God absolutely respects Free Will. I think that is a proof of a loving God. God will also punish Man! When Adam and Eve sinned EVERYTHING changed. I think evil is the best argument FOR the existence of God.
I agree. The best we can get to is to leave the atheist with the possibility that God could have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil, and most often we cannot show what these morally sufficient reasons are.
No, if anything gives me even hope in the life after this life, where joy will be perfect. Evil is lack of good, and relates to human free will; natural disasters happen, and again it's up to us to use such events for good or evil, to give others hope or destroy them, to accept our finiteness or wallow in despair and waste what little was entrusted to us by His love.
People are going to hate me for this quote but they'd be offended by The Truth and not by me. "If God's all good but alows suffering. Then maybe suffering in a way is good." C.S Lewis
@@drrickmarshall1191erhaps sorrow. The Scriptures explicitly say God felt great sadness at what became of Earth before Noah's flood. Perhaps the pain of his children rejecting him for other idols as well. Also, Jesus' physical suffering leading up to his crucifixion. Second person of the Trinity after all :p
God is not impotent to prevent His own suffering. He is perfectly good and content with only Himself and no one else even existing. He voluntarily suffers for us out of sheer goodness and love for us, knowing that we will often betray Him and even knowing that He would be crucified on the cross.
I personally don't think CS Lewis got that one right lol. Clearly the bible says God works all things together for good... So in that context yes. But it has no relation to the goodness of God that we suffer. I would propose a different explanation. What problem of evil? The bible shows God has agency over his attributes and allows evil to exist suspending his judgment so the plan of redemption for man and ability for man to choose it can and could occur. Limited temporal suffering is but minor in relation to allowing eternal redemption to be put on the table.
Holykoolaid youtube channel presents 3 objections to a perfect God: 1. Problem of evil and suffering 2. Imperfect communication: a) internal contradictions, b) historical and scientific errors, c) false prophecies from 'religious people', d) No clear appearance of God 3. Appeal to the supernatural. I still believe 3 is possible and 2 is problematic, but I struggle with 1 (Bishop Barron also said that 'there is no clear answer to question 1).
I think If you ask other Theologians they have explained in a fine manner and I have seen Atheist philosphers agreeing that problem of evil is bad argument against God's existence.
He's right. Atheists can't logically disprove God can bring good out of suffering. But it's logically out of the hands of Christians that God will bring good out of needless suffering. It's ultimately a matter of faith. But certain needless suffering to me is not redeemable.
Well that's forgetting this universe is not the end game. There will be another for us. So that tells us one purpose of this universe was the ultimate destruction of sin. So I would say that is an argument against the problem of sin.
'Evil' both as a moral (relational) and a metaphysical (actual) reality involves some kind of harm (the basic meaning of our word, evil). It is the 'harm' bit that irritates us so much, as with calamity, suffering, death for rational physical material beings aka 'us' (basically). So no, it is not the strongest argument but it is the most compelling argument .. for us .. against the Christian concept of 'God'. The basic problem for modern man, unlike other generations, is that we do not readily admit the all too obvious reality of 'sin' i.e. wrong done, wrongdoing, shortfall or missing the mark, et al. If God exists - as Christians believe, then, Aquinas rightly argues against himself, evil cannot exist, logically - nor indeed morally, for He would be little more than a powerful if petty, capricious tyrant .. not Love, Truth, Being, per se, etc. So, to cut to the quick answer, problems, evils, shortfalls rebellions, injustices, errors, or what have you, exist, in so far as they do, metaphysically, because God really is God, as Christians believe, and we creatures - in and of ourselves - are not God; for if we were God we could not be 'us', so for us to 'be' at all we must be less than God .. and not merely lesser than gods (or angels); hence the great harm = evil done by Satan against himself and all creation, in the fall of Lucifer, was to introduce that horrifying negative of being, a freely chosen separation from God through revolution. God permitted that separation and the limitation on which it rests because He willed that we should be (us). So, no matter where that onion is sliced it will still involve us in being something other than God, with the reality of some type of shortcoming - howsoever otherwise perfect that kind of being may well be. So the problem is really this : why did He want us to be, at all, at all, whatever shortfall there would be between His perfection and our own lesser perfections cf St Michael, Adam and Eve pre-fall and then afterward, Enoch, Melchizedek, the BVM, you .. and .. erm .. even me ... (Yeah!) ;o)
On Australia, the country always goes up inflames . The seeds of Aussie trees need fires to germinate. The reason they were so bad was due to enviromental policies, ie no back burning allowed This huge fires released particles, that eventually landed in the ocean. Short version, this has caused the great barrier reef to explode in growth,which had been shrinking. ( blamed on climate change and pesticides). It had been shrinking due to australia stopping bush fires and back burning. You are right!
When an earthquake strikes, God questions us in the silence of our heart to act and do good to our fellow men whose lives have been destroyed. Indeed God can get good even out of "impersonal" tragedies, and it's up to us to use that free will given by Him to come in aid or walk away from our responsibilities to our brethren in need. As for the hammer on the finger or beam landing on my toe, I think we can see that as a test of our patience? Of our strength and will not to curse like sailors, take His name in vain and, if we fail, to ask forgiveness for our weakness.
So you are saying God created a universe with laws like gravity to test our patience when a something heavy land on our toe? I would rather posit that these laws exist because they are good and for the order of our corporeal existence.
More like: it's up to us to use that accident as a moment of growth. My grandmother died of cancer, but she accepted it with a serenity and a gentleness which moved many of us. It taught us to be grateful even of such tragic events, for we took care of her, returned that love and even realized how short our pilgrimage on this earth is. Also, sorry for the accidental thumb down: my chubby thumb hit it by mistake.
Ah I see. Sorry about your grandma. That gentleness which moved many of you show that if some evils wasn't part of our existence it would be at the expense of good qualities such as tenderness, gentleness and compassion. Also no worries, people do not notice thumbs downs, they are pretty mute.
@@noescape2108 exactly: pain and toil give sense to life as much as joy and happiness; "There's no fast without feast, there's no feast without fast" to quote G K Chesterton (who was inspired by Saint Paul's writings and God's teachings).
Right on time. Does Aquinas talk about natural disasters anywhere? I know the quick answer of a fallen world (I guess) but I want a more thorough analysis.
For me, evil implies an act of will which deliberately goes against the moral good or intended right purpose. Nothing in God's creation is inherently evil.
@Zax BitterZen what part of the OT did you have in mind? People did evil things but they were not inherently evil. Even Satan and his angels were not inherently evil but became evil when they rebelled against God.
@@zaxbitterzen2178 Sounds like you haven't read the old testament. Your child doing something evil doesn't mean you did it. That is a false equivalency.
Yes but what does that tell us about God if he can logically permit suffering for any good reason? Is collateral damage, by an all powerful being, not immoral and detestible in any imaginable universe? That is the problem.... what kind of god is this? And then add to that: if he is omnipotent and omniscient then surely he could have thought of another way out of the edenic problem without resorting to the allowance of suffering
I know this is a year old comment yet I still want to address it. The reason why God allows suffering is simple. Without evil there is no good. Without a villain you don't have a hero. If there is no hell there is no heaven. If there is no suffering then there is no joy. Because if God didn't allow suffering we wouldn't know how amazing the feeling of joy truly is. Instead we would be in this sort of numbed state of existence, kind of like people in a vegative state. We would exist yet we wouldn't be living if you know what I mean. It's like the yin yang dilemma in eastern cultures. You need bad for there to be good.
