a Google search on "Auschwitz brought me closer to God." I looked at a few links and the survivors' answers to the problem of evil fell into two categories: (i) God gave people free will (including the Nazis), and (ii) it's a complete mystery why God allowed such a thing to happen. However, as I said above, Pitesti is a much better example of a soul-breaking evil than Auschwitz, as everyone who went to Pitesti was not only abused but forced to become an abuser. To deny Premise Two of Dustin's argument, you have to say that for at least some people, soul-breaking evil (i.e. Room 101, or a state where people lose all faith, hope and love, as well as any consoling sense of the presence of God) is necessary, in order for them to have their deepest relationship with God after they die. In other words, they have to feel the complete absence of God in order to be saved. While this claim might be true, I'd take some convincing that it is in fact true. It's one thing to say that people need to experience a deep-seated personal grief in order to be saved. It's quite another thing to say that they have to lose all hope in order to be saved.
4. Finally, what about Premise Four ("If no-one needs to experience horrific suffering to realize their deepest good, then God would not allow horrific suffering")? You suggest that soul-building might justify God's permitting horrendous evils. And you would be right, if "horrendous evil" simply meant an extremely large amount of suffering. But as I've argued, it's much more than that. Horrendous evil is soul-breaking evil. By definition, soul-breaking evil cannot be soul-building evil. It's as simple as that. You can't have virtues such as courage or sacrifice in a world without suffering, but you can certainly have it in a world without Pitesti prison. You also suggest that for all we know, a world containing a diverse array of goods, along with horrific evil, might be better than a world without this kind of evil, and the goods that go with it. But even if that were true, the bigger question is whether God has any right to allow any of his rational creatures to be subjected to horrific evil in the first place. Would a loving God allow one of his creatures to feel the abandonment of total despair, even for the space of a minute? And yet this is what some people have to put up with: people kept in solitary confinement for years until they go mad, self-harming patients in psych wards, and victims of unspeakable traumas such as pack rape and electroshock torture. Even if there were a "greater good" to come out of all this, the question is: would a loving God impose that on anyone, without asking them for their consent first?
So although I'd say you're ahead of Dustin on points, you might want to ask yourself whether at least some of his controversial premises are right, after all.
I wish I had an answer to the problem of evil, but sad to say, I don't. The main reason why I believe in God is that beauty and my sense of morality provide me with an unshakable sense that we live in a world where each of us has a job that we were made to do. In other words, we were put here for a purpose. But I am baffled as to why God doesn't console some people who are being tortured. Cheers.
You provided very thoughtful, honest, and interesting insight Dr. Thanks for this.
You guys - whether Christian or Atheist or anything else - must have figure out by now that this guy is really a fraudster using religion to trick people into sending him cash.
“No matter how deep our darkness, He is deeper still.”
Corrie ten Boom, Holocaust survivor, whose entire family was murdered in the camps for hiding Jews.
Amazing woman and story ….
You surely heard how she met one of the meanest prison guards years later when she was speaking…
@@mkl2237 Yes, he introduced himself as a born-again Christian and she had to force herself to shake his hand, but once she did, she felt nothing but love for him as a Christian brother.
“The love of Jesus, what it is
None but His loved ones know.”
@@Mark-cd2wf what an amazing lady!
Registers as a form of Stockholm syndrome, but with regard to an idea. However, it is definitely a coping mechanism which helps keep the peace.
@@MyContext Really twisted perspective. Really. Do you actually know anything about her… her story?
For all the purple prose it's actually pretty simple. If `God` is a being of absolute power, foreknowledge and existed in state where nothing else existed, then nothing that exists can be anything other than what it wanted when it created. The alternative is nonsense. So, really the question is: Does the desire for things to suffer, for whatever reason, intensity or duration say anything about the character of the creator concept in question? Not about whether a god exists or not, but whether this particular concept of a god is rational and/or likely. And that debate is a never ending rabbit hole.
I agree except for the last sentence
I am extremely surprised that Cameron has objections to premise 1. It seems obvious to me that the good of a finite being is to enter fully into a relationship with God. Cameron may not share this intuition, but I would bet that it seems very plausible to many Christians. Of course it isn't on Cameron to provide positive arguments but if many Christians do hold this intuition it could be helpful to get those Christians on board.
Premise 2 seems to be the most controversial of all the premises. I am curious what others think, but in my opinion soul building is only an adequate response if the horrendous suffering is directly necessary to the person suffering to enter into a deeper relationship with God. Using defenses like the best possible world or soul building for others involved in the situation would seem to entail that God is using the person experiencing horrendous suffering as a means to an end. This seems very utilitarian and I think many Christians will want to avoid a utilitarian God.
Premise 4 seems really plausible, and if God can bring about the deepest relationship without horrendous suffering it seems that an omni-benevolent being would be obligated to remove that suffering.
Just to comment on your thoughts about premise 1, I don’t think Cameron is totally committed to these other possibilities. He’s merely throwing them out as possibilities. So long as they’re possible, premise 1 is implausible.
@@existential_o"premise 1 is implausible"
Premise 1 is a Christian belief. Now you're calling christian beliefs implausible in order to defend christianity? That doesn't seem advisable to me
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 So we’re just going to straw man and cherry-pick my last phrase without any genuine consideration to what I said?
