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
Unfortunately Dustin didn't understand Schellenberg's argument well enough. In his responses he constantly misunderstood the burden required by the premises. Yes, a premise has to be more likely true than not for one to accept it. But he didn't understand that what this meant was he had to show that it was more likely than not that there is NO possible worlds that contradict his premise. He simply stopped at the "more likely than not", confusing epistemology with metaphysics. By virtue of Dustin accepting there is a possible world that contradicts his premise, that renders his premise of necessity (meaning there are NO possible worlds) false. So for him to respond that these are "mere [metaphysical] possibilities" just shows a misunderstanding of what metaphysical neccesity is.
I think Dustin would respond that when he's talking about "mere possibilities" he wasn't talking about [metaphysical] possibilities, but [epistemic] ones. Just like if I am saying "Sure, utilitarianism being true is a possibility" I am not thereby committing myself to there being a metaphysically possible world where consequentialism is true. I don't think Dustin ever explicitly granted that there is a metaphysically possible world where any of the premises are false.
While I agree that it's "more likely than not that there is NO possible world", it is not the same as plainly "NO possible world". When you suggest that dustin cannot concede that there could be possible world that falsify it, you appear to have made the same error (but in the opposite direction) that you would accuse dustin of. In the same manner, I think it's clearer when we explore other logical/analytical arguments that argue for the opposite direction - e.g. ontological argument for God. In the same way, somebody might concede that there may be some possible world where existence is not a requirement for greatness, or that there can be something (if possessed) would be greater in value than existence metaphysically. Yet, such a concession would not be a reasonable absolute defeater of the ontological argument's premise that God exists in all possible worlds. Instead, we'd say that such is a rather post hoc objection; when really we should agree that, more likely than not, existence is simply a key component of greatness in all possible worlds.
Please never again a „debate“ like this. Do a cordial debate in a dynamic normal fashion including a main portion of the debate being the cross examination or even better, „open discussion“ part. This is the heart of every debate. And I think that’s the portion that most viewers are most interested in seeing/hearing for sure. :)
Love the debate. Would love to see a live conversation between both of you either discussing the debate or preferably doing a post debate cross examination.
This entire "debate" devolved really quickly, which is kind of sad. It plays like an atheist and a Christian arguing on the internet, and slowing getting more and more passive aggressive at each other... oh wait... that just is what happened lol
@@soldier7332 I think debates can be profitable online when there is a comment section. I find that in the comments sections I get to engage with the non-Christians on a personal level. Gives me opportunities I would not normally have.
I wonder what Braxton Hunter would think of Cam's use of undercutting defeaters here. I remember Braxton had a perjoritive term for the approach when he critiqued T-Jump, they seem very similar. As he likes to say, whats sause for the goose...etc.
Hey guys, I would love it if you would introduce me to your invisible friend, Yahweh, and his only begotten son, Yeshua, when you finish completely shutting down all the atheists.
I’m a little late to the party here but I enjoyed the overall topic and thought you both made interesting points. With that said, the format was really not great. I would have preferred to see the two of you engage in a back and forth dialogue with a moderator to resolve any sticking points or keep the conversation moving. I do think that an in person or virtual dialogue would have allowed you both to gain clarity faster and made better use of the debate as opposed to just presentation 1, response, presentation 2, response. A lot of this debate was also frustrating because I don’t think either of you did a good job with defining your terms in a way that you would both agree to. This could have been part of the problem you encountered with the responses, talking past each other over and over. Not saying that’s all it was but there was a lot of that.
Personal opinion incoming! Please let me have an opinion even if you think it is wrong. I honestly feel like you both lost. I don’t agree that premise 4 is in line with the biblical God portrayed in the Bible, so I don’t agree with Dustin so I don’t find this argument compelling. But boy I honestly feel like Cameron was very uncharitable and a poor debater. His contentions with premises 1 and 2 are not compelling or ring true to me at all. To the contrary, I felt like he was stretching. A lot. Besides that, I think he is in the wrong concerning the burden of proof. Overall, I was quite disappointed with this debate. Cool idea, thankful for both of you guys’ efforts, but didn’t work out well and felt like a waste of my time because you guys did not agree on very fundamental principles of the debate.
@@thequantumshade1556 Do you even know what the word "consequentialist" even means? He's saying that it isn't wrong to possibly prevent someone from realizing their deepest good through gratuitous suffering because there's more to morals than the mere consequences. You don't let someone suffer if you know the consequences can _possibly_ be worse.
. It sucks that those whom defend their world view with another's standards, tend to exclaim what actions you'll take ,in light of their beliefs of your beliefs😅🤣🤣
So god is taking the less moral route since he allows torture in this realm? Seems to me if god is allowing it and you worship that god then consequentialist or not you should follow your god's lead. It could be that the moment that torture victim will find god is just as they are about to die from the torture. By stopping that you could be condemning them to an eternity of torment. @@TheSpacePlaceYT
Answer: "No", and it's easy to conclude why. At best, it can only disprove one's interpretation of God or the context which surrounds given situations, of which a person having an inaccurate view of God or an inaccurate perception of the world around them under the context of a given faith could make one's evaluation of God within a faith a potential strawman, and thus the behavior or method of the one making the evaluation may not be much different than "idolatry" by creating a false idea of God one can attempt to refute. If we try to understand God rather than trying to find ways to justify not believing in him, we may more accurately come to understand who he is and thus videos like this would not be necessary to answer the question... If a person chooses to search for answers, he will find answers. If a person chooses to seek to justify unbelief, he will not find answers, because attempting to justify unbelief and the pursuit of ultimate truth are not the same thing, and these two different goals have two different results. Therefore, the purpose this above video ultimately seems to serve is to break through walls people have set up to keep themselves from finding God. Otherwise, the video shouldn't be needed in order to answer this potential an question unbeliever might have.
But the problem of evil is meant to go after a specific god, the god of Abraham, more specifically the Christian version of said god. Christians create this problem by defining their god in such a way that it is incompatible with the world we live in. It's like finding a married bachelor, by definition one can't exist. By definition the god Christians describe can't exist. It's not an argument against all versions of a god.
Why do all these debates feel like both sides are talking past each other. Cameron does a better job actually engaging Dustin's arguments, but without actual engagement on Dustin's part there was just a lot of repeating arguments
I don't think either one was really engaging with the other. Cameron had his usual inexplicable argument for suffering, and Dustin just kept trying to explain the Christian definition of God.
@Cameron Bertuzzi I think I've found the reason you guys are speaking past each other. The issue is that, you are actually invoking the square triangles argument whereas we think it's non applicable. You are saying some goods can only be achieved in a certain way i.e. triangles can only have 3 sides by definition so you can't have square triangle. whereas we are saying, the "good" gained by a person through Horrific suffering is currently being experienced by others without needing the same suffering. We are saying you did not need to get cancer to believe in God therefore it is reasonable to say that God is capable of creating humans that do not need horrific suffering to know God i.e. Horrific suffering is not the only way of achieving this good i.e. Horrific suffering is not a necessity. In the face of there being multiple ways of achieving the same good, our reasonable expectation is that a kind and loving God would choose the option with the least suffering. Therefore since our world has horrific suffering that means god chose to create a world with earthquakes and tsunamis when it was possible to create one without them and still achieve the same goal. i.e. God chose to create a world with more suffering than is necessary. by my understanding, the bringing of unnecessary suffering is evil. Therefore the creator of this world is evil. But the Christian God is claimed to be loving and kind therefore the Christian God is not the creator of this world. We usually frame this as, "The christian God does not exist."
Why does creating a world with grave suffering make God evil? That's a non sequitur. Second, you are asserting that the value of people who do not need X is infinitely more than the people who need X by saying that the people who need X should not even be allowed to exist lest God be evil (where X in your example is extreme suffering, but it could be anything really). That's insane that you think you can make that determination in light of you being a fallible creature who can't even explain what someone else is thinking much less understand them at a deeper level. So your argument is just an appeal to emotion with no logical force.
@@VACatholic Thank you for your reply. On the first point, is it not reasonable to say that a person who does an evil act is evil? That sounds logically coherent. My point is that God has the capability to create a Eutopia. By choosing to create a world with natural disasters, he has chosen to inflict those disasters on people. If you had a pet rabbit and you chose to burn your pet rabbit with fire, how is it unreasonable for someone to call you evil for that? How is that a non-sequitur? (feel free to pull out some "rabbit soul building" arguments so that I can rebut them for you). On your second objection, you are missing the point, I'm not saying that they shouldn't exist.. I'm saying they should exist with the same disposition as that found in the other group. The existence of the other group proves that X is just an alternative. That alternative is negative and should reasonably be avoided if the lighter alternative is available. In my opinion, consciously choosing the option with horrific suffering when a kind alternative is available, can be reasonably qualified as evil.