@@jaserader6107 "Without evil there is no good" implies several outcomes. 1. Before any of god's creation there was no evil, thus there was no good, thus god is not good. 2. God is both good and evil. 3. Evil exists independent of a god, and he is powerless to stop it.
In making us with a free will, God took a big risk. He could have kept everyone in the Garden of Eden, but sin resulting from man's free will act entered into the Garden and He had to deal with it by forcing us to learn the lesson on evil. We may not know the evils that "allowed" for the fires in Australia until the end of time.
How could god possibly be capable of "taking a risk" if he knows the outcome of all possible choices? An omniscient god would be incapable of taking risks or feeling regret, because they both require insufficient knowledge of the future.
@@flyingspaghettiauditor God made us with a free will and he deeply respects it. He made us that way so that we would be free to chose Him. By allowing us to freely chose He risks us not choosing Him.
@@mickieknows7712 Is it really a free choice to come to god when he puts a gun to your head? God lets you choose. And if you choose wrong he'll torture you forever in hell. A "relationship" with god is comparable to one of an abused spouse and their gaslighting partner.
First of all, one has to define what 'evil' is. But to do that one has to know what goodness is first. Since God is the source of goodness then anything that does not meet God's standard of goodness must be, by default, defined as evil. It also follows that when someone complains about evil in the world, it only because of God's standard of goodness that evil can be identified. It is like calling the sun good and the resultant shadows as bad and caused by the sun when in fact it is the absence of sunlight, or goodness, that creates the shadow or evil. Then the next step is the question why God would allow evil to exist. The premise to that question is that an omnipotent and just God could arbitraily remove evil. If that were true then justice would demand punishment for each and every act that is not good. The problem is that the questioner usually assumes that the evil under consideration is done somewhere else by somenone else and is usually on an extrordinary scale. What they don't consider is that if God is going to judge and punish someone over there, then he is going to judge and punish the questioner over here equally as harshly, which they are usually unwilling to consider. The reason they usually don't want to consider it is because they know themselves well enough to know that they are 'evil' as well and just as deserving of punishment. Next the questioner has to realize that it is because of his or her own choices that they have committed evil in this world and can be justly punished. Finally, the question assumes that God has not or will do anything about evil in the world or in the individual when, through his equally infinite love and grace, he sent his son to take all the punishment for all the evil in the world
I always heard this question as “why we are not gods our selves”. So in a sense this argument says there is no god because we are not gods. Utterly ridiculous argument
Hi all. Looking for some help. Anyone know the name of the agnostic philosopher WLC often cites to make the argument that God may have reasons for allowing evil for a greater good that we may not be aware of? The name escapes me. Thanks in advanced
I've listened to William Lane Craig on this subject for a bit, but he tends to only touch on the go-to defenses: free-will, good consequences etc. What I'm left wondering is could God have created free-will without any evil at all? Because if no, then he is not all-powerful. Like he should be perfectly capable of bending the laws of logic to suit his needs if he is all-powerful. Secondly, can he achieve his exact same goals without the assistance of evil? If there is an apologist that touches up on these issues I would love to hear them!
The problem of evil presupposes that the world would be better without evil and suffering. The onus is on the atheist to prove this before his argument can hold water.
The scriptures teach "that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28 ... Evil did not originate with God yet God will continue to be good inspire of evil. He will work it out for the good!
God is omniscient. He knows things you and I cannot possibly know. What if allowing that specific immorality is in itself the most moral thing to do in the grand scheme of things?
@@geo.ies93 you're presupposing 3 things: that god even exists, and that god is omniscient. 3rd, you're presupposing that morality is grounded in an omniscient being. In order for your proposition to be true, we must first accept 3 presuppositions. That's logically ludicrous, geoiescaballes1436. I hope you understand why I can't answer your question, as I reject all 3.
@@shoshanagavriela929 arguing the existence of a god necessitates presupposition of a god’s divine attributes, which includes omniscience. Your rejection of the possibility of existence of a god makes it indeed impossible to argue with you.
6:29 he voices the ripple effect Forrest fires and holocaust have as a reason God may have allowed those things (not that they're good) but then argues against his own consequentialist view he just voiced as a reason! I am no philosopher but I tore him a new one with the last few comments I made. I know there are responses but those theodicies are too weak as responses
My first reaction goes to word parasitical. Evil a parasite a leech, does not give an answer to problem of evil and does God exist. Our Lord explain about the weeds that grows with the wheat. Jesus said pulling out the weeds you damage the wheat, but if you allow evil to exist you harm the wheat. Take the evil of the Holocaust which was allowed to exist in the Christian world and WWII ended that evil. Was war the only answer to end an objective evil?
I have to take issue with the ad-hoc character of Dr. Craig's argumentation when he supposes that the future effects of disasters like the current Australian forest fires would somehow justify the suffering they cause at present. In order to make that argument even slightly relevant, he should be able to point to some consistent good or benefit from disasters in the past. Please note that I am not saying that eventual good consequences make the disasters good. I am saying that there is no or scant evidence for the argument in the first place. Perhaps the best Biblical example is the flood in the days of Noah. God decides to kill all people because they have turned to evil, only to find that within Noah's lifetime, his descendants turn again to idolatry and various other abominations like the hubris to want to build a tower that reaches to heaven.
First of all it is assumed that bush fires or forest fires are 'bad'. In the North American rocky mountains there is a species of tree known as the 'lodgepole' pine tree. A unique feature about this tree is that it's pine cones are a solid mass of resin in the shape of an old wooden spinning top. The only way the seeds are able to escape are when he resin is melted under very high temperatures, such as from a forest fire. Thus, in order for this species of tree to reproduce it must be subjected to forest fires on a regular basis something we humans do our best to prevent. I am willing to bet the same is happening in Australia in that the bush has to be cleared by fires on a regular basis, and because it has not happened lately, that there is an overabundence of fuel to be burned. Therefore it could be said that forest and bush fires are actually beneficial. I like the biblical example of Noah in that God told Noah to build an ark on dry land. This feat could not possibly be accomplished in a single year or a decade. So for many years people are looking at Noah and asking what the heck he is doing and why. He would obviously be warning everyone who asked about God's coming judgement. I would not be surprised that by the end of his ark building project, absolutely everyone knew what he was doing and why. The ironic part is that if anyone believed Noah, all they had to do was get on the ark when Noah told them to do so and thus be saved. However, if you read the story closely you will note that it was God himself who closed the door to the ark and thus cut off salvation to any who were not on board in time. I am wondering if Noah could hear the cries of the people outside begging to be brought on board and knowing that there was nothing he could do about it. I wondering if he even recognized some of the voices of his friends and neighbors. Of course this does beg the question of why was the evil of Noah's time so egregious that God had to wipe out all of humanity and yet he seems to allow other evil to flourish later. Well, I wasn't there at the time but I do believe that God is still and good and just god and that he would not punish without giving the perpetrators a fair warning like he did with Noah.
