Friendly reminder to speak respectfully in the comments! Its more helpful to focus on arguments than addressing others' motives. Thanks everyone for engaging.
I don’t find the moral argument particularly problematic for theism, nor do I consider fine-tuning to be a strong argument for it. Perhaps I’m not sophisticated enough in physics to find fine-tuning convincing. As for the moral argument, I don’t find it convincing or a strong argument against theism because it depends entirely on our subjective evaluations of what is good, bad, right, and wrong. However, if theism is true, then good, bad, right, and wrong are objective truths, meaning our subjective assessments are independent of the reality of those truths. That is, for the moral argument to be a problem for theism, it seems we mus assume that objective morality does not exist and theism to be false. The best argument for God, in my view, is the ontological argument by Anselm, not because I want to be contrarian. 😂 However, as an atheist, there isn’t any argument or experience that has convinced me of its truth. Question! Gavin, do you personally believe that not eating animals (except for the need to survive) is more virtuous than eating them? Considering not only animal suffering but also the idea of paradise before the fall of man, it seems to me that not eating meat aligns more closely with the way God intended for humans to live, in a state without sin?
Please consider doing more long form content on subjects like this! There's so much to take in, and we need more time and break down. I know your time is precious, but even the occasional long video would be helpful!
Well before the emergence of humanity, angels were entrusted with the stewardship of creation, serving as caretakers, managers, and authorities to govern according to God's established plan, though their control was not absolute. Humans are not the only creatures God created, but due to the vastness of space, we will not encounter these other beings on Earth. The Morning Star, an angelic leader, oversaw this celestial government across the universe, operating under God's authority. The Bible indicates that this angel held unique authoritative privileges not shared by most other angels. An interesting aside is that during the temptation in the wilderness, Satan offered the world to Jesus because he genuinely had the authority to do so. Jesus was aware of this, which is why the offer posed a genuine temptation. The reason Satan has not been deposed yet is that, in my belief, God made a promise to allow Satan to rule over creation for a specified period. Despite Satan's fall, God is honoring this promise. God is not unaware of the consequences; He knew that if Satan were to fall, creation would unfold differently from His original intention. However, God is never without a plan. When it comes to suffering, certain types can lead to a potential greater good, while some suffering is intended to be destructive (from the dark side), and other suffering occurs by chance. It’s important to understand that once a person dies, their spirit is restored to a non-afflicted, stable state, free from any mental, physical, or emotional consequences of their earthly experiences. At that point, God can access the memory of each individual’s life-from birth to death-for the purpose of judgment. You cannot deny your own thoughts or feelings during that time, as they originate directly from you. As for the suffering of animals, while it is difficult to witness, it is ultimately a temporary condition. If animals are resurrected (which I cannot confirm), I believe they too will experience renewal. If they are not resurrected, it is indeed harsh, but ultimately it will not matter in the grand scheme of things. Some of the above is supported by scripture, but the rest is from my understanding and pursuit of God. I would probably fall under the Angelic fall theory.
Well before the emergence of humanity, angels were entrusted with the stewardship of creation, serving as caretakers, managers, and authorities to govern according to God's established plan, though their control was not absolute. Humans are not the only creatures God created, but due to the vastness of space, we will not encounter these other beings on Earth. The Morning Star, an angelic leader, oversaw this celestial government across the universe, operating under God's authority. The Bible indicates that this angel held unique authoritative privileges not shared by most other angels. An interesting aside is that during the temptation in the wilderness, Satan offered the world to Jesus because he genuinely had the authority to do so. Jesus was aware of this, which is why the offer posed a genuine temptation. The reason Satan has not been deposed yet is that, in my belief, God made a promise to allow Satan to rule over creation for a specified period. Despite Satan's fall, God is honoring this promise. God is not unaware of the consequences; He knew that if Satan were to fall, creation would unfold differently from His original intention. However, God is never without a plan. When it comes to suffering, certain types can lead to a potential greater good, while some suffering is intended to be destructive (from the dark side), and other suffering occurs by chance. It’s important to understand that once a person dies, their spirit is restored to a non-afflicted, stable state, free from any mental, physical, or emotional consequences of their earthly experiences. At that point, God can access the memory of each individual’s life-from birth to death-for the purpose of judgment. You cannot deny your own thoughts or feelings during that time, as they originate directly from you. As for the suffering of animals, while it is difficult to witness, it is ultimately a temporary condition. If animals are resurrected (which I cannot confirm), I believe they too will experience renewal. If they are not resurrected, it is indeed harsh, but ultimately it will not matter in the grand scheme of things. Some of the above is supported by scripture, but the rest is from my understanding and pursuit of God. I would probably fall under the Angelic fall theory.
I’m an atheist and it’s really nice to see a channel like this who work out atheist arguments. Rather than just calling the athiest they are talking about stupid and whatnot. I can also say the same for atheist channels out there. There’s a lot of negative ones. I think that’s why I like Alex So much. He’s respectful.
I hope you keep an open mind and heart. It sounds like your mind is open but don't forget about the heart. I hope if you're honestly seeking you will ask the lord to show himself to you. I will be praying for you.
There’s no reason to be kind or respectful to people who are pathetically delusional nutbag cultist freaks that believe in stupid irrational bs like religions, gods, saviors/messiah etc they deserve to be shamed. It’s 2025, it’s time for people to live in reality
Despite what other commenters think, I actually really like O'Connor's argument. It seems pretty solid, but there are quite a few solid responses to it as well. Alongside your response, Michael Jones (Inspiring Philosophy) gave a response to this issue in his video about animal suffering which I thought was very solid. Merry Christmas and God bless you, dear friend!
Is this the IP response that animals go to heaven? Not a good response at all, the bible clearly indicates that god doesn't care about animals at all, alongside that pointless suffering is still unexpected no matter how much 'heaven' is offered. On that argument you have basically rejected the notion of morality entirely. Also doesn't account for hell
@@francisa4636 Notice how Christians conveniently ignore Ecclesiastes 3:18‐22 "I said to myself with regard to humans that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals, for all is vanity. All go to one place, all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that all should enjoy their work, for that is their lot; who can bring them to see what will be after them?""
@@francisa4636 why, have you read the Bible? It would seem not since Jonah 4:11 reads, 'should I not have compassion on Nineveh..in which there are more than 120 000 persons... *as well as many animals?'* and Deuteronomy 5:14 which has one of the ten commandments no less giving domestic animals a day off(!) and Deuteronomy 25:4. as for hell you should read the relevant passages taking them absolutely literally without addition or subtraction and you won't have a problem
@@I-am-Hrut there's no reason to 'ignore' it since its absolutely true. see also Psalm s 'his spirit departs he returns to the earth in that very day his thoughts perish'. In fact , Paul writes an entire chapter on the issue ie 1 Corinthians 15
@@stephenglasse2743 “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” There are many contradictory passages in the bible, in context of the problem of evil you have to explain the massive amounts of pointless suffering and the passage you cite doesn't really do that does it. In fact as far as I'm concerned it just highlights yet another contradiction in the bible
Wow, this is a really good explanation of a response to the problem of evil. I have always sort of tried approaching it from a Best of All Worlds perspective and it always fell short, thanks for turning me on to this argument
I think this argument of angelic fall causing creation to fall resulting inexorably in animal suffering (among other things) is actually still congruent within the context of God still choosing the best of all possible universes (eventually, after restoration of all things), and that the two explanations are not in conflict. Not that you said they were, it's just that your comment made me ponder...
No doubt your content in someway also influences your audience, since in no other youtube channel have I seen a more respectful and positive comment section when engaging with arguments. This is what I picture when imagining christian virtues.
Great video. I never understood why the problem of evil is viewed as a refutation of God's existence. I have not studied philosophy but I always thought that the most the problem of evil gets people is that God might not be Good. Not that he doesn't exist. I loved the discussion on Cs Lewis and Tolkien's view of angels and creation.
As an atheist who did study philosophy, you are right. It's not a refutation. And surely no atheist says it is. But we can say more. And Joe Schmid (Majesty of Reason) says more in response to Cameron, discussing the very same debate. It's certainly generated a lot of content. Atheism is more likely given the problem of evil. Bob Ross Bayesian bars. It's good fun. Joe has a sense of humour.
"the most the problem of evil gets people is that God might not be Good. Not that he doesn't exist." I agree, although an alternate conclusion is that childhood cancer (or whatever "evil" you wish to offer as an illustration) is not evil. Either option is rarely advanced by atheism. Although I have recently seen some college students trying to argue a related argument, that objective moral truth does not exist (therefore whatever "evil" you offer as an example is not *actually* evil, but rather a *socially constructed* evil). I think it's a sound argument if you're an atheist, but they generally are laughed at and badgered into silence.
Bascially Alex is arguing "God wouldn't do it that way". One of oldest arguments which is found in Job. " God wouldn't allow a good man like Job to suffer unless Job condemned a big sin." God asked Job where he was when He created the universe. The atheist problem of evil is they see evil everywhere including in God but not in themselves. They are blinded by their own pride. Most atheist define "Evil" as something they don't like.
Doesn’t God define it that way as well. He doesn’t have a legitimate problem with slavery, but based on the Bible, throws a hissy fit on the topic of homosexuality
@@js1423Sounds like you're the one throwing a hissy fit on the topic of homosexuality and projecting it onto the almighty because you don't like what He has to say about it.
@@signposts6189 I would say using reactionary language like "abomination" kinda shows an immature person. When a human uses dog-whistle words like that, I usually just dismiss them. Why would I treat conceptual or paranatural beings any different?
Now the question is, why does all creation suffer for the sin of Adam. Is that fair and just? I am asking in good faith and not seeking argument. I have to mention this because some people take questions as an attack. This is one of the questions that has challenged my believe in Gods goodness.
@@somemedic8482 I dont see the suffering of creation as a punishment from God because of Man's fall, I see it as a direct consequence of Man's fall. Adam had dominion over creation and He betrayed that. He betrayed creation. Now I personally Genesis as a mystical, eternal truth and not necessarily an origins story. But I think the point is, Man is not independent of nature and his actions have direct consequences. Either way you see it, whether mystical or historical, creation suffering is not simply an arbitrary judgment cause by God. And I think that is true of all of God's wrath actually. The suffering and punishment is brought on by the consequences of the perpetrators own actions. The herion addict hasnt been cursed by God with the hell of addiction for punishment of his drug use...he is trapped in the hell of addiction precisely because of his action of injecting herion.
@@somemedic8482 In Adam we were given dominion over this earth as little gods upon its face and even in our fallen state we've conquered the sea, the sky, and all other feeling beings. Is it fair? You do not want what is fair for you under the sight of a Just and Holy God.
I have no cogent answer to why God allows animal suffering. Shoot, I have no convincing answer as to why God allows ANY suffering! However, God allowing suffering is VASTLY different from the following: There is no God since there exist suffering. One thing that people forget is , God can do as he wills. And we don't have to agree with it . Nor do we have to like it. But our disagreeing or disliking what God does or allows ____that will not make God an unreality.
Unfortunately this argument still renders this version of god as either indifferent towards suffering or lacking in the ability to do anything about it.
(7:17) Angelic fall theory: Wow, this really takes the theological gymnastics to a whole new level. You're suggesting that creation had already "fallen" due to angels before humans were even created? So, sin didn’t actually enter the world through Adam? Death and suffering were already present before the so-called "fall"? This completely undermines the foundational Christian theology of Paul, who explicitly ties the origin of sin and death to Adam (Romans 5:12) and builds the entire atonement narrative around the idea that the "first Adam" brought sin, and the "last Adam" (Jesus) atoned for it. If this "angelic fall" theory is true, then Paul’s theology collapses like a house of cards. Christian theology was already convoluted, but this takes it to a new level of incoherence. You’re essentially making Paul’s central argument moot-and with it, the entire premise of Jesus’ atonement. At this point, it’s not just weird-it’s outright self-defeating! (15:23) The Earth as a Prison for Fallen Angels: Wait…what? So now this physical world is being described as a prison for fallen angels, and humans were created and placed inside this prison, almost guaranteed to fall prey to these angelic beings? Let’s pause for a moment-how does this fit into any concept of a loving and just God? Imagine deliberately creating humans, fragile and prone to suffering, and placing them in a cosmic prison filled with malevolent entities. That’s not love-that’s the premise of a dark dystopian novel! And referring to Thomas Aquinas’ claim that angels are part of the universe doesn’t make this any better. If angels are part of creation and yet are responsible for “breaking” it, how is this different from saying God created a chaotic and destructive system by design? It just keeps digging a deeper hole for theology. To hear intelligent humans in 2024 talk this way about angels, fallen beings, and cosmic prisons is… fascinating. But not in the inspiring sense-it’s more like watching someone double down on medieval superstition, trying to retrofit it into the modern world. Sad, indeed.
Shh, it's christian fanfic. Just let it happen ;) I kid. Gavin is obviously reaching well beyond the realms of even his own paradigms. It just shows he's not being critical.