@@Theomatikalli > Thank you for your reply. 👍 >On the first point, is it not reasonable to say that a person who does an evil act is evil? That sounds logically coherent. This is the crux of the disagreement. You think God is a moral actor like you're a moral actor. You think you are "on par" with God in some real sense. The problem is that's just not the case. God is so infinitely greater than you, that there is no comparison. It would be like comparing you to a rock, and saying that the comparison makes sense. It doesn't. Let's consider why this is the case. God is Being itself. Pure act. Simple. And He created you as a free actor in the world. As a result, He cannot control you like a puppet, lest you not be free, and therefore not the creature you are. If you want to say you don't want to be the creature you are, that's not an argument, it's just an opinion and a whine. So you must take this into account when comparing God's responsibilities to yours. If you want a full treatment on the subject, I highly recommend you read the book of Job, as it is a great example of this. You should also read the Gospels, and realize that everything God is asking you to suffer, He suffered Himself. He is trying to bring you into His family, but to do that you have to follow His rules and not your own. >My point is that God has the capability to create a Eutopia. Another important point here. In Christian theology, God created the Garden of Eden, and put Man in it. This is better than a Utopia (as it was conceived of as an imaginary and impossible place), where Man lived in perfect harmony with nature (as Man was in charge of it and named the animals and all things), and also, more importantly, in perfect communion with God. It was through the hubris of Man who chose not to follow God's will that the Utopia was destroyed, not God's will. Blaming God for it is missing the point. >By choosing to create a world with natural disasters, he has chosen to inflict those disasters on people. So again, this is a misunderstanding of point 2. >If you had a pet rabbit and you chose to burn your pet rabbit with fire, how is it unreasonable for someone to call you evil for that? This is a misunderstanding of point 1, and a denial of free will which is just begging the question. >How is that a non-sequitur? (feel free to pull out some "rabbit soul building" arguments so that I can rebut them for you). Hopefully you now understand how your comments are non sequiturs. >On your second objection, you are missing the point, I'm not saying that they shouldn't exist.. I'm saying they should exist with the same disposition as that found in the other group. Then, by definition, they would not be themselves, they would be another person. So you are, in fact, saying that they should be someone else. And I don't think that makes any sense to say they don't have a right to exist. I don't know why you think that's reasonable. >The existence of the other group proves that X is just an alternative. That alternative is negative and should reasonably be avoided if the lighter alternative is available. In my opinion, consciously choosing the option with horrific suffering when a kind alternative is available, can be reasonably qualified as evil. It's unclear if the kind alternative is workable in all cases. Jesus Christ, the Man from Heaven, from Death has set us free via His crucifixion. So if God says that His blood is the only thing that can cleanse us from the stain of original sin, it's completely unclear to me how you're going to mount a counter argument that isn't just question begging. You need to actually study basic Christian theology, and explain how your argument challenges it, much less defeats it. Because from where I'm sitting I just see your (respectfully, what seems to me ill informed) opinion, and not an actual argument.
@@VACatholic So to you God is a rock collector then? I don't even know if I can take you seriously anymore or if we are capable of having a productive discussion if you think humans are rocks. You think God loves rocks and to you that makes sense. To you God gets angry at rocks. That's the most absurd defense I've ever received from someone and that just goes to show the lengths one has to go to in order to be able to find God's actions defensible. You are right though, this is where we diverge. Go read the interaction between Abraham and God on Sodom in Genesis 18 vs 22-33. I'm literally applying the same argument structure that Abraham applied. According to my understanding of Christianity, humans are conscious actors not rocks, you knew if your analogy involved anything that is alive and can feel then doing whatever you like with that creation would be unacceptable so you could only default to rocks because they don't feel. I'm sad to burst your bubble but humans are alive and they can feel. To my understanding we were created in the image of God and if we had partaken of the tree of life, we would be just like God. That's how fine the gap between us and God is to my understanding. At worst case, we are like ants to him. But even this analogy would not help God, the bigger the gap between me and God, the more understanding/sympathetic he is expected to be. The bigger the gap, the more divine I expect his actions to be. But what do we get? God possessing petty human emotions like jealousy (I your God am a jealous God...). This all suggests to me that you are vastly exaggerating the gap between us and God. As for your comment on Free will, I don't see how this is relevant. Are you saying people who don't experience horrific suffering don't have free will? You have brought up such large volumes of topics that would need a video discussion to get through rather than typing. The story of Job is an example of God being immoral. He basically makes a bet he does not need to make in the first place. Why does he need Satan's validation? After making this bet and allowing Job to be tortured, when Job asks why this has happened to him, instead of God owning up and telling Job the truth, what does God do? He says, "You are my pet and I can do whatever I want with you. How dare you question me". Any being that gambles with human lives like this is not worthy of my respect or worship. That is not how kindness and honestly look like. I will intentionally steer away from the story of the Garden of Eden since it has a lot of holes I would love to poke at but that will digress from the main topic of "Horrific Suffering" that we started off with.
@@VACatholic "God is so infinitely greater than you, that there is no comparison. It would be like comparing you to a rock, and saying that the comparison makes sense." I can be compared to a rock in relevant senses. We are both baryonic matter & thus share a number of properties based solely on that. "God is Being itself. Pure act. Simple." Also incoherent. "Being" is a verb. It cannot do other verbs because that is the function of a noun. A noun which performs an action. An actor, if you will. And an actor that engages in moral action would be a moral actor. "And He created you as a free actor in the world. As a result, He cannot control you like a puppet, lest you not be free, and therefore not the creature you are." I think the concept of libertarian free will, especially coexisting with omniscience, is you guessed it, also coherent. This also doesn't really answer why my free will is "allowed" to be limited by others, let alone things beyond human control. "If you want to say you don't want to be the creature you are, that's not an argument, it's just an opinion and a whine." Seems to me I could say the same thing for basically every rebuttal a Christian apologist makes. "Oh, you want to say God can't be held to moral standards because you don't conceive of him as a moral actor? Tough luck, quit whining." "So you must take this into account when comparing God's responsibilities to yours. If you want a full treatment on the subject, I highly recommend you read the book of Job, as it is a great example of this." You mean that one where Satan bets God that Job will turn away if God allows Satan to ruin his life & then God's rebuttal to being called out is "Who do you think you are?! I'm so powerful & awesome, & I know everything, but also very strangely limited to questions the writers in this time & place would know to ask, I don't have to explain anything to you, but I WILL take this time to go on this rant!"? "You should also read the Gospels, and realize that everything God is asking you to suffer, He suffered Himself. He is trying to bring you into His family, but to do that you have to follow His rules and not your own. " An alleged omnipotent & omniscient being is incapable of suffering as humans do because that involves being unable to change our circumstances & not knowing if they will get better. But a human writer could certainly put a line like that in a book that doesn't make any sense because they're trying to defend a concept that isn't real. "It was through the hubris of Man who chose not to follow God's will that the Utopia was destroyed, not God's will." The man that was created without the knowledge of good & evil, by the being in full knowledge of what would happen as a result of his actions, all as part of his "divine plan." "Blaming God for it is missing the point. " Oh no, I understand the point, it's just a bad point because the writer clearly didn't understand all of these problems he was creating. "So again, this is a misunderstanding of point 2. " I'm not sure what "point 2," but I'm going to guess it's not very compelling. "This is a misunderstanding of point 1, and a denial of free will which is just begging the question. " Pointing out that the concept of free will doesn't make sense isn't begging the question. Christians actually know why it doesn't make sense, since they repeatedly say things like "if there is no god, there can't be any free will." Of course, I would say there can't be free will even harder WITH their definition of god, but I don't feel like going into that because it doesn't particularly matter if we grant, for argument's sake, that free will exists since that also means that God has free will. So God can, & in your view, does take acts that interfere with free will. Even if you don't believe intercessory prayer works, God does, for instance, define which creatures can & cannot fly. So, the idea that God is simply incapable of choosing to stop an evil act is one of those things that simply doesn't fly. "Hopefully you now understand how your comments are non sequiturs. " I've only kind of been paying attention to their arguments, but what I've seen seems to make perfect sense, with the brand of Christianity popular on this channel apparently being very fond of just saying "that doesn't follow" to any argument they don't want to address. I can't believe I'm saying this, but "the intellectual side of Christianity" might actually be the least impressive arguments I've ever seen for a religion. "Then, by definition, they would not be themselves, they would be another person. So you are, in fact, saying that they should be someone else. And I don't think that makes any sense to say they don't have a right to exist. I don't know why you think that's reasonable." Personality changes, so I don't think that follows. Or, if it does, I guess we already cease being the people we used to be. Were that the case, I don't see why it matters. Most "potential people" don't actually come to exist just by virtue of how fertilization works. There are countless combinations of DNA, i.e. possible individuals, that will never even make it past that stage. Lastly, if I actually believed in objective evil, which many Christians say is so bad that even a single bit of it is INFINITELY bad & requires INFINITE punishment, then I don't see why I would think those people have a right to exist. I mean, do YOU even believe your own religion? It kind of seems like you don't. You're baffled by things that seem completely obvious given your supernatural assumptions. "It's unclear if the kind alternative is workable in all cases. " Being unable to name an end that couldn't be achieved without suffering except for suffering itself implies there isn't one because the concept doesn't make sense. "Jesus Christ, the Man from Heaven, from Death has set us free via His crucifixion. So if God says that His blood is the only thing that can cleanse us from the stain of original sin, it's completely unclear to me how you're going to mount a counter argument that isn't just question begging." Lol you really just said not assuming everything about your religion is true is question begging. "You need to actually study basic Christian theology, and explain how your argument challenges it, much less defeats it. Because from where I'm sitting I just see your (respectfully, what seems to me ill informed) opinion, and not an actual argument." "Basic" describes the amount of thought put into it, & it seems you'd be unable & probably unwilling to understand the explanation. Oh, wait, was I supposed to put that behind just the thinnest veneer that I'm NOT being condescending? Uh, okay, "respectfully," that thing I just said.
I continued to watch, but kind of tuned out by the fifth or sixth vid (out of the eight). This debate was mostly just saying back and forth that there wasn't much substance to the others response rather than focusing on the value that is actually there and taking it seriously. It's not that Dustin didn't provide arguments in favor of his premises, it's that Dustin didn't provide obvious premises to his defenses. Plus, his premises are already there so providing claims rather than arguments in favor of his premises is all that is required, not an argument like Cameron kept saying. For Cameron, Cameron's problem wasn't that he wasn't providing strong responses, but that his responses, at least seemed to, focused too much on a lack of understanding rather than what was actually the point or content of the responses. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but since neither had much to go off of, I think this debate lost a lot of potential due to both expecting more "seriousness" from the other leading to a lack of "seriousness" throughout.
To be frank with you, it doesn’t sound like you really followed the dialectic, which isn’t all your fault-it’s both Dustin and I’s as well. Dustin should have chosen a better argument (or at least formulated the one he likes in a way that is stronger and better suited for UA-cam). And I certainly could have done a better job at raising stronger objections, steelmanning, breaking things down, etc.