@@1961casey Why did God make trees that needed fire to reproduce? If God is omnipotent, why not make species that can live, love, and reproduce without major disasters or seriously traumatic assaults and injuries?
@@mikemossey You are making assumptions as to what constitutes a 'disaster'. The Nile river delta floods regularly but that is what makes it so fertile. The ocean rises and falls every day frequently stranding sea life on the shore but is that a disaster? What about turtles coming ashore to lay their eggs only to have most of the hatchlings die before they reach the ocean. Is that a disaster? Get your own definitions straight before making some childish accusation against God.
@@1961casey I am sorry for not replying earlier, but I was not notified of your response (or I missed it; it's been a year...) You said: "First of all it is assumed that bush fires or forest fires are 'bad'.", and then you point out that some organisms actually need forest fires. I think you misunderstand the argument here. The presenter is not talking about "lodgepole" pines, but about animals who suffer and presumably have not committed any sins, do not believe in Jesus, and will not be saved. Their "suffering" will therefore be empty and no "good consequences" will follow, which raises the question why a good God would allow such a thing. Regarding the friends of Noah who died in the flood... Please spare a thought for the babies who died... What "egregious evil" could they have done to justify such a torturous death?
@R P No burdenshifting going on here. Looking at the issue from the outside, the first claim is made by the theist; namely that his good God allows this suffering (because of the forest fires in the example) because it will lead to a greater good. Although I think Dr. Craig is right that there may not be a logical objection to this argument in the abstract, provided you can demonstrate the existence of this particular deity, this claim does need evidence if you want to be able to present it as in any way convincing or valuable. I point out that this evidence is lacking. If Dr. Craig's claim that a greater good comes from disasters like these forest fires, even if it takes 500 years, then we should be able to see a consistent pattern in history of good stuff happening that can be traced back to some disaster. Such a pattern does not seem to exist. Observing that the evidence for a claim is insufficient is not the same as making a counter claim, and as I am not making a counter claim, I do not have a burden of evidence here. Therefore, there is currently no evidence from this argument to support Dr. Craig's claim that his God is good despite the suffering he obviously allows to happen, even to innocent organisms. If you disagree with my observation that we do not see a consistent historical pattern of good that can be traced back to previous suffering or even other "bad" stuff, then please provide this evidence. You may succeed where Dr. Craig has failed.
At the end of the day, it is a matter of faith. Believers believe all the suffering that God allows will help reach a good end compared to which all the experienced suffering will be nothing. If you go in there with the mentality; "If God doesn't remove all evil right now, He is evil or He doesn't exist" then of course you can't be convinced, even a believer wouldn't. God already tried to give everyone everything they want at all time with no evil whatsoever; the garden of eden. The thing is, He also gave an exit door in the form of the tree of knowledge, knowing full well we would eat from it, because He created us free, and freedom = sin. And now we are living in a world covered in a miasma of sin and are all trying to breathe while living in a burning house.
It seems that in gods eyes the means do justify the end. This is fact. All we can hope for is that there was good enough reason for god to allow those means (our 6000 years of suffering as victims in the prison of planet earth) that doesn't make god evil himself, because that is also a possibility.
So we have two options which one sounds more reasonable: a child being raped and murdered is evil and shows there is no God which can be omnipotent and all benevolent, option 2: a child being raped and murdered might have some greater good in it which we are incapable to understand.
4:09 - he say the atheist would have to show there is a logical possibillity- no the atheist doesn't have to show anything. You're the one making the claim, yes positing that a god exists. YOU have to overcome the problem of natural evil and you can't because there is no answer
What problem of evil? The bible shows God has agency over his attributes and allows evil to exist suspending his judgment so the plan of redemption for man and ability for man to choose it can and could occur.
A lot of waffle and the real message is that William Craig doesn't know the answer. 'Maybe' God has some moral reason for evil and suffering. The holocaust might have had a moral reason but nobody understamds the real reason.
(I have no idea what happened to my first paragraph but basically I disagree with this idea that evil doesn't positively exist therefore God didn't create it. My first reason is that you can't prove good positively exists any more than you can prove evil doesn't. These things are both immaterial. The only thing you can hope to demonstrate is that they're codependent. Also god does not mean good. Stop saying that.) Secondly, you *can* create darkness. If I turn off all the lights in my room, I've created darkness. Nothing's emitting "umbrons" but I have brought the absence of photons into being. Likewise an infinite singular god would create evil by withdrawing his presence. This cannot coincide with Gods infinite nature of goodness and thus an infinite god cannot exist. Cause by the way, it goes both ways. An infinite god cannot create both good and evil. If both exist, he cannot. However I still think there are arguments for the existence of divinity that do not require an infinite god. This is called polytheism and it was the default opinion for thousands of years until some Semites were inspired by an Egyptian tyrant and a couple thousand years after that some European kings decided it was more politically expedient to say they believed in this Christ dude instead of Odin. Thirdly, while we're here, WLC said that evil is "an absence of right order in the creaturely will." This implies that it was not god but instead his creation which created order. Which doesn't work for several reasons. First of all, that implies man or angels can create something which god cannot. This kind of seems to make men and angels seem more powerful than god. Secondly, it neglects the other sort of evil. That being natural evil. Setting Covid-19 aside: who creates diseases? Cancer? Famine? These things are objectively evil. They defy the natural order. So who makes them? Famine can sometimes be created by humans but sometimes its just because of crop failure. Divinity is the only answer to this unless you take the naturalist position that it's all just random accidents and that's ridiculous. Who's will is it that a child dies of bone cancer? If we assume monotheism to be true, it is God's will alone. Even if you work Satan into this somehow, it was still God's will that he allow Satan to bring his will into being. And again, if Satan can create things God cannot that means that Satan is as powerful if not more powerful than God. You see how it's really hard to maintain that God is a singularity? Like at very least there's a duality going on here with a good god and an evil god.
I agree I think how WLC chose to represent evil doesn't accurately describe it and doesn't line up the issues or the bible it causes issues when discussing it. What problem of evil? The bible shows God has agency over his attributes and allows evil to exist suspending his judgment so the plan of redemption for man and ability for man to choose it can and could occur. Limited temporal suffering is but minor in relation to allowing eternal redemption to be put on the table.
It sure would be nice if God could just show up and give us clear, unambiguous explanations rather than have to rely on a bunch of philosophers fumbling around for tenuous explanations, grasping at straws and not really making any sense.
@@Thomas-kj1fk Human suffering is too significant to accept the apparent divine silence and ambiguity as being "for fun". This goes infinitely more so if scenarios such as inescapable, permanent hell exist for segments of the population. And if you disagree with that based on religious grounds, then your religion obviously trivializes human suffering, which has always been a critique atheists have leveled at religious philosophies (the trivialization of this world if religion is true or taken seriously).
@@Thomas-kj1fk I would also agree that "making sense" is personal, but I don't always believe people when they say they think something "makes sense". To me, "making sense" means that there is a coherent explanation out there that one is intuitively latched onto on an emotional-intuitive level. People often say "it makes sense" but they are actually failing to understand their own emotional state sometimes - they _think_ something "makes sense" but in reality they are mistaken - it doesn't _actually_ make sense, they just mistakenly think it does. Happens all the time in many ways - virtually any time one is mistaken about something.