@@eshoosca You’re asking me, an atheist, about sin and evil? Fair enough-I’ve wrestled with these questions before. I used to be a 'born again' Christian for most of my life, but now I’m 100% certain-yes, 100%-that there is no God. From that perspective, all the things we call "suffering" are just inherent to life. If you value existence, you accept suffering as the price you pay. Life can be summed up as resources, grazers, predators, and parasites, with some species managing to live in symbiosis. That’s it. We’re just lucky to be at the top of the food chain, though even that doesn’t make us invincible-parasites can wipe us out just as easily. But human relations? That’s where we have a choice. There are people who take and people who give. Which one are you? For me, faced with a cold and indifferent universe, I’ve chosen to see beauty-not just in the grandeur of the stars but even in the chaos, the flaws, and the stupidity of the world around me. I try to make the most of it. I grab every opportunity to grow, to learn, to teach myself something new-whether it’s drumming, singing Coldplay’s latest Christmas song, or even developing a framework to explain the universe. And when I choose to give, to mean something to someone else, I experience a fleeting glimpse of happiness. That’s all there is, friend. That’s all there is.
@@theGuideMarkII Dr. John Walton's commentary on Genesis fits with what Gavin is saying too i.e. Adam as the priest king presiding over a garden temple to in effect minister and assist creation. And Paul speaking in Romans says that through one man sin entered the world not that he invented it. Creation is subject to futility and decay but even in the later passages we see this happened in stages not solely in Eden, for instance with the rapid escalation of violence leading up to the flood and the separation of languages at Babel afterwords. It's an ongoing fall anyway.
@Jim-Mc This is certainly an imaginative take, blending biblical interpretation with speculative narratives that almost sound like they belong in a Tolkien novel! While such stories can be fascinating to explore, they highlight a common issue with biblical interpretation: the tendency to overlay creative frameworks onto ancient texts to fill in gaps or make them resonate with modern sensibilities. But let’s take a closer look at what you’re saying: Adam as a priest-king presiding over a garden temple to "minister and assist creation." This sounds poetic, but where in the Genesis account do we actually find anything resembling a "priest-king" role? The text describes Adam as a caretaker of the garden, tasked with tilling the ground-not as some grand, spiritual intermediary. These interpretations often project meanings onto the text that simply aren’t there. As for Paul’s commentary in Romans, it’s worth noting that Paul was writing centuries after these texts were composed, in a cultural context steeped in Greco-Roman thought. His theology, particularly about sin entering the world through Adam, reflects his attempt to tie Jewish narratives to his Christ-centered message. But the Genesis account itself doesn’t align neatly with Paul’s framework-it never explicitly states that Adam’s actions introduced death or decay universally. That’s an interpretation, not a fact. The idea of an "ongoing fall," with decay and futility gradually escalating, is also interesting but doesn’t align with how ancient cultures thought about sin and suffering. Genesis is a mythic narrative, not a historical or scientific account. The notion of sin being an "ongoing" process, expanding through events like the flood and Babel, seems like a creative attempt to reconcile contradictions in the text with the moral dilemmas these stories raise. Instead of trying to retrofit elaborate metaphysical structures onto these ancient texts, wouldn’t it be more honest to recognize them as what they are-myths and allegories reflecting the worldview of their time? They weren’t written to be a cohesive explanation of universal decay or sin but as stories to make sense of human experience and communal identity. At some point, we must ask: how much of this interpretation is grounded in the text itself, and how much is being invented to smooth over its inconsistencies? If you strip away the creative storytelling, what remains?
Why is it so difficult to say that CS Lewis is wrong about animal pain and suffering? Some people still hold that animals don't even have emotions! To anyone who has worked with animals, the idea animals have no pain, suffering, or emotions, etc., is absolutely asinine, is it not? ... Orca pods have thier own languages, cultures, play, and have seggs for fun. ..Sounds like sentience to me!
They don't have "cultures". The issue seems to be the language we use in response to animal interactions and studying. Lewis acknowledges they have pain but that they lack the reflection necessary to make that pain suffering. The question then is if "plain pain" without suffering really is morally irrelevant as Lewis claims which I think it is not.
Merry Christmas Gavin! I’d never heard of you until a few months ago but am really appreciatiing your content. Thank you for promoting respectful dialogue rather than making assumptions and attacking others of differing opinions. The world needs less of that and more of your approach, in my opinion.
The “because we’re in a fallen world” argument doesn’t fly with O’Conner though. He addressed it in the Jubilee video. Sure, the world is fallen, but God still created a world that COULD fall, therefore He still created suffering, and it goes back to square one. He is saying that God created ALL the conditions, so it doesn’t matter what the condition is.
I completely agree with you, I’m Christian and I thought that debate was largely won by Alex. At the same time, I think there will inevitably be a degree of disagreement when Christians utilize scripture as their measurement of truth and that’s okay, there’s a heart problem that also needs to be addressed underneath the main points he made. Alex and Christians are debating pole vaulting verses sprints but we haven’t agreed on meters verses feet. We can’t win a debate with an atheist when they don’t agree with the rule book we use.
So good. You can't look at the fine-tuning (as in physical constants) in isolation. Fine-tuning would also include finely tuned moral sensibilities that make us perceive animal suffering as a problem! Thank you for this, Gavin.
The juxtaposition of these arguments implies conflict. But is there one? Doesn't the claim that all suffering, especially animal suffering, is wrong also assume fine tuning of some sort. If not physical constants, then moral sensibilities?
@@Lurkspur I personally struggle with this argument and know many people who just deny that animals actually experience suffering. The comment definitely added to the conversation in my opinion.
@@YourFriendDevin The most intense of human suffering is not physical but mental/psychological/spiritual. It reveals the foundational question: Why? Animals don't ask why.
Incredibly well done video! Thank you for this. It’s crazy how when I see Christian’s talk of the problem of suffering and evil, many of them don’t bring up that evil is caused outside of god, and that spiritual being impact this, as well as creation being broken because of sin. Then people are left thinking there must be something missing. That’s because this kind of topic isn’t mentioned.
Gavin, this is my first ever UA-cam comment, but I wanted you to know how much you and your channel have meant to me over the years. You are by far my favorite UA-cam channel right now and I look forward to all your posts. We need a voice like yours right now to cut through all the noise. I also would love to see you and Alex debate or converse sometime soon! He by far is the agnostic I find most thoughtful and insightful on their side right now. With that said, I really don't see the force of this argument against theism. Your fallen angel defense is new to me, and as you say somewhat surprising and complicated, but I will definitely look into more. With that said, I'm not sure one must concede that nature is currently broken, fallen, or cruel. Does the Bible claim this? As a theistic evolutionist, when I study the finely balanced ecosystems we find in nature and, even as the atheist admitted in their argument, how evolution has led to the creation of humanity and the world we now find ourselves in, I am not convinced that it is evil, cruel, or incompatible with God's goodness and order. The Bible is clear that the carnivores expect their meals from the Lord, and so I do not agree with Alex that an all good God would necessarily create only herbivores. Also, there is a biblical argument that eschatology precedes soteriology, meaning that God creates a good world but not necessarily a perfect one. All creation, from the beginning, points forward to the culmination and glorification of something better. There will be a day of no natural disasters, no animal or human suffering, no even potential for evil or choosing to rebel against God's goodness, but that day was not in Genesis 1 and is not now. We may not be living in the best of all possible worlds this instant but we are in the best of all possible stories/narratives of redemption and God is not done with His creation yet. This is a kind of greater good defense but I believe it is logically and biblically valid. Finally, what I don't understand is that Alex thinks animal suffering is a greater problem than human suffering. I thought most philosophers and theologians already differentiated between human evil and natural evil (which is more like chaos than actually being considered evil or unjust). Just my thoughts. Thank you Gavin for all you do! Praying for you and Alex!
thanks for the comment and sharing your thoughts! Glad to be connected, and I appreciate you watching. You might also find interesting the video and article linked in the video description; God bless!
Always appreciate your work, Gavin! It seems to me that the angelic fall theodicy *could* work to assuage believers' anxieties about suffering, but it wouldn't have as much force within the larger framework of the debate; seeing as the initial conditions of creation (presumably at the big bang) were such that the unfolding of life follow along the evolutionary path that necessitates suffering. There appears no abrupt change within the continuum of nature to evidence a 'break/fall' due to a spiritual rebellion. Thus, this would need to push the fall of angelic beings into a pre-temporal state.
While Alex clearly wins this argument, I am so glad everyone was respectful. His arguments dont push me from god, but definitely adds to the myriad arguments that are. Religion has sadly failed us all too many times.
His opponents didn't understand the right response to Alex's argument, which is simply that suffering often leads to good things and therefore it's incorrect to equate suffering with "evil". You can say an excess of suffering towards a defenseless party certainly appears evil but that's a much more nuanced and difficult to defend position than just claiming that suffering is wrong, and you have no firm moral foundation with such a claim. Unfortunately theists so often just grant atheists to presuppose that suffering = "evil".
@@harrygarris6921doesn't that make god a utilitarian? If hundreds and millions of years of animal suffering is justified by some greater good, doesn't that mean we have to abandon deontology?
God is all-powerful, but He is not all-controlling. Animals also don’t experience suffering and death in the same way that we do. Humans have a real problem with anthropomorphizing animals.
How do we justify that the angels were part of creation in this way and also take into account Colossians 1:16 where he says Jesus is the fabric of the universe holding all things together?
I'm a traditional (Jewish) theist and to me the fallen angel theology cannot help with the problem of natural evil because it makes God into a poor designer or a poor manager. We can't pawn off responsibility for evil to the angels because God created those angels just as they are (if we take them as literal, independent beings). And God also chose how to handle their fall. Why would God create divine beings whom he knew would go corrupt? Unlike humans, there's no absolute need for those beings in our human reality given the sovereignty of the omnipotent God. Really, God can handle things, folks, all by Himself. (And this in fact is the overarching teaching of Israelite Scripture.) Even worse, why did God supposedly "imprison them" in nature? He could have sent them to a completely harmless realm. No, this theodicy keeps tying God's hands, as if He's lost control of things , but for no good reason. It's not enough to offer a theory of what happened to corrupt nature, you must explain why this was God's only or best option-or why it's not truly evil in the overall scheme of things.
@@Jim-Mc Thanks for your reply. I understand and accept the free will defense for human evil and I believe it fits with the entire Bible's portrait of the meaning of life. But the world of angels, if it exists literally, is not the human world. So why does angel rebellion radically determine the nature of life for human beings and animals? Let them live and struggle in "Angelville." I believe God could have other worlds or universes, but would it be right for what happens in a parallel universe to decide the quality of life in ours? And if God did decide to run things that way, it's STILL God who's responsible, not the angels.
@@KingoftheJuice18 in the biblical narrative Adam and Eve are said to fall into the temptation that was offered to them by a fallen angel, but I don't know that's necessarily saying that Adam and Eve could not have rebelled against God in some way without that specific temptation being offered. Ultimately what's at "fault" for evil is that God gave his creation the freedom to do something other than act in accordance to the will of God. But the flip side is because his creatures have freedom, the love that can be shared between God and his people is so much greater than what would be possible in some kind of puppet universe where God creates robots that can only follow the commands he gives them. Even God is capable of taking a greater risk in the pursuit of a greater reward.
@@harrygarris6921 I largely agree with what you wrote, but it doesn't have very much to do with what I was arguing against Gavin's idea in the video. To me it's clear that the snake (which is not identified as an angel in Genesis, but no matter) is a vehicle of God. The snake did not go unnoticed by God; it did not fool God; it was not beyond God's power. What happened in the temptation is what God wanted to happen for humans. But this isn't connected to Gavin's idea that angels rebelled and it's their rebellion that messed up all of nature-and God had no other way to handle it.
@@KingoftheJuice18 What you're describing as your view is the same as Gavin's. He is a calvinist so the angels didn't actually rebel in his worldview, God caused angels to rebel, and they are mere vehicles of his will just like everything else is. The alternative view would then be the belief that God both can and does create beings that have true agency that can act according to their own will. This grants not only man freedom, but God as well. As it sounds like under the view that you are describing, and definitely under the calvinist view, everything is subject in a very literal sense to the will of God not just at the final judgement, but in every moment. And so God is compelled to act at all times as he is unable to allow anything to happen that is against his will.
One major problem with the Angelic Fall Theodicy is that it doesn’t explain why humans and God have the authority to harm animals. It explains nature being broken, but not why what we do to animals is good. This is why I say they don’t have minds.
Hey Gavin, what do you think about another common critique by Alex: That christianity is so common in certain places and almost nowhere to be found in large places with millions of people. This seems to be explained physiologically and not the work of a God who loves all.
I've been thinking about making a response to that point. Essentially, I don't think the unequal distribution of Christianity is at all surprising given theism. Theism allows that we are influenced by our environment. God uses indirect means (like a Christian family, or a missionary) to spread his knowledge. But I need to go back and listen to make sure I have understood the full weight of the objection.
Here is my tuppence. It is a terrible argument and laughably bad. Here are the reasons why; 1) That is true only if you think that everyone that reports such things can or does accurately report how many Christians there are. 2) It hasn't always been as it is now so that's fallacial reasoning imagining that now is always. 3) It assumes that the spread of faith is somehow opposed to working through people and minds which it clearly isn't. So basically his argument is that everyone is not a Christian and Christianity can't be spread by people.
Scripture itself says the spiritual influence is promulgated through human cooperation, wherever the Word of God and Christian living is, comparing it to spreading seed and plant growth.