From the titles of your videos it’s obvious you do this for the clicks. Not for the discussion and desire to believe as many true things as possible and as few false
What is good and oh btw establish good… We must remember the Christian god is a god who is loving and wishes a relationship. These aspects are critical because they provide the fuel for objections to the existence of this god. The existence or need for this very video is evidence against god. Now, on the path to god, we must overcome boulders like the problem of hell. I didn’t place this boulder but born in a world with this obstacle in my path. God placed the obstacle through crafting with foreknowledge of every aspect of our universe. So what to do? Well we must explain why the boulder exists in a universe crafted by a loving god. Ignoring the boulder in any form is an act of deception leading to an unauthentic life. We can cleverly ignore the boulder and even deceive ourselves and others. This debate has been an example of this deception. Through keeping the boulder in place and asking “dense” questions like, “Can you define a boulder or establish the boulder?” is intellectual deception and dishonesty. Weaving a tale of questions yet keeping the boulder securely in place is an act of deception in the disguise of intellectualism. Cam didn’t remove the boulder. We are justified with not ignoring it and rejecting god.
I asked Dustin the same questions so I'm interested to see how both of you respond. I was disappointed for a couple reasons. I'm not a philosophy genius so If my questions are faulty please point it out. I always enjoy learning. 1. Why didn't you question Dustin's definition of "good" given that there is no God. If not God, who or what defines "good" in a way that excludes horrific suffering from being "good"? How do you defend a conclusion when a necessary foundation of premises 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 is undefined? 2. Since rejecting God's "perfect goodness" is the very definition of evil, then it seems that an unspoken but implied part of Dustin's argument is that if a "perfectly good" God would allow people to choose to reject Him and thus commit evil acts that lead to horrific suffering then He can't be "perfectly good" and therefore doesn't exist. But would a God who DOESN'T give us the freedom to accept or reject Him be a "perfectly good" God? Dustin doesn't directly address this but he seems to be arguing both sides here. God giving us free will to reject Him is bad because it can result in horrific suffering and God not giving us free will would also be bad because we wouldn't have any freedom and that would itself also result in horrific suffering.
On point 1, questioning the definition of X based on the argument provider's currently held beliefs is usually poor form. Logical arguments are generally reader-centric, not speaker-centric. An argument remains valid and sound (and it's premises remain acceptable) regardless of who proposes it. The key actor for accepting those premise lies in the reader only - does the reader accept those premises? And if so, is the argument valid in form such that the reader necessarily must accept the conclusion? Given this reader-centric nature of accepting premises, questioning the writer's beliefs then become a red herring distraction, and is thus poor form.
@@dougphillips670 Not at all. Recall that arguments are reader-centric, so it's up to the reader to ask themselves if they accept the premise based on their own understanding of the terms being used. The most important question is whether the reader disagrees with the underlying definition of good at all. And if so, does the disagreement pose a significant contradiction in the premises. And if so, then both the reader and writer can go into a discussion on the consequences of different definitions of good, and which might not be a reasonable definition.
@@CameronClark-sk7mg Not quite. Religious beliefs are faith based. I’m asking why someone would need to use logic or evidence to justify religious beliefs that by definition don’t require evidence
@@CaptainFantastic222 You said “Not quite. Religious beliefs are faith based. I'm asking why someone would need to use logic or evidence to justify religious beliefs that by definition don't require evidence” Faith has two meanings. Belief without evidence or trust and confidence in something. If it is the first then what you said is true. If it is the second then what you said is not true.
The questionable premise of this entire “debate” is that Dustin took on the burden of proof with the affirmative position that god does NOT exist, which is claiming a negative. Infinite hypotheticals make negative claims almost impossible to prove. Negative claims are actually counterpoints to a previous claims. Very few thoughtful atheists take this affirmative position. Most atheists view is not that there are no gods, but that they don’t BELIEVE claims that there are. The actual affirmative claim is that there is a god, which takes on the burden of proof. This well known issue makes me wonder if Dustin isn’t a planted straw man for Cameron to toy with?
Premises, philosophy, arguments, etc. All words 0 evidence and 0 reasoning or logic. All believers do is try to prove their beliefs instead of honesty following the evidence wherever it may take you and whether you like it or not.
I think the next time you want to debate someone about the existence of God, the first thing you should do is agree on the definition of the God you're debating about. I think he was assuming that your intention was to defend the tri-omni God, while you seemed to be defending a God I'm unfamiliar with. It would be easier if you just stated at the beginning that there is nothing you're willing to consider as a legitimate argument. Is there any set of circumstances that you would consider indicative of God's non-existent?
I understood the notion of God to contain these two statements - greatest conceivable being - doesnt change, so it didnt become the greatest being by an action or process Are these not considered to be properties of God? If they are, then if God after creation possesses a good property that god before it doesnt have, doesnt that contradict the notion of God being the greatest conceivable being without change? As in we could conceive a being possessing one more good property by also having creation. Eg. A god that forgives is better than one that doesnt. But forgiveness requires a subject so a god with creation is a greater conceivable being than without it.
@@dwong9289Thanks for the answer! Do I understand correctly that you affirm the first two properties (greatest conceivable and unchanging) but you hold that those properties, which he 'gains' after creation are only cambridge properties? If yes, then why isnt the act of forgiveness an instrinsic change? Before creation he only had the potential to forgive. Once he created he became someone who actually forgives. How is this the same as a relational property where there is no change in the subject itself?
@@nemdenemam9753 Yes. Also God's forgiveness does not imply a change in God, it implies a change in the ontological status of the human person who is forgiven. To be forgiven for a Catholic is to be ontologically changed into a state of grace, so the change is in the creature.
God being unchanging, i.e. immutable, is one of the main postulates of Classical Theism, yet many contemporary theists such as Craig, Plantinga or Swinburne aren't Classical Theists. Regarding forgiveness: There is no reason to think that someone who *actually* forgives is more perfect than a being which is such that it *would* forgive if there *were* subjects.
@@dwong9289 This was Cameron's statement in part 6 of 8 at 8:36 'Its contested whether all greatest goods are already contained in God. Its quite dubious for example that God exemplifies the great good of forgiveness, prior to creating anything.' How isnt 'exemplifying the great good of forgiveness' an intrinsic change compared to not exemplifying it before creation? Its an active act from God as opposed to cambridge property examples like 'higher than' that can change without the subject having changed anything.
I wasn’t going to comment.. But what the heck… This debate was no diff than any other on the topic, or topics like it.. Neither can actually prove or disprove the other, we are all on the same footing.. It’s unfalsifiable.. I hope you both find better ways to spend your time… because there is one thing that is certain.. and that’s we don’t have a lot of time, and all our clocks will run out!
Any purported solution to the problem of evil ends up being an ad hoc appeal to mystery and ultimately doesn't end up being intellectually satisfying. Theists are just refusing to resign the chess game despite the inevitable loss.
Also I am genuinely curious, it seems like you put a lot of time into this topic. What is the point if your atheist worldview is true? I’ve never understood essentially atheist Evangelists.
If atheism is true, then “good” and “evil” do not even exist. Merely likes and dislikes. Or, put another way, if there is no God, then what Hitler did was merely a matter of opinion.
@@Mark-cd2wfNot only do you suck at thinking, but you just admitted that without your imaginary friend upstairs and your imaginary enemy downstairs and your imaginary eternal existence of either partying forever or suffering forever, you personally would somehow not know that eating a toddler alive is evil or nuking a city for fun is evil. You people admit that you only do what is considered moral because you hope for reward if you do and fear punishment if you don’t. So it’s all about your personal desires, not all about doing good just for the sake of doing good. SOCIOPATHIC!
Should I watch this? Is it worth hearing Captain Christianity crow about how his deeply technical philosophical maneuverings may have been more consistent or based in better logic than Non-Alchemist? WHO CARES??? Hey Cameron- regardless of who claims victory, we both know who's NOT going to show up and settle the issue, don't we? 😉😆🤣 But keep right on engaging on purely academic terms. Knock yourself out. The needle won't move, but you go right ahead.
Interesting series. The purely logical argument you've made might not be flashy, but it does destroy his false premises. The format wasn't bad, would've liked to see him actually try to engage with your points, but that wasn't a failing of yours. Hopefully we can see even more interesting discussions of God, Truth, and philosophy in the future.
You come off as a passive aggressive woman who knows she lost an argument with her husband (who didn't even have strong debate skills just simply superior to your own) but hopes that poorly feigned confidence can convince of her claimed victory. It doesn't.
I don't call myself a Christian these days, as there are many negative associations. David Bentley Hart and some others have kindly provided to me some very key resources on the history of Christianity and the origin of who was called "Christians", yet I love Jesus Christ and believe in the salvation of all. No one I've mentioned this to will provide any sort of response. I suppose I could consider myself to be a Universalist by way of my overall belief, but in terms of being in the body of Christ, I've already met all the requirements. There should be more discussions on Christian Universalists vs Universalists but nobody in the Christian Universalist camp will ever engage with me on this issue. There still seems to be some hang ups (hence the non-replies from those I've mentioned this to) about openly discussing this. The ironic part about it is there are numerous others who don't associate as "Christian", yet are still avid followers of Christ, but like I've said, there seems to be this strange and ironic divide between the two different classes of Universalists or believers in the salvation of all even though we both believe in the exact same savior of the world. Thanks for reading this if you've made it this far.
Hi there, I will engage you on this issue. My argument against universalism is short but aptly to the point. Firstly: John 6:44 _No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day_ Secondly: John 14:6 _Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me_ It is clear then that not all are saved without being called first and no one can be saved unless they believe in Jesus. It is Jesus who raises the dead to life, it is Jesus who saves, it is Jesus who gets people to the father in heaven. There is no other way for He is the Way.
@@WORDFLESHGOD Don't go to deep with my tangent since I don't want to take away from the main thread but what is your understanding of hell in the face of not everyone being saved. Do you believe in annihilation?
@@WORDFLESHGOD Those are very popular and common passages for rebutting the case for Universal salvation but there are also many other passages that can solidify Christ's atonement on the cross for the whole world. I can share many with you if you'd like. Before I do though, here's a quick thought. The meaning of the word grace is - unmerited favor, something we don't deserve but are given anyway. There is nothing we can do to earn it and there is nothing we can do to lose it. Jesus accomplished this 2,000 years ago. Salvation isn't something we have to earn. Christ did away with our sins and the state of perpetual death when he entered it (hades/death). He can't be the effective savior of the world is only some are saved.