If God showed up to give us clear explanations as to why the universe is the way it is. Then theism would not be a belief it would be fact. We might as well already be in heaven. However, this is obviously not the case this could be because God wanted an existing reality with greater values of good opposed to a reality with equally good values. Belief also builds a stronger foundation of trust within God. Thus the reward in heaven would be much more satisfying to us then it would be to the angels for example. This would be because we experienced evil and being a witness to a world without evil would be divine in its own way. In addition it doesn't require the work of philosophers "grasping at straws" in order to make God's existence make sense. It requires a deeper thinking of our reality and an openness to the possibility of a creator. You could say it is the job of a philosopher to think deeply, but we all can if you gave it some contemplation and discussion.
Well, just WAIT, you'll die like everyone else. Let's hope you are ready to stand before God, if you don't know him... you think HUMAN suffering is suffering? Just wait.
4:56 he says we're not able to answer why God allows natural evil and so he ADMITS no answer but couches it in "atheist ignorance" um, he's the ignorant one claiming a disembodied mind in another dimension exists with contradicting qualities and it's somehow OUR ignorance at fault when he's the one making huge insane claims about invisible entities existing.
There are situations where the best and most likely conclusion, if any, for why a natural evil occurs is by a stronger non-human will for a good reason. Since the atheist cannot support that answer, and cannot answer the natural good, then he must make a claim of ignorance.
@@8fot I have also been a victim of lies, however I have also lied. So the person who hurt me and I who have hurt someone thru lies are both guilty and victims in God's eyes. That is why we need to turn to Jesus to get answers. So first to even have grounds from which you can accuse God of something go and read The Bible and you will see what the point is. Keep in mind that Jesus is the key.
@@Ana-rb6gj I don't accuse your god of anything, I don't believe in they. I'm just pointing out that the problem of is a problem for your belief. Furthermore I have read the bible, and I did not find any answer to any question. Please give me an example of a spesific question and the specific verse that give you the answer, an answer you cannot get elsewhere. Lets say the person who hurt you is a christian too, what then? How will he/she be judged?
@@8fot God judges anyone who breaks one of the ten commandments. So you break one, you break all of them in God's eyes. And if you have read the Bible you would have known what God offers us so that we wouldn't have to be judged for breaking the commandments. And that is Jesus who died for our sins to take ours upon himself and if we trust in Him our sorrows of any kind, He will help us heal them. I can't rationalise that experiance - one has to experiance it by himself. So of you are hurt, angry, sad, and don't really know what to do, you bring that to Jesus thru prayer and let Him do His thing, since He knows everything there is to know anout situation. And Bible verses that say that: - Psalm 147:3 - Isaiah 41:10, 43:18 - 1 Peter 5:7, 4:19 - John 10:10, 16:33, 14:27 - Matthew 11:28 - 2 Corinthians 12:9 Regarding judgement: - 5 Moses 1:17, - Psalm 138:7, - Romans 12:19 - Philipians 2:3 - Matthew 5:39 - Luke 6: 27-28 - 1 Peter 4:17 So even if a true, born again Christian hurts you, He should be aware of what he did. Communication is still key here. But if you feel powerless about something you should bring that before God, Jesus and Holy spirit. But since you do not believe in God I don't understand why you would search for videos with two Christian apologets 🤷♀️
Isaiah 45:7 KJV clearly states: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." GOD MAKES EVIL! It's in the bible. Christians need to STOP arguing that God is GOOD. That is BLASPHEMOUS NONSENSE!
Must be great to be God, with people like Craig excusing One's every action. They spend so much energy running around, shielding their deity from any shed of accountability..... it's good to be the king. 😆
@@bds8715 If you create a life form you are morally responsible for its suffering when you do not take actions that are well within your capability to prevent the harm. If God created the universe that would not give him the moral right to fill it with suffering creatures. Wouldn't you agree that if someone created a universe that was nothing but hell and all of the creatures in it suffered and did nothing but that that it would be absolutely evil to create such a world? It wouldn't matter if God created that world or not - the act itself is intrinsically evil.
Wow! This is literally 2 grown men trying to justify why their invisible friend exists. There is absolutely no way these two would believe in this garbage if their families hadn't told them over and over that this is how it is when they were young and impressionable. Sad
But yet there r plenty of intellectuals that come to faith in God who weren't born into a christian family. They do based off the evidence. You're literally writing off over 2 BILLION people and saying the only reason they believe is because they're brain washed or ignorant smh
@@underedge100 yup! You're damned right I am. The same way that you would write off the countless people who believed just as fervently in Zeuse. They came to it based off the evidence. smh. Name one single story with the same level of wild assed assertions that you would be willing to even consider! In fact you're probably even too brainwashed to be able to step back from it and see how crazy the stories seem to the unindoctrinated.
@@donnyh3497 There is way more evidence for the God of the bible than there is for Greek Gods that is why im willing to believe in the bible because of the evidence and again like i was saying there r plenty of intellectual atheists/agnostics who come to faith is christ so r u saying those people got brainwashed too? U seem like u have a lot of hatred towards religion. I think the same argument could be made against atheists saying the only reason they r atheist is because they didn't grow up in a religious house hold or they had a bad experience which that does not disprove the existence of God.
@@underedge100 I would absolutely agree that the reason I am atheist is because I didn't grow up in a religious household! I was raised by a believer and an atheist who decided to let me grow up without the indoctrination so I could figure it out myself. Without the "reiteration effect" no one would believe those crazy stories. The illusory truth effect (also known as the validity effect, truth effect, or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure. Those so called atheists who believe now because of "evidence" had heard that garbage a lot as a child. Those who believed in Zeuse would tell you that there is wayyyy more evidence of Zeuse than jesus! Seriously, what stories with equally far fetched claims would you consider?
@@donnyh3497 I would consider many "far fetched" stories if they had reasonable evidence to back them up because i am willing to go where the evidence leads. Just like you think something came from nothing which is pretty far fetched. But u believe it based on the scientific evidence. Also i can assure you that not all these atheist came to faith because they heard these stories as a child.
Do you agree that evil is the strongest argument against God's existence? Why?
God absolutely respects Free Will. I think that is a proof of a loving God. God will also punish Man! When Adam and Eve sinned EVERYTHING changed. I think evil is the best argument FOR the existence of God.
I agree. The best we can get to is to leave the atheist with the possibility that God could have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil, and most often we cannot show what these morally sufficient reasons are.
No, if anything gives me even hope in the life after this life, where joy will be perfect. Evil is lack of good, and relates to human free will; natural disasters happen, and again it's up to us to use such events for good or evil, to give others hope or destroy them, to accept our finiteness or wallow in despair and waste what little was entrusted to us by His love.
@@CatholicCristero How could Adam and Eve be said to have had "free will" if they had no knowledge of good or bad?
@@hansdemos6510 Well, that's pretty simple, they were told not to eat of the tree of good and evil....
People are going to hate me for this quote but they'd be offended by The Truth and not by me.
"If God's all good but alows suffering. Then maybe suffering in a way is good."
C.S Lewis
This would imply that god too suffers.
@@drrickmarshall1191erhaps sorrow. The Scriptures explicitly say God felt great sadness at what became of Earth before Noah's flood. Perhaps the pain of his children rejecting him for other idols as well.