“Premise 1 is a Christian belief”
A claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@@existential_o
Dustin: *grants claim of the opposing side for the sake of argument*
Opposing side: "You haven't proven my claim yet!"
@@vex1669 Bad faith interpretation of what's going on here. Typical of internet atheists.
"dialectical context" "assuming the very thing under contention" lmao did joe schmid write this?
This was awesome
The (what i see as) good-natured banter here is on fire 🔥
Wow! Cam says God (before creation) is less than God (after creation). God is lacking in goodness before creation, because he cannot exemplify, mercy and forgiveness and justice. It seems like God has a need to smite and he created the universe to satisfy his smiting need.
I am going through these one by one, and something in this video made me gasp for air. By positing that God is not fully self-sufficient in himself (He needs something to show his mercy towards) you have left the orthodox understanding of the Godhead. For me, not a problem. For you… you might want to rethink that one.
There was a time when I would talk about this fallacy or that, but the fallacies are secondary to the issue being raised.
*Issue:* The idea of an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent omnibenevolent entity has the demand of action on my view which at the very least precludes various states of affairs which are present such as gratuitous/pointless misery/suffering. The fact of such being the case is an immediate dismissal of the idea.
Claiming "God could have reasons for not addressing the various WTF states" doesn't work due to the claim of omnipotence which precludes there being any reasons for not addressing the various WTF states of affairs. However, the bigger issue is that of existence, since I find that basically every issue raised by non-believers of whatever sort is about the total absence of evidence for the idea; and given that nothing is being shown to do anything, the idea itself is vacuous.
The only reason that there is even an issue is that there are people making such a claim while there being NOTHNG showing that such a claim has a shred of merit.
Always speaking from “your context”…
Well, when you whine about the sad state of the world…. take despair in this fact: You’re STILL stick with all of the problems. Taking God out of the equation solves… nothing. Nor is there any remote hope whatsoever for any resolution from your worldview. None. None whatsoever.
So I appreciate that you’re sensitive… and that the wood bugs ya…. But in your materialistic worldview.. there’s no need (nor any basis) to explain it. The word is just exactly as molecules move and as events naturally unfold. You may not like it… but why whine about it. It’s just all nature doing what it does.
@@mkl2237 We can only speak from our context even if that amounts to deferring and/or referencing someone else.
God claims are vacuous within the context of what we observe of reality with much of it (God claims) fostering various falsehoods and fictions. Fortunately, most don't adhere to the more egregious notions of theism, unfortunately, it is still a rather pernicious problem given the falsehoods pushed in the name of protecting theism and/or as a byproduct of the falsehoods of theism.
(Granted, some of the falsehoods would still be pushed without theism given the various cognitive issues that we suffer, which is also another point of dismissal of God claims wherein such is denoted as being perfect and/or wanting belief with the power to address whatever deficit that impacts belief.)
The removal of theism would at least remove a set of issues from humanity. Granted, this will take some time given the cognitive addiction many have with regard to the idea. Unfortunately, it is our (humanity's) underlying issues that resulted in theism in the first place.
The plethora of different God claims would seem to be cause for theists to wonder about their supposed God's competence, but it seems the issue is beyond many believers to see given the degree to which their cognitive tapestries seem to be tethered to fiction.
The observation of how our world works and the associated interlinkages actually allow an explanation (which even the Christian scientists seem to understand), since such explanations are DEMONSTRATED to be the case or discovered to be erred such that there can be an improved explanations.
God claims are just that - claims; which are proffered as being correct, but in fact explain nothing as has been demonstrated over and over again throughout the history of theological explanations as understood the moment we actually had an actual explanation for whatever it was that was a point of ignorance.
Can horror contribute to a deeper relationship with God? I imagine it could be. But the question is, does a deeper relationship with God REQUIRE horrific suffering? Is there NO OTHER WAY to cultivate that level of relationship with God? Moreover, is horrible suffering justified to get some people to have a deeper relationship with God (while others experience the same suffering fall away from belief)?
Yes, this can be seen as an at least unfair reality. Not to say that some people in some situations who are tortured end up killing themselves the first moment they can, soul building death.
It's better for our souls to be built and us be apart of that co-building process than for things to be just given to us.
@@DarkArcticTV suspicious claim. How do you know?
@@DarkArcticTV I am all for voluntary choice of our own character building. The question is, why is horrific suffering necessary to build our souls. More importantly, why is horrific suffering of OTHER PEOPLE who end up dying or suffer mental breakdown necessary for the building of OUR souls?
Being all powerful entails that you dont NEED any sort of action or thing to actuate something. Therefore, there cannot be a reason for evil beyond God just wanting it to exist. He doesn't NEED to use it to accomplish any goal. Otherwise, He would not be all powerful. If God just wanted you to stay hydrated, you would be hydrated with no additional steps on any party's part. If God wanted you to get hydrated by accuiring and drinking water, He wanted every step of that process. None of those steps are necessary. Being all powerful and needing something is contradictory on the face of it. It needs no more explanation than a married bachelor.
“Being all powerful entails that you don’t NEED any sort of action or thing to actuate something”
Clearly, as you hinted at the end of your comment, this implies whatever action God is capable doing must be logically possible. One can simply argue that due to free will (a necessary quality or overriding good) horrendous suffering is unavoidable.