@@jasonegeland1446 We agree Christ has paid for all sin with unconditional grace, but really that is a different question from the universalism question, which is, will all be saved at the harvest or will some? If we look at Daniel 12:2 _And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt_ We see there is a clear distinction between parties; those risen to everlasting life and others to everlasting hell.
@@Theomatikalli Yes I believe upon the appointed time some will rise up with the lord and many will go into hell. Psalm 1 talks of the wicked “not standing in the congregation of the righteous” and Jesus talks about those who go to hell and specifically how hell itself will eventually be thrown into the lake of fire.
You should definitely interview Chris Langan and then maybe try to set up a debate between him and an atheist who is well known, for example Alex O'Connor!
From 1st hand experience of Justin I personally know of his setting up strawmen and clutching at straws schtick. I sense that Justin’s inability to recognise irony and his failures to appreciate the utterly illogical self refuting absurdity, of his blithely asserted claims that it renders him merely as a blundering rhetorician who’s full of hot air. I.e he’s too cute for his own good, that he disappears up his own rear end and he makes no impact whatsoever. Anyway as that’s just my assessment of his debating style and my critique of his reasoning skills, I’ve no personal judgment of him. May God bless him and help him to develop the healthy fear of God (not scared of though) that brings wisdom.
The thumbnails have SO much focus on your face for reactions.. I think you'd do better if you photoshopped yourself to be better looking. Or be like ben shapiro and get better looking every 6 months. I think in 5 years time Ben will be modelling for Georgio Armani!
You cannot prove or disprove god. This "debate" only proved the stupidity of thousands of years of discussion about the supernatural. An honest conversation, trying to uncover the roots of our varying reasons for our intuitions would maybe make more sense...?
Cam’s fault is that he doesn’t see the varying problems against god as linking and working together. His inability to address the premises renders the belief in god, at least the Christian god, as unreasonable. If we arrive at an unresolvable problem, say the problem of evil, on the path to a personal god, then god isn’t personal (divine hiddenness) or isn’t good. The inability to take down the problem of evil bleeds into the problem of hiddenness. God crafted a world where the biggest and toughest argument against existence can’t be solved. This is fully and completely on god for creating this intellectual fog. Defeating the problem of evil shouldn’t take “dense philosophy” from a kind and merciful god who wants a relationship. The argument in the videos is evidence against god. A loving god should be easily apparent and easily established. Running away from premises isn’t establishing what should be a clear path to god. it’s sticking one’s head in the sand. Ant what or the problem off hell? Why is an unresolvable boulder in the path of god with hell as a consequence for the inability to bypass the boulder….one that god created. This whole debate is stupid to me. The belief in god today is still as silly as it was before.
In making every aspect of the universe, god crafted the logical path to god….placing an unresolvable boulder in the path is fully on god. It is intellectually lazy to answer why the boulder is in the path to god by asking “What is a boulder?” Lazy is my kindest description of the debate.
I have not watched the debate, but the problem of evil is not a problem. It's not even a good argument. If it's even possible that God has sufficient reasons for the world being what it is, then it cannot be proven with any certainty The dichotomy that the problem of evil proposes. In other words, the argument of the problem of evil does not mean its own burden of proof because it cannot prove either that it is possible or even that it's likely that the world would be different. Those are all based on assumptions that the argument cannot prove, and therefore it cannot meet its own burden of proof. There's no need for the theist to make a counter objection because the argument of the problem of evil doesn't succeed. This implies that this boulder called the argument of the problem of evil is a "boulder" that the atheist has placed in front of his own path rather than God placing it in front of him.
Unfortunately all you're doing is attempting to shift the burden. Dustin takes the affirmative to show that the problem of evil DISPROVES God. It is your strong claim to defend. It is completely reasonable to point out that someone has not adequately defended such a strong claim, despite your constant attempts to shift the burden of proof. That just shows the laziness on your side to give an argument which doesn't achieve what it claims and then trying to shift the burden when shown that it doesn't
"God created a world where the biggest and toughest argument against existence can't be solved..." "A loving God should be easily apparent and easily established..." You're just begging the question in favor of the problem of evil and hiddenness. And asserting extremely controversial and complicated matters as if they were obvious (really, your moral intuitions cover the entire extension of created order and the idea that a loving God should be "easily apparent" and there could be no morally justified reason for God to not be easily apparent? That is honestly crazy to me. I'm all for trusting our intuitions and if you really feel secure with that view then alright, but speaking for myself it appears somewhat crazy. I'm in no position to make such a broad judgment about the plans of an omnipotent God when it comes to whether his existence should be obvious or not to us)
"Christianity is true," you say, after somehow managing to debunk Christianity in your attempt to say Dustin didn't refute God. As far as I'm concerned, it was pretty much all downhill from when you said you WEREN'T demanding absolute certainty. I can't really see the difference between that vs. what you were saying, but if that's NOT what you meant, then Dustin's point that he just has to show his premises are more plausible than not stands & remains largely unchallenged, except where you made bizarre claims that throw out basic Christian beliefs like "God's purpose is not to bring us in a relationship with him." Hence my comment at the start. It was an utterly bizarre strategy. I have no idea what your goal was. You say you're not interested in tradition, but rather the truth, but then I don't see why you kept refusing to show that the best possible world necessitates suffering. I know, you both agree Dustin has the primary burden of proof, but if your interest is truth, & you could show your claim is actually true, but you don't...something isn't adding up, here. A number of Dustin's points also seemed perfectly fair to me, with no real explanation beyond assertion for how they weren't. For example, if some virtues require suffering, it stands to reason that God needs to create to experience those virtues, or else he's not perfect. You say a deficiency of sin doesn't take away from God's greatness as a counterexample, but we're talking about virtues, not sins. To the extent the distinction is even coherent, considering every action that takes place is apparently for the same purpose of creating "a best possible world," as per God's plan. Also, what "empirical evidence"? People claiming that tragedy brought them closer to God doesn't constitute evidence that actually happened. What if, you know, there isn't actually a God for them to be closer to? Evidence someone feels a certain way=/=evidence their claim is true. It's also weird to say "this isn't how philosophers do things" when the problem of suffering is effectively an empirical case that a perfect God can't be reasonably said to exist, & your whole handwave amounts to "maybe it seems that way to you, but that doesn't make it true."
After watching the debates - my summary of Cams arguments would be: - Dustin has the burden of proof no me - Dustin is wrong - What Dustin said is false - I am right and I win the debate I feel like I haven’t seen any good reasons to doubt the argument. Granted, Cam is fundamentally arguing from a difficult standpoint - so his job is hard.
@@CapturingChristianity 😂 I am just an observer of the debate and all I am trying to do it listen to see which way I am persuaded. Dustin had it easier - he was really just presenting an already established argument. BTW I enjoyed the format and will watch a similar one again if do you it.
Because his premises could be possibly untrue, does not make his argument invalid. With enough imagination, literally every fact about the world could be possibly untrue. His argument just needs to be more compelling and logical than yours.
Actually, because his premise could be false does render the argument invalid. When one makes a claim of something being "necessarily" true, it means there are no possible worlds in which it can be false. Accepting that there is a possible world in which the premise is false means that it is not "necessarily" true, and so the deductive argument presented doesn't work, as it relies on a false premise.
@@hydepark1382 philosophical arguments are different than laws of math you donut. You can definitively prove 2+2=4 You can not definitively prove we don’t currently exist in the matrix. But you can make a argument it’s not likely
@@n.a.odessa3939 literally all philosophical premises could be false lol. They are aspect concepts, not laws of nature. The very premise that you exist could hypothetically be false
Before today, I never heard of the Dustin guy. He and a lot of atheists online for some reason have a setup that gives off a negative or indifferent vibe toward life and people sort of like Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory. Maybe that's inevitable when your arguments are founded in criticism or hatred of a topic, and not defense and love. To be fair, Cam in his responses here came off as a little too dismissive, which I think is his intention, but it doesn't seem very fruitful and productive. I don't know how one would avoid it when dealing with someone who is arguing that theism is inherently flawed. I guess these things are going to happen when looking at any discussion or debate from a third party point of view. It could seem very productive to the participants. For example, married couples having a fight helps let off steam, and maybe even helps being awareness to things, but bystanders just see fighting.
Here's the Facts science proven NOBODY can refute. We/Humans/People are created in the Lord's image with Free Will and we have His Genetic Coding System science proven Creation by Creator never refuted 👍
![ПОЛНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ ЭКЗОРЦИЗМА [Топ Сикрет]](/img/n.gif)
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
Unfortunately Dustin didn't understand Schellenberg's argument well enough. In his responses he constantly misunderstood the burden required by the premises.
Yes, a premise has to be more likely true than not for one to accept it. But he didn't understand that what this meant was he had to show that it was more likely than not that there is NO possible worlds that contradict his premise. He simply stopped at the "more likely than not", confusing epistemology with metaphysics. By virtue of Dustin accepting there is a possible world that contradicts his premise, that renders his premise of necessity (meaning there are NO possible worlds) false.
So for him to respond that these are "mere [metaphysical] possibilities" just shows a misunderstanding of what metaphysical neccesity is.
Spot on.
I think Dustin would respond that when he's talking about "mere possibilities" he wasn't talking about [metaphysical] possibilities, but [epistemic] ones. Just like if I am saying "Sure, utilitarianism being true is a possibility" I am not thereby committing myself to there being a metaphysically possible world where consequentialism is true.
I don't think Dustin ever explicitly granted that there is a metaphysically possible world where any of the premises are false.
While I agree that it's "more likely than not that there is NO possible world", it is not the same as plainly "NO possible world". When you suggest that dustin cannot concede that there could be possible world that falsify it, you appear to have made the same error (but in the opposite direction) that you would accuse dustin of.
In the same manner, I think it's clearer when we explore other logical/analytical arguments that argue for the opposite direction - e.g. ontological argument for God. In the same way, somebody might concede that there may be some possible world where existence is not a requirement for greatness, or that there can be something (if possessed) would be greater in value than existence metaphysically. Yet, such a concession would not be a reasonable absolute defeater of the ontological argument's premise that God exists in all possible worlds. Instead, we'd say that such is a rather post hoc objection; when really we should agree that, more likely than not, existence is simply a key component of greatness in all possible worlds.
