Man, it is so *WILD* to me that the apologists never actually understand what our objections are when we bring up the problem of evil. It's always so incredibly shallow and offended that we'd dare ask, when we, normal people who don't believe in magic, can only do our best in any given moment. Unlike them we don't believe in some magical entity that could, if it chose, magically fix everything.
"God's ways are not our ways" and "We cannot comprehend the mind/will of God" are such weaselly excuses. If that is the case, why do they also keep telling us that they _DO_ understand God's will, and praying for things to change? They may be doing the opposite of God's will. Prayer for change especially MUST be opposing God's will, unless God's will is that we pray for change. But how would we know, if we can't know God's will? As soon as they pull that card, we can ignore them, as nothing they say can possibly be useful, logical or based on any understanding of anything.
If I stood by and watched a horrible crime (that causes immense suffering) being committed and had the power to stop but did not. When asked why didn't I stop that crime and I said I was just letting that person exercise their free will, you would think I was a monster.
LOVED the Wilhelm scream. 😂🤣😂 27:46 "Wait for death." ...Im converting. 😂🤣😂 30:18 Sacrificing the innocent for the sins of the guilty is a recurring theme in that religion. Babies, sons, livestock, everyone is game for the chopping block. 38:46 😂🤣😂 Way too many funny moments. 51:24 Heaven is a concept that does not take into account the nature of man who needs to strive against something. Heaven is not a "good" thing because it goes against our nature. Therefore, existing in such a place will only foster discontent inside us. ...anyway, Good video.
"despair is the honest conclusion..." Cliff prays for children in the cancer ward and says an atheist can only despair. and yet, thanks for the efforts of people focused on this world? Childhood cancer is more curable than ever. Cliff waits for a better world to cone to him -let's make this one better instead.
how much suffering is enough? i mean, i've had a hang nail and they drive me crazy. paper cut, ouchers. but tornadoes AND tsunamis? volcanoes AND earthquakes? boats sinking AND airplane crashes? exactly how much does my character need to be built before we can cut some of the suffering? it seems to me that either god is over doing it cause he is putting suffering into every nook and cranny of our lives, from me cutting my finger to an asteroid wiping us all out - if none of these things occurred, if i never stubbed my toe, i wouldn't NEED my character built in the first place.
Every one of Cliffe’s “arguments” boils down to “I want the bad people punished and I want to live forever, therefore Jesus is magic.” And Stuart is far worse.
4:30 this particular dentist says sugar is perfectly fine - in moderation! Also, there is not a single calorie (or anything else) different between GMO & organic sugars. The molecules are indistinguishable, and it irritates the heck out of me when people claim organic is better. Organic sugar will promote bacterial growth that rots your teeth just as well as non-organic.
The claim: God exists. He is all powerful all good, all loving all fair, all just and all moral and cannot make a mistake. God created all things. The problem: Evil exists in God's Perfect Work and it's not God's fault. Solution: You created this dilemma for yourself and only you can solve it by discovering the contradictions in scripture.
Keep in mind that the purpose of an apologist is provide a prophylactic against doubt. They say they want to convert unbelievers. But in fact they want to keep believers from investigating arguments and leaving the faith.
Our solution is to try and minimize it. Christianity teaches you to torture yourself over things you can't contol and torture others over things they can't control.
The version of heaven and hell that really does appeal to me, and feels more coherent, comes from a webcomic of all places. Yet, it gives us a compassionate God, a flawed mankind, and a Hell that is meant to be a place not of torment but of reconciliation, self-awareness, empathy, and cleansing. You're not meant to be tortured just for the sake of retribution, but made to face your wrongs and learn from them, and, once you personally understand your crimes and grasp their weight and atone for them, then you're given another chance to go through life, with this new growth in your soul's back pocket, as it were. That's what I would hope for, and when I feel indulgent, let myself hope for. Not the God of reckoning who casts unbelievers into the lake of fire to burn and wail in agony for failing to believing in the unevidenced.
The best example of this I know of is Haibane Renmei, if one understands it as an afterlife metaphor (which is an entirely valid interpretation but HR is deliberately open ended).
@@Nocturnalux The one I'm reading (binged the whole thing recently) is "Jack", a furry webcomic about a bunny Grim Reaper and redemption and whatnot. It's pretty good.
Okay, you know.... When he went into the whole "WE have the solution to the suffering of that infant! Heaven!!" bit... I couldn't help but think "uhhhhh you do know heaven is only for believers, right? You know what the alternative is...right? What kind of solution is THAT??" Edit: Oh my nonexistent gods, I'm so happy that you really *tore* into him about that not long after. "Judgement" is really no "solution" to suffering at all.
If an omnipotent god chooses to limit his power permanently, then his chosen path is real but he is no longer omnipotent. If he chooses to go back to being omnipotent eventually, then he was omnipotent all the time, since he can undo the harm done once he has his powers restored. The whole thing is just a word game. An omnipotent god has as little reason to care for us as we have for the welfare of each individual amoebas that live in our bodies.