You might say: Can’t God create a world where free will exists, and horrendous suffering doesn’t?
I would say: Not an authentic world. As Richard Swinburne pointed out, a world where we have free will, but the inability to manifest our choices into reality, is a world where free will is merely an illusion. Through our manifested choices, we create ourselves. If God restricted our manifestations, we’d be no different than caged pets to God.
@@existential_o There is no way to distinguish if you are in that illusion world or not so whatever benefits are obtained from it must be identical since the illusions can go all the way down. Also raises questions of the goodness of heaven if you aren't free to cause suffering to others, and if you are and don't why that would be different from material reality. God can give free will but no desire to cause suffering, just like he can create free will and the desire to eat.
@@ZbjetisGod I don’t really see how the inability to subjectively distinguish between the two worlds is problematic to my point. Even if I were to grant that we couldn’t subjectively distinguish between the two worlds, (which I can justify dismissing without evidence because you never presented any evidence to support the claim) it doesn’t take away from the objective differences.
I never made any commitments to the idea of benefits coming from free will. I merely stated it as a possibility. Personally, I’m highly skeptical of soul-building theodicies and am naturally inclined to say it’s necessary for a good/truth embodying being to create the most authentic world (i.e. a world that has free will).
As for the classic objection about free will being in heaven, I know many channels on YT (Testify, IP, etc) and philosophers (William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne, etc.) that have answered the objection. See their work for a comprehensive response.
@@existential_o This free will experiment your god is callously conducting on humanity is bad enough, but what about all the horrendous suffering in the animal kingdom?? Has not a whit to do with free will yet it's allowed, I guess just for shits and gigs?
@@existential_o I'm questioning the nature of a so call "authentic" world since it clearly isn't done for the benefit of the person suffering (as they can never know its authenticity). The evidence that they can be indistinguishable to people is that God is all powerful.
Forcing someone to suffer for your own benefit rather than theirs when there is a clear remedy is what cruelty is. So if it isn't to the benefit of the sufferer than we cannot have an omni benevolent God. If there is no benefit to the sufferer and can be prevented then it is clearly not benevolent.
You haven't provided any justification for why the world ought be "authentic" or why a world with "authentic" suffering is better than fake suffering.
As for free will in Heaven the simple answer is that those responses utterly and totally fail but if there's one you want to defend go ahead.
Wow cam I like this snappy side. The man said if you want big guns you shouldn't bring a plastic spork 😅. Jeeez
Ok please can we stop with these knee jerk claims that people are straw manning someone’s position. It is entirely possible for someone to misunderstand someone’s position, or for them to focus on a single aspect of it, without it being a straw man. A straw man argument is generally seen as a purposeful act on the person making its part, designed specifically to allow them to attack a weaker version of the argument rather than addressing what has actually been said. I could misunderstand the point you are making and not be engaging in a straw man argument. In a debate like this, where it seems clear that both sides are doing their best to address the argument honestly, claiming someone is straw manning someone else just comes across as an attempt to poison the well. Literally the second Cameron made this claim I stopped the video and started writing this, because it came across as so disingenuous that it threw me right out of the discussion. How about you says “it seems he may have misunderstood my argument” rather than immediately jumping to claims of purposeful misrepresentation. Ok back to the video.
@Cameron, you made some points on the first premises, however you missed the point on premises 2.. there is a difference between your relationship with your son versus that of a person and God.. You did not have that many variables to flex in the making of your son.. By virtue of your son being your son, you were potentially powerless to giving him some hereditary negative traits through genetics that you did not wish to. However, with God though, God has full control of the entire design process.. I emphasize, FULL CONTROL.. so when God has designed a human that requires horrific suffering for salvation etc. he is the one who has chosen to bestow that characteristic in that person rather than making that person in a way that does not need that. That's what we mean by God requires horrific suffering. i.e. God is the one that has chosen to create a version of the world where horrific suffering would be required to attain salvation etc. We already have proof that humans that don't need that criteria can be created (i.e. you yourself are the proof/casing point) so God chose to unnecessarily create a particular bunch of people who would suffer to attain a state that others attain without suffering, even though God had the blueprints to create them differently.
*Premise 1:* An all-good being would rid the world of unnecessary suffering if possible.
*Premise 2:* All suffering is unnecessary in a world where there exists a being through whom all things are possible.
*Conclusion:* If there existed a being that was both all-good and through whom all things are possible ( i.e. God ), no suffering would be necessary and so no suffering would exist. Suffering exists, therefore God does not exist.
Premise 1 is begging the question. How do you know that an all good being would rid the world of unnecessary suffering? You’re also assuming that unnecessary suffering exists.
@@loganwillett2835 It’s not begging the question, but it does depend on the definition of “all-good”.
If you think an all-good being would be indifferent toward unnecessary suffering, then I don’t know what you mean by “all-good”.
If you think that all suffering is necessary (i.e. that there is no unnecessary suffering), then you are saying that either there is no being with the power to remove all suffering from the world or there are goals that a being cannot achieve without suffering. In either case, you are saying that there is no all-powerful being.
A comment on the production: the intro music cut is too long.