Please never again a „debate“ like this. Do a cordial debate in a dynamic normal fashion including a main portion of the debate being the cross examination or even better, „open discussion“ part. This is the heart of every debate. And I think that’s the portion that most viewers are most interested in seeing/hearing for sure. :)
Love the debate. Would love to see a live conversation between both of you either discussing the debate or preferably doing a post debate cross examination.
This entire "debate" devolved really quickly, which is kind of sad. It plays like an atheist and a Christian arguing on the internet, and slowing getting more and more passive aggressive at each other... oh wait... that just is what happened lol
@@soldier7332 Yet if we don't , how are we to tear down their vain speculations raised up against the knowledge of God?
@@soldier7332 I think debates can be profitable online when there is a comment section. I find that in the comments sections I get to engage with the non-Christians on a personal level. Gives me opportunities I would not normally have.
@@Justas399
Non-Christian here. Let's go!
@@soldier7332I think you really have misused that bible verse, it's talking about marriage, not debating
@@wet-read so what do you believe and how do you know what you believe is true?
I wonder what Braxton Hunter would think of Cam's use of undercutting defeaters here. I remember Braxton had a perjoritive term for the approach when he critiqued T-Jump, they seem very similar. As he likes to say, whats sause for the goose...etc.
Feels like this debate should have some mediator otherwise it just seems like each person feels self satisfied with there own defences.
This "debate" was just sad to watch. Both parties involved acted like children. Cameron's passive aggressiveness in particular was very off putting.
"I care more about the truth than tradition."
The Catholic Church dogma has entered the chat.
Hey guys,
I would love it if you would introduce me to your invisible friend, Yahweh, and his only begotten son, Yeshua, when you finish completely shutting down all the atheists.
I missed this can I still watch?
I’m a little late to the party here but I enjoyed the overall topic and thought you both made interesting points. With that said, the format was really not great. I would have preferred to see the two of you engage in a back and forth dialogue with a moderator to resolve any sticking points or keep the conversation moving. I do think that an in person or virtual dialogue would have allowed you both to gain clarity faster and made better use of the debate as opposed to just presentation 1, response, presentation 2, response. A lot of this debate was also frustrating because I don’t think either of you did a good job with defining your terms in a way that you would both agree to. This could have been part of the problem you encountered with the responses, talking past each other over and over. Not saying that’s all it was but there was a lot of that.
Since watching the whole playlist, I think you guys talked past each other in somethings…
Personal opinion incoming! Please let me have an opinion even if you think it is wrong.
I honestly feel like you both lost. I don’t agree that premise 4 is in line with the biblical God portrayed in the Bible, so I don’t agree with Dustin so I don’t find this argument compelling. But boy I honestly feel like Cameron was very uncharitable and a poor debater. His contentions with premises 1 and 2 are not compelling or ring true to me at all. To the contrary, I felt like he was stretching. A lot. Besides that, I think he is in the wrong concerning the burden of proof. Overall, I was quite disappointed with this debate.
Cool idea, thankful for both of you guys’ efforts, but didn’t work out well and felt like a waste of my time because you guys did not agree on very fundamental principles of the debate.
By your lights you should not stop someone from being tortured as you will then possibly prevent them from realizing their deepest good. Oops.
I’m not a consequentialist.
The fact that you out think these words remove the contradiction is your whole problem.
@@thequantumshade1556 Do you even know what the word "consequentialist" even means? He's saying that it isn't wrong to possibly prevent someone from realizing their deepest good through gratuitous suffering because there's more to morals than the mere consequences. You don't let someone suffer if you know the consequences can _possibly_ be worse.
. It sucks that those whom defend their world view with another's standards, tend to exclaim what actions you'll take ,in light of their beliefs of your beliefs😅🤣🤣
So god is taking the less moral route since he allows torture in this realm? Seems to me if god is allowing it and you worship that god then consequentialist or not you should follow your god's lead. It could be that the moment that torture victim will find god is just as they are about to die from the torture. By stopping that you could be condemning them to an eternity of torment. @@TheSpacePlaceYT
Answer: "No", and it's easy to conclude why.
At best, it can only disprove one's interpretation of God or the context which surrounds given situations, of which a person having an inaccurate view of God or an inaccurate perception of the world around them under the context of a given faith could make one's evaluation of God within a faith a potential strawman, and thus the behavior or method of the one making the evaluation may not be much different than "idolatry" by creating a false idea of God one can attempt to refute. If we try to understand God rather than trying to find ways to justify not believing in him, we may more accurately come to understand who he is and thus videos like this would not be necessary to answer the question...
If a person chooses to search for answers, he will find answers. If a person chooses to seek to justify unbelief, he will not find answers, because attempting to justify unbelief and the pursuit of ultimate truth are not the same thing, and these two different goals have two different results. Therefore, the purpose this above video ultimately seems to serve is to break through walls people have set up to keep themselves from finding God. Otherwise, the video shouldn't be needed in order to answer this potential an question unbeliever might have.
But the problem of evil is meant to go after a specific god, the god of Abraham, more specifically the Christian version of said god.
Christians create this problem by defining their god in such a way that it is incompatible with the world we live in. It's like finding a married bachelor, by definition one can't exist. By definition the god Christians describe can't exist. It's not an argument against all versions of a god.
Next time they should just talk in real time.
It’s logically possible for god to create free beings who freely always choose to do the good. Why didn’t he do that?
How do you know what's logically possible? Please explain.
Lol your title and just the whole debate showed a new side of you. I really appreciated this.
excellent video brother
Why do all these debates feel like both sides are talking past each other. Cameron does a better job actually engaging Dustin's arguments, but without actual engagement on Dustin's part there was just a lot of repeating arguments
I don't think either one was really engaging with the other. Cameron had his usual inexplicable argument for suffering, and Dustin just kept trying to explain the Christian definition of God.
@Cameron Bertuzzi I think I've found the reason you guys are speaking past each other.
The issue is that, you are actually invoking the square triangles argument whereas we think it's non applicable.
You are saying some goods can only be achieved in a certain way i.e. triangles can only have 3 sides by definition so you can't have square triangle.
whereas we are saying, the "good" gained by a person through Horrific suffering is currently being experienced by others without needing the same suffering. We are saying you did not need to get cancer to believe in God therefore it is reasonable to say that God is capable of creating humans that do not need horrific suffering to know God i.e. Horrific suffering is not the only way of achieving this good i.e. Horrific suffering is not a necessity.
In the face of there being multiple ways of achieving the same good, our reasonable expectation is that a kind and loving God would choose the option with the least suffering.
Therefore since our world has horrific suffering that means god chose to create a world with earthquakes and tsunamis when it was possible to create one
without them and still achieve the same goal. i.e. God chose to create a world with more suffering than is necessary. by my understanding, the bringing of unnecessary suffering is evil. Therefore the creator of this world is evil. But the Christian God is claimed to be loving and kind therefore the Christian God is not the creator of this world. We usually frame this as, "The christian God does not exist."
Why does creating a world with grave suffering make God evil? That's a non sequitur.
Second, you are asserting that the value of people who do not need X is infinitely more than the people who need X by saying that the people who need X should not even be allowed to exist lest God be evil (where X in your example is extreme suffering, but it could be anything really). That's insane that you think you can make that determination in light of you being a fallible creature who can't even explain what someone else is thinking much less understand them at a deeper level.
So your argument is just an appeal to emotion with no logical force.
@@VACatholic Thank you for your reply. On the first point, is it not reasonable to say that a person who does an evil act is evil? That sounds logically coherent. My point is that God has the capability to create a Eutopia. By choosing to create a world with natural disasters, he has chosen to inflict those disasters on people. If you had a pet rabbit and you chose to burn your pet rabbit with fire, how is it unreasonable for someone to call you evil for that? How is that a non-sequitur? (feel free to pull out some "rabbit soul building" arguments so that I can rebut them for you).
On your second objection, you are missing the point, I'm not saying that they shouldn't exist.. I'm saying they should exist with the same disposition as that found in the other group. The existence of the other group proves that X is just an alternative. That alternative is negative and should reasonably be avoided if the lighter alternative is available. In my opinion, consciously choosing the option with horrific suffering when a kind alternative is available, can be reasonably qualified as evil.
@@Theomatikalli > Thank you for your reply.
👍
>On the first point, is it not reasonable to say that a person who does an evil act is evil? That sounds logically coherent.
This is the crux of the disagreement. You think God is a moral actor like you're a moral actor. You think you are "on par" with God in some real sense.
The problem is that's just not the case. God is so infinitely greater than you, that there is no comparison. It would be like comparing you to a rock, and saying that the comparison makes sense. It doesn't. Let's consider why this is the case.
God is Being itself. Pure act. Simple. And He created you as a free actor in the world. As a result, He cannot control you like a puppet, lest you not be free, and therefore not the creature you are. If you want to say you don't want to be the creature you are, that's not an argument, it's just an opinion and a whine. So you must take this into account when comparing God's responsibilities to yours. If you want a full treatment on the subject, I highly recommend you read the book of Job, as it is a great example of this. You should also read the Gospels, and realize that everything God is asking you to suffer, He suffered Himself. He is trying to bring you into His family, but to do that you have to follow His rules and not your own.
>My point is that God has the capability to create a Eutopia.
Another important point here. In Christian theology, God created the Garden of Eden, and put Man in it. This is better than a Utopia (as it was conceived of as an imaginary and impossible place), where Man lived in perfect harmony with nature (as Man was in charge of it and named the animals and all things), and also, more importantly, in perfect communion with God. It was through the hubris of Man who chose not to follow God's will that the Utopia was destroyed, not God's will. Blaming God for it is missing the point.
>By choosing to create a world with natural disasters, he has chosen to inflict those disasters on people.
So again, this is a misunderstanding of point 2.
>If you had a pet rabbit and you chose to burn your pet rabbit with fire, how is it unreasonable for someone to call you evil for that?