Most Christian apologetics regarding the problem of suffering come down to "free will." Free will is necessary in modern Christian theology. However, free will is not a biblical concept. The God of the Bible never demonstrated any concern for respecting free will. For example, read the Exodus story. It says that Pharoah was going to give Moses what he requested, but Yahweh "hardened Pharoah's Heart" so that he would refuse and let Yahweh play the neighborhood bully. In the New Testament, God did not respect Saul/Paul's agency. Saul had decided to persecute Christians. It sounds like it was an informed decision. But, according to Acts, God struck Saul blind and forced him to go to a Christian to get his sight back. Free will does not solve the problem of evil, it only shows how full of internal contradictions are found in Christian theology.
Not to mention there are verses where Yahweh appears to move Kings and nations like pieces on a Chess board to get what he wants. Which implies there's either direct manipulation of human beings or indirect manipulation aka deception. Neither of which support the idea of a benevolent god who cares about human free will.
Very good point, that if we don't comprehend why (the tri-omni) god allows any suffering, how do we comprehend what he considers good? How do we comprehend anything he is or wants from us? That's probably why there are Christians who are sure to be saved by grace alone while others are sure that it takes works.
"I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters."(Jer.19:9) " You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters." (Lev.26:29) " The hands of compassionate women have cooked their own children; they became their food during the destruction of my people.( Lam.4:10) Yahweh brought the destruction.
What does it mean for love, faith, and hope to be greater than suffering? How would you measure their respective greatness? What's so great about hope? Is hope a virtue? Why do you think there's a lesson that we live to learn? How could the point of life be to learn a life lesson? What does it mean to fail in life?
@9:30 compare that to what William lane Craig said about the "ultimate good " that Canaanite children dying by the sword was. And this clown saying 'Hey, don't worry about the pain and suffering now you'll forget!'
They are just engaging in the standard appolgist tactic of using a "Red Herring" to deflect away from their inability to resolve the question. One thing I will agree with them on though, this is an emotionally charged question... or rather it is one for them, because it exposes the obvious contradictions in their position.
🎶yes I have no banana The rest of the gimmicks don't really have a song though. Edit: I would say you making your own decision is better in all respects, the old owning people, as you so rightly say. When whatever your deity says is good is good you a) need to be sure that it is your god talking, and b) can still be utterly repelled by that supposed good thing. and reject it.
Believer: "Older wiser person, I have problem. I am struggling with my faith because I can't understand how the existence of so much suffering makes sense in a world run by an all powerful God who loves us. Our detractors are saying this is sufficient reason to believe that our faith is wrong. Can you help me make sense of this?" Apologist: "Of course. God might have a good reason you don't know about that you couldn't understand if you did know about it." Believer: "But that just leaves me back at square one: I have a problem with no known solution." Apologist: "Well our detractors can't solve the problem either." Believer: "Well that's nice but it doesn't help me one bit." Apologist: "Some of the suffering can be accounted for by human free will and the consequences of that." Believer "But how does that help me if not all the suffering can be explained?" Apologist: "Well...God suffered too. And he's risen." Believer: "So what? My problem is the apparent contradiction. Do you have any information or reasoning that debunks the contradiction?" Apologist: "You're just being hard hearted."
So what do we do to alleviate suffering? Donate money to find a cure for disease. Donate to food banks to feed the hungry. Donate to groups that help people contemplating suicide. Donate time at hospice. Read books for the blind. Build houses for Habitat for Humanity. Give blood. Donate a kidney. Donate skin or other body parts after we die. I could go on and on. Your prayers may make some believers feel a bit better, but its our actions that make a real differnce.
The problem of evil is quite simply a philosophical problem; it's a paradox. But apologists love to capitalize on the fact that the word "problem" has an alternate meaning and they equivocate that meaning rather than the correct meaning. It's a bad strategy for several reasons: first, it never fools even one atheist because the only reason we ever talk about it is as a challenge to monotheism. Second, it's bwd because it's not just something that atheists and apologists think about. This is one of the most common problems that Christians struggle with and they are looking to wise people to help them understand who it all adds up. So when they aee the paradox of gratuitous suffering in a world made and controlled by a tri-omni God, they are looking for a concrete answer, not assurance that there's an answer that's unknown and incomprehensible. They don't want to hear that God may have a morally sufficient reason. They want to hear what that morally sufficient reason is. Or they want wome information that oroves that there is no contradiction. Simply saying that others can't prove them wrong is not satisfying. The kast reason it's a bad strategy is that any religion can make these excuses. The Hindu gods may have incomprehensible morally sufficient reasons for running such a bad world. A hindu can tell me that non-hindus can't solve rhe problem either and that gives me no reason to believe in Hinduism at all. When a Christian says this, he gives me no reason to believe in Christianity.