I know the problem of suffering is an important philosophical question, but it’s been done to death. There are far more original critiques out there.
It can be shut down easily, so long as we are discussing it in the context of theism or some other God-centric metaphysics. But, curiously, not many people ever do it.
Share… give example of the far more original critiques you find interesting…
It’s been done often yes…but it is so profound that it’s strength in disproving a just god is clear
@atheism4u Really? Then why haven't atheist academics pushed this argument down theists throats for the purposes of "disproving" God? Some may use it evidentially but it doesn't seem like any major atheist philosopher believes evil "disproves" God.
@@DarkArcticTV because it doesn’t disprove any god. It just disproves a good/just god
You should interview daniele Adams supernatural life or richard lorenzo
It doesn’t disprove a god but it does disprove a good/just god
Nah. That’s just a claim. It does not logically follow that God cannot be good/just if suffering exists.
@@loganwillett2835 oh? Explain then how a god could be good inflicting suffering upon the innocent
If logical problems of evil aren't dead then why say "most contemporary philosophers think logical problems of evil are pretty much dead" in the first video? If that's not your position why mention it? I don't understand the Pavlovian response of theists. And then to have to argue things like "well if one child fewer was gassed in the holocaust or one fewer thrown into the fires of Ba'al, or one fewer drowned in a tsunami, or one fewer died from food poisoning in 2000 BC, then Gods plan wouldn't have worked" just seems beyond credulity. Appreciate the spirit of it, just seems like the theistic lack of humility since Craig proclaimed victory over the logical problem is odd and unfamiliar hubris.
It doesn't disprove God. But it definitely defeats the Christian God. A truly "good" God would not allow suffering. A truly "good" God would attain his goals through a non-suffering choice if that was an option. So, God had no other choice. He MUST allow suffering ... for some greater good?
That's about as far as most theists seem to take it.
But if God had no choice, then some other set of cause-effect relationships exists that's telling God what he must do in order to achieve whatever goal God is trying to achieve. If God is the creator of all laws, then God has a choice, and there's a non-suffering way to accomplish his goals. But if allowing suffering is the only way God can accomplish his goal, then God doesn't have a choice.
The theists can duke it out from there.
Can you expand on your premise “a good god won’t allow suffering”, why not and what’s the non-suffering alternate? And I’m confused by what you mean god doesn’t have a choice. Also, just cause the Christian god doesn’t exist doesn’t mean there isn’t an ultamite source of good, doesn’t follow what’s so ever.
@@DSW-im8cj
[DSW]: "Can you expand on your premise “a good god won’t allow suffering”..."
The premise is that we're all God's children, and no parent wants their kids to suffer. I'm treating that as somewhat self-evident.
[DSW]: "...why not..."
The question puzzles me. Can you elaborate on why parents would want their kids to suffer if they could prevent it?
[DSW]: "...and what’s the non-suffering alternate?"
Apparently, there isn't one. Even God couldn't think of one. And that's the point -- if there isn't a non-suffering alternative, then God doesn't have a choice. But if God doesn't have a choice, then something outside God is telling God what he MUST do (i.e., allow suffering) in order to accomplish his goal. So, who's in charge? God? Or the set of cause-effect relationships that tells God that he must allow suffering if he wants to accomplish his goal ... whatever the heck that goal is?
[DSW]: "And I’m confused by what you mean god doesn’t have a choice."
Why would a omni-beneficent God allow suffering if there was a non-suffering way to accomplish the same goal? How can God have a choice if he MUST allow suffering to accomplish his goals? Who made the rules that God MUST obey?
[DSW]: "Also, just cause the Christian god doesn’t exist doesn’t mean there isn’t an ultamite [sic] source of good, doesn’t follow what’s so ever."
Lol. Well, I'd like to believe in some cosmic source of good, too. But if suffering exists, it looks like any "ultamite" source of good doesn't have any choice in the matter, either.
@@dougsmith6793 >The premise is that we're all God's children, and no parent wants their kids to suffer. I'm treating that as somewhat self-evident.
It's not self evident, and as a parent, I would want my kids to "suffer", if by "suffer", you mean grow from a child into an adult, which requires many hardships like "learning how to read", "learning how to walk", etc.
>The question puzzles me. Can you elaborate on why parents would want their kids to suffer if they could prevent it?
So they can grow up into adults? How much suffering does a child go through when he is hungry and hasn't been fed? When he needs his diaper changed? When he's tired and can't fall asleep? Do parents not want the child to learn to at least suffer enough to know that you don't have to eat whenever you're hungry, but instead when you need to (especially in today's society when so many children don't have that ability, which is why they're all obese)? Do parents not want their child to suffer enough at least to learn how to use the restroom by themselves?
This is all self evident. Good parents want their children to grow into good, strong, confident adults. Growing requires suffering, and thus your assertion that suffering is somehow so evil that it needs to be avoided at all costs, is incoherent.
As an extreme example, doing what I ask you to do and not what you want to do is a form of suffering. But surely you can't say that everyone should just do what they want to do regardless of the consequences for others? So you at least have to learn that much, and bear that much suffering because, to be blunt, you're not God. You're a created being who God loves, and thus you must either learn how to play nicely with others and be let into heaven, or be sent where you want, which is hell.