You have such interesting topics, things that I don't even think about Merry Christmas to you and your family Dr Ortlund. May we find unity in the beautiful gift Christ gave to us.
I actually love Alex, i deconstructed, IM NOT ATHIEST but definitely a skeptic, but i am now actually trying to prove the existence and miracles of Jesus...i also think its weird how similar life is to how Jesus perdicted it....makes u wonder, LOVE ALEX
9:23 I don't see how this solves anything. Now you have to prove the existance of angels/demons AND still describe why God couldn't intercede on behalf of animals to prevent them from any harm. This is a bad argument.
Of all the apologetic channels I've come across, you are by far the most in touch with the pressing issues facing believers in our time. You don't focus on the low hanging fruit. You engage with the best and the brightest from the other side (in a consistently charitable and intellectually rigorous manner). I commend you for this. As a Latter-day Saint, I thank you for enriching my understanding of both Protestantism and the intellectual side of traditional Christian beliefs.
I feel like this fallen angel idea doesn’t answer the most basic question which is “why did God allow the sin of his creatures to spread to nature?” If God is omnipotent, then he could have restricted the spread of sin only to the sinful beings (the angels), instead of letting the resulting death spread to plants and animals like a virus. If God could not have prevented the spread, then you must give up divine omnipotence.
Great video Gavin! Was wondering if you could eventually do a video covering the historic church position/interpretations of “mortal sins” primarily from 1 John. I know that it is a big part of the Catholic system of understanding and that it is used as something of a hit to assurance of salvation/the justification-sanctification process. Keep up the great work!
Scripture answers these questions on animal suffering: “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” Romans 8:22 Animals, along with humans, share in the suffering that resulted from the fall. All creation groans. So this is not a result of God punishing animals for sins they did not commit, this is a natural consequence of sin on our world and the divide that exists between our Creator, and the perfect love and life that he is the source of. Our culture wants to do away with God, and so this is the result of us widening the chasm. He is the author and source of everything that is good, living, and true.
When Paul says "him who subjected it" in Romans 8:20-21, who is he referring to?: "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of *_him who subjected it,_* in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God."
@ God….the answer is God, the one humanity has trespassed against. Yes, God subjected us to the consequence of our sins and did not immediately deliver us to eternal death, so that his plan of salvation through His spotless lamb, Jesus, would set humanity free from the bondage of sin. He allowed us to live and gave us over to our own corruption and all its consequences, in hope that many would return to Him and receive eternal life in His name.
@@mrs.stimsonartkids6951Earlier you said it was a natural consequences of sin. How could that be true if God had to intervene in the world in order to impose that consequence?
He misses the basic argument that an all powerful God let fallen angels cause billions of animals to suffer, animals that are not involved at all in these heavenly battles. *~sigh~* There's this great quote that it's impossible to get a man to see something if his paycheck depends on him *not seeing something.* When it comes to people with religious careers, I think about that quote. PLUS--- the real problem of evil is how many Jews who died in the holocaust, not believing in Jesus, will wake up in God's eternal concentration camp called hell.
Interesting. Do you not think that the "career" of non-theists is dependent upon them not seeing the validity of arguments for God as well? Theists of all types and non-theists of all types are in the same boat, having based their lives upon the views that they have chosen to espouse. Their career is dependent upon it. @@calmingwavesjulian
@@brianlarue3540 Nah Brian, I've thought about that, if a non-theist thought for real, they could live forever in bliss, they would trade their career in a heartbeat. A theist going from making a living for wife and kids to have to start from scratch often with an usable degree. Nah, they will tie themselves in knots trying to believe the ridiculous before facing that fate--while of course asking Muslims, Mormons and Hindus to mess up their life and convert.
@@brianlarue3540 . That seems like an overgeneralisation: theists and non-theists both breathe. What does that say? Nothing except that they're living humans. Actually for the conscious non-theists, there's of not one reaso to not believe, but an incredible amount of arguments, many of which do map out on the reality we live every day. Theists don't have any except personal experience. Which everybody can have about everything. So both are not the same
@calmingwavesjulian there's zero way to know whether the jews in ww2 went to heaven or not. They are of Israel afterall. Depends on how you view hell and all that
Imagine ants having this conversation about humans. “Why do we have to toil so hard? So many of us die needlessly to provide shelter and sustain our species. If there was really any such thing as a truly good, powerful human beings, then they would do so much more to help alleviate our sufferings. They wouldn’t be so hidden either.” Nothing screams preposterous intellectual indulgence like taking an issue which we couldn’t possibly relate to, on EITHER end (the animals or Gods) and trying to base some sort of soft conclusions around it.
The difference is that in the ant analogy humans are not all powerful and all knowing like god and don’t have a personal relationship and responsibility with them. I know your more so using this analogy to point out that god works in mysterious ways as mere humans we couldn’t possibility understand his perspective. The problem I have with this as though he’s actions could be explained by something beyond are control it sidesteps the argument and is not really satisfying as it fails to address it head on. Also god ways aren’t all that mysterious as he wrote a book to explain his nature and morals. The bible points towards god being loving meaning that god harming animals for no foreseeable reason is out of line with his character as he can make it stops with no effort or time. So an all loving all powerful god and animal suffering wouldn’t go hand in hand.
Great video, Gavin. Honestly, as much as I understand Alex's argument I wonder why is he so focused on animal suffering? And not, say, the suffering of infants and children? I mean, sure, a deer suffering for a week before getting eaten by a lion sucks. But it doesn't seem to me nearly as big an issue as a child dying from cancer.
I think it's likely because apologists counter the child cancer related arguments with things like them going to heaven, or other similar silver lining ways of thinking about it(There are more that don't come to mind right now). Ultimately, animals as we understand within the Biblical context will have no reward in heaven, no afterlife, no justification for the seemingly meaningless suffering. I believe this is why Alex focuses on this, as it seems that animals suffer and die just because.
Thank you for this video. Alex is perhaps the most winsome influential atheist at the moment, and his case hinges on animal suffering. In his debate with Francis Collins, he claimed that a merciful God would have put anesthesia in lion's jaws to alleviate the suffering of the zebra. What's ironic to me is that there actually are creatures like spiders who in fact have this feature. Adrenaline and shock responses do something similar in prey. Another response to Alex is to ask him to consider the role of humanity in alleviating suffering. Why does Alex have a conscience to care for animals in the first place? It's because God's image-bearers were mandated to care for all creatures. Domesticated animals are actually in their designed state of existence. Temple Grandin and her humane slaughterhouse designs are a great example of how Christians should be proud of our relationship with animals we care for. People have dogs and other pets across times and cultures in history. Humanity working as designed to care for animals is a huge part of the answer to Alex on this topic. God bless!
I would say that Alex’s view is based on more on expansion of empathy. Christianity makes some vague notes on universal themes, but is still an exclusionary religion, like pretty much every other theistic religion. It helped in some cases (women and slaves, down the line) but it was also an opponent (also women’s and sexual minority-rights)
Your response has a contradictory flaw: if God already gave animals adrenaline for pain, such that animals don't suffer then humans don't need to help animals. But if you think the adrenaline is not enough, why would God let animals suffer and suffer, hoping humans, who in times past could barely feed our own communities, would be tasked with helping pain-feeling animals.
Oh so I guess you are a vegan too. Or do you believe that animals don't mourn their loved ones and we should only care about murdering them painlessly?
I'm fairly versed in physics, and I'm a big fan of this idea of angels' role in creation as agents of the order of nature. The way I imagine it is that angels are the personification of the laws of physics, or that the laws of physics are synonymous to these angels. And so, they truly are responsible for stars shining brilliantly and everything else in the universe which inspires such awe.
Hey I'm also a physics person but this was the part of the video that completely lost me. The laws of physics are incredibly predictable and seemingly completely uniform across time and space (also there are issues with observers and quantum mechanics). Does that mean the evil angels that caused suffering and the good angels that presumably also exist just work together to make sure light propagates smoothly?
Any way to get access to your article "On the Fall of Angels and the Fallenness of Nature: An Evangelical Hypothesis Regarding Natural Evil" for free or a more reasonable price?
I think any brand, flavor, or scent of the question "Why is there so much suffering in the world?" can be answered in terms of eschatology. Ultimately animals will not suffer anymore as we see in the prophet Isaiah's words about lions eating straw like an ox, and all the different animals living together. This is the form of the gospel I think they need to hear the most
What is your opinion on veganism? When it is nowadays possible to live without animal products, is it still justifieble for us regarding Christian value ethics to consume these products and cause harm?
Only in the garden of Eden was veganism beneficial because it was perfect. My heath has improved from cutting cereal and vegetables out of my diet and eating fruit, honey and meat only
@@Swiftninjatrev I know but this verse also implies their protection. And we know from the mosaic law that it is not necessary about the content of each verse but rather the moral implications.. And since we know that animal products produce harm, shouldnt we try to use it in a minimal amount as possible?
Very good explanation regarding the problem of suffering for animals! It's funny how atheists argue against these topics, but if they would only open their minds and acknowledge a Christian worldview, they would actually find answers to the questions that trouble them. I honestly think that sometimes they develop these arguments to push back against the belief in God but fail to examine their own beliefs. For example, let’s assume that the person arguing against God and the suffering of animals believes in evolution/natural selection. Does not natural selection involve "competition" and "survival of the fittest"? Do not these two components involve dominance, suffering, and killing? Lastly, if God doesn't exist, according to atheists, who cares? Why is this even a problem (sarcastically speaking)?
Seems like Alex's 'in 80 years' experiment highlights something about his epistemology. His way of knowing permits the possibility of discoveries that would explain away the fine-tuning argument, whereas the justification (or otherwise explaining) of animal suffering lands outside of the sorts of things that can be known as he defines knowing. Which is to say that all this particular thought experiment proves is that he defines knowing in a certain way. The universe can be known, while causation of suffering can't. Which I suppose is important, because you have to define your terms, but it doesn't really add much weight to an argument.
Sometimes, I dont understand what apologists think a theodicy is supposed to do. I could agree with this entire metaphysically extravagant story about rogue angels and reified Evil corrupting creation such that animals are forced to starve or eat each other alive. But so what? It wouldnt defuse the force of the animal auffering objection, as far as I can tell. God would still be responsible for creating a world where such a thing could and would happen and for not interfering when it did. And yes, this is an internal critique. The moment the theist concedes animal suffering as a form of natural evil, its simple to demonstrate how *surprising* this is on the thesis that an all-loving all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God created such a world.
4:13 "It just seems to me more intuitively plausible" I've noticed that, with great regularity, Alex and Joe Schmid fall back onto this type of statement after laying out their framework for whatever they are arguing. It's a very slippery sort of statement, but the psychological plausibility is ultimately what their beliefs rest on. I dont think this should go unnoticed. The reason being, at this point one has to check their presuppositions and see if there is any basis in their worldview to trust their intuitions and plausibility meter. This becomes very difficult to do the second you step away from divine revelation and into the world of blind pitiless indifference.
It’s fair to critique reliance on intuition, but the same standard should apply to claims of divine revelation. How do we verify the plausibility of *your* intuitions or the reliability of divine revelation without appealing to circular reasoning? While 'blind pitiless indifference' may challenge naturalistic intuitions, they can be grounded in evolutionary and psychological frameworks, offering consistency without requiring divine intervention.
The whole thrust of Alex’s “animal suffering” objection is emotional. Perhaps because when God placed us in the Garden, He gave us dominion over the Earth, with the responsibility to govern it humanely with regard to its animals. So when we recoil at the thought of Bambi roasting in a forest fire, perhaps it is not evidence against a good God, but for Him, and the truth of His Word.
I think that the angelic fall theodicy is the only one that adequately explains the problem. People might laugh at it, but it is a part of the Christian system that works perfectly within that system. If someone will laugh about that, we certainly aren't going to persuade them that a Jewish man in a backwater Roman province roughly 2,000 years ago was God.
Some people don't see the difference between _argument_ and _question_ . Saying "why does God allow bad things" isn't an argument, just like asking "If evolution is true why people don't have tails like most of animals". It's a question not an argument. Just like so called "problem of evil" isn't even a problem, because a problem is a question that doesn't have any answers, but there are very good answer to that question about evil, in fact Orthodox Christianity exlplains it very well. So if Alex calls _this_ their "strongest" argument, does it mean that the atheists/agnostics cannot even find a single real argument?