This is a misunderstanding of point 1, and a denial of free will which is just begging the question.
>How is that a non-sequitur? (feel free to pull out some "rabbit soul building" arguments so that I can rebut them for you).
Hopefully you now understand how your comments are non sequiturs.
>On your second objection, you are missing the point, I'm not saying that they shouldn't exist.. I'm saying they should exist with the same disposition as that found in the other group.
Then, by definition, they would not be themselves, they would be another person. So you are, in fact, saying that they should be someone else. And I don't think that makes any sense to say they don't have a right to exist. I don't know why you think that's reasonable.
>The existence of the other group proves that X is just an alternative. That alternative is negative and should reasonably be avoided if the lighter alternative is available. In my opinion, consciously choosing the option with horrific suffering when a kind alternative is available, can be reasonably qualified as evil.
It's unclear if the kind alternative is workable in all cases.
Jesus Christ, the Man from Heaven, from Death has set us free via His crucifixion. So if God says that His blood is the only thing that can cleanse us from the stain of original sin, it's completely unclear to me how you're going to mount a counter argument that isn't just question begging. You need to actually study basic Christian theology, and explain how your argument challenges it, much less defeats it. Because from where I'm sitting I just see your (respectfully, what seems to me ill informed) opinion, and not an actual argument.
@@VACatholic So to you God is a rock collector then? I don't even know if I can take you seriously anymore or if we are capable of having a productive discussion if you think humans are rocks. You think God loves rocks and to you that makes sense. To you God gets angry at rocks. That's the most absurd defense I've ever received from someone and that just goes to show the lengths one has to go to in order to be able to find God's actions defensible. You are right though, this is where we diverge. Go read the interaction between Abraham and God on Sodom in Genesis 18 vs 22-33. I'm literally applying the same argument structure that Abraham applied. According to my understanding of Christianity, humans are conscious actors not rocks, you knew if your analogy involved anything that is alive and can feel then doing whatever you like with that creation would be unacceptable so you could only default to rocks because they don't feel. I'm sad to burst your bubble but humans are alive and they can feel. To my understanding we were created in the image of God and if we had partaken of the tree of life, we would be just like God. That's how fine the gap between us and God is to my understanding. At worst case, we are like ants to him. But even this analogy would not help God, the bigger the gap between me and God, the more understanding/sympathetic he is expected to be. The bigger the gap, the more divine I expect his actions to be. But what do we get? God possessing petty human emotions like jealousy (I your God am a jealous God...). This all suggests to me that you are vastly exaggerating the gap between us and God. As for your comment on Free will, I don't see how this is relevant. Are you saying people who don't experience horrific suffering don't have free will? You have brought up such large volumes of topics that would need a video discussion to get through rather than typing. The story of Job is an example of God being immoral. He basically makes a bet he does not need to make in the first place. Why does he need Satan's validation? After making this bet and allowing Job to be tortured, when Job asks why this has happened to him, instead of God owning up and telling Job the truth, what does God do? He says, "You are my pet and I can do whatever I want with you. How dare you question me". Any being that gambles with human lives like this is not worthy of my respect or worship. That is not how kindness and honestly look like. I will intentionally steer away from the story of the Garden of Eden since it has a lot of holes I would love to poke at but that will digress from the main topic of "Horrific Suffering" that we started off with.
@@VACatholic "God is so infinitely greater than you, that there is no comparison. It would be like comparing you to a rock, and saying that the comparison makes sense."
I can be compared to a rock in relevant senses. We are both baryonic matter & thus share a number of properties based solely on that.
"God is Being itself. Pure act. Simple."
Also incoherent. "Being" is a verb. It cannot do other verbs because that is the function of a noun. A noun which performs an action. An actor, if you will. And an actor that engages in moral action would be a moral actor.
"And He created you as a free actor in the world. As a result, He cannot control you like a puppet, lest you not be free, and therefore not the creature you are."
I think the concept of libertarian free will, especially coexisting with omniscience, is you guessed it, also coherent. This also doesn't really answer why my free will is "allowed" to be limited by others, let alone things beyond human control.
"If you want to say you don't want to be the creature you are, that's not an argument, it's just an opinion and a whine."
Seems to me I could say the same thing for basically every rebuttal a Christian apologist makes. "Oh, you want to say God can't be held to moral standards because you don't conceive of him as a moral actor? Tough luck, quit whining."
"So you must take this into account when comparing God's responsibilities to yours. If you want a full treatment on the subject, I highly recommend you read the book of Job, as it is a great example of this."
You mean that one where Satan bets God that Job will turn away if God allows Satan to ruin his life & then God's rebuttal to being called out is "Who do you think you are?! I'm so powerful & awesome, & I know everything, but also very strangely limited to questions the writers in this time & place would know to ask, I don't have to explain anything to you, but I WILL take this time to go on this rant!"?
"You should also read the Gospels, and realize that everything God is asking you to suffer, He suffered Himself. He is trying to bring you into His family, but to do that you have to follow His rules and not your own.
"
An alleged omnipotent & omniscient being is incapable of suffering as humans do because that involves being unable to change our circumstances & not knowing if they will get better. But a human writer could certainly put a line like that in a book that doesn't make any sense because they're trying to defend a concept that isn't real.
"It was through the hubris of Man who chose not to follow God's will that the Utopia was destroyed, not God's will."
The man that was created without the knowledge of good & evil, by the being in full knowledge of what would happen as a result of his actions, all as part of his "divine plan."
"Blaming God for it is missing the point.
"
Oh no, I understand the point, it's just a bad point because the writer clearly didn't understand all of these problems he was creating.
"So again, this is a misunderstanding of point 2.
"
I'm not sure what "point 2," but I'm going to guess it's not very compelling.
"This is a misunderstanding of point 1, and a denial of free will which is just begging the question.
"
Pointing out that the concept of free will doesn't make sense isn't begging the question. Christians actually know why it doesn't make sense, since they repeatedly say things like "if there is no god, there can't be any free will." Of course, I would say there can't be free will even harder WITH their definition of god, but I don't feel like going into that because it doesn't particularly matter if we grant, for argument's sake, that free will exists since that also means that God has free will. So God can, & in your view, does take acts that interfere with free will. Even if you don't believe intercessory prayer works, God does, for instance, define which creatures can & cannot fly. So, the idea that God is simply incapable of choosing to stop an evil act is one of those things that simply doesn't fly.
"Hopefully you now understand how your comments are non sequiturs. "
I've only kind of been paying attention to their arguments, but what I've seen seems to make perfect sense, with the brand of Christianity popular on this channel apparently being very fond of just saying "that doesn't follow" to any argument they don't want to address. I can't believe I'm saying this, but "the intellectual side of Christianity" might actually be the least impressive arguments I've ever seen for a religion.
"Then, by definition, they would not be themselves, they would be another person. So you are, in fact, saying that they should be someone else. And I don't think that makes any sense to say they don't have a right to exist. I don't know why you think that's reasonable."
Personality changes, so I don't think that follows. Or, if it does, I guess we already cease being the people we used to be. Were that the case, I don't see why it matters. Most "potential people" don't actually come to exist just by virtue of how fertilization works. There are countless combinations of DNA, i.e. possible individuals, that will never even make it past that stage. Lastly, if I actually believed in objective evil, which many Christians say is so bad that even a single bit of it is INFINITELY bad & requires INFINITE punishment, then I don't see why I would think those people have a right to exist. I mean, do YOU even believe your own religion? It kind of seems like you don't. You're baffled by things that seem completely obvious given your supernatural assumptions.
"It's unclear if the kind alternative is workable in all cases.
"
Being unable to name an end that couldn't be achieved without suffering except for suffering itself implies there isn't one because the concept doesn't make sense.
"Jesus Christ, the Man from Heaven, from Death has set us free via His crucifixion. So if God says that His blood is the only thing that can cleanse us from the stain of original sin, it's completely unclear to me how you're going to mount a counter argument that isn't just question begging."
Lol you really just said not assuming everything about your religion is true is question begging.
"You need to actually study basic Christian theology, and explain how your argument challenges it, much less defeats it. Because from where I'm sitting I just see your (respectfully, what seems to me ill informed) opinion, and not an actual argument."
"Basic" describes the amount of thought put into it, & it seems you'd be unable & probably unwilling to understand the explanation. Oh, wait, was I supposed to put that behind just the thinnest veneer that I'm NOT being condescending? Uh, okay, "respectfully," that thing I just said.
I continued to watch, but kind of tuned out by the fifth or sixth vid (out of the eight). This debate was mostly just saying back and forth that there wasn't much substance to the others response rather than focusing on the value that is actually there and taking it seriously.
It's not that Dustin didn't provide arguments in favor of his premises, it's that Dustin didn't provide obvious premises to his defenses. Plus, his premises are already there so providing claims rather than arguments in favor of his premises is all that is required, not an argument like Cameron kept saying. For Cameron, Cameron's problem wasn't that he wasn't providing strong responses, but that his responses, at least seemed to, focused too much on a lack of understanding rather than what was actually the point or content of the responses. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but since neither had much to go off of, I think this debate lost a lot of potential due to both expecting more "seriousness" from the other leading to a lack of "seriousness" throughout.
To be frank with you, it doesn’t sound like you really followed the dialectic, which isn’t all your fault-it’s both Dustin and I’s as well. Dustin should have chosen a better argument (or at least formulated the one he likes in a way that is stronger and better suited for UA-cam). And I certainly could have done a better job at raising stronger objections, steelmanning, breaking things down, etc.
From the titles of your videos it’s obvious you do this for the clicks. Not for the discussion and desire to believe as many true things as possible and as few false
What is good and oh btw establish good…
We must remember the Christian god is a god who is loving and wishes a relationship. These aspects are critical because they provide the fuel for objections to the existence of this god. The existence or need for this very video is evidence against god.
Now, on the path to god, we must overcome boulders like the problem of hell. I didn’t place this boulder but born in a world with this obstacle in my path. God placed the obstacle through crafting with foreknowledge of every aspect of our universe.