Also, Jesus' physical suffering leading up to his crucifixion. Second person of the Trinity after all :p
@@sandstorm7768 An omnipotent being impotent to prevent it's own suffering? Very convincing
God is not impotent to prevent His own suffering. He is perfectly good and content with only Himself and no one else even existing. He voluntarily suffers for us out of sheer goodness and love for us, knowing that we will often betray Him and even knowing that He would be crucified on the cross.
I personally don't think CS Lewis got that one right lol. Clearly the bible says God works all things together for good... So in that context yes. But it has no relation to the goodness of God that we suffer. I would propose a different explanation.
What problem of evil? The bible shows God has agency over his attributes and allows evil to exist suspending his judgment so the plan of redemption for man and ability for man to choose it can and could occur. Limited temporal suffering is but minor in relation to allowing eternal redemption to be put on the table.
3:52 WLC "no logical contradiction"
6:15 consequentialist
He’s the best in the business. Never heard a better argument on this issue.
Holykoolaid youtube channel presents 3 objections to a perfect God: 1. Problem of evil and suffering 2. Imperfect communication: a) internal contradictions, b) historical and scientific errors, c) false prophecies from 'religious people', d) No clear appearance of God 3. Appeal to the supernatural. I still believe 3 is possible and 2 is problematic, but I struggle with 1 (Bishop Barron also said that 'there is no clear answer to question 1).
I think If you ask other Theologians they have explained in a fine manner and I have seen Atheist philosphers agreeing that problem of evil is bad argument against God's existence.
He's right. Atheists can't logically disprove God can bring good out of suffering. But it's logically out of the hands of Christians that God will bring good out of needless suffering. It's ultimately a matter of faith. But certain needless suffering to me is not redeemable.
Well that's forgetting this universe is not the end game. There will be another for us. So that tells us one purpose of this universe was the ultimate destruction of sin. So I would say that is an argument against the problem of sin.
@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep yes, it's a matter of faith in a world with meaning different from the one we can perceive.
'Evil' both as a moral (relational) and a metaphysical (actual) reality involves some kind of harm (the basic meaning of our word, evil). It is the 'harm' bit that irritates us so much, as with calamity, suffering, death for rational physical material beings aka 'us' (basically). So no, it is not the strongest argument but it is the most compelling argument .. for us .. against the Christian concept of 'God'.
The basic problem for modern man, unlike other generations, is that we do not readily admit the all too obvious reality of 'sin' i.e. wrong done, wrongdoing, shortfall or missing the mark, et al. If God exists - as Christians believe, then, Aquinas rightly argues against himself, evil cannot exist, logically - nor indeed morally, for He would be little more than a powerful if petty, capricious tyrant .. not Love, Truth, Being, per se, etc. So, to cut to the quick answer, problems, evils, shortfalls rebellions, injustices, errors, or what have you, exist, in so far as they do, metaphysically, because God really is God, as Christians believe, and we creatures - in and of ourselves - are not God; for if we were God we could not be 'us', so for us to 'be' at all we must be less than God .. and not merely lesser than gods (or angels); hence the great harm = evil done by Satan against himself and all creation, in the fall of Lucifer, was to introduce that horrifying negative of being, a freely chosen separation from God through revolution.
God permitted that separation and the limitation on which it rests because He willed that we should be (us). So, no matter where that onion is sliced it will still involve us in being something other than God, with the reality of some type of shortcoming - howsoever otherwise perfect that kind of being may well be. So the problem is really this : why did He want us to be, at all, at all, whatever shortfall there would be between His perfection and our own lesser perfections cf St Michael, Adam and Eve pre-fall and then afterward, Enoch, Melchizedek, the BVM, you .. and .. erm .. even me ... (Yeah!)
;o)
On Australia, the country always goes up inflames . The seeds of Aussie trees need fires to germinate. The reason they were so bad was due to enviromental policies, ie no back burning allowed
This huge fires released particles, that eventually landed in the ocean. Short version, this has caused the great barrier reef to explode in growth,which had been shrinking. ( blamed on climate change and pesticides).
It had been shrinking due to australia stopping bush fires and back burning.
You are right!
When an earthquake strikes, God questions us in the silence of our heart to act and do good to our fellow men whose lives have been destroyed. Indeed God can get good even out of "impersonal" tragedies, and it's up to us to use that free will given by Him to come in aid or walk away from our responsibilities to our brethren in need.
As for the hammer on the finger or beam landing on my toe, I think we can see that as a test of our patience? Of our strength and will not to curse like sailors, take His name in vain and, if we fail, to ask forgiveness for our weakness.
So you are saying God created a universe with laws like gravity to test our patience when a something heavy land on our toe? I would rather posit that these laws exist because they are good and for the order of our corporeal existence.
More like: it's up to us to use that accident as a moment of growth. My grandmother died of cancer, but she accepted it with a serenity and a gentleness which moved many of us. It taught us to be grateful even of such tragic events, for we took care of her, returned that love and even realized how short our pilgrimage on this earth is.
Also, sorry for the accidental thumb down: my chubby thumb hit it by mistake.
Ah I see. Sorry about your grandma. That gentleness which moved many of you show that if some evils wasn't part of our existence it would be at the expense of good qualities such as tenderness, gentleness and compassion.
Also no worries, people do not notice thumbs downs, they are pretty mute.
@@noescape2108 exactly: pain and toil give sense to life as much as joy and happiness; "There's no fast without feast, there's no feast without fast" to quote G K Chesterton (who was inspired by Saint Paul's writings and God's teachings).
Right on time. Does Aquinas talk about natural disasters anywhere? I know the quick answer of a fallen world (I guess) but I want a more thorough analysis.
Great work Dr. Craig doing all those mental gymnastics to get around the question
For me, evil implies an act of will which deliberately goes against the moral good or intended right purpose. Nothing in God's creation is inherently evil.
You haven't read the Old Testament then.
@Zax BitterZen what part of the OT did you have in mind? People did evil things but they were not inherently evil. Even Satan and his angels were not inherently evil but became evil when they rebelled against God.
@@zaxbitterzen2178 Sounds like you haven't read the old testament. Your child doing something evil doesn't mean you did it. That is a false equivalency.
Yes but what does that tell us about God if he can logically permit suffering for any good reason? Is collateral damage, by an all powerful being, not immoral and detestible in any imaginable universe? That is the problem.... what kind of god is this? And then add to that: if he is omnipotent and omniscient then surely he could have thought of another way out of the edenic problem without resorting to the allowance of suffering
I know this is a year old comment yet I still want to address it. The reason why God allows suffering is simple. Without evil there is no good. Without a villain you don't have a hero. If there is no hell there is no heaven. If there is no suffering then there is no joy. Because if God didn't allow suffering we wouldn't know how amazing the feeling of joy truly is. Instead we would be in this sort of numbed state of existence, kind of like people in a vegative state. We would exist yet we wouldn't be living if you know what I mean. It's like the yin yang dilemma in eastern cultures. You need bad for there to be good.
@@jaserader6107 "Without evil there is no good" implies several outcomes.