Disclaimer: This comment is way, way too long. Just wanted to post a write up i did for my personal apologetics notes, after watching Alex's video. These aren't lock tight arguments by any means, but the beginnings of theodocies and trains of thought on the topic. Problem of animal suffering: Does suffering outweigh the positive value of life? If a deer lives on earth for 10 years, experiences everything good a deer can experience, then dies a gruesome death, was God wrong for creating this animal? That animal likely experienced eating food, having sex, the warmth of the sun, a swim in a cool creek, bonds with kin, adventure of every day life. It's easy to ask, why would an animal have to experience suffering in life if there is a good god? Well, why not ask, if there is no good god, then why do animals experience so many amazing things in life? You would not expect that under Atheism. Alex has said that he would sooner commit suicide than be turned into a random animal. I don't think that is logically consistent. As a human, he will likely be met with plenty of suffering, pain and eventually death... so why doesn't he kill himself now to prevent all of that negative experience? We know why- because he knows his life has value (even though there is no grounding for it under atheism) and he would rather live out his life and take the good with the bad and the ugly. This is key for forming your worldview- is a life worth living due to the value of being alive alone? If so, then God was benevolent in creating all life (animals, humans, etc). I have heard Alex say that he takes the other side of that coin, he suspects that on the whole, a human experience leans negative. I think this is the source of a lot of his philosophy. He can't match the fact that he believes life for humans and animals is largely negative with there being a good god. How could God physically and practically prevent animal suffering? He would have to eliminate or alter predators (overpopulation could be a far worse evil). He would have to suspend physics (no falling trees, natural causes of death, etc). He would have to, by the power of His spirit, over-rule animals frequently to prevent them from wandering into accidents or harming each other. He would have to suspend animal's ability to feel pain, which would lead to worse evils, such as animals hurting themselves without realizing it (this is 1 reason God created pain in the first place, it is giving our brains a message and triggering an oftentimes crucial response). In theory preventing all suffering sounds nice, but in actuality it may not be practical. The problem of animal suffering is an internal critique of Christianity so we should go to the Bible to see if it's explained. In the Bible, God obviously holds animal life below human life, a simple reading of Genesis will tell you that. I believe this is because humans have souls while animals do not. The Bible teaches that the spirit is above the flesh, it doesn't glorify the flesh, it is a thing to temporarily used, overcome and eventually discarded. We (humans, including Alex) actually do the same thing, placing a hierarchy on the value of different lifeforms. We value a human life above an animals life, and we hold an animal's life above a plant life. We even hold different animal lives to be valued in their own ways. I'm positive Alex agrees that a dog's life is more valuable than an ant's. We are criticizing God for something we do ourselves. Maybe we really are made in his image. Alex likes to use the phrase "what would you expect under Atheism/Christianity and which one lines up with reality". Well, I would say under atheism we would expect there to be nothing. We would not expect life to begin. We would not expect there to be time, space or matter. We would not expect to have morality, we would not expect to have consciousness, we would not expect fine-tuning, we would not expect to even be able to trust our logical faculties. We would not expect there to be beauty or the ability to experience it. All of this evidence on 1 side, and on the other your highest tier argument is "why do animals feel pain sometimes." "Why do animals suffer" doesn't hold weight in an argument when on the other side, you have the question "why is there life, and a universe and why do we have morality to even care". The weight of those arguments don't even come close to comparison. There could be more suffering right? Why isn’t there far more suffering, explained under naturalism? Isn’t the fact that we just have some suffering, most of which can lead to higher order goods like soul building, an evidence for theism? I would also reject the premise that millions of animal species living life on earth and dying out is an inherent evil. I think that is an assumption that's made by atheists without proper philosophical backing. Let's say that there is another higher life form that comes about through natural selection millions of years from now, making human life just another link in this evolutionary chain. As a human who is here now, experiencing suffering and eventual death, should I be mad at the creator for giving me my life? If you say yes, then that is just your opinion- I wouldn't share it.
But the real problem of evil is how many Jews who died in the holocaust, not believing in Jesus, will wake up in God's eternal concentration camp called hell.
Animal death is not a problem for young Earth six day creationists. It's very simply the just result of man's sin. As far as Alex is concerned, having a problem with it?...how silly of him. His worldview can not even account for right or wrong or absolute truth claims. He has to borrow money from the Christian worldview to pay for his indignation.
I thought the argument you made about the implications of what a world were animals can’t suffer was very thought provoking. I would say that an all powerful god could come up with a way that migrates thee problems and still have no suffering. I think this is a side step though as though it’s a possibility I can’t give you a direct response atm. More interesting in the claims that Christianity could account for epistemology and how you would ground morality, knowledge etc in Christianity. I don’t believe this is possible under both atheism and Christianity as both require faith. In atheism there are frameworks for grounding stuff but all require us to presuppose that what we perceive is true. In Christianity we have no way of confirming that gods morality claims are true or he’s not deceiving in regards knowledge. God claims he can’t lie but we have no way to independently verify this claim. Given this I don’t believe it’s possible to 100% account for any of this in any world view I’ve come across as all attempts I’ve come across to ground epistemology lead to circular arguments. Also under atheism the meaning of life exists though it’s subjective. Just because something is subjective doesn’t mean it non-existent. Alex meaning of life could be to do 50 backflips a day his meaning of life does exist it’s just subjective to him.
The earth was put under Adam's domain and care. God put a connection between Man and nature. When he fell, his domain fell with him. (That makes sense. Biblically) Why would the angel's fall cause nature to fall? What is the connection between angels and nature? (Biblically?)
@@Tim.Foster123 Yes, I think it's very, very important to put all of the curse after the fall, and none of it before. Notice how Gavin in the video misquoted creation as only "good." Scripture says "very good," not good, and it's there for a reason. People who say animal suffering is very good need their heads and hearts checked.
I am probably alone in saying this, but I genuinely believe and have faith that Alex will be a Christian one day. And when he does, he will become one of the greatest evangelists of our generation. The triune God can. do. anything!
I really appreciate a thoughtful and modest response to this problem. Coming from a science background though I was very confused by the point you made with stars and angels. Obviously our knowledge of stars and astronomy has progressed multitudes since Aquinas. Currently it seems from what we have observed that stars behave essentially identical based on their material constituents. What is the necessity of the angels and is there a difference between stars controlled by angels and fallen angels? Similarly when and how did angels impact the laws of our universe in such a way that there still was fine tuning but yet now suffering that was not intended in creation?
The Christian cosmology is that reality is not limited to the material universe, so whatever role they do have would be best explored through theology through revelation.
Hence when everything is made right the “wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and lion yearning together”. Isaiah 11. Romans8:22 “all creation is groaning”
My issue with the problem of evil vs finetuning is that, while the problem of evil is pointing at a logical incosistancy between God and reality, the finetuning argument is simply filling in a gap in our knowlegde with God. To me there is no reason why any specific god has to be the answer as supposed to any other explanation, and I think the same can be said in relation to the existence of the universe, morality and consciousness.
To give some rationale for Alex, his saying that the fine tuning is going to be explained in 100 years is because that’s a scientific question. Moral questions, such as the problem of evil, are harder to solve. Im saying this as a theist, and I generally agree with his intuition
Couldn’t the fine tuning tip either direction? As I see it, the scientific community would love to find what happened, but they’ll be content to find what could have happened. Fine tuning means it is so improbable that it’s irrational to exclude a creator. If it’s proven or relatively certain that it “could have” happened a certain way within a reasonable probability without a designer, then fine tuning is defeated. But that’s just a hope at this point, no?
@ at this point, I would agree that it is a hope. But, as we know by Hume’s guillotine (a moral “ought” cannot be explained by a scientific “is”), there is possibly an explanation for the scientific reason of fine tuning. However, we cannot know with any explanatory manner why suffering exists. That’s some more reasoning for the intuition, but yes, generally, both are hopes at this point
@ I’ve been thinking about the idea of the transcendent. We seem to be wired for it as humans. I don’t see the point of pure rationality to resolve a question about “feelings”(suffering). Like you said, how do you get an is from an ought? It’s a religious problem, should be a religious solution. We’re wired for an emotional experience of transcendence. People describe an experience of emotional healing. If the question is about people who never get to experience this resolution, I get that. I can only really get to the answer of “it was worth it to create this world”. I don’t know the justice of each individual’s experience. I say in faith, “shall not the judge of the earth deal justly?” (From Gen 18 Abraham appeal about Sodom)
@@collin501 Can God even prove to Himself that He was *not created by a more powerful God?* How would God prove to Himself that *He wasn't in a computer program a la matrix?* Without this answer God doesn't *really know if He really has authority?* And we are not justified in following any God who doesn't or can't answer this.
@@calmingwavesjulian I think that’s unreasonable skepticism, sorry. That doesn’t match the overall picture of how the world works. I have no reason to think that kind of way.
If anyone is interested in the area of evolutionary theodicy, two great books are 'The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil' by Christopher Southgate, and 'God, Evolution, and Animal Suffering: Theodicy without a Fall' by Bethany Sollereder.' I highly recommend these books. They both defend a Christian worldview, and take evolutionary science incredibly seriously, but don't believe a hypothetical Fall (either human or angelic) can be used to explain non-human, natural suffering. Sollereder raises some of the problems with the notion of an angelic fall: "First, there is no biblical evidence for a satanic fall corrupting the world. Modern biblical scholars would strongly challenge Augustine's notion that a fall, particularly a satanic fall, is present in the Genesis narrative. Second, despite its presence in the tradition, the ancient thinkers who developed this position did not know that it is the very presence of the disvalues that give rise to so much of nature's values. Would we then be forced to honour the fallen angels for the flee-footedness of the deer or the coordination and strength of the orca? Satan would end up being the (possibly unintentional) originator of the diversity generated by cellular mutation and all the speciation events arising from predation or natural disasters. Finally, this position contradicts the continual biblical refarin that God created the world good. The goodness of creation is constantly affirmed, including at the end of the first account of creation when all the creatures, even the great leviathan and the beasts of the field, are present. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the complexity of the natural world in its totality - even in its more troublesome elements - brings honour and glory to God."
This is so ridiculous. The suffering of animals is related to the fact that many animals have to eat meat to survive, and this is something built into the original structure of animals itself. We see this in the physiological structure of predators, such as their large canines or sharp fangs, which are used for hunting. This is not a "corruption" in any way. Obviously, God had to originally design animals like this from the very beginning. It is either that or postulating that somehow God went and changed the animals after demons rebelled. But why did he have to do that? There was zero need for it. You need to postulate angels to be the creators of nature, rather than protectors and governors, for your defence to work. This is because the structures of predators are clearly not corrupted or broken. They are obviously designed from scratch to work this way.
one clarification: every proponent of angelic fall theodicy I know of thinks nature was corrupted before any biological life appeared. Whether correct or not, "God went and changed the animals after demons rebelled" would not apply.
God can do anything, he makes the rules. He couldv made all animals herbavours, or be able photosynthesis. Theres no law or logical requirement that animals need to rip eachother apart to simply exist.
@@TruthUnites Ok, I see your point. So it is like angels were meant to be closely linked to material creation, and since they were corrupted, material creation ended up corrupted from the start? Wouldn't this deny the "and God saw it was good" part in Genesis?
From a biblical point of view we know that this is a temporary situation and that God will redeem the entirety of creation from suffering. Suffering shows us that the world is cursed and that we should focus on trusting Christ and being righteous so that we can share in God´s new, redeemed world that he will create. By seeing how bad sin and its effect on the world really is, God helps us focus on the new, holy world.
I find Alex's argument to be a thinly veiled assumption that science always gets answers and philosophy and religion don't. Science is more arrogantly confident in its answers, but changes with every little new discovery. It also has little to no ground at all to stand on when attempting to answer the real questions that are the bread and butter of philosophy and religion. It is the struggle and answers to the deepest questions found in the Bible that stand the test of time and will ultimately be vindicated over every human attempt to avoid our ultimate appointment with our Creator.
What about the problem of how many Jews who died in the holocaust, not believing in Jesus, will wake up in God's eternal concentration camp called hell.
I think something that isn’t even acknowledged is that human suffering was near on par with animal society for most of human history until the rise of agriculture. Then it slowly became better. However most of humanity was still widely suffering until the 1950’s. Yet even now alot of people suffer from diseases that don’t have cures, wars, addiction, food insecurity and everything else. So its really a question of a degree and severity of suffering, and that suffering is an inevitable part of the human experience and animal experience at some point.
Suffering in a world (for animals, humans, plants), where humanity was given stewardship over the world and by their volitional will opened the door to suffering and evil, doesn't seem like an argument against God, but rather an argument for him. God trust deeded the earth to humans and they in turn trust deeded it to evil rather than choosing goodness. Angels falling away being responsible for evil sounds like Mormonism.... I know as I was raised one.
if God said the world was good then it was good not " good enough" He was the perfect creator.There was no such thing as shades of goodnes .We corrupted it when we allowed evil in.God told that pain and suffering follows for all as it seems.He didn't punish us He told the natural outcome.
@@Dizernerif i was the most powerful the most intelligent the creator of everything i wouldn't be "mostly"good.God if you believe in Him is by definition TOTAL in everything.
I found a watch, I'm unsure why someone made it, how or when someone made it, I can guess of course... but the far heavier burden would be to convince me NO ONE made it, even the atheist has to admit such a proposition is daunting.
Fine tuning is not the gotcha some think. It strikes me as a big concern for theists too - like, why would a God make a universe that demanded such a narrow set of parameters? Does that mean that God is subject to those laws? If so, why? It’s impressive to us as humans but not to a deity. For example, imagine that there was a village only accessible by a single train line. You can’t reach it by road, on foot, by helicopter or water. And you arrive and say to the person at the inn “You’re not going to believe this but we arrived by train”. Does the inn keeper’s jaw drop in wonder? Is he impressed by your creativity? So apparently we now know there was only one way to make the universe and that’s how God did it. Not so impressive is it? Especially when you then throw in all the inadequacies - 99% of all life ‘created’ has died out, there’s animal suffering, the Earth is unsettled with earthquakes and volcanoes etc. Now it seems less impressive that God made it and more like he’s weak - no wonder we have all the problems, God was incapable of doing it differently because of fine tuning.