So what to do? Well we must explain why the boulder exists in a universe crafted by a loving god. Ignoring the boulder in any form is an act of deception leading to an unauthentic life.
We can cleverly ignore the boulder and even deceive ourselves and others. This debate has been an example of this deception. Through keeping the boulder in place and asking “dense” questions like, “Can you define a boulder or establish the boulder?” is intellectual deception and dishonesty. Weaving a tale of questions yet keeping the boulder securely in place is an act of deception in the disguise of intellectualism.
Cam didn’t remove the boulder. We are justified with not ignoring it and rejecting god.
I asked Dustin the same questions so I'm interested to see how both of you respond.
I was disappointed for a couple reasons. I'm not a philosophy genius so If my questions are faulty please point it out. I always enjoy learning.
1. Why didn't you question Dustin's definition of "good" given that there is no God. If not God, who or what defines "good" in a way that excludes horrific suffering from being "good"? How do you defend a conclusion when a necessary foundation of premises 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 is undefined?
2. Since rejecting God's "perfect goodness" is the very definition of evil, then it seems that an unspoken but implied part of Dustin's argument is that if a "perfectly good" God would allow people to choose to reject Him and thus commit evil acts that lead to horrific suffering then He can't be "perfectly good" and therefore doesn't exist. But would a God who DOESN'T give us the freedom to accept or reject Him be a "perfectly good" God? Dustin doesn't directly address this but he seems to be arguing both sides here. God giving us free will to reject Him is bad because it can result in horrific suffering and God not giving us free will would also be bad because we wouldn't have any freedom and that would itself also result in horrific suffering.
On point 1, questioning the definition of X based on the argument provider's currently held beliefs is usually poor form.
Logical arguments are generally reader-centric, not speaker-centric. An argument remains valid and sound (and it's premises remain acceptable) regardless of who proposes it. The key actor for accepting those premise lies in the reader only - does the reader accept those premises? And if so, is the argument valid in form such that the reader necessarily must accept the conclusion?
Given this reader-centric nature of accepting premises, questioning the writer's beliefs then become a red herring distraction, and is thus poor form.
Does this mean Dustin gets to define “good” any way he wants and then use that definition as proof that God doesn’t exist?
@@dougphillips670 Not at all. Recall that arguments are reader-centric, so it's up to the reader to ask themselves if they accept the premise based on their own understanding of the terms being used.
The most important question is whether the reader disagrees with the underlying definition of good at all. And if so, does the disagreement pose a significant contradiction in the premises. And if so, then both the reader and writer can go into a discussion on the consequences of different definitions of good, and which might not be a reasonable definition.
Apologetics confuses me. Why would one try to use logical arguments to confirm a faith based belief?
Money
Are you asking why would people use logical arguments to prove what you already believe?
@@CameronClark-sk7mg Not quite. Religious beliefs are faith based. I’m asking why someone would need to use logic or evidence to justify religious beliefs that by definition don’t require evidence
@@CaptainFantastic222 You said “Not quite. Religious beliefs are faith based. I'm asking why someone would need to use logic or evidence to justify religious beliefs that by definition don't require evidence” Faith has two meanings. Belief without evidence or trust and confidence in something. If it is the first then what you said is true. If it is the second then what you said is not true.
The questionable premise of this entire “debate” is that Dustin took on the burden of proof with the affirmative position that god does NOT exist, which is claiming a negative. Infinite hypotheticals make negative claims almost impossible to prove. Negative claims are actually counterpoints to a previous claims. Very few thoughtful atheists take this affirmative position. Most atheists view is not that there are no gods, but that they don’t BELIEVE claims that there are.
The actual affirmative claim is that there is a god, which takes on the burden of proof. This well known issue makes me wonder if Dustin isn’t a planted straw man for Cameron to toy with?
LOL
This channel should be seen by millions of people ❤!!
Beautiful avatar picture.. You and your daughter? 😅
Premises, philosophy, arguments, etc. All words 0 evidence and 0 reasoning or logic. All believers do is try to prove their beliefs instead of honesty following the evidence wherever it may take you and whether you like it or not.
I think the next time you want to debate someone about the existence of God, the first thing you should do is agree on the definition of the God you're debating about. I think he was assuming that your intention was to defend the tri-omni God, while you seemed to be defending a God I'm unfamiliar with. It would be easier if you just stated at the beginning that there is nothing you're willing to consider as a legitimate argument. Is there any set of circumstances that you would consider indicative of God's non-existent?
I understood the notion of God to contain these two statements
- greatest conceivable being
- doesnt change, so it didnt become the greatest being by an action or process
Are these not considered to be properties of God? If they are, then if God after creation possesses a good property that god before it doesnt have, doesnt that contradict the notion of God being the greatest conceivable being without change? As in we could conceive a being possessing one more good property by also having creation.
Eg. A god that forgives is better than one that doesnt. But forgiveness requires a subject so a god with creation is a greater conceivable being than without it.
Look up Cambridge properties, that will answer most of your questions.
@@dwong9289Thanks for the answer!
Do I understand correctly that you affirm the first two properties (greatest conceivable and unchanging) but you hold that those properties, which he 'gains' after creation are only cambridge properties?
If yes, then why isnt the act of forgiveness an instrinsic change? Before creation he only had the potential to forgive. Once he created he became someone who actually forgives. How is this the same as a relational property where there is no change in the subject itself?
@@nemdenemam9753 Yes. Also God's forgiveness does not imply a change in God, it implies a change in the ontological status of the human person who is forgiven. To be forgiven for a Catholic is to be ontologically changed into a state of grace, so the change is in the creature.
God being unchanging, i.e. immutable, is one of the main postulates of Classical Theism, yet many contemporary theists such as Craig, Plantinga or Swinburne aren't Classical Theists.
Regarding forgiveness: There is no reason to think that someone who *actually* forgives is more perfect than a being which is such that it *would* forgive if there *were* subjects.
@@dwong9289 This was Cameron's statement in part 6 of 8 at 8:36
'Its contested whether all greatest goods are already contained in God. Its quite dubious for example that God exemplifies the great good of forgiveness, prior to creating anything.'
How isnt 'exemplifying the great good of forgiveness' an intrinsic change compared to not exemplifying it before creation? Its an active act from God as opposed to cambridge property examples like 'higher than' that can change without the subject having changed anything.
I wasn’t going to comment.. But what the heck… This debate was no diff than any other on the topic, or topics like it.. Neither can actually prove or disprove the other, we are all on the same footing.. It’s unfalsifiable.. I hope you both find better ways to spend your time… because there is one thing that is certain.. and that’s we don’t have a lot of time, and all our clocks will run out!
Debate matt dilluhunty
Jesus loves and wants you to love him
Any purported solution to the problem of evil ends up being an ad hoc appeal to mystery and ultimately doesn't end up being intellectually satisfying. Theists are just refusing to resign the chess game despite the inevitable loss.
What problem of evil exactly ? The logical problem or the emotional one?
Also I am genuinely curious, it seems like you put a lot of time into this topic. What is the point if your atheist worldview is true? I’ve never understood essentially atheist Evangelists.
As a rabbi once said, if the theist can't explain the existence of evil, the atheist can't explain the existence of everything else.
If atheism is true, then “good” and “evil” do not even exist.
Merely likes and dislikes.
Or, put another way, if there is no God, then what Hitler did was merely a matter of opinion.
@@Mark-cd2wfNot only do you suck at thinking, but you just admitted that without your imaginary friend upstairs and your imaginary enemy downstairs and your imaginary eternal existence of either partying forever or suffering forever, you personally would somehow not know that eating a toddler alive is evil or nuking a city for fun is evil. You people admit that you only do what is considered moral because you hope for reward if you do and fear punishment if you don’t. So it’s all about your personal desires, not all about doing good just for the sake of doing good. SOCIOPATHIC!
Should I watch this? Is it worth hearing Captain Christianity crow about how his deeply technical philosophical maneuverings may have been more consistent or based in better logic than Non-Alchemist? WHO CARES??? Hey Cameron- regardless of who claims victory, we both know who's NOT going to show up and settle the issue, don't we? 😉😆🤣 But keep right on engaging on purely academic terms. Knock yourself out. The needle won't move, but you go right ahead.
The thumbnail titles are ridiculous
i think its funny lol
Interesting series. The purely logical argument you've made might not be flashy, but it does destroy his false premises. The format wasn't bad, would've liked to see him actually try to engage with your points, but that wasn't a failing of yours. Hopefully we can see even more interesting discussions of God, Truth, and philosophy in the future.
You come off as a passive aggressive woman who knows she lost an argument with her husband (who didn't even have strong debate skills just simply superior to your own) but hopes that poorly feigned confidence can convince of her claimed victory. It doesn't.
I don't call myself a Christian these days, as there are many negative associations. David Bentley Hart and some others have kindly provided to me some very key resources on the history of Christianity and the origin of who was called "Christians", yet I love Jesus Christ and believe in the salvation of all. No one I've mentioned this to will provide any sort of response. I suppose I could consider myself to be a Universalist by way of my overall belief, but in terms of being in the body of Christ, I've already met all the requirements. There should be more discussions on Christian Universalists vs Universalists but nobody in the Christian Universalist camp will ever engage with me on this issue. There still seems to be some hang ups (hence the non-replies from those I've mentioned this to) about openly discussing this. The ironic part about it is there are numerous others who don't associate as "Christian", yet are still avid followers of Christ, but like I've said, there seems to be this strange and ironic divide between the two different classes of Universalists or believers in the salvation of all even though we both believe in the exact same savior of the world. Thanks for reading this if you've made it this far.
Hi there, I will engage you on this issue. My argument against universalism is short but aptly to the point.
Firstly: John 6:44
_No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day_
Secondly: John 14:6
_Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me_
It is clear then that not all are saved without being called first and no one can be saved unless they believe in Jesus. It is Jesus who raises the dead to life, it is Jesus who saves, it is Jesus who gets people to the father in heaven. There is no other way for He is the Way.
@@WORDFLESHGOD Don't go to deep with my tangent since I don't want to take away from the main thread but what is your understanding of hell in the face of not everyone being saved. Do you believe in annihilation?