1. Before any of god's creation there was no evil, thus there was no good, thus god is not good.
2. God is both good and evil.
3. Evil exists independent of a god, and he is powerless to stop it.
In making us with a free will, God took a big risk. He could have kept everyone in the Garden of Eden, but sin resulting from man's free will act entered into the Garden and He had to deal with it by forcing us to learn the lesson on evil. We may not know the evils that "allowed" for the fires in Australia until the end of time.
Those evils are called the Liberal Government that didn't listen to the warning of climate chsnge.
How could god possibly be capable of "taking a risk" if he knows the outcome of all possible choices? An omniscient god would be incapable of taking risks or feeling regret, because they both require insufficient knowledge of the future.
@@flyingspaghettiauditor God made us with a free will and he deeply respects it. He made us that way so that we would be free to chose Him. By allowing us to freely chose He risks us not choosing Him.
@@mickieknows7712 Is it really a free choice to come to god when he puts a gun to your head? God lets you choose. And if you choose wrong he'll torture you forever in hell. A "relationship" with god is comparable to one of an abused spouse and their gaslighting partner.
All this stuff is way over my head 😂
First of all, one has to define what 'evil' is. But to do that one has to know what goodness is first. Since God is the source of goodness then anything that does not meet God's standard of goodness must be, by default, defined as evil. It also follows that when someone complains about evil in the world, it only because of God's standard of goodness that evil can be identified.
It is like calling the sun good and the resultant shadows as bad and caused by the sun when in fact it is the absence of sunlight, or goodness, that creates the shadow or evil.
Then the next step is the question why God would allow evil to exist. The premise to that question is that an omnipotent and just God could arbitraily remove evil. If that were true then justice would demand punishment for each and every act that is not good. The problem is that the questioner usually assumes that the evil under consideration is done somewhere else by somenone else and is usually on an extrordinary scale. What they don't consider is that if God is going to judge and punish someone over there, then he is going to judge and punish the questioner over here equally as harshly, which they are usually unwilling to consider. The reason they usually don't want to consider it is because they know themselves well enough to know that they are 'evil' as well and just as deserving of punishment.
Next the questioner has to realize that it is because of his or her own choices that they have committed evil in this world and can be justly punished.
Finally, the question assumes that God has not or will do anything about evil in the world or in the individual when, through his equally infinite love and grace, he sent his son to take all the punishment for all the evil in the world
I think that if you being raped, you don't stop to wonder about the definition of 'evil' before you KNOW that you are suffering.
I always heard this question as “why we are not gods our selves”. So in a sense this argument says there is no god because we are not gods. Utterly ridiculous argument
From where in Summa Theologiae is this question and answer? @Matt Fradd ? Anybody?
Hi all. Looking for some help. Anyone know the name of the agnostic philosopher WLC often cites to make the argument that God may have reasons for allowing evil for a greater good that we may not be aware of? The name escapes me. Thanks in advanced
God creates the suffering , and then claims the glory if they are healed.......... 20 have cancer, one is healed........... Its a miracle!!!
I've listened to William Lane Craig on this subject for a bit, but he tends to only touch on the go-to defenses: free-will, good consequences etc. What I'm left wondering is could God have created free-will without any evil at all? Because if no, then he is not all-powerful. Like he should be perfectly capable of bending the laws of logic to suit his needs if he is all-powerful. Secondly, can he achieve his exact same goals without the assistance of evil?
If there is an apologist that touches up on these issues I would love to hear them!
The only logical options here are the problem of evil remains, or god has no free will himself.
The only logical options here are the problem of evil remains, or god has no free will himself.
What's wrong with those defenses?
The problem of evil presupposes that the world would be better without evil and suffering. The onus is on the atheist to prove this before his argument can hold water.
The scriptures teach "that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28 ... Evil did not originate with God yet God will continue to be good inspire of evil. He will work it out for the good!
Allowing immorality is immoral, not moral. That's the problem.
God is omniscient. He knows things you and I cannot possibly know. What if allowing that specific immorality is in itself the most moral thing to do in the grand scheme of things?
@@geo.ies93 you're presupposing 3 things: that god even exists, and that god is omniscient.
3rd, you're presupposing that morality is grounded in an omniscient being.
In order for your proposition to be true, we must first accept 3 presuppositions. That's logically ludicrous, geoiescaballes1436.
I hope you understand why I can't answer your question, as I reject all 3.
@@shoshanagavriela929 arguing the existence of a god necessitates presupposition of a god’s divine attributes, which includes omniscience.
Your rejection of the possibility of existence of a god makes it indeed impossible to argue with you.
This was Interesting, going to watch the full episode!
6:29 he voices the ripple effect Forrest fires and holocaust have as a reason God may have allowed those things (not that they're good) but then argues against his own consequentialist view he just voiced as a reason! I am no philosopher but I tore him a new one with the last few comments I made. I know there are responses but those theodicies are too weak as responses
My first reaction goes to word parasitical. Evil a parasite a leech, does not give an answer to problem of evil and does God exist. Our Lord explain about the weeds that grows with the wheat. Jesus said pulling out the weeds you damage the wheat, but if you allow evil to exist you harm the wheat. Take the evil of the Holocaust which was allowed to exist in the Christian world and WWII ended that evil. Was war the only answer to end an objective evil?
❤❤❤❤❤
I have to take issue with the ad-hoc character of Dr. Craig's argumentation when he supposes that the future effects of disasters like the current Australian forest fires would somehow justify the suffering they cause at present. In order to make that argument even slightly relevant, he should be able to point to some consistent good or benefit from disasters in the past. Please note that I am not saying that eventual good consequences make the disasters good. I am saying that there is no or scant evidence for the argument in the first place.
Perhaps the best Biblical example is the flood in the days of Noah. God decides to kill all people because they have turned to evil, only to find that within Noah's lifetime, his descendants turn again to idolatry and various other abominations like the hubris to want to build a tower that reaches to heaven.
First of all it is assumed that bush fires or forest fires are 'bad'. In the North American rocky mountains there is a species of tree known as the 'lodgepole' pine tree. A unique feature about this tree is that it's pine cones are a solid mass of resin in the shape of an old wooden spinning top. The only way the seeds are able to escape are when he resin is melted under very high temperatures, such as from a forest fire. Thus, in order for this species of tree to reproduce it must be subjected to forest fires on a regular basis something we humans do our best to prevent. I am willing to bet the same is happening in Australia in that the bush has to be cleared by fires on a regular basis, and because it has not happened lately, that there is an overabundence of fuel to be burned. Therefore it could be said that forest and bush fires are actually beneficial.
I like the biblical example of Noah in that God told Noah to build an ark on dry land. This feat could not possibly be accomplished in a single year or a decade. So for many years people are looking at Noah and asking what the heck he is doing and why. He would obviously be warning everyone who asked about God's coming judgement. I would not be surprised that by the end of his ark building project, absolutely everyone knew what he was doing and why. The ironic part is that if anyone believed Noah, all they had to do was get on the ark when Noah told them to do so and thus be saved. However, if you read the story closely you will note that it was God himself who closed the door to the ark and thus cut off salvation to any who were not on board in time. I am wondering if Noah could hear the cries of the people outside begging to be brought on board and knowing that there was nothing he could do about it. I wondering if he even recognized some of the voices of his friends and neighbors.