Assuming fine tuning is the epitome of megalomanias. ”If things were just a little different humans would not exist.” So? What would humans be the ultimate goal of everything? Think of all the wonderous things that cannot exist in this universe but that could exist if it was different. Besides, ”fine tuned for life” seems very much an overstatement. In an unfathomable large universe we know of one place where life exists. That’s negligible. You can drop humans in a thousand billion billions random places in the universe and they will all die instantly, every single one. Is that fine tuned?
@ To be fair (and you know that I’m unconvinced by fine tuning) the science part is that a small variation of just one of four constants means the universe doesn’t exist. So it’s not that *this* version of the universe doesn’t exist but another one where we’re all lighter or breath CO2 instead of O2 does. It’s that with a small tweak the Big Bang happens and everything flies so quickly there’s no planets or celestial bodies just dust. But like I said, I’m unconvinced for other reasons.
(19:18)final thought: Gavin, you’re right that animal suffering is real-but your leap to “theism” as the explanation for labeling it “evil” misses a fundamental point. Without theism, there’s no need to impose moral labels like "good" or "evil" on the natural world. The natural world simply is. It operates without intention, purpose, or morality. Ecosystems find balance through cycles of birth, reproduction, predation, parasitism, and death. What we call "suffering" is a projection of our human value system onto processes that are indifferent to our moral constructs. Life is dynamic, self-sustaining, and beautiful in its complexity-but it’s not “evil” when a lion hunts a zebra or a parasite infects a host. It’s just nature doing what nature does. Theism doesn’t solve the problem of animal suffering-it just anthropomorphizes it, adding unnecessary moral weight to a world that simply operates as it must.
Thomists have already answered this. Animals don't have a rational soul, so they don't experience pain like humans. And, the details are quite different than what Michael Murray and Neo-cartesians propose
@@MBarberfan4life I did note that; it just doesnt pass muster with me. Or with Gavin. He said that dogs are apprehensive of bad people. This implies they had a bad experience with bad people in the past ....and that only happens when the dog remembers the experience of suffering. But one of the indicators of God-corrected nature is that animals are no longer afraid of man. Isaiah 65. Honestly tho - have you never watched an animal when you kill it and it cries out in pain? Is that cry of pain consistent with a good ordered nature? How is that animal suffering insufficiently like man's suffering the it counts as acceptable in nature?
Hey Gavin, always love the content. My question is, you say Christian’s have always had an understanding that angels were involved in the creation of physical things. This is foreign to me since through Christ all things were made and not anything was made but by him (John 1). Thoughts on this?
I don't believe it's anywhere in the bible (could be wrong). It seems like it's mostly people's poetic answers to various issues and the creation of a cosmic order.
5:36 To Alex’s “80 years down the road” idea, I would argue that the problem of evil, while it most likely won’t be solved (in a way that atheists accept), it at least can’t get much harder to answer. We already have been exposed to the lowest depths of human depravity, from the crucifixion of Christ tothe countless modern-day war atrocities. The argument from fine-tuning, on the other hand, has historically become harder and harder to explain as science progresses. The more detailed our knowledge of the universe and its intricate workings grows, the more explaining the anti-theists have to do to justify their beliefs. So, while neither problem will be solved, or even be closer to being solved, the argument from evil will be *relatively* closer to being solved, because if historical trends continue, the argument from fine-tuning will become harder and harder to answer.
@ my point wasn’t trying to deal with specific constants or anything like that. I simply pointed out that the more details we discover about the universe, the more detailed the explanation for its beginning must become.
Genesis 3:17 and 5:29 explain animal suffering: God cursed the fallen creation. This suffering won't exist in the new heavens and new Earth where the lion and the lamb will live peacefully together.
We were made to take care of animals, animals are left in our hands, we don’t take care of animals, God wouldn’t let them suffer because of us. Also, the argument is really~ “An all powerful, loving God wouldn’t restrain His love, allowing for pain and suffering to exist”. He’d be demanded to stop all pain. “God does stop all pain, but He allows it to happen for a time, so He’s not all loving”. So we shouldn’t see any pain for there to be healing love expressed.
The problem is animals are innocent because they cannot rationalize a less primal kill or be killed pathway to survival . This should free them from judgment and exempt them from suffering by any rational standards of a all loving creator. Who would make innocence suffer for the sins of others ? This being said an intelligent causal,agent for the highly complex specified code found in living cells is the only reality based conclusion one can come to. Where does that leave us is the unanswerable question?
The fact that we can identify any suffering as natural evil, not just animal suffering, and steward the world to heal nature through protective measures and medication, shows that morality came from designed intention. If we acknowledge: Romans 8:18 about the groaning of creation, Isaiah 11:6 and Isaiah 65:25 as the unity of the animal kingdom, and Acts 10:9-15, when God reveals to Peter the purity of all animals in contrast to the Old Covenant - then it is safe to conclude that despite animal suffering, God recognizes the awe of the animal kingdom and will restore them wholeheartedly and with greater presentation. The animals that have ceased in existence, will come back to existence, with more majesty than before.
But the real problem of evil is how many Jews who died in the holocaust, not believing in Jesus, will wake up in God's eternal concentration camp called hell.
The fine tuning argument fails immediately because no theist can show any evidence that the parameters of the universe could possibly be different. Unless you presuppose, without any basis, that the parameters could be other than what they are, the fine tuning argument is just silly.
I say this with sincerity, not attacking, but I think you may be misunderstanding what theists are trying to get at in the fine tuning argument. From what I understand what they are saying is that a universe of chaos shouldn’t have consistent constants from what we understand of chaos. Chaos as we see it (from our limited view yes, but no other view is able to be seen in our mind besides the human view) doesn’t create order. We see order though in the universe, so how could chaos create this things as we see them. I definitely could be missing something.
@@JmPie74 You make the assumption that the default state of the universe is chaos - why? Unless you assume this, there is no reason to believe that the order we see in the universe is not simply the default state. And since we have never seen utter chaos anywhere, there is no evidence or basis to believe that this ordered universe came from chaos. You also assume that something 'created' the universe. There is also no evidence of that; it's just a presupposition. Finally, there is no reason to think that even if the default state was chaos, that an ordered universe would not develop. Everything we see in the universe has inherent properties, and those inherent properties are the reason that the universe is, now, ordered. Unless you assume, again, that some thing injected those properties into the universe, it is perfectly reasonable to hypothesize that an ordered universe would necessarily develop. Sort answer: the fine-tuning argument only makes sense if you assume many things for which we have no evidence. And order may develop from the inherent properties of the constituents of the universe.
This is a good answer and is along the path to the ultimate unanswerable question that I've come across: Why did God create Satan with the ability to turn bad? In other words, Adam and Eve fell due to the snake but who tempted Satan? Also, how could he CHOOSE to rebel when angels are not supposed to have free will - unlike humans.
This is an honest question and I've love to hear an explanation because I've thought about it quite a bit and have so far not found a good one. The only answer to me is that this was God's choice. I accept that this could have been ultimately for the best - at least in theory - but this is quite a hard thing to try and defend in the face or real life suffering and evil.
At least you responded to the question. The challenge with your response is that it only adds explanatory value if you are already a committed Christian. Inventing new entities “angels” in order to explain away suffering sounds similar to the complaint that theist have against the multiverse - using some strange metaphysic as a stop gap. A couple other points: - still depends on a notion of libertarian free will, which is another strange metaphysic that will likely only be compelling to committed theists - The responsibility of animal suffering still ultimately rests with God. I didn’t understand how your response dealt with this. Regardless of the mechanisms by which evil entered the world you can still ask if it was worth it. It still seems to be a logical contradiction that an all loving all powerful god would create a world full of such suffering, particularly if animals will not be recompensed for their suffering in any way.
Friendly reminder to speak respectfully in the comments! Its more helpful to focus on arguments than addressing others' motives. Thanks everyone for engaging.
I don’t find the moral argument particularly problematic for theism, nor do I consider fine-tuning to be a strong argument for it.
Perhaps I’m not sophisticated enough in physics to find fine-tuning convincing.
As for the moral argument, I don’t find it convincing or a strong argument against theism because it depends entirely on our subjective evaluations of what is good, bad, right, and wrong. However, if theism is true, then good, bad, right, and wrong are objective truths, meaning our subjective assessments are independent of the reality of those truths. That is, for the moral argument to be a problem for theism, it seems we mus assume that objective morality does not exist and theism to be false.
The best argument for God, in my view, is the ontological argument by Anselm, not because I want to be contrarian. 😂
However, as an atheist, there isn’t any argument or experience that has convinced me of its truth.
Question! Gavin, do you personally believe that not eating animals (except for the need to survive) is more virtuous than eating them?
Considering not only animal suffering but also the idea of paradise before the fall of man, it seems to me that not eating meat aligns more closely with the way God intended for humans to live, in a state without sin?
Hi, Dr. Ortlund would you consider the gap theory to be a part of angelic theodicy?
Please consider doing more long form content on subjects like this! There's so much to take in, and we need more time and break down. I know your time is precious, but even the occasional long video would be helpful!
Well before the emergence of humanity, angels were entrusted with the stewardship of creation, serving as caretakers, managers, and authorities to govern according to God's established plan, though their control was not absolute. Humans are not the only creatures God created, but due to the vastness of space, we will not encounter these other beings on Earth.
The Morning Star, an angelic leader, oversaw this celestial government across the universe, operating under God's authority. The Bible indicates that this angel held unique authoritative privileges not shared by most other angels.
An interesting aside is that during the temptation in the wilderness, Satan offered the world to Jesus because he genuinely had the authority to do so. Jesus was aware of this, which is why the offer posed a genuine temptation. The reason Satan has not been deposed yet is that, in my belief, God made a promise to allow Satan to rule over creation for a specified period. Despite Satan's fall, God is honoring this promise. God is not unaware of the consequences; He knew that if Satan were to fall, creation would unfold differently from His original intention. However, God is never without a plan.
When it comes to suffering, certain types can lead to a potential greater good, while some suffering is intended to be destructive (from the dark side), and other suffering occurs by chance. It’s important to understand that once a person dies, their spirit is restored to a non-afflicted, stable state, free from any mental, physical, or emotional consequences of their earthly experiences. At that point, God can access the memory of each individual’s life-from birth to death-for the purpose of judgment. You cannot deny your own thoughts or feelings during that time, as they originate directly from you.
As for the suffering of animals, while it is difficult to witness, it is ultimately a temporary condition. If animals are resurrected (which I cannot confirm), I believe they too will experience renewal. If they are not resurrected, it is indeed harsh, but ultimately it will not matter in the grand scheme of things.
Some of the above is supported by scripture, but the rest is from my understanding and pursuit of God. I would probably fall under the Angelic fall theory.
Well before the emergence of humanity, angels were entrusted with the stewardship of creation, serving as caretakers, managers, and authorities to govern according to God's established plan, though their control was not absolute. Humans are not the only creatures God created, but due to the vastness of space, we will not encounter these other beings on Earth.
The Morning Star, an angelic leader, oversaw this celestial government across the universe, operating under God's authority. The Bible indicates that this angel held unique authoritative privileges not shared by most other angels.
An interesting aside is that during the temptation in the wilderness, Satan offered the world to Jesus because he genuinely had the authority to do so. Jesus was aware of this, which is why the offer posed a genuine temptation. The reason Satan has not been deposed yet is that, in my belief, God made a promise to allow Satan to rule over creation for a specified period. Despite Satan's fall, God is honoring this promise. God is not unaware of the consequences; He knew that if Satan were to fall, creation would unfold differently from His original intention. However, God is never without a plan.
When it comes to suffering, certain types can lead to a potential greater good, while some suffering is intended to be destructive (from the dark side), and other suffering occurs by chance. It’s important to understand that once a person dies, their spirit is restored to a non-afflicted, stable state, free from any mental, physical, or emotional consequences of their earthly experiences. At that point, God can access the memory of each individual’s life-from birth to death-for the purpose of judgment. You cannot deny your own thoughts or feelings during that time, as they originate directly from you.
As for the suffering of animals, while it is difficult to witness, it is ultimately a temporary condition. If animals are resurrected (which I cannot confirm), I believe they too will experience renewal. If they are not resurrected, it is indeed harsh, but ultimately it will not matter in the grand scheme of things.
Some of the above is supported by scripture, but the rest is from my understanding and pursuit of God. I would probably fall under the Angelic fall theory.
I’m an atheist and it’s really nice to see a channel like this who work out atheist arguments. Rather than just calling the athiest they are talking about stupid and whatnot. I can also say the same for atheist channels out there. There’s a lot of negative ones. I think that’s why I like Alex So much. He’s respectful.
I hope you keep an open mind and heart. It sounds like your mind is open but don't forget about the heart. I hope if you're honestly seeking you will ask the lord to show himself to you. I will be praying for you.