>Apparently, there isn't one. Even God couldn't think of one. And that's the point -- if there isn't a non-suffering alternative, then God doesn't have a choice.
This doesn't follow.
God chose to make this world: True
God couldn't think of another way of creating humans: No evidence for this claim other than God made this world, so that's just speculation at best.
God had no other choice: False, He could have chose to not create, or create us another way, he just chose this way. Your assertions assume too much.
>Why would a omni-beneficent God allow suffering if there was a non-suffering way to accomplish the same goal? How can God have a choice if he MUST allow suffering to accomplish his goals?
Because He wanted to. And He's in charge. As a matter of fact, He did have a non-suffering way to accomplish the same goal. Those beings are called Angels and demons. Those beings were created with full knowledge and intellect instantaneously on creation, and then given a choice to love God or not (same as us). Those beings who chose to love God are called Angels, and those who chose to hate God are called demons. So even on basic Christian theology, you're just wrong.
>Who made the rules that God MUST obey?
This is a completely different argument known as the Euthyphro dilemma. It was solved in the same work it was introduced, and that resolution has been used by Christians ever since. This isn't a particularly new (thousands of years old) or interesting (been discussed to death) objection. I recommend reading into it to learn more about the 2000+ year tradition of this argument, and what the counter arguments are, so you can get answers to your questions rather than think they're arguments.
By the way, you're not smart because you spotted a typo. That's just embarrassing the sophistry you try to use to argue your point. Try using logic, instead.
@@VACatholic
@VACatholic
[VA]: "It's not self evident, and as a parent, I would want my kids to "suffer", if by "suffer", you mean grow from a child into an adult, which requires many hardships like "learning how to read", "learning how to walk", etc."
Ahhh, I see. So, someone losing their entire family is really just God teaching folks how to walk, or learning to read, or learning to use the restroom. I didn't know those were equal in God's eyes.
So does that mean that all the folks who didn't lose their family didn't grow? Why would God just let a few be so lucky to lose their families so they could grow?
[VA]: "So they can grow up into adults? How much suffering does a child go through when he is hungry and hasn't been fed? When he needs his diaper changed? When he's tired and can't fall asleep? Do parents not want the child to learn to at least suffer enough to know that you don't have to eat whenever you're hungry, but instead when you need to (especially in today's society when so many children don't have that ability, which is why they're all obese)? Do parents not want their child to suffer enough at least to learn how to use the restroom by themselves?"
Ahhh, I see. So, someone losing their entire family is really just God teaching folks how to use the restroom or eating or walking. I didn't know those were equal in God's eyes. Thanks for more theist wisdom.
[VA]: "This is all self evident. Good parents want their children to grow into good, strong, confident adults. Growing requires suffering, and thus your assertion that suffering is somehow so evil that it needs to be avoided at all costs, is incoherent."
Well, now that I know that losing one's family, suffering dementia, blindness, pain are all just like using the restroom and learning to walk or read or eat, it all makes sense now.
[VA]: "As an extreme example, doing what I ask you to do and not what you want to do is a form of suffering...You're a created being who God loves, and thus you must either learn how to play nicely with others and be let into heaven, or be sent where you want, which is hell."
Lol. It almost always comes up, a life sentence to hell. In view of what you've already said, a gangster-God who has no other purpose in creating than "I want to!" makes perfect sense: "You no believe-a in-a me-a, I break-a yo legs for eternity!"
I pretty much expected this: in order to defend God, you pretty much have to throw him under the bus, make him look petty, and concede that your only real argument is "because God wants to".
[VA]: "God chose to make this world: True God couldn't think of another way of creating humans: No evidence for this claim other than God made this world, so that's just speculation at best. God had no other choice: False, He could have chose to not create, or create us another way, he just chose this way. Your assertions assume too much."
Cool. That description is indistinguishable from naturalistic creation.
[VA]: "Because He wanted to. And He's in charge."
I love this. So, your argument is really one from authority, nothing more. And you claim my assertions assume too much? Lol.
[VA]: "As a matter of fact, He did have a non-suffering way to accomplish the same goal. Those beings are called Angels and demons. Those beings were created with full knowledge and intellect instantaneously on creation, and then given a choice to love God or not (same as us). Those beings who chose to love God are called Angels, and those who chose to hate God are called demons. So even on basic Christian theology, you're just wrong."
Lol. So, God didn't want angels to grow by making them suffer? Your Christian theology is indistinguishable from imagination / rationalization. That's how psychology becomes theology.
[VA]: "This is a completely different argument...so you can get answers to your questions rather than think they're arguments."
Lol. Quite familiar with Euthyphro debates. No, it wasn't resolved -- theologians simply declared that there can be no laws outside of God, so any argument that raises that point is discarded, and God along defines what is good. But that just kicks the can down the road. The problem still remains: God literally has no choice but to allow suffering in order to accomplish his goals -- he literally cannot accomplish certain goals without it. Since God defines what is good, then this cannot be bad.
So where did those cause-effect relationships that even God has to obey come from? Even YOU are reduced to just flat-out assertion to try to argue God into existence: "Because He wanted to. And He's in charge."
If you really had a reason better than that, you'd use it. You literally don't have reasons -- at the end of the day, all you have is an argument from authority. And this is what is "logical" to you.