Well one thing is the idea of binding agreements.. violating the agreement (covenant) would be one way to neutralize the all powerful god if he's bound by his word ....something along those lines..as far as suffering in the world is probably a consequence for some kind of violation of an agreement...
So according to Cliffe, God created the universe and all life in it and knew everything that would happen, but when life is unfair, that's not his fault. Yeah, I can't find any contradictions with that at all!
"genetic degeneration and a cursed world is not because of god or god punishing anyone for a sin they did not commit" Also "God cursed the world and humans with genetic degeneration and other bad stuff for something Adam did" Do they ever listen to all their arguments concerning a topic in a row to see if they are internally consistent?
I think the New Testament does answer the question of babies in heaven, and the answer is not what Christians want to hear. Jesus said that in heaven people are not married or given in marriage. That suggest that our earthy situation has nothing to do with heaven. Christians say that they look forward to being united with loved ones in heaven, but Jesus said they will not be reunite as a family. Paul also addressed the issue. He said that we would get new, heavenly bodies. The heavenly bodies would be different. On balance, the New Testament is pretty strongly anti-family. Jesus in the gospels says we must leave our fathers and mothers. Paul is anti-family. We don't get to anything that can be considered pro-family until we get to the pseudepigraphal letters of Paul where they say that women should be subservient to their husbands. Most modern Christians don't study the Bible. If they did, there would be a lot fewer Christians.
There's an even clearer verse that definitively proves that no baby will enter heaven: Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." I think it's safe to assume that babies don't do the will of Jesus' father. Thus it's pretty clear that they aren't getting in.
I don't accept the equivocation around the word "evil." There is nothing to be gained by retreating to talking about "suffering" instead. Whether an atheist holds a thing to be evil or good differently than a theist is irrelevant and a red herring. For purposes of the discussion around the problem of evil, it is important to use the word as theists use it, that is, a reference to a supernatural force. Insist that the discussion stay on their ground, because the inconsistency and double-talk lie purely within their theology.
Cliff thinks he's telling us about atheistic nihilism, but what he's actually doing is revealing his own incredibly bleak & unrelenting darkness. I hope Stuart pursues responsible mental health as a profession instead of apologetics; the latter has clearly done nothing for Cliff's obvious misery and despair. Edit. Seriously, every time I see Cliff anywhere he just strikes me as a truly miserable old bastard whose deep commitment to faith brings him no joy and no comfort. Quite a few of his fellow used-god salesmen also strike me as desperately unhappy, in constant judgement of themselves and others, and in a constant state of stress from having to make excuses for an omnipotent being who bafflingly refuses to use a shred of such power to help, to change anything, or to even answer the most basic or benign of questions. Makes me deeply sad that Stuart had to grow up in such an environment.
Offering judgement as a solution to the problem of suffering is like offering repayment as a solution to theft committed by a perfect person. It's nice that you gave the goods and money back eventually, but you still stole them and can't call yourself a perfect person.
If we’re knitted in our mother’s womb into the very image of God, with the Spirit of God leading us into all truth, how can we not know the mind of God? 1 Cor 2:16 says “we have the mind of Christ”, but your excusagists must say “His thoughts are above our thoughts”, to explain the presence of evil, with a tri-omni God in complete control.
@27:21 "There's nothing in the Bible that says one way or another what happens to babies when they die." Begging your pardon but there is. Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." I think it's pretty clear that babies don't do the will of Jesus' father, and Jesus was clear that only the one who does his father's will, will enter heaven. Thus it's definitive: babies will not enter heaven.
Apologists like Cliff want to blame the suffering in this world on"the Fall." But the only things involved in the curse of that fall was,Adam having a hard time farming; Eve's birth-pangs, and, a legless serpent-not-cancer or disease causing genes or deformed children or natural disasters,etc.And it(the curse)was all aimed at Adam and Eve only.It was Paul that stated that all of creation was under the "bondage of corruption" . Who knows what he meant by that, but evangelicals want to stick everything from animals eating other animals to teenage acne to deformed children under the category "corruption." But that was just Paul's opinion now wasn't it?(along with "spiritual death")
how come we can fix the ails of the fall, there is a long list of diseases i assume knectie (nestle?) would attribute to the fall, but that means we can reverse god's work?
Cliff is exacerbating the problem of free will, with the “hitting my face” analogy, because God would not then be concerned about my free will. Is the alter boy’s free will not infringed every time God doesn’t intervene with the priest’s abusive free will?
Weirdly enough, even the unlikeliest of places, the good ol' Matrix includes a better in-lore explanation for suffering in this world: the machines TRIED to make a perfect world without suffering, but the human nature was incompatible with it, so they reintroduced chaos to avoid the humans tearing the matrix down at the seams. Sure, this is a pop culture example and not a religiously grounded one, but... if the problem is a stunted imagination, as it appears to be, looking to pop culture for answers would serve some of those excusagists/apologists better than trying to hammer an inherently incompatible position from their book onto the real world - SciFi can do that, because the fantasy aspect makes it an actually a pretty good medium for such thought experiments, and the matrix does have God-like beings, with inherently limited powers that are infinitely more plausible than a tri-omni God, and it's not like humans - being brains in vats in this context - could tell the difference there.