There’s no reason to be kind or respectful to people who are pathetically delusional nutbag cultist freaks that believe in stupid irrational bs like religions, gods, saviors/messiah etc they deserve to be shamed. It’s 2025, it’s time for people to live in reality
Despite what other commenters think, I actually really like O'Connor's argument. It seems pretty solid, but there are quite a few solid responses to it as well. Alongside your response, Michael Jones (Inspiring Philosophy) gave a response to this issue in his video about animal suffering which I thought was very solid. Merry Christmas and God bless you, dear friend!
Is this the IP response that animals go to heaven? Not a good response at all, the bible clearly indicates that god doesn't care about animals at all, alongside that pointless suffering is still unexpected no matter how much 'heaven' is offered. On that argument you have basically rejected the notion of morality entirely. Also doesn't account for hell
@@francisa4636 Notice how Christians conveniently ignore Ecclesiastes 3:18‐22
"I said to myself with regard to humans that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals, for all is vanity. All go to one place, all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that all should enjoy their work, for that is their lot; who can bring them to see what will be after them?""
@@francisa4636 why, have you read the Bible? It would seem not since Jonah 4:11 reads, 'should I not have compassion on Nineveh..in which there are more than 120 000 persons... *as well as many animals?'* and Deuteronomy 5:14 which has one of the ten commandments no less giving domestic animals a day off(!) and Deuteronomy 25:4.
as for hell you should read the relevant passages taking them absolutely literally without addition or subtraction and you won't have a problem
@@I-am-Hrut there's no reason to 'ignore' it since its absolutely true. see also Psalm s 'his spirit departs he returns to the earth in that very day his thoughts perish'. In fact , Paul writes an entire chapter on the issue ie 1 Corinthians 15
@@stephenglasse2743 “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
There are many contradictory passages in the bible, in context of the problem of evil you have to explain the massive amounts of pointless suffering and the passage you cite doesn't really do that does it. In fact as far as I'm concerned it just highlights yet another contradiction in the bible
Wow, this is a really good explanation of a response to the problem of evil. I have always sort of tried approaching it from a Best of All Worlds perspective and it always fell short, thanks for turning me on to this argument
I think this argument of angelic fall causing creation to fall resulting inexorably in animal suffering (among other things) is actually still congruent within the context of God still choosing the best of all possible universes (eventually, after restoration of all things), and that the two explanations are not in conflict. Not that you said they were, it's just that your comment made me ponder...
Just now finding your videos after the Trent Horn debate, love your stuff.
that’s funny that’s exactly where i found him from too!
Animal suffering is an argument against a maximally good god, not against god in general.
No doubt your content in someway also influences your audience, since in no other youtube channel have I seen a more respectful and positive comment section when engaging with arguments. This is what I picture when imagining christian virtues.
Great video. I never understood why the problem of evil is viewed as a refutation of God's existence. I have not studied philosophy but I always thought that the most the problem of evil gets people is that God might not be Good. Not that he doesn't exist.
I loved the discussion on Cs Lewis and Tolkien's view of angels and creation.
As an atheist who did study philosophy, you are right. It's not a refutation. And surely no atheist says it is. But we can say more. And Joe Schmid (Majesty of Reason) says more in response to Cameron, discussing the very same debate. It's certainly generated a lot of content. Atheism is more likely given the problem of evil. Bob Ross Bayesian bars. It's good fun. Joe has a sense of humour.
"the most the problem of evil gets people is that God might not be Good. Not that he doesn't exist."
I agree, although an alternate conclusion is that childhood cancer (or whatever "evil" you wish to offer as an illustration) is not evil. Either option is rarely advanced by atheism.
Although I have recently seen some college students trying to argue a related argument, that objective moral truth does not exist (therefore whatever "evil" you offer as an example is not *actually* evil, but rather a *socially constructed* evil). I think it's a sound argument if you're an atheist, but they generally are laughed at and badgered into silence.
God is usually defined as morally perfect
You can’t study philosophy and believe in a god lol
@FranklinMid thats like saying you cant study engineering and enjoy how things work
Bascially Alex is arguing "God wouldn't do it that way". One of oldest arguments which is found in Job. " God wouldn't allow a good man like Job to suffer unless Job condemned a big sin." God asked Job where he was when He created the universe.
The atheist problem of evil is they see evil everywhere including in God but not in themselves. They are blinded by their own pride.
Most atheist define "Evil" as something they don't like.
Doesn’t God define it that way as well. He doesn’t have a legitimate problem with slavery, but based on the Bible, throws a hissy fit on the topic of homosexuality
Because God wants it that way. Tell me way! It’s nothing but a heartache! 🎶🎵🎵🎶 haha couldn’t resist. 😂
@@js1423Sounds like you're the one throwing a hissy fit on the topic of homosexuality and projecting it onto the almighty because you don't like what He has to say about it.
@@signposts6189 I would say using reactionary language like "abomination" kinda shows an immature person. When a human uses dog-whistle words like that, I usually just dismiss them. Why would I treat conceptual or paranatural beings any different?
Ah Job. The favourite book of church leaders who don't want to be questioned.
All creation groans for redemption (Romans 8) all creation is part of the fall.
The good angels never fell.
@@Dizerner I meant creation in the sense Paul uses it in Romans 8. Has nothing to do with angels.
Now the question is, why does all creation suffer for the sin of Adam. Is that fair and just? I am asking in good faith and not seeking argument. I have to mention this because some people take questions as an attack. This is one of the questions that has challenged my believe in Gods goodness.
@@somemedic8482 I dont see the suffering of creation as a punishment from God because of Man's fall, I see it as a direct consequence of Man's fall. Adam had dominion over creation and He betrayed that. He betrayed creation. Now I personally Genesis as a mystical, eternal truth and not necessarily an origins story. But I think the point is, Man is not independent of nature and his actions have direct consequences. Either way you see it, whether mystical or historical, creation suffering is not simply an arbitrary judgment cause by God. And I think that is true of all of God's wrath actually. The suffering and punishment is brought on by the consequences of the perpetrators own actions. The herion addict hasnt been cursed by God with the hell of addiction for punishment of his drug use...he is trapped in the hell of addiction precisely because of his action of injecting herion.
@@somemedic8482 In Adam we were given dominion over this earth as little gods upon its face and even in our fallen state we've conquered the sea, the sky, and all other feeling beings. Is it fair? You do not want what is fair for you under the sight of a Just and Holy God.
Love this, Christians need to re embrace the clear teaching of the scriptures that angels/demons exist and influence the world
And if angels/demons in scripture were intended to be metaphors?
Eastern Orthodoxy for the win again!
Why does this feel like a cop out?
@@seaofnihilism4637 because it solves nothing.
I have no cogent answer to why God allows animal suffering. Shoot, I have no convincing answer as to why God allows ANY suffering! However, God allowing suffering is VASTLY different from the following: There is no God since there exist suffering. One thing that people forget is , God can do as he wills. And we don't have to agree with it . Nor do we have to like it. But our disagreeing or disliking what God does or allows ____that will not make God an unreality.
Unfortunately this argument still renders this version of god as either indifferent towards suffering or lacking in the ability to do anything about it.
(7:17) Angelic fall theory: Wow, this really takes the theological gymnastics to a whole new level. You're suggesting that creation had already "fallen" due to angels before humans were even created? So, sin didn’t actually enter the world through Adam? Death and suffering were already present before the so-called "fall"?
This completely undermines the foundational Christian theology of Paul, who explicitly ties the origin of sin and death to Adam (Romans 5:12) and builds the entire atonement narrative around the idea that the "first Adam" brought sin, and the "last Adam" (Jesus) atoned for it. If this "angelic fall" theory is true, then Paul’s theology collapses like a house of cards.
Christian theology was already convoluted, but this takes it to a new level of incoherence. You’re essentially making Paul’s central argument moot-and with it, the entire premise of Jesus’ atonement. At this point, it’s not just weird-it’s outright self-defeating!
(15:23) The Earth as a Prison for Fallen Angels:
Wait…what? So now this physical world is being described as a prison for fallen angels, and humans were created and placed inside this prison, almost guaranteed to fall prey to these angelic beings? Let’s pause for a moment-how does this fit into any concept of a loving and just God? Imagine deliberately creating humans, fragile and prone to suffering, and placing them in a cosmic prison filled with malevolent entities. That’s not love-that’s the premise of a dark dystopian novel!
And referring to Thomas Aquinas’ claim that angels are part of the universe doesn’t make this any better. If angels are part of creation and yet are responsible for “breaking” it, how is this different from saying God created a chaotic and destructive system by design? It just keeps digging a deeper hole for theology.
To hear intelligent humans in 2024 talk this way about angels, fallen beings, and cosmic prisons is… fascinating. But not in the inspiring sense-it’s more like watching someone double down on medieval superstition, trying to retrofit it into the modern world. Sad, indeed.
Shh, it's christian fanfic. Just let it happen ;)
I kid. Gavin is obviously reaching well beyond the realms of even his own paradigms. It just shows he's not being critical.
Could it be that suffering and evil exist even when there is no sin? Sin is a human action, but evil is a privation of good. What are your thoughts?
@@eshoosca You’re asking me, an atheist, about sin and evil? Fair enough-I’ve wrestled with these questions before. I used to be a 'born again' Christian for most of my life, but now I’m 100% certain-yes, 100%-that there is no God. From that perspective, all the things we call "suffering" are just inherent to life. If you value existence, you accept suffering as the price you pay.
Life can be summed up as resources, grazers, predators, and parasites, with some species managing to live in symbiosis. That’s it. We’re just lucky to be at the top of the food chain, though even that doesn’t make us invincible-parasites can wipe us out just as easily.
But human relations? That’s where we have a choice. There are people who take and people who give. Which one are you? For me, faced with a cold and indifferent universe, I’ve chosen to see beauty-not just in the grandeur of the stars but even in the chaos, the flaws, and the stupidity of the world around me.
I try to make the most of it. I grab every opportunity to grow, to learn, to teach myself something new-whether it’s drumming, singing Coldplay’s latest Christmas song, or even developing a framework to explain the universe.
And when I choose to give, to mean something to someone else, I experience a fleeting glimpse of happiness. That’s all there is, friend. That’s all there is.
@@theGuideMarkII Dr. John Walton's commentary on Genesis fits with what Gavin is saying too i.e. Adam as the priest king presiding over a garden temple to in effect minister and assist creation. And Paul speaking in Romans says that through one man sin entered the world not that he invented it. Creation is subject to futility and decay but even in the later passages we see this happened in stages not solely in Eden, for instance with the rapid escalation of violence leading up to the flood and the separation of languages at Babel afterwords. It's an ongoing fall anyway.
@Jim-Mc This is certainly an imaginative take, blending biblical interpretation with speculative narratives that almost sound like they belong in a Tolkien novel! While such stories can be fascinating to explore, they highlight a common issue with biblical interpretation: the tendency to overlay creative frameworks onto ancient texts to fill in gaps or make them resonate with modern sensibilities.
But let’s take a closer look at what you’re saying: Adam as a priest-king presiding over a garden temple to "minister and assist creation." This sounds poetic, but where in the Genesis account do we actually find anything resembling a "priest-king" role? The text describes Adam as a caretaker of the garden, tasked with tilling the ground-not as some grand, spiritual intermediary. These interpretations often project meanings onto the text that simply aren’t there.
As for Paul’s commentary in Romans, it’s worth noting that Paul was writing centuries after these texts were composed, in a cultural context steeped in Greco-Roman thought. His theology, particularly about sin entering the world through Adam, reflects his attempt to tie Jewish narratives to his Christ-centered message. But the Genesis account itself doesn’t align neatly with Paul’s framework-it never explicitly states that Adam’s actions introduced death or decay universally. That’s an interpretation, not a fact.
The idea of an "ongoing fall," with decay and futility gradually escalating, is also interesting but doesn’t align with how ancient cultures thought about sin and suffering. Genesis is a mythic narrative, not a historical or scientific account. The notion of sin being an "ongoing" process, expanding through events like the flood and Babel, seems like a creative attempt to reconcile contradictions in the text with the moral dilemmas these stories raise.
Instead of trying to retrofit elaborate metaphysical structures onto these ancient texts, wouldn’t it be more honest to recognize them as what they are-myths and allegories reflecting the worldview of their time? They weren’t written to be a cohesive explanation of universal decay or sin but as stories to make sense of human experience and communal identity.
At some point, we must ask: how much of this interpretation is grounded in the text itself, and how much is being invented to smooth over its inconsistencies? If you strip away the creative storytelling, what remains?
Timely video for me. Thank you brother.
Thanks for engaging with these contemporary (and yet historically precedented!) issues, Gavin
Why is it so difficult to say that CS Lewis is wrong about animal pain and suffering? Some people still hold that animals don't even have emotions! To anyone who has worked with animals, the idea animals have no pain, suffering, or emotions, etc., is absolutely asinine, is it not? ... Orca pods have thier own languages, cultures, play, and have seggs for fun. ..Sounds like sentience to me!
Animals hurt and screams in pain and runs away in fear, of course that is proof it does feel.
Oh my goodness. Sensory response does not indicate sentient consciousness. 🤦♂️
They don't have "cultures". The issue seems to be the language we use in response to animal interactions and studying. Lewis acknowledges they have pain but that they lack the reflection necessary to make that pain suffering. The question then is if "plain pain" without suffering really is morally irrelevant as Lewis claims which I think it is not.