Euthryphro's dilemma vanishes entirely if God doesn't exist.
[VA]: "By the way, you're not smart because you spotted a typo. That's just embarrassing the sophistry you try to use to argue your point. Try using logic, instead."
Cool. All your "logic" just made a great case for Ockham's razor -- which is, of course, my point. You use human logic to explain God. That's why there are so many holes in it. There is just a plain simpler solution that resolves all these dilemmas -- while remaining consistent with everything we observe.
You've basically confirmed why no-God makes more sense than God does.
@@dougsmith6793 I wrote a whole response, and youtube deleted it.
Okay but why is the Christian trying to fight on premise 1? It’s obviously true. So who the heck cares whether or not he defended the premise? It’s obviously true! The highest good of a finite being is to know God. Time and heart would be better spent on the other premises.
This
How do you know that it so obvious that people into philosophy should know that premise 1 is not really worth defending it ?
People in the comments are missing some good points that Cam made:
1. Knowing God relationally is not "the only greatest good." Cam is arguing that it is able to be considered ONE of the MANY EQUALLY BEST goods (like growing into the image of God, loving God FREELY, etc.)
2. Cam is CORRECT to argue that the Burden of Proof is on Dustin. Why? Because Dustin is making the positive claim, people. This is standard.
3. Cam is totally correct to say "There are SOME who come to know God through horrific suffering." Dustin needs to prove that NO HUMAN BEING has EVER NEEDED horrific suffering to know God. And he cannot do that.
4. Keep up the great work, Cameron!
1. is literally a common definition of "heaven". Cam's counters to this smell of ad-hoc arguing just for the heck of it.
2. None of the points Dustin raised are controversial. Cam is misunderstanding the argument by dropping the omnipotent quality of god.
3. Suffering is a sufficient way to come closer to god. But Dustins argument is, that it is never necessary, because god is omnipotent. Cam is misunderstanding the point.
It kind of is your job to show the premises are false..
Freewill is an example of something God possesses, which means that it is good for us to possess, but we, unlike God, choose to do things that cause suffering, therefore there is a good that inevitably results in suffering since there's essentially no chance that all of us could always make choices that don't result in suffering.
To add to that, rationally is something else God possesses and it is good for our universe to be rational as we wouldn't be able to make sense of an irrational universe. Unfortunately, to allow the universe to be rational when freewill also exists inherently means that horrific suffering is possible.
Moreover, it's entirely possible that the existence of freewill for imperfect beings in a rational universe inevitably leads to all kinds of suffering, including horrendous suffering, and that God's only options were to create a universe without freewill (in which He could prevent all suffering if He so desired), create a universe with freewill (in which He has to accept and deal with all manner of suffering but is incapable of removing it all together as that would undermine the rationality of the universe and freewill), or simply not create anything.
Freewill, therefore, to me seems to be an example of a good other than a personal relationship with God that is necessary for the possibility of a personal relationship with God which necessarily entails the existence of horrendous suffering.
Because freewill and rationality are essential to having a personal relationship with God, I therefore conclude that the existence of horrendous suffering is not only logically compatible with the existence of God but that it is an unavoidable side effect.
Fortunately, God is wise enough to understand this and use it to His advantage.
Yeah, I am pretty safe in my atheism. When a Christian can’t remove any premises then I am safe in my rejection of god. As I stated before, the problem of evil can’t be solved. It’s impossible to remove the structure that supports it. If a Christian can’t clear the problem then the problem of evil should remove Christianity as a life option when authenticity is valued.
it is possible
It seems you have great faith, but in what exactly?
The problem of evil is solved, just not from an atheists' perspective. I don't have a problem with evil. You do.
You can’t solve the problem of Evil in your worldview … humanism is 100% certain to fail… theory proves it, and history proves it. And in materialism, evil can’t be explained (nor does it need explanation)…. And it certainly can’t be solved
So aside from venting your personal bias… taking God out of the equation solves nothing, and gains you… nothing.
So are you feeling happy and self-satisfied? Good for you! It won’t last.
So I guess I don’t get your point. You just like trying to convert others to your vacuous perspective?
Time will tell.
What does “good” in your name “be good tk you” mean? Is that just your preference, or based on some arbitrary consensus? Surely you do realize, in your worldview there really is no objective basis to determine good or evil … no solid basis at all
Who are you trying to “Bo good to”?
I am enjoying this for the exercise of an atheist attempting to start the argument off with the stated stance of many theists only to have, in this particular context, a theist say, no that’s not my stance.
And then in the process of defending Theism, the theist makes claims that they normally would argue against. For instance separating out exemplification as beyond god. I would never expect to see Cameron taking that stance except in this particular context. Arguing God cannot be the thing striving to be god means that such a good is not contained within god? It is hardly a standard theistic position, certainly one that would almost never be approached from that angle. The theist would say, as Dustin does, that goodness originates and is ultimately contained within the character of god. You cannot have striving to be god without god. It’s just wild too see the knots Cameron had to twist himself in to get on the opposite side of that.
On the other hand, I think the rest of the debate (that I’ve watched thus far) goes to Cameron, though in one of those strange cases of technicalities based on how strange the original author’s argument is.