Apologists will make excuses, as they do, but the NT is pretty clear that ALL have sinned because of Adam (or Eve's, depending on which passage(s) you use) and you are a sinner until you accept christ. That would include babies, and if one accepts the notion that a fetus is a child (I don't) then even womb born fetuses are sinners from the moment of birth (or conception) and are destined to hell. BY NT standards, since the OT seems to have different views on pretty much everything. So even a miscarriaged fetus is bound for the christian hell by their own book. The bible gives no "age of innocence" although some do seem to twist passages around so it could appear so. Nope, the christian god even condemns newborn (and even the unborn if you but into the "pro life" arguments) to eternity in eternal torment. Such a nice and loving god he is.
@39:25 You think God will send only two thirds of humanity to hell? Matthew 7:14 "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’" Let's recap: God made it much easier to go to hell than to heaven and few will go to heaven. There will be Christians-not just regular going to church on Sundays Christians, but people who call Jesus Lord and work genuine miracles in his name that go to hell. Granny, you're acting like all who call in the name of Jesus will be saved but Matthew makes it clear that most miracle working Christians will go to hell. Very very few people will actually end up in heaven.
I hate the term "natura evil." lt doesn't exist. For anything to be "evil," it needs to have motive or intention. A landslide isn't good or evil. A landslide just is. A landslide can cause suffering, of course, but it since it is not sentient, it can't be evil (or good).
I have to disagree. All babies who die without accepting Jesus and being baptized will spend eternity in hell. The only way to heaven is through Jesus. He that believeth has eternal salvation. He that believeth not is condemned already. If the baby does not believe it is condemned. No exceptions are given. David said he knew he was a sinner in his mother's womb. Even if the scripture in 2 Samuel 12:23 means he will join his baby in an afterlife, it doesn't mean specifically in heaven or that it isn't a one time thing. Remember, there was no heaven in the old testament. It was invented by the new testament writers. Elijah ascended in a whirlwind. There was written of a place where the dead gathered after death, but not of a city of gold where all you can do is worship god every second of eternity. There is no mention of where everyone that was not a man of god from his chosen people went after death. Again, that is a new testament invention.
You also have to understand god is too busy making sure the correct team wins a sporting contest to have to deal with deformed, diseased or starving children. Just look at all the athletes who point to heaven in praise of him when they score at their chosen sport. With all the athletic contests to attend to we can see why 10 children per minute die from disease or hunger every minute of ever day. That is one every six seconds. That is the average time of each play in a football game.
This guy forgot to read his bible. Doesn't he know the second coming happened almost 2000 years ago. Jesus himself said he would return before that generation passed away. That generation has passed away. Either Jesus is a liar, never existed, or he has already come and taken his disciples to heaven with him and we missed it because we were born too late and our ancestors were not taken to heaven with him 2000 years ago. So tell me, is Jesus a liar? Is he a made up being? Or did he do what he said he would do 2000 years ago? Your choice.
I don't understand why you ask about the problem of evil if you believed that Jesus rose from the dead. That literally is the answer to the problem of evil
“Hope in what isn’t real isn’t real hope.”
DAMN.
Being obtuse is a standard apologist requirement.
Apologists are truly just polishing the brass on the Titanic.
All while claiming the brass is gold.
@@RichWoods23well shucks, I’m going to need a lot more fixtures to get rich
Man, it is so *WILD* to me that the apologists never actually understand what our objections are when we bring up the problem of evil.
It's always so incredibly shallow and offended that we'd dare ask, when we, normal people who don't believe in magic, can only do our best in any given moment. Unlike them we don't believe in some magical entity that could, if it chose, magically fix everything.
"God's ways are not our ways" and "We cannot comprehend the mind/will of God" are such weaselly excuses.
If that is the case, why do they also keep telling us that they _DO_ understand God's will, and praying for things to change? They may be doing the opposite of God's will.
Prayer for change especially MUST be opposing God's will, unless God's will is that we pray for change. But how would we know, if we can't know God's will?
As soon as they pull that card, we can ignore them, as nothing they say can possibly be useful, logical or based on any understanding of anything.
Excusigists + Godzheimers = a lot of stupidity.
If I stood by and watched a horrible crime (that causes immense suffering) being committed and had the power to stop but did not. When asked why didn't I stop that crime and I said I was just letting that person exercise their free will, you would think I was a monster.
In a lot of countries, you’d be criminally liable, too.
LOVED the Wilhelm scream. 😂🤣😂
27:46 "Wait for death." ...Im converting. 😂🤣😂
30:18 Sacrificing the innocent for the sins of the guilty is a recurring theme in that religion. Babies, sons, livestock, everyone is game for the chopping block.
38:46 😂🤣😂 Way too many funny moments.