@@keithcampbell7820oh, yeah. May be even people around you don't have consciousness
@ Are you warm under that bridge?
Merry Christmas Gavin! I’d never heard of you until a few months ago but am really appreciatiing your content. Thank you for promoting respectful dialogue rather than making assumptions and attacking others of differing opinions. The world needs less of that and more of your approach, in my opinion.
The “because we’re in a fallen world” argument doesn’t fly with O’Conner though. He addressed it in the Jubilee video. Sure, the world is fallen, but God still created a world that COULD fall, therefore He still created suffering, and it goes back to square one. He is saying that God created ALL the conditions, so it doesn’t matter what the condition is.
I completely agree with you, I’m Christian and I thought that debate was largely won by Alex. At the same time, I think there will inevitably be a degree of disagreement when Christians utilize scripture as their measurement of truth and that’s okay, there’s a heart problem that also needs to be addressed underneath the main points he made. Alex and Christians are debating pole vaulting verses sprints but we haven’t agreed on meters verses feet. We can’t win a debate with an atheist when they don’t agree with the rule book we use.
So good. You can't look at the fine-tuning (as in physical constants) in isolation. Fine-tuning would also include finely tuned moral sensibilities that make us perceive animal suffering as a problem! Thank you for this, Gavin.
The juxtaposition of these arguments implies conflict. But is there one? Doesn't the claim that all suffering, especially animal suffering, is wrong also assume fine tuning of some sort. If not physical constants, then moral sensibilities?
I was a farmer and raised animals for many years, yes they suffer, yes they feel pain, and I have seen them in misery.
Ok, and what does this add to the conversation exactly…?
@@Lurkspur I personally struggle with this argument and know many people who just deny that animals actually experience suffering. The comment definitely added to the conversation in my opinion.
@@tonyascaso6254 God bless farmers is all I can say to that.
@@LurkspurSome people try to solve the problem of animal suffering by saying they aren’t actually feeling pain but are only simulating it.
@@YourFriendDevin The most intense of human suffering is not physical but mental/psychological/spiritual. It reveals the foundational question: Why? Animals don't ask why.
A wonderful response Dr. Ortlund. Thank you for this video!
Incredibly well done video! Thank you for this. It’s crazy how when I see Christian’s talk of the problem of suffering and evil, many of them don’t bring up that evil is caused outside of god, and that spiritual being impact this, as well as creation being broken because of sin. Then people are left thinking there must be something missing. That’s because this kind of topic isn’t mentioned.
Gavin, this is my first ever UA-cam comment, but I wanted you to know how much you and your channel have meant to me over the years. You are by far my favorite UA-cam channel right now and I look forward to all your posts. We need a voice like yours right now to cut through all the noise.
I also would love to see you and Alex debate or converse sometime soon! He by far is the agnostic I find most thoughtful and insightful on their side right now.
With that said, I really don't see the force of this argument against theism. Your fallen angel defense is new to me, and as you say somewhat surprising and complicated, but I will definitely look into more. With that said, I'm not sure one must concede that nature is currently broken, fallen, or cruel. Does the Bible claim this? As a theistic evolutionist, when I study the finely balanced ecosystems we find in nature and, even as the atheist admitted in their argument, how evolution has led to the creation of humanity and the world we now find ourselves in, I am not convinced that it is evil, cruel, or incompatible with God's goodness and order.
The Bible is clear that the carnivores expect their meals from the Lord, and so I do not agree with Alex that an all good God would necessarily create only herbivores. Also, there is a biblical argument that eschatology precedes soteriology, meaning that God creates a good world but not necessarily a perfect one. All creation, from the beginning, points forward to the culmination and glorification of something better. There will be a day of no natural disasters, no animal or human suffering, no even potential for evil or choosing to rebel against God's goodness, but that day was not in Genesis 1 and is not now. We may not be living in the best of all possible worlds this instant but we are in the best of all possible stories/narratives of redemption and God is not done with His creation yet. This is a kind of greater good defense but I believe it is logically and biblically valid.
Finally, what I don't understand is that Alex thinks animal suffering is a greater problem than human suffering. I thought most philosophers and theologians already differentiated between human evil and natural evil (which is more like chaos than actually being considered evil or unjust).
Just my thoughts. Thank you Gavin for all you do! Praying for you and Alex!
thanks for the comment and sharing your thoughts! Glad to be connected, and I appreciate you watching. You might also find interesting the video and article linked in the video description; God bless!
This video and Glen from Speak Life's video, are a beautiful response to this question. Thanks Dr Gavin😊
Very insightful discussion, you've given me a lot to think about. Thank you
Very good short video. I had watched your original angelic fall video and look forward to your article. Let us know when you publish it
Great work, Gavin. Love your videos, man!
Need to see you and Alex on a podcast!
I would love to see you and Alex talk. I think that would be a very productive conversation.
Always appreciate your work, Gavin! It seems to me that the angelic fall theodicy *could* work to assuage believers' anxieties about suffering, but it wouldn't have as much force within the larger framework of the debate; seeing as the initial conditions of creation (presumably at the big bang) were such that the unfolding of life follow along the evolutionary path that necessitates suffering. There appears no abrupt change within the continuum of nature to evidence a 'break/fall' due to a spiritual rebellion. Thus, this would need to push the fall of angelic beings into a pre-temporal state.
While Alex clearly wins this argument, I am so glad everyone was respectful. His arguments dont push me from god, but definitely adds to the myriad arguments that are. Religion has sadly failed us all too many times.
His opponents didn't understand the right response to Alex's argument, which is simply that suffering often leads to good things and therefore it's incorrect to equate suffering with "evil". You can say an excess of suffering towards a defenseless party certainly appears evil but that's a much more nuanced and difficult to defend position than just claiming that suffering is wrong, and you have no firm moral foundation with such a claim. Unfortunately theists so often just grant atheists to presuppose that suffering = "evil".
@@harrygarris6921
One can trivially limit discussion to unnecessary suffering and still have just as strong a question.
@@harrygarris6921doesn't that make god a utilitarian? If hundreds and millions of years of animal suffering is justified by some greater good, doesn't that mean we have to abandon deontology?
God is all-powerful, but He is not all-controlling. Animals also don’t experience suffering and death in the same way that we do. Humans have a real problem with anthropomorphizing animals.
How do we justify that the angels were part of creation in this way and also take into account Colossians 1:16 where he says Jesus is the fabric of the universe holding all things together?
I guess the same way humans sin despite Christ holding the fabric of the universe together?
Great video, as always, Gavin. Thanks for your hard work.
I'm a traditional (Jewish) theist and to me the fallen angel theology cannot help with the problem of natural evil because it makes God into a poor designer or a poor manager. We can't pawn off responsibility for evil to the angels because God created those angels just as they are (if we take them as literal, independent beings). And God also chose how to handle their fall. Why would God create divine beings whom he knew would go corrupt? Unlike humans, there's no absolute need for those beings in our human reality given the sovereignty of the omnipotent God. Really, God can handle things, folks, all by Himself. (And this in fact is the overarching teaching of Israelite Scripture.) Even worse, why did God supposedly "imprison them" in nature? He could have sent them to a completely harmless realm. No, this theodicy keeps tying God's hands, as if He's lost control of things , but for no good reason. It's not enough to offer a theory of what happened to corrupt nature, you must explain why this was God's only or best option-or why it's not truly evil in the overall scheme of things.
Wouldn't that depend on whether angels have free will? Because no one would say God is a bad manager because humans have free will?
@@Jim-Mc Thanks for your reply. I understand and accept the free will defense for human evil and I believe it fits with the entire Bible's portrait of the meaning of life. But the world of angels, if it exists literally, is not the human world. So why does angel rebellion radically determine the nature of life for human beings and animals? Let them live and struggle in "Angelville." I believe God could have other worlds or universes, but would it be right for what happens in a parallel universe to decide the quality of life in ours? And if God did decide to run things that way, it's STILL God who's responsible, not the angels.
@@KingoftheJuice18 in the biblical narrative Adam and Eve are said to fall into the temptation that was offered to them by a fallen angel, but I don't know that's necessarily saying that Adam and Eve could not have rebelled against God in some way without that specific temptation being offered. Ultimately what's at "fault" for evil is that God gave his creation the freedom to do something other than act in accordance to the will of God. But the flip side is because his creatures have freedom, the love that can be shared between God and his people is so much greater than what would be possible in some kind of puppet universe where God creates robots that can only follow the commands he gives them. Even God is capable of taking a greater risk in the pursuit of a greater reward.
@@harrygarris6921 I largely agree with what you wrote, but it doesn't have very much to do with what I was arguing against Gavin's idea in the video. To me it's clear that the snake (which is not identified as an angel in Genesis, but no matter) is a vehicle of God. The snake did not go unnoticed by God; it did not fool God; it was not beyond God's power. What happened in the temptation is what God wanted to happen for humans. But this isn't connected to Gavin's idea that angels rebelled and it's their rebellion that messed up all of nature-and God had no other way to handle it.
@@KingoftheJuice18 What you're describing as your view is the same as Gavin's. He is a calvinist so the angels didn't actually rebel in his worldview, God caused angels to rebel, and they are mere vehicles of his will just like everything else is.
The alternative view would then be the belief that God both can and does create beings that have true agency that can act according to their own will. This grants not only man freedom, but God as well. As it sounds like under the view that you are describing, and definitely under the calvinist view, everything is subject in a very literal sense to the will of God not just at the final judgement, but in every moment. And so God is compelled to act at all times as he is unable to allow anything to happen that is against his will.
One major problem with the Angelic Fall Theodicy is that it doesn’t explain why humans and God have the authority to harm animals. It explains nature being broken, but not why what we do to animals is good. This is why I say they don’t have minds.
Hey Gavin, what do you think about another common critique by Alex: That christianity is so common in certain places and almost nowhere to be found in large places with millions of people. This seems to be explained physiologically and not the work of a God who loves all.
I've been thinking about making a response to that point. Essentially, I don't think the unequal distribution of Christianity is at all surprising given theism. Theism allows that we are influenced by our environment. God uses indirect means (like a Christian family, or a missionary) to spread his knowledge. But I need to go back and listen to make sure I have understood the full weight of the objection.
Here is my tuppence.
It is a terrible argument and laughably bad.
Here are the reasons why;
1) That is true only if you think that everyone that reports such things can or does accurately report how many Christians there are.
2) It hasn't always been as it is now so that's fallacial reasoning imagining that now is always.
3) It assumes that the spread of faith is somehow opposed to working through people and minds which it clearly isn't.
So basically his argument is that everyone is not a Christian and Christianity can't be spread by people.
@@TruthUnites The question precisely is why would God use such indirect means instead of directly giving people knowledge of him.
Scripture itself says the spiritual influence is promulgated through human cooperation, wherever the Word of God and Christian living is, comparing it to spreading seed and plant growth.
@@modernatheism So God decides who gets to hear having already decided where they will be born and that's a problem how?
You have such interesting topics, things that I don't even think about
Merry Christmas to you and your family Dr Ortlund. May we find unity in the beautiful gift Christ gave to us.
Excellent video and another interesting apologetic topic that Gavin is willing to cover 👍
I actually love Alex, i deconstructed, IM NOT ATHIEST but definitely a skeptic, but i am now actually trying to prove the existence and miracles of Jesus...i also think its weird how similar life is to how Jesus perdicted it....makes u wonder, LOVE ALEX
9:23 I don't see how this solves anything. Now you have to prove the existance of angels/demons AND still describe why God couldn't intercede on behalf of animals to prevent them from any harm.
This is a bad argument.
Great video, thank you!
Of all the apologetic channels I've come across, you are by far the most in touch with the pressing issues facing believers in our time. You don't focus on the low hanging fruit. You engage with the best and the brightest from the other side (in a consistently charitable and intellectually rigorous manner). I commend you for this. As a Latter-day Saint, I thank you for enriching my understanding of both Protestantism and the intellectual side of traditional Christian beliefs.
I struggle with animal suffering and innocent suffering. I think about them now in the freezing weather 😥
I feel like this fallen angel idea doesn’t answer the most basic question which is “why did God allow the sin of his creatures to spread to nature?” If God is omnipotent, then he could have restricted the spread of sin only to the sinful beings (the angels), instead of letting the resulting death spread to plants and animals like a virus.
If God could not have prevented the spread, then you must give up divine omnipotence.
Would love to see you and Alex have a discussion 🙏
Gavin would never do it.
Great video Gavin! Was wondering if you could eventually do a video covering the historic church position/interpretations of “mortal sins” primarily from 1 John. I know that it is a big part of the Catholic system of understanding and that it is used as something of a hit to assurance of salvation/the justification-sanctification process. Keep up the great work!
Joe Heschmeyer has a video on mortal sin that focuses on that very scripture
@@BrianGondo sweet, thanks for the recommendation. I’ll check it out
Scripture answers these questions on animal suffering:
“We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” Romans 8:22
Animals, along with humans, share in the suffering that resulted from the fall. All creation groans. So this is not a result of God punishing animals for sins they did not commit, this is a natural consequence of sin on our world and the divide that exists between our Creator, and the perfect love and life that he is the source of.