Yeah. Cameron defends his position by throwing christian claims out the window. I'm not sure why this impresses you, it strikes me as very odd.
in fact, the theist would argue that God possesses all goods that are compatible with His nature. However, the goods that Cameron is arguing God not has are precisely those that God cannot have in His perfect nature. Can God have courage? Can God develop His own soul? Can God choose between good and evil? It is precisely these goods that most theists use to justify God's permission of evils, and this is exactly what Cameron is doing here.
The distinction between the value of a being and the value of a world is important here. A world that contains God and all these other great goods that God cannot have due to His nature may possibly be more valuable than a world where only God exists alone.
@@magno1177 That's an interesting question. CAN god choose between good and evil? If he can only ever act in accordance with his nature, does he even have free will at all?
@@vex1669 Well, I believe it depends on what we mean by “free will.” I think it's fair to say that most theists would have an incompatibilist view of freedom, so they would either hold a libertarian or source view of free will.
Regarding the question of whether God possesses free will if He can only act in accordance with His nature, a theist adopting the source view could answer positively (I think). This strategy is
mentioned in Edward R. Wierenga's article “The Freedom of God” (2002).
(Smart) compatibilists argue that actions can be both freely chosen and causally determined if the causes are specific to the agent and internal, not external. Wierenga points out that some critics (like Van inwagen) reject this view, claiming that determinism implies antecedent causes of an agent's beliefs and desires that precede the agent's existence, making the causal conditions external.
However, Wierenga highlights that in the case of God, there are no antecedent causes external to His nature for His beliefs, character, and desires. Therefore, if the insight from compatibilists is valid, we can assert that God's beliefs, desires, and character causally determine His actions (e.g., the actualization of α specif word) while still considering Him to possess free will.
The best way to respond to the problem of evil is to object to the definition of "omnibenevolent", go for a high view of God, DCT + God is Justified in whatever He does. The moment you accept eternal damnation, these are your best way.
If God is justified in whatever he does he is justified in being cruel for only cruelty's sake and no other reason. That would directly contradict him being benevolent in any sense of the word.
@@ZbjetisGod that's why I said you have to redefine omnibenevolent
Yeah, the problem of evil only applies to a god that's good as measured by human moral standards.
@@vex1669 you are right
@@africandawahrevival Asked half in jest... is your god concept kind of like an Eldritch Horror? An immensely powerful being humans can't hope to ever fully understand, that can toy with us in any way it wants and on whose mercy we are dependent?
He effectively baited you into throwing yourself onto the, "Our God isn't THAT powerful!" horn of the Euthyphro dilemma. I'll ask then, do you happen to know who created your apparent sub-deity? Where is the guy who isn't so limited by abstract concepts that he by definition created?
6:00 No, you are incorrect. If your god can realize the deepest good for some without horrific suffering, he could do it for all. Unless his power is limited.
Also, ALL analogies you might wish to draw between your parenting and your god are invalidated by the omni/max powers you assert your god possesses.
I had to pause the video several times during that part about his son. Bro began equating a needle shot with horrendous "soul-building" suffering
I think Dustin's 2nd rebuttal is going to eradicate this lol.
It may just be me, but I can easily see some of Cameron's remarks as admissions- a couple times over, it seems Cameron denies the existence of a fully good God.
Consider A FOURTH PROBLEM @ 12:10
This seems to be mentioning that a world with substantiated evil is better than a world with no substantiated evil. Of course, the point is for Dustin to rule this possibility out this world, but I think given the omnibenevolent part of the Christian God, this world becomes strictly incompatible with that God. Bear in mind, this is not simply restating the debate topic- it compares it to a world wherein only goods, God, and no suffering exists. Any case of substantiated evil within the total control of a being cannot mean that being is totally good, as it would be contradictory. However, this seems to be exactly what we are being told can exist. Nevermind those evils produce an even greater good- they still required evil. It is nice that they are greater goods, though we would still no longer be able to say that whatever is behind this is fully good either. Good? Sure! Fully good? Not quite.
It seems to me (given the above) that, unless we can prove then that every instance of good requires an evil (making evil thereby necessary for any good, not just select few), there could not be a fully good being behind it all.
The horrific evil in the world doesn’t disprove the existence of a God but it does prove that whoever he is… He is not a nice person, he is also disgusting evil.
I’d like to welcome “Survey Boy” Back-Back to the chat-chat!
Oh my. Did you go off the rails here. Dustin is NOT making a demand for certainty. You are talking past each other on this one.
I think what Cameron is saying and said in the previous video is that the form of argument Dustin is using demands certainty to be valid. Dustin not making a demand that goes against his presented form of argument is self-defeating.
No. Cameron clearly pointed out that since his premise must be necessarily true in order for the conclusion to be true, then they require a greater burden of proof.
Cameron insinuates the need of certainty by appealing to scenarios that might not make it necessarily so. I believe that Dustin appropriately characterized Cameron's failed tact.
I accept the burden that is being thrown around, and dump it in the 🗑️
That’s really sweet of you !!!!
😂
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 you seem more superficially authentic (not the other way around)
I think your definition of empathy is a bit lacking.
Cam is a well-oiled machine. I don't think I realized just how verse Cam'ron could be until these discussions, but given the share among of discussions and research, he's engaged in it all makes sense.