51:24 Heaven is a concept that does not take into account the nature of man who needs to strive against something. Heaven is not a "good" thing because it goes against our nature. Therefore, existing in such a place will only foster discontent inside us.
...anyway, Good video.
"despair is the honest conclusion..." Cliff prays for children in the cancer ward and says an atheist can only despair. and yet, thanks for the efforts of people focused on this world? Childhood cancer is more curable than ever. Cliff waits for a better world to cone to him -let's make this one better instead.
jesus healed a leper - humans cured leprosy. i think he has things ass backwards.
I appreciate your view of God. I agree totally!
“For all powerful god to parsley limited its power”
I started laughing so hard there 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
how much suffering is enough? i mean, i've had a hang nail and they drive me crazy. paper cut, ouchers. but tornadoes AND tsunamis? volcanoes AND earthquakes? boats sinking AND airplane crashes? exactly how much does my character need to be built before we can cut some of the suffering? it seems to me that either god is over doing it cause he is putting suffering into every nook and cranny of our lives, from me cutting my finger to an asteroid wiping us all out - if none of these things occurred, if i never stubbed my toe, i wouldn't NEED my character built in the first place.
I know right? It's like saying the reason for disease is to build the immune system.
Every one of Cliffe’s “arguments” boils down to “I want the bad people punished and I want to live forever, therefore Jesus is magic.”
And Stuart is far worse.
This was excellent. Than you Granny.
4:30 this particular dentist says sugar is perfectly fine - in moderation!
Also, there is not a single calorie (or anything else) different between GMO & organic sugars. The molecules are indistinguishable, and it irritates the heck out of me when people claim organic is better. Organic sugar will promote bacterial growth that rots your teeth just as well as non-organic.
A friend turned up to a meeting recently with a bottle of organic water. They didn't grasp why I asked what percentage of it was carbon.
Satanic Flossing?😅
@RichWoods23 oh my! 🤣
Organic water, omg roflmao
My water is H2OC4 lol
The claim:
God exists. He is all powerful all good, all loving all fair, all just and all moral and cannot make a mistake.
God created all things.
The problem:
Evil exists in God's Perfect Work and it's not God's fault.
Solution:
You created this dilemma for yourself and only you can solve it by discovering the contradictions in scripture.
I do not need a God to do good...
Keep in mind that the purpose of an apologist is provide a prophylactic against doubt. They say they want to convert unbelievers. But in fact they want to keep believers from investigating arguments and leaving the faith.
you brought me to tears with this one, gg. I love your content and tone in which you deliver it. thank you for what you're doing!
14:15 _"An Atheist has no solution for the problem of suffering."_
> Why should they have a "solution", if they don't have *_this_* problem?!
Our solution is to try and minimize it. Christianity teaches you to torture yourself over things you can't contol and torture others over things they can't control.
And what about those billions of people who believe in another god? Or is there no problem with that?
What a coincidence, I just wrote a strip in calligraphy, "JWHW is superfluous to the Universe."
Following Stuart's logic, Jesus's suffering on the cross was just a bad weekend...
Not to mention that Christianity is far less just than pre- Christian existence (according to most Christians).
The version of heaven and hell that really does appeal to me, and feels more coherent, comes from a webcomic of all places. Yet, it gives us a compassionate God, a flawed mankind, and a Hell that is meant to be a place not of torment but of reconciliation, self-awareness, empathy, and cleansing. You're not meant to be tortured just for the sake of retribution, but made to face your wrongs and learn from them, and, once you personally understand your crimes and grasp their weight and atone for them, then you're given another chance to go through life, with this new growth in your soul's back pocket, as it were.
That's what I would hope for, and when I feel indulgent, let myself hope for. Not the God of reckoning who casts unbelievers into the lake of fire to burn and wail in agony for failing to believing in the unevidenced.
The best example of this I know of is Haibane Renmei, if one understands it as an afterlife metaphor (which is an entirely valid interpretation but HR is deliberately open ended).
@@Nocturnalux The one I'm reading (binged the whole thing recently) is "Jack", a furry webcomic about a bunny Grim Reaper and redemption and whatnot. It's pretty good.
@@Errickfoxy27 Haibane Renmei is a work of genius. Criminally underrated.
Yeah, reincarnation makes far more sense than do what you want and be judged eventually.
Nice use of the “Puny god” clip :) It always annoys me when apologists claim omnipotence for their deity and then put so many limits on its abilities.
Okay, you know.... When he went into the whole "WE have the solution to the suffering of that infant! Heaven!!" bit...
I couldn't help but think "uhhhhh you do know heaven is only for believers, right? You know what the alternative is...right? What kind of solution is THAT??"
Edit: Oh my nonexistent gods, I'm so happy that you really *tore* into him about that not long after. "Judgement" is really no "solution" to suffering at all.