Of course this does beg the question of why was the evil of Noah's time so egregious that God had to wipe out all of humanity and yet he seems to allow other evil to flourish later. Well, I wasn't there at the time but I do believe that God is still and good and just god and that he would not punish without giving the perpetrators a fair warning like he did with Noah.
@@1961casey Why did God make trees that needed fire to reproduce? If God is omnipotent, why not make species that can live, love, and reproduce without major disasters or seriously traumatic assaults and injuries?
@@mikemossey You are making assumptions as to what constitutes a 'disaster'. The Nile river delta floods regularly but that is what makes it so fertile. The ocean rises and falls every day frequently stranding sea life on the shore but is that a disaster? What about turtles coming ashore to lay their eggs only to have most of the hatchlings die before they reach the ocean. Is that a disaster? Get your own definitions straight before making some childish accusation against God.
@@1961casey I am sorry for not replying earlier, but I was not notified of your response (or I missed it; it's been a year...)
You said: "First of all it is assumed that bush fires or forest fires are 'bad'.", and then you point out that some organisms actually need forest fires.
I think you misunderstand the argument here. The presenter is not talking about "lodgepole" pines, but about animals who suffer and presumably have not committed any sins, do not believe in Jesus, and will not be saved. Their "suffering" will therefore be empty and no "good consequences" will follow, which raises the question why a good God would allow such a thing.
Regarding the friends of Noah who died in the flood... Please spare a thought for the babies who died... What "egregious evil" could they have done to justify such a torturous death?
@R P No burdenshifting going on here. Looking at the issue from the outside, the first claim is made by the theist; namely that his good God allows this suffering (because of the forest fires in the example) because it will lead to a greater good. Although I think Dr. Craig is right that there may not be a logical objection to this argument in the abstract, provided you can demonstrate the existence of this particular deity, this claim does need evidence if you want to be able to present it as in any way convincing or valuable.
I point out that this evidence is lacking. If Dr. Craig's claim that a greater good comes from disasters like these forest fires, even if it takes 500 years, then we should be able to see a consistent pattern in history of good stuff happening that can be traced back to some disaster. Such a pattern does not seem to exist. Observing that the evidence for a claim is insufficient is not the same as making a counter claim, and as I am not making a counter claim, I do not have a burden of evidence here.
Therefore, there is currently no evidence from this argument to support Dr. Craig's claim that his God is good despite the suffering he obviously allows to happen, even to innocent organisms.
If you disagree with my observation that we do not see a consistent historical pattern of good that can be traced back to previous suffering or even other "bad" stuff, then please provide this evidence. You may succeed where Dr. Craig has failed.
At the end of the day, it is a matter of faith. Believers believe all the suffering that God allows will help reach a good end compared to which all the experienced suffering will be nothing. If you go in there with the mentality; "If God doesn't remove all evil right now, He is evil or He doesn't exist" then of course you can't be convinced, even a believer wouldn't.
God already tried to give everyone everything they want at all time with no evil whatsoever; the garden of eden. The thing is, He also gave an exit door in the form of the tree of knowledge, knowing full well we would eat from it, because He created us free, and freedom = sin. And now we are living in a world covered in a miasma of sin and are all trying to breathe while living in a burning house.
It seems that in gods eyes the means do justify the end. This is fact. All we can hope for is that there was good enough reason for god to allow those means (our 6000 years of suffering as victims in the prison of planet earth) that doesn't make god evil himself, because that is also a possibility.
So we have two options which one sounds more reasonable: a child being raped and murdered is evil and shows there is no God which can be omnipotent and all benevolent, option 2: a child being raped and murdered might have some greater good in it which we are incapable to understand.
That's brilliant!
Craig arguably the greatest christian philosopher of this generation
4:09 - he say the atheist would have to show there is a logical possibillity- no the atheist doesn't have to show anything. You're the one making the claim, yes positing that a god exists. YOU have to overcome the problem of natural evil and you can't because there is no answer
What problem of evil? The bible shows God has agency over his attributes and allows evil to exist suspending his judgment so the plan of redemption for man and ability for man to choose it can and could occur.
Why god allows suffering? It doesn’t! I don’t need 8:12 minutes to come to that conclusion
He allows it but does not cause it. If He did not use it on my life I would not know Him.
@@MrBilioner If god has no way for you to know him without suffering, then he is not omnipotent, problem of evil stands.
A lot of waffle and the real message is that William Craig doesn't know the answer. 'Maybe' God has some moral reason for evil and suffering. The holocaust might have had a moral reason but nobody understamds the real reason.
(I have no idea what happened to my first paragraph but basically I disagree with this idea that evil doesn't positively exist therefore God didn't create it. My first reason is that you can't prove good positively exists any more than you can prove evil doesn't. These things are both immaterial. The only thing you can hope to demonstrate is that they're codependent. Also god does not mean good. Stop saying that.)
Secondly, you *can* create darkness. If I turn off all the lights in my room, I've created darkness. Nothing's emitting "umbrons" but I have brought the absence of photons into being. Likewise an infinite singular god would create evil by withdrawing his presence. This cannot coincide with Gods infinite nature of goodness and thus an infinite god cannot exist. Cause by the way, it goes both ways. An infinite god cannot create both good and evil. If both exist, he cannot. However I still think there are arguments for the existence of divinity that do not require an infinite god. This is called polytheism and it was the default opinion for thousands of years until some Semites were inspired by an Egyptian tyrant and a couple thousand years after that some European kings decided it was more politically expedient to say they believed in this Christ dude instead of Odin.
Thirdly, while we're here, WLC said that evil is "an absence of right order in the creaturely will." This implies that it was not god but instead his creation which created order. Which doesn't work for several reasons. First of all, that implies man or angels can create something which god cannot. This kind of seems to make men and angels seem more powerful than god. Secondly, it neglects the other sort of evil. That being natural evil. Setting Covid-19 aside: who creates diseases? Cancer? Famine? These things are objectively evil. They defy the natural order. So who makes them? Famine can sometimes be created by humans but sometimes its just because of crop failure. Divinity is the only answer to this unless you take the naturalist position that it's all just random accidents and that's ridiculous. Who's will is it that a child dies of bone cancer? If we assume monotheism to be true, it is God's will alone. Even if you work Satan into this somehow, it was still God's will that he allow Satan to bring his will into being. And again, if Satan can create things God cannot that means that Satan is as powerful if not more powerful than God. You see how it's really hard to maintain that God is a singularity? Like at very least there's a duality going on here with a good god and an evil god.
I agree I think how WLC chose to represent evil doesn't accurately describe it and doesn't line up the issues or the bible it causes issues when discussing it. What problem of evil? The bible shows God has agency over his attributes and allows evil to exist suspending his judgment so the plan of redemption for man and ability for man to choose it can and could occur. Limited temporal suffering is but minor in relation to allowing eternal redemption to be put on the table.
There is petroleum, isn't it
It sure would be nice if God could just show up and give us clear, unambiguous explanations rather than have to rely on a bunch of philosophers fumbling around for tenuous explanations, grasping at straws and not really making any sense.
What would be the fun in that? And stating it doesn't make sense is a personal perspective. It all makes sense to me.