A. There exist people who get close to god WITHOUT suffering.
B. There exist people who get close to god WITH suffering.
An "omnipotent" or a "just" or a "loving" god would have created a way to make make A. happen for ALL his people.
As simple as that.
LOL
Every human person capable of getting close to God has suffered. Hence, (A) is false. But perhaps you meant something closer to (A*):
(A*) There exist people who get close to God without experiencing horrific suffering.
(A*) is certainly true. But from (A*) it does not logically follow that (C):
(C) God, an all good, all powerful being, can actualize a world in which everyone will grow close to God without a single person experiencing horrific suffering.
(A*) does not entail the truth of (C). You need a linking premise (likely, several). Feel free to present a valid argument that starts with (A*) and concludes with (C).
Keep in mind that there are things that no one, not even an omnipotent being, can do (e.g., no one can create a married bachelor).
@@CapturingChristianity "Every human person capable of getting close to God has suffered." = Xtian dogma ASSERTED without evidence.
.
Thanks for conceding that this god is not Omnipotent.
ASSERTING that a god could not actualize something (your C.) concedes that he is NOT OMNIPOTENT.
NOW, start your special pleading about your XTIAN god.
LOL
@@CapturingChristianity I think not, Cameron. If you genuinely believe in your God, then you need not "aopolgise" for its existence. You need not debate nor make excuses for 66 books written over 1,400 years not written in English - which is a language unable to capture the linguistic and meaningful essence of ancient Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. There apparently was was one Jesus, one Christ and one God - yet there are so many fractured denominations surrounding this flailing belief system. This is an admission that all religions are human made sociological constructs that fill the void of the unknown, the superstitious and the supernatural.
@@CapturingChristianitywhere is the logical contradiction? What is logically impossible about god creating beings who dont need to suffer?
What’s the proof that that is even possible
Soul breaking- HELL, for the majority that god new from the start would would end up there. Or, even worse, god created for them.The moral default position for all human flesh unless Jesus
6:42 I know you probably think this is crazy nonsense, but I'd be remiss to not mention this. You should check out Steve Kirsch's or RFK Jr.'s work on this stuff. I know if I were a parent I'd carefully weigh whether it's safer to vaccinate or not to vaccinate by examining the evidence from both sides. Just something to consider.
This is a lot of cheap word tricks to avoid responding the way the conversation asks you to. Do better.
So in a short...
One claim is, that there is the best god who created the best possible universe.
You can kind-of fully reject that only with knowledge of all.
You can mark as "necessary for greater good" whatever.
A genetical disease? This person needed it to end in the hell. But this
While you are correct that you are under no obligation to do what your opponent would prefer, this will definitely annoy the poor boy. Good job though showing the weakness in the atheist argument. I appreciate the good, thought provoking work.
Meow
Woof
Burlap
This is a good debate. Dustin, being the affirmative, has the burden of proof, and Cameron's call for more than assertions and begging the question are justified. And Cameron does not need to do anything but expose the errors of Dustin's arguments, in which I think he is succeeding.
I must admit I find Dustin's smug smile incredibly galling considering how weak his argument is.
I strive to be an apologist ❤
be a philosopher first and foremost ❤
Go for it…
No, suffering is part of living. If Eve hadn't been disobedient and Adam hadn't joined her in that sin, things would be different.
But we should actually expect suffering. We count all suffering that we attain in the work for the name of Christ as Joy. Beyond that, the rain falls on the just and the unjust. People who say that suffering means God is not good or that He doesn't exist, really are just thrashing against the fact that they are suffering and don't know how to help themselves or their situation.
Using your book to prove your book. The myth of Adam & Eve can not be proved in anyway shape or form so arguing that Eve caused suffering is unsubstantiated.
As to "we should expect suffering."
1. We are not talking about stubbing our toe or having a bad month financially. We are talking about horrendous suffering. Grotesque evil that exists in the world. So I ask you can you notice the peaks on a flat plain? Or do you need a massive valley to notice the high parts? If we can experience a relatively uneventful normal day and then have an amazing day where everything seems to go our way, can we not be just as grateful on that amazing day with out knowing day of dispair?
2. We know we are suffering. And like you said, it IS funny how it rains on the "just and unjust." It is interesting that believers dont have it better than non-believers. It's kind of like the world is apathetic to our condition and nature just takes it course with out much intervention from a divine source that would show preference to some people more than others.
Rarely are those who debate about the problem of suffering doing so as a response to their own suffering. You have to be privileged to be able to argue about such things. Rather, it is the horrific suffering of others, not themselves, which they are arguing about.
Suffering existed before the fall
@@existential_o where?
@@nfcapps In the long and gruesome process of evolution
In the context of great suffering it seems that atheism has an efficacy problem.
Please explain...
@@MyContextkinda hard to claim great suffering or evil when nothing matters lol
@@brandonwadge6073
Who is claiming nothing matters?
One of the implicit implications of any action being done is that something matters at least with regard to feeling creatures.
@@MyContextwhat do u mean by "feeling" ?
@@insanelogical8996
If a creature has a physiology wherein stimuli can be adjudicated even at a rudimentary level with regard to desirable or undesirable, such can be denoted as feeling in some sense of the word. Granted, it is easier to make such determinations the closer a creature is to matching what we understand of such experiences.