If an omnipotent god chooses to limit his power permanently, then his chosen path is real but he is no longer omnipotent. If he chooses to go back to being omnipotent eventually, then he was omnipotent all the time, since he can undo the harm done once he has his powers restored. The whole thing is just a word game. An omnipotent god has as little reason to care for us as we have for the welfare of each individual amoebas that live in our bodies.
Most Christian apologetics regarding the problem of suffering come down to "free will." Free will is necessary in modern Christian theology. However, free will is not a biblical concept. The God of the Bible never demonstrated any concern for respecting free will. For example, read the Exodus story. It says that Pharoah was going to give Moses what he requested, but Yahweh "hardened Pharoah's Heart" so that he would refuse and let Yahweh play the neighborhood bully. In the New Testament, God did not respect Saul/Paul's agency. Saul had decided to persecute Christians. It sounds like it was an informed decision. But, according to Acts, God struck Saul blind and forced him to go to a Christian to get his sight back. Free will does not solve the problem of evil, it only shows how full of internal contradictions are found in Christian theology.
Not to mention there are verses where Yahweh appears to move Kings and nations like pieces on a Chess board to get what he wants.
Which implies there's either direct manipulation of human beings or indirect manipulation aka deception.
Neither of which support the idea of a benevolent god who cares about human free will.
The issue with Paul is what broke my faith. It's what caused me to reason my way to the divine hiddenness problem.
God was invented because suffering sucks.
Very good point, that if we don't comprehend why (the tri-omni) god allows any suffering, how do we comprehend what he considers good?
How do we comprehend anything he is or wants from us?
That's probably why there are Christians who are sure to be saved by grace alone while others are sure that it takes works.
Love, Faith and Hope are greater than suffering. This is the lesson we live to learn. If you don't get this, you failed in life.
"I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters."(Jer.19:9) " You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters." (Lev.26:29) " The hands of compassionate women have cooked their own children; they became their food during the destruction of my people.( Lam.4:10) Yahweh brought the destruction.
What does it mean for love, faith, and hope to be greater than suffering? How would you measure their respective greatness? What's so great about hope? Is hope a virtue? Why do you think there's a lesson that we live to learn? How could the point of life be to learn a life lesson? What does it mean to fail in life?
1:03 Option 4. He defines "Christian" to be meaningless.
if god's plans are "beyond our comprehension" then they have to stop telling me what god wants me to do. they are clearly just making sht up.
It's more a "Daily Dose of Insanity".
@9:30 compare that to what William lane Craig said about the "ultimate good " that Canaanite children dying by the sword was. And this clown saying 'Hey, don't worry about the pain and suffering now you'll forget!'
They are just engaging in the standard appolgist tactic of using a "Red Herring" to deflect away from their inability to resolve the question.
One thing I will agree with them on though, this is an emotionally charged question... or rather it is one for them, because it exposes the obvious contradictions in their position.
🎶yes I have no banana
The rest of the gimmicks don't really have a song though. Edit: I would say you making your own decision is better in all respects, the old owning people, as you so rightly say. When whatever your deity says is good is good you a) need to be sure that it is your god talking, and b) can still be utterly repelled by that supposed good thing. and reject it.
Believer: "Older wiser person, I have problem. I am struggling with my faith because I can't understand how the existence of so much suffering makes sense in a world run by an all powerful God who loves us. Our detractors are saying this is sufficient reason to believe that our faith is wrong. Can you help me make sense of this?"
Apologist: "Of course. God might have a good reason you don't know about that you couldn't understand if you did know about it."
Believer: "But that just leaves me back at square one: I have a problem with no known solution."
Apologist: "Well our detractors can't solve the problem either."
Believer: "Well that's nice but it doesn't help me one bit."
Apologist: "Some of the suffering can be accounted for by human free will and the consequences of that."
Believer "But how does that help me if not all the suffering can be explained?"
Apologist: "Well...God suffered too. And he's risen."
Believer: "So what? My problem is the apparent contradiction. Do you have any information or reasoning that debunks the contradiction?"
Apologist: "You're just being hard hearted."
So what do we do to alleviate suffering? Donate money to find a cure for disease. Donate to food banks to feed the hungry. Donate to groups that help people contemplating suicide. Donate time at hospice. Read books for the blind. Build houses for Habitat for Humanity. Give blood. Donate a kidney. Donate skin or other body parts after we die. I could go on and on. Your prayers may make some believers feel a bit better, but its our actions that make a real differnce.
The problem of evil is quite simply a philosophical problem; it's a paradox. But apologists love to capitalize on the fact that the word "problem" has an alternate meaning and they equivocate that meaning rather than the correct meaning. It's a bad strategy for several reasons: first, it never fools even one atheist because the only reason we ever talk about it is as a challenge to monotheism. Second, it's bwd because it's not just something that atheists and apologists think about. This is one of the most common problems that Christians struggle with and they are looking to wise people to help them understand who it all adds up. So when they aee the paradox of gratuitous suffering in a world made and controlled by a tri-omni God, they are looking for a concrete answer, not assurance that there's an answer that's unknown and incomprehensible. They don't want to hear that God may have a morally sufficient reason. They want to hear what that morally sufficient reason is. Or they want wome information that oroves that there is no contradiction. Simply saying that others can't prove them wrong is not satisfying. The kast reason it's a bad strategy is that any religion can make these excuses. The Hindu gods may have incomprehensible morally sufficient reasons for running such a bad world. A hindu can tell me that non-hindus can't solve rhe problem either and that gives me no reason to believe in Hinduism at all. When a Christian says this, he gives me no reason to believe in Christianity.