@@Thomas-kj1fk Human suffering is too significant to accept the apparent divine silence and ambiguity as being "for fun". This goes infinitely more so if scenarios such as inescapable, permanent hell exist for segments of the population. And if you disagree with that based on religious grounds, then your religion obviously trivializes human suffering, which has always been a critique atheists have leveled at religious philosophies (the trivialization of this world if religion is true or taken seriously).
@@Thomas-kj1fk I would also agree that "making sense" is personal, but I don't always believe people when they say they think something "makes sense". To me, "making sense" means that there is a coherent explanation out there that one is intuitively latched onto on an emotional-intuitive level. People often say "it makes sense" but they are actually failing to understand their own emotional state sometimes - they _think_ something "makes sense" but in reality they are mistaken - it doesn't _actually_ make sense, they just mistakenly think it does. Happens all the time in many ways - virtually any time one is mistaken about something.
If God showed up to give us clear explanations as to why the universe is the way it is. Then theism would not be a belief it would be fact. We might as well already be in heaven. However, this is obviously not the case this could be because God wanted an existing reality with greater values of good opposed to a reality with equally good values. Belief also builds a stronger foundation of trust within God. Thus the reward in heaven would be much more satisfying to us then it would be to the angels for example. This would be because we experienced evil and being a witness to a world without evil would be divine in its own way.
In addition it doesn't require the work of philosophers "grasping at straws" in order to make God's existence make sense. It requires a deeper thinking of our reality and an openness to the possibility of a creator. You could say it is the job of a philosopher to think deeply, but we all can if you gave it some contemplation and discussion.
Well, just WAIT, you'll die like everyone else. Let's hope you are ready to stand before God, if you don't know him... you think HUMAN suffering is suffering? Just wait.
4:56 he says we're not able to answer why God allows natural evil and so he ADMITS no answer but couches it in "atheist ignorance" um, he's the ignorant one claiming a disembodied mind in another dimension exists with contradicting qualities and it's somehow OUR ignorance at fault when he's the one making huge insane claims about invisible entities existing.
There are situations where the best and most likely conclusion, if any, for why a natural evil occurs is by a stronger non-human will for a good reason.
Since the atheist cannot support that answer, and cannot answer the natural good, then he must make a claim of ignorance.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 example needed
So, for god, the free will of evil doers are more importent than the free will of victims of their evil actions? Ok, doesn't sound good to me.
The ones who do harm to others with their free will, will face judgement.
@@Ana-rb6gj So what? How doe's that help the victim?
@@8fot I have also been a victim of lies, however I have also lied. So the person who hurt me and I who have hurt someone thru lies are both guilty and victims in God's eyes. That is why we need to turn to Jesus to get answers. So first to even have grounds from which you can accuse God of something go and read The Bible and you will see what the point is. Keep in mind that Jesus is the key.
@@Ana-rb6gj I don't accuse your god of anything, I don't believe in they. I'm just pointing out that the problem of is a problem for your belief. Furthermore I have read the bible, and I did not find any answer to any question. Please give me an example of a spesific question and the specific verse that give you the answer, an answer you cannot get elsewhere. Lets say the person who hurt you is a christian too, what then? How will he/she be judged?
@@8fot God judges anyone who breaks one of the ten commandments. So you break one, you break all of them in God's eyes. And if you have read the Bible you would have known what God offers us so that we wouldn't have to be judged for breaking the commandments. And that is Jesus who died for our sins to take ours upon himself and if we trust in Him our sorrows of any kind, He will help us heal them. I can't rationalise that experiance - one has to experiance it by himself.
So of you are hurt, angry, sad, and don't really know what to do, you bring that to Jesus thru prayer and let Him do His thing, since He knows everything there is to know anout situation.
And Bible verses that say that:
- Psalm 147:3
- Isaiah 41:10, 43:18
- 1 Peter 5:7, 4:19
- John 10:10, 16:33, 14:27
- Matthew 11:28
- 2 Corinthians 12:9
Regarding judgement:
- 5 Moses 1:17,
- Psalm 138:7,
- Romans 12:19
- Philipians 2:3
- Matthew 5:39
- Luke 6: 27-28
- 1 Peter 4:17
So even if a true, born again Christian hurts you, He should be aware of what he did. Communication is still key here. But if you feel powerless about something you should bring that before God, Jesus and Holy spirit.
But since you do not believe in God I don't understand why you would search for videos with two Christian apologets 🤷♀️
Isaiah 45:7 KJV clearly states:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." GOD MAKES EVIL! It's in the bible. Christians need to STOP arguing that God is GOOD. That is BLASPHEMOUS NONSENSE!
Must be great to be God, with people like Craig excusing One's every action. They spend so much energy running around, shielding their deity from any shed of accountability..... it's good to be the king. 😆
like who does God think he is, creator of the universe? 😆
@@bds8715 If you create a life form you are morally responsible for its suffering when you do not take actions that are well within your capability to prevent the harm. If God created the universe that would not give him the moral right to fill it with suffering creatures. Wouldn't you agree that if someone created a universe that was nothing but hell and all of the creatures in it suffered and did nothing but that that it would be absolutely evil to create such a world? It wouldn't matter if God created that world or not - the act itself is intrinsically evil.
This is really funny, these two bozos sitting in a comfy lounge trying to defend the indefensible. LOL
Wow! This is literally 2 grown men trying to justify why their invisible friend exists. There is absolutely no way these two would believe in this garbage if their families hadn't told them over and over that this is how it is when they were young and impressionable. Sad
But yet there r plenty of intellectuals that come to faith in God who weren't born into a christian family. They do based off the evidence. You're literally writing off over 2 BILLION people and saying the only reason they believe is because they're brain washed or ignorant smh
@@underedge100 yup! You're damned right I am. The same way that you would write off the countless people who believed just as fervently in Zeuse. They came to it based off the evidence. smh. Name one single story with the same level of wild assed assertions that you would be willing to even consider! In fact you're probably even too brainwashed to be able to step back from it and see how crazy the stories seem to the unindoctrinated.
@@donnyh3497 There is way more evidence for the God of the bible than there is for Greek Gods that is why im willing to believe in the bible because of the evidence and again like i was saying there r plenty of intellectual atheists/agnostics who come to faith is christ so r u saying those people got brainwashed too? U seem like u have a lot of hatred towards religion. I think the same argument could be made against atheists saying the only reason they r atheist is because they didn't grow up in a religious house hold or they had a bad experience which that does not disprove the existence of God.
@@underedge100 I would absolutely agree that the reason I am atheist is because I didn't grow up in a religious household! I was raised by a believer and an atheist who decided to let me grow up without the indoctrination so I could figure it out myself. Without the "reiteration effect" no one would believe those crazy stories. The illusory truth effect (also known as the validity effect, truth effect, or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure. Those so called atheists who believe now because of "evidence" had heard that garbage a lot as a child. Those who believed in Zeuse would tell you that there is wayyyy more evidence of Zeuse than jesus! Seriously, what stories with equally far fetched claims would you consider?
@@donnyh3497 I would consider many "far fetched" stories if they had reasonable evidence to back them up because i am willing to go where the evidence leads. Just like you think something came from nothing which is pretty far fetched. But u believe it based on the scientific evidence. Also i can assure you that not all these atheist came to faith because they heard these stories as a child.