@@WORDFLESHGOD Those are very popular and common passages for rebutting the case for Universal salvation but there are also many other passages that can solidify Christ's atonement on the cross for the whole world. I can share many with you if you'd like. Before I do though, here's a quick thought. The meaning of the word grace is - unmerited favor, something we don't deserve but are given anyway. There is nothing we can do to earn it and there is nothing we can do to lose it. Jesus accomplished this 2,000 years ago. Salvation isn't something we have to earn. Christ did away with our sins and the state of perpetual death when he entered it (hades/death). He can't be the effective savior of the world is only some are saved.
@@jasonegeland1446 We agree Christ has paid for all sin with unconditional grace, but really that is a different question from the universalism question, which is, will all be saved at the harvest or will some? If we look at Daniel 12:2 _And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt_
We see there is a clear distinction between parties; those risen to everlasting life and others to everlasting hell.
@@Theomatikalli Yes I believe upon the appointed time some will rise up with the lord and many will go into hell. Psalm 1 talks of the wicked “not standing in the congregation of the righteous” and Jesus talks about those who go to hell and specifically how hell itself will eventually be thrown into the lake of fire.
You should definitely interview Chris Langan and then maybe try to set up a debate between him and an atheist who is well known, for example Alex O'Connor!
Does Langen have any articles on divine simplicity?
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns I haven't found any
From 1st hand experience of Justin I personally know of his setting up strawmen and clutching at straws schtick. I sense that Justin’s inability to recognise irony and his failures to appreciate the utterly illogical self refuting absurdity, of his blithely asserted claims that it renders him merely as a blundering rhetorician who’s full of hot air. I.e he’s too cute for his own good, that he disappears up his own rear end and he makes no impact whatsoever. Anyway as that’s just my assessment of his debating style and my critique of his reasoning skills, I’ve no personal judgment of him. May God bless him and help him to develop the healthy fear of God (not scared of though) that brings wisdom.
The thumbnails have SO much focus on your face for reactions.. I think you'd do better if you photoshopped yourself to be better looking. Or be like ben shapiro and get better looking every 6 months. I think in 5 years time Ben will be modelling for Georgio Armani!
I think Cam won, but not by much
Your opinions
👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇
You cannot prove or disprove god. This "debate" only proved the stupidity of thousands of years of discussion about the supernatural. An honest conversation, trying to uncover the roots of our varying reasons for our intuitions would maybe make more sense...?
Cam’s fault is that he doesn’t see the varying problems against god as linking and working together. His inability to address the premises renders the belief in god, at least the Christian god, as unreasonable.
If we arrive at an unresolvable problem, say the problem of evil, on the path to a personal god, then god isn’t personal (divine hiddenness) or isn’t good.
The inability to take down the problem of evil bleeds into the problem of hiddenness. God crafted a world where the biggest and toughest argument against existence can’t be solved. This is fully and completely on god for creating this intellectual fog.
Defeating the problem of evil shouldn’t take “dense philosophy” from a kind and merciful god who wants a relationship. The argument in the videos is evidence against god.
A loving god should be easily apparent and easily established. Running away from premises isn’t establishing what should be a clear path to god. it’s sticking one’s head in the sand.
Ant what or the problem off hell? Why is an unresolvable boulder in the path of god with hell as a consequence for the inability to bypass the boulder….one that god created. This whole debate is stupid to me. The belief in god today is still as silly as it was before.
In making every aspect of the universe, god crafted the logical path to god….placing an unresolvable boulder in the path is fully on god.
It is intellectually lazy to answer why the boulder is in the path to god by asking “What is a boulder?”
Lazy is my kindest description of the debate.
I have not watched the debate, but the problem of evil is not a problem. It's not even a good argument.
If it's even possible that God has sufficient reasons for the world being what it is, then it cannot be proven with any certainty The dichotomy that the problem of evil proposes. In other words, the argument of the problem of evil does not mean its own burden of proof because it cannot prove either that it is possible or even that it's likely that the world would be different. Those are all based on assumptions that the argument cannot prove, and therefore it cannot meet its own burden of proof.
There's no need for the theist to make a counter objection because the argument of the problem of evil doesn't succeed. This implies that this boulder called the argument of the problem of evil is a "boulder" that the atheist has placed in front of his own path rather than God placing it in front of him.
Unfortunately all you're doing is attempting to shift the burden. Dustin takes the affirmative to show that the problem of evil DISPROVES God. It is your strong claim to defend. It is completely reasonable to point out that someone has not adequately defended such a strong claim, despite your constant attempts to shift the burden of proof.
That just shows the laziness on your side to give an argument which doesn't achieve what it claims and then trying to shift the burden when shown that it doesn't
@@n.a.odessa3939 agreed...
"God created a world where the biggest and toughest argument against existence can't be solved..."
"A loving God should be easily apparent and easily established..."
You're just begging the question in favor of the problem of evil and hiddenness. And asserting extremely controversial and complicated matters as if they were obvious (really, your moral intuitions cover the entire extension of created order and the idea that a loving God should be "easily apparent" and there could be no morally justified reason for God to not be easily apparent? That is honestly crazy to me. I'm all for trusting our intuitions and if you really feel secure with that view then alright, but speaking for myself it appears somewhat crazy. I'm in no position to make such a broad judgment about the plans of an omnipotent God when it comes to whether his existence should be obvious or not to us)
"Christianity is true," you say, after somehow managing to debunk Christianity in your attempt to say Dustin didn't refute God. As far as I'm concerned, it was pretty much all downhill from when you said you WEREN'T demanding absolute certainty. I can't really see the difference between that vs. what you were saying, but if that's NOT what you meant, then Dustin's point that he just has to show his premises are more plausible than not stands & remains largely unchallenged, except where you made bizarre claims that throw out basic Christian beliefs like "God's purpose is not to bring us in a relationship with him." Hence my comment at the start.
It was an utterly bizarre strategy. I have no idea what your goal was. You say you're not interested in tradition, but rather the truth, but then I don't see why you kept refusing to show that the best possible world necessitates suffering. I know, you both agree Dustin has the primary burden of proof, but if your interest is truth, & you could show your claim is actually true, but you don't...something isn't adding up, here.
A number of Dustin's points also seemed perfectly fair to me, with no real explanation beyond assertion for how they weren't. For example, if some virtues require suffering, it stands to reason that God needs to create to experience those virtues, or else he's not perfect. You say a deficiency of sin doesn't take away from God's greatness as a counterexample, but we're talking about virtues, not sins. To the extent the distinction is even coherent, considering every action that takes place is apparently for the same purpose of creating "a best possible world," as per God's plan.
Also, what "empirical evidence"? People claiming that tragedy brought them closer to God doesn't constitute evidence that actually happened. What if, you know, there isn't actually a God for them to be closer to? Evidence someone feels a certain way=/=evidence their claim is true. It's also weird to say "this isn't how philosophers do things" when the problem of suffering is effectively an empirical case that a perfect God can't be reasonably said to exist, & your whole handwave amounts to "maybe it seems that way to you, but that doesn't make it true."
After watching the debates - my summary of Cams arguments would be:
- Dustin has the burden of proof no me
- Dustin is wrong
- What Dustin said is false
- I am right and I win the debate
I feel like I haven’t seen any good reasons to doubt the argument.
Granted, Cam is fundamentally arguing from a difficult standpoint - so his job is hard.
“In time, you will learn to trust your feelings. Then you will become invincible.”
-Senator Palpatine
@@CapturingChristianity 😂 I am just an observer of the debate and all I am trying to do it listen to see which way I am persuaded. Dustin had it easier - he was really just presenting an already established argument.
BTW I enjoyed the format and will watch a similar one again if do you it.
@@goldingd123Good Job Cam 👍.
Because his premises could be possibly untrue, does not make his argument invalid. With enough imagination, literally every fact about the world could be possibly untrue.
His argument just needs to be more compelling and logical than yours.
A lot of his views make God's actions necessary. Cam is showing that isn't the case, and there are a variety of equally plausible views of God.
Actually, because his premise could be false does render the argument invalid. When one makes a claim of something being "necessarily" true, it means there are no possible worlds in which it can be false.
Accepting that there is a possible world in which the premise is false means that it is not "necessarily" true, and so the deductive argument presented doesn't work, as it relies on a false premise.
It does. He messed up by making an argument about metaphysical necessity. Dude clearly went in over his head
@@hydepark1382 philosophical arguments are different than laws of math you donut. You can definitively prove 2+2=4
You can not definitively prove we don’t currently exist in the matrix. But you can make a argument it’s not likely
@@n.a.odessa3939 literally all philosophical premises could be false lol. They are aspect concepts, not laws of nature.
The very premise that you exist could hypothetically be false
Dustin will be able to tell Him when he sees Him.
Before today, I never heard of the Dustin guy. He and a lot of atheists online for some reason have a setup that gives off a negative or indifferent vibe toward life and people sort of like Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory. Maybe that's inevitable when your arguments are founded in criticism or hatred of a topic, and not defense and love.
To be fair, Cam in his responses here came off as a little too dismissive, which I think is his intention, but it doesn't seem very fruitful and productive. I don't know how one would avoid it when dealing with someone who is arguing that theism is inherently flawed.
I guess these things are going to happen when looking at any discussion or debate from a third party point of view. It could seem very productive to the participants. For example, married couples having a fight helps let off steam, and maybe even helps being awareness to things, but bystanders just see fighting.
Funny
Cameron absolutely destroyed the poor guy.
Here's the Facts science proven NOBODY can refute.
We/Humans/People are created in the Lord's image with Free Will and we have His Genetic Coding System science proven Creation by Creator never refuted 👍
@@Devious_Dave Told you NOBODY can refute the Facts Darren especially with your Opinion or Feelings 😆👍
@@Devious_Dave Simple fix Darren you still got nothing 😆👍
@@Devious_Dave Back with more Feelings for post Darren not surprised 😆👍
@@Devious_Dave No hope for the Willingly Ignorant 😆Good 👍
@@Devious_Dave Still Nothing huh Darren not surprised 😆👍