Well one thing is the idea of binding agreements.. violating the agreement (covenant) would be one way to neutralize the all powerful god if he's bound by his word ....something along those lines..as far as suffering in the world is probably a consequence for some kind of violation of an agreement...
Am I wrong at saying the beginning music of the episode is like watching an episode of This Old House
Should have called it Daily Dose of Delusion. At least then it's a fully alliterative title.
So according to Cliffe, God created the universe and all life in it and knew everything that would happen, but when life is unfair, that's not his fault. Yeah, I can't find any contradictions with that at all!
"genetic degeneration and a cursed world is not because of god or god punishing anyone for a sin they did not commit"
Also
"God cursed the world and humans with genetic degeneration and other bad stuff for something Adam did"
Do they ever listen to all their arguments concerning a topic in a row to see if they are internally consistent?
I think the New Testament does answer the question of babies in heaven, and the answer is not what Christians want to hear. Jesus said that in heaven people are not married or given in marriage. That suggest that our earthy situation has nothing to do with heaven. Christians say that they look forward to being united with loved ones in heaven, but Jesus said they will not be reunite as a family.
Paul also addressed the issue. He said that we would get new, heavenly bodies. The heavenly bodies would be different.
On balance, the New Testament is pretty strongly anti-family. Jesus in the gospels says we must leave our fathers and mothers. Paul is anti-family. We don't get to anything that can be considered pro-family until we get to the pseudepigraphal letters of Paul where they say that women should be subservient to their husbands.
Most modern Christians don't study the Bible. If they did, there would be a lot fewer Christians.
the problem is "no one can comprehend the mind of god" - they are all MAKING THINGS UP.
There's an even clearer verse that definitively proves that no baby will enter heaven:
Matthew 7:21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
I think it's safe to assume that babies don't do the will of Jesus' father. Thus it's pretty clear that they aren't getting in.
I don't accept the equivocation around the word "evil." There is nothing to be gained by retreating to talking about "suffering" instead. Whether an atheist holds a thing to be evil or good differently than a theist is irrelevant and a red herring. For purposes of the discussion around the problem of evil, it is important to use the word as theists use it, that is, a reference to a supernatural force. Insist that the discussion stay on their ground, because the inconsistency and double-talk lie purely within their theology.
Cliff thinks he's telling us about atheistic nihilism, but what he's actually doing is revealing his own incredibly bleak & unrelenting darkness. I hope Stuart pursues responsible mental health as a profession instead of apologetics; the latter has clearly done nothing for Cliff's obvious misery and despair.
Edit. Seriously, every time I see Cliff anywhere he just strikes me as a truly miserable old bastard whose deep commitment to faith brings him no joy and no comfort. Quite a few of his fellow used-god salesmen also strike me as desperately unhappy, in constant judgement of themselves and others, and in a constant state of stress from having to make excuses for an omnipotent being who bafflingly refuses to use a shred of such power to help, to change anything, or to even answer the most basic or benign of questions. Makes me deeply sad that Stuart had to grow up in such an environment.
So it was "fair" of god to torture Job over a bet he made with Satan? Hmm?
Offering judgement as a solution to the problem of suffering is like offering repayment as a solution to theft committed by a perfect person. It's nice that you gave the goods and money back eventually, but you still stole them and can't call yourself a perfect person.
Cliffe talking about limiting power I think he's seriously limited his brain power in working out these arguments of his.
If we’re knitted in our mother’s womb into the very image of God, with the Spirit of God leading us into all truth, how can we not know the mind of God? 1 Cor 2:16 says “we have the mind of Christ”, but your excusagists must say “His thoughts are above our thoughts”, to explain the presence of evil, with a tri-omni God in complete control.
what happened to Cliff he got thrown out of college campus? he’s always been a clown but a total nut now
@27:21 "There's nothing in the Bible that says one way or another what happens to babies when they die."
Begging your pardon but there is.
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
I think it's pretty clear that babies don't do the will of Jesus' father, and Jesus was clear that only the one who does his father's will, will enter heaven. Thus it's definitive: babies will not enter heaven.
Apologists like Cliff want to blame the suffering in this world on"the Fall." But the only things involved in the curse of that fall was,Adam having a hard time farming; Eve's birth-pangs, and, a legless serpent-not-cancer or disease causing genes or deformed children or natural disasters,etc.And it(the curse)was all aimed at Adam and Eve only.It was Paul that stated that all of creation was under the "bondage of corruption" . Who knows what he meant by that, but evangelicals want to stick everything from animals eating other animals to teenage acne to deformed children under the category "corruption." But that was just Paul's opinion now wasn't it?(along with "spiritual death")
how come we can fix the ails of the fall, there is a long list of diseases i assume knectie (nestle?) would attribute to the fall, but that means we can reverse god's work?
Cliff is exacerbating the problem of free will, with the “hitting my face” analogy, because God would not then be concerned about my free will.
Is the alter boy’s free will not infringed every time God doesn’t intervene with the priest’s abusive free will?
He makes a perfect case for not trusting God.
Weirdly enough, even the unlikeliest of places, the good ol' Matrix includes a better in-lore explanation for suffering in this world: the machines TRIED to make a perfect world without suffering, but the human nature was incompatible with it, so they reintroduced chaos to avoid the humans tearing the matrix down at the seams. Sure, this is a pop culture example and not a religiously grounded one, but... if the problem is a stunted imagination, as it appears to be, looking to pop culture for answers would serve some of those excusagists/apologists better than trying to hammer an inherently incompatible position from their book onto the real world - SciFi can do that, because the fantasy aspect makes it an actually a pretty good medium for such thought experiments, and the matrix does have God-like beings, with inherently limited powers that are infinitely more plausible than a tri-omni God, and it's not like humans - being brains in vats in this context - could tell the difference there.
Apologists will make excuses, as they do, but the NT is pretty clear that ALL have sinned because of Adam (or Eve's, depending on which passage(s) you use) and you are a sinner until you accept christ. That would include babies, and if one accepts the notion that a fetus is a child (I don't) then even womb born fetuses are sinners from the moment of birth (or conception) and are destined to hell. BY NT standards, since the OT seems to have different views on pretty much everything. So even a miscarriaged fetus is bound for the christian hell by their own book. The bible gives no "age of innocence" although some do seem to twist passages around so it could appear so. Nope, the christian god even condemns newborn (and even the unborn if you but into the "pro life" arguments) to eternity in eternal torment. Such a nice and loving god he is.
@39:25 You think God will send only two thirds of humanity to hell?
Matthew 7:14 "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’"
Let's recap: God made it much easier to go to hell than to heaven and few will go to heaven. There will be Christians-not just regular going to church on Sundays Christians, but people who call Jesus Lord and work genuine miracles in his name that go to hell. Granny, you're acting like all who call in the name of Jesus will be saved but Matthew makes it clear that most miracle working Christians will go to hell. Very very few people will actually end up in heaven.
I hate the term "natura evil." lt doesn't exist. For anything to be "evil," it needs to have motive or intention. A landslide isn't good or evil. A landslide just is. A landslide can cause suffering, of course, but it since it is not sentient, it can't be evil (or good).
I understand that you, godless engineer, richard carrier, and someone else (viced rhino?) did a seance. I hope it appears on someone’s site.
I have to disagree. All babies who die without accepting Jesus and being baptized will spend eternity in hell. The only way to heaven is through Jesus. He that believeth has eternal salvation. He that believeth not is condemned already. If the baby does not believe it is condemned. No exceptions are given. David said he knew he was a sinner in his mother's womb. Even if the scripture in 2 Samuel 12:23 means he will join his baby in an afterlife, it doesn't mean specifically in heaven or that it isn't a one time thing. Remember, there was no heaven in the old testament. It was invented by the new testament writers. Elijah ascended in a whirlwind. There was written of a place where the dead gathered after death, but not of a city of gold where all you can do is worship god every second of eternity. There is no mention of where everyone that was not a man of god from his chosen people went after death. Again, that is a new testament invention.
how people an pass laws based on the dodgy writing of an imaginary person beats me. stop being polite to religion, it's not making life better.
You also have to understand god is too busy making sure the correct team wins a sporting contest to have to deal with deformed, diseased or starving children. Just look at all the athletes who point to heaven in praise of him when they score at their chosen sport. With all the athletic contests to attend to we can see why 10 children per minute die from disease or hunger every minute of ever day. That is one every six seconds. That is the average time of each play in a football game.
This guy forgot to read his bible. Doesn't he know the second coming happened almost 2000 years ago. Jesus himself said he would return before that generation passed away. That generation has passed away. Either Jesus is a liar, never existed, or he has already come and taken his disciples to heaven with him and we missed it because we were born too late and our ancestors were not taken to heaven with him 2000 years ago. So tell me, is Jesus a liar? Is he a made up being? Or did he do what he said he would do 2000 years ago? Your choice.
I don't understand why you ask about the problem of evil if you believed that Jesus rose from the dead. That literally is the answer to the problem of evil
I don't understand your argument. First, are you asking me or the apologist?
@GodlessGranny ok that figures that you don't understand or else you wouldn't be making nonsensical videos
@GodlessGranny Let me ask you some questions. Number #1 Do you believe that the scripture claims Jesus is God