Our culture wants to do away with God, and so this is the result of us widening the chasm. He is the author and source of everything that is good, living, and true.
When Paul says "him who subjected it" in Romans 8:20-21, who is he referring to?: "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of *_him who subjected it,_* in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God."
@ God….the answer is God, the one humanity has trespassed against. Yes, God subjected us to the consequence of our sins and did not immediately deliver us to eternal death, so that his plan of salvation through His spotless lamb, Jesus, would set humanity free from the bondage of sin. He allowed us to live and gave us over to our own corruption and all its consequences, in hope that many would return to Him and receive eternal life in His name.
@@mrs.stimsonartkids6951Earlier you said it was a natural consequences of sin. How could that be true if God had to intervene in the world in order to impose that consequence?
Loved this breakdown! The frustrating part with Alex, is as smart as he seems, he keeps missing basic arguments like this.
He misses the basic argument that an all powerful God let fallen angels cause billions of animals to suffer, animals that are not involved at all in these heavenly battles. *~sigh~* There's this great quote that it's impossible to get a man to see something if his paycheck depends on him *not seeing something.* When it comes to people with religious careers, I think about that quote. PLUS--- the real problem of evil is how many Jews who died in the holocaust, not believing in Jesus, will wake up in God's eternal concentration camp called hell.
Interesting. Do you not think that the "career" of non-theists is dependent upon them not seeing the validity of arguments for God as well?
Theists of all types and non-theists of all types are in the same boat, having based their lives upon the views that they have chosen to espouse. Their career is dependent upon it.
@@calmingwavesjulian
@@brianlarue3540 Nah Brian, I've thought about that, if a non-theist thought for real, they could live forever in bliss, they would trade their career in a heartbeat. A theist going from making a living for wife and kids to have to start from scratch often with an usable degree. Nah, they will tie themselves in knots trying to believe the ridiculous before facing that fate--while of course asking Muslims, Mormons and Hindus to mess up their life and convert.
@@brianlarue3540 . That seems like an overgeneralisation: theists and non-theists both breathe. What does that say? Nothing except that they're living humans.
Actually for the conscious non-theists, there's of not one reaso to not believe, but an incredible amount of arguments, many of which do map out on the reality we live every day.
Theists don't have any except personal experience. Which everybody can have about everything. So both are not the same
@calmingwavesjulian there's zero way to know whether the jews in ww2 went to heaven or not. They are of Israel afterall. Depends on how you view hell and all that
amazing concise video to a huge question. thanks Gavin!
Another great video, Pastor Gavin! Keep up the great work and Merry Christmas, brother!
Imagine ants having this conversation about humans.
“Why do we have to toil so hard? So many of us die needlessly to provide shelter and sustain our species. If there was really any such thing as a truly good, powerful human beings, then they would do so much more to help alleviate our sufferings. They wouldn’t be so hidden either.”
Nothing screams preposterous intellectual indulgence like taking an issue which we couldn’t possibly relate to, on EITHER end (the animals or Gods) and trying to base some sort of soft conclusions around it.
The difference is that in the ant analogy humans are not all powerful and all knowing like god and don’t have a personal relationship and responsibility with them. I know your more so using this analogy to point out that god works in mysterious ways as mere humans we couldn’t possibility understand his perspective. The problem I have with this as though he’s actions could be explained by something beyond are control it sidesteps the argument and is not really satisfying as it fails to address it head on. Also god ways aren’t all that mysterious as he wrote a book to explain his nature and morals. The bible points towards god being loving meaning that god harming animals for no foreseeable reason is out of line with his character as he can make it stops with no effort or time. So an all loving all powerful god and animal suffering wouldn’t go hand in hand.
Gavin should really debate Alex O Connor
Great video, Gavin. Honestly, as much as I understand Alex's argument I wonder why is he so focused on animal suffering? And not, say, the suffering of infants and children? I mean, sure, a deer suffering for a week before getting eaten by a lion sucks. But it doesn't seem to me nearly as big an issue as a child dying from cancer.
I think it's likely because apologists counter the child cancer related arguments with things like them going to heaven, or other similar silver lining ways of thinking about it(There are more that don't come to mind right now). Ultimately, animals as we understand within the Biblical context will have no reward in heaven, no afterlife, no justification for the seemingly meaningless suffering. I believe this is why Alex focuses on this, as it seems that animals suffer and die just because.
Thank you for this video. Alex is perhaps the most winsome influential atheist at the moment, and his case hinges on animal suffering. In his debate with Francis Collins, he claimed that a merciful God would have put anesthesia in lion's jaws to alleviate the suffering of the zebra. What's ironic to me is that there actually are creatures like spiders who in fact have this feature. Adrenaline and shock responses do something similar in prey. Another response to Alex is to ask him to consider the role of humanity in alleviating suffering. Why does Alex have a conscience to care for animals in the first place? It's because God's image-bearers were mandated to care for all creatures. Domesticated animals are actually in their designed state of existence. Temple Grandin and her humane slaughterhouse designs are a great example of how Christians should be proud of our relationship with animals we care for. People have dogs and other pets across times and cultures in history. Humanity working as designed to care for animals is a huge part of the answer to Alex on this topic. God bless!
I would say that Alex’s view is based on more on expansion of empathy. Christianity makes some vague notes on universal themes, but is still an exclusionary religion, like pretty much every other theistic religion. It helped in some cases (women and slaves, down the line) but it was also an opponent (also women’s and sexual minority-rights)
Your response has a contradictory flaw: if God already gave animals adrenaline for pain, such that animals don't suffer then humans don't need to help animals. But if you think the adrenaline is not enough, why would God let animals suffer and suffer, hoping humans, who in times past could barely feed our own communities, would be tasked with helping pain-feeling animals.
Oh so I guess you are a vegan too. Or do you believe that animals don't mourn their loved ones and we should only care about murdering them painlessly?
I'm fairly versed in physics, and I'm a big fan of this idea of angels' role in creation as agents of the order of nature. The way I imagine it is that angels are the personification of the laws of physics, or that the laws of physics are synonymous to these angels. And so, they truly are responsible for stars shining brilliantly and everything else in the universe which inspires such awe.
Hey I'm also a physics person but this was the part of the video that completely lost me. The laws of physics are incredibly predictable and seemingly completely uniform across time and space (also there are issues with observers and quantum mechanics). Does that mean the evil angels that caused suffering and the good angels that presumably also exist just work together to make sure light propagates smoothly?
Any way to get access to your article "On the Fall of Angels and the Fallenness of Nature: An Evangelical Hypothesis Regarding Natural Evil" for free or a more reasonable price?
I think any brand, flavor, or scent of the question "Why is there so much suffering in the world?" can be answered in terms of eschatology. Ultimately animals will not suffer anymore as we see in the prophet Isaiah's words about lions eating straw like an ox, and all the different animals living together. This is the form of the gospel I think they need to hear the most
"It won't exist in the future" only compounds the problem, because it necessitates that a perfect world without suffering is possible.
@j8000 Compounds what problem?
What is your opinion on veganism? When it is nowadays possible to live without animal products, is it still justifieble for us regarding Christian value ethics to consume these products and cause harm?
God said he gives us animals for food in genesis.
Meat is necessary for good health.
@@leahunverferth8247if that wasn’t true, would veganism then be necessary
Only in the garden of Eden was veganism beneficial because it was perfect.
My heath has improved from cutting cereal and vegetables out of my diet and eating fruit, honey and meat only
@@Swiftninjatrev I know but this verse also implies their protection. And we know from the mosaic law that it is not necessary about the content of each verse but rather the moral implications.. And since we know that animal products produce harm, shouldnt we try to use it in a minimal amount as possible?
Very good explanation regarding the problem of suffering for animals! It's funny how atheists argue against these topics, but if they would only open their minds and acknowledge a Christian worldview, they would actually find answers to the questions that trouble them. I honestly think that sometimes they develop these arguments to push back against the belief in God but fail to examine their own beliefs. For example, let’s assume that the person arguing against God and the suffering of animals believes in evolution/natural selection. Does not natural selection involve "competition" and "survival of the fittest"? Do not these two components involve dominance, suffering, and killing? Lastly, if God doesn't exist, according to atheists, who cares? Why is this even a problem (sarcastically speaking)?
The entire point is that animal suffering accords perfectly with naturalism?? It's only unexpected if you assume an omnibenevolent designer.
Seems like Alex's 'in 80 years' experiment highlights something about his epistemology. His way of knowing permits the possibility of discoveries that would explain away the fine-tuning argument, whereas the justification (or otherwise explaining) of animal suffering lands outside of the sorts of things that can be known as he defines knowing. Which is to say that all this particular thought experiment proves is that he defines knowing in a certain way. The universe can be known, while causation of suffering can't. Which I suppose is important, because you have to define your terms, but it doesn't really add much weight to an argument.
Based and presuppositionalist-pilled
Great commentary BTW. Very helpful.
Atheist or no, Alex is one of the most respectful speakers and thinkers out there and likewise deserves our respect as well
Sometimes, I dont understand what apologists think a theodicy is supposed to do. I could agree with this entire metaphysically extravagant story about rogue angels and reified Evil corrupting creation such that animals are forced to starve or eat each other alive. But so what? It wouldnt defuse the force of the animal auffering objection, as far as I can tell. God would still be responsible for creating a world where such a thing could and would happen and for not interfering when it did. And yes, this is an internal critique. The moment the theist concedes animal suffering as a form of natural evil, its simple to demonstrate how *surprising* this is on the thesis that an all-loving all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God created such a world.
U sound like u don’t lift weights.
4:13 "It just seems to me more intuitively plausible"
I've noticed that, with great regularity, Alex and Joe Schmid fall back onto this type of statement after laying out their framework for whatever they are arguing. It's a very slippery sort of statement, but the psychological plausibility is ultimately what their beliefs rest on. I dont think this should go unnoticed.
The reason being, at this point one has to check their presuppositions and see if there is any basis in their worldview to trust their intuitions and plausibility meter. This becomes very difficult to do the second you step away from divine revelation and into the world of blind pitiless indifference.
It’s fair to critique reliance on intuition, but the same standard should apply to claims of divine revelation. How do we verify the plausibility of *your* intuitions or the reliability of divine revelation without appealing to circular reasoning? While 'blind pitiless indifference' may challenge naturalistic intuitions, they can be grounded in evolutionary and psychological frameworks, offering consistency without requiring divine intervention.
Unfortunately, all philosophy falls back on intuitions
The whole thrust of Alex’s “animal suffering” objection is emotional.
Perhaps because when God placed us in the Garden, He gave us dominion over the Earth, with the responsibility to govern it humanely with regard to its animals.
So when we recoil at the thought of Bambi roasting in a forest fire, perhaps it is not evidence against a good God, but for Him, and the truth of His Word.
I think that the angelic fall theodicy is the only one that adequately explains the problem. People might laugh at it, but it is a part of the Christian system that works perfectly within that system. If someone will laugh about that, we certainly aren't going to persuade them that a Jewish man in a backwater Roman province roughly 2,000 years ago was God.
Some people don't see the difference between _argument_ and _question_ . Saying "why does God allow bad things" isn't an argument, just like asking "If evolution is true why people don't have tails like most of animals". It's a question not an argument. Just like so called "problem of evil" isn't even a problem, because a problem is a question that doesn't have any answers, but there are very good answer to that question about evil, in fact Orthodox Christianity exlplains it very well. So if Alex calls _this_ their "strongest" argument, does it mean that the atheists/agnostics cannot even find a single real argument?
Disclaimer: This comment is way, way too long. Just wanted to post a write up i did for my personal apologetics notes, after watching Alex's video. These aren't lock tight arguments by any means, but the beginnings of theodocies and trains of thought on the topic.
Problem of animal suffering:
Does suffering outweigh the positive value of life? If a deer lives on earth for 10 years, experiences everything good a deer can experience, then dies a gruesome death, was God wrong for creating this animal? That animal likely experienced eating food, having sex, the warmth of the sun, a swim in a cool creek, bonds with kin, adventure of every day life. It's easy to ask, why would an animal have to experience suffering in life if there is a good god? Well, why not ask, if there is no good god, then why do animals experience so many amazing things in life? You would not expect that under Atheism.
Alex has said that he would sooner commit suicide than be turned into a random animal. I don't think that is logically consistent. As a human, he will likely be met with plenty of suffering, pain and eventually death... so why doesn't he kill himself now to prevent all of that negative experience? We know why- because he knows his life has value (even though there is no grounding for it under atheism) and he would rather live out his life and take the good with the bad and the ugly. This is key for forming your worldview- is a life worth living due to the value of being alive alone? If so, then God was benevolent in creating all life (animals, humans, etc). I have heard Alex say that he takes the other side of that coin, he suspects that on the whole, a human experience leans negative. I think this is the source of a lot of his philosophy. He can't match the fact that he believes life for humans and animals is largely negative with there being a good god.
How could God physically and practically prevent animal suffering? He would have to eliminate or alter predators (overpopulation could be a far worse evil). He would have to suspend physics (no falling trees, natural causes of death, etc). He would have to, by the power of His spirit, over-rule animals frequently to prevent them from wandering into accidents or harming each other. He would have to suspend animal's ability to feel pain, which would lead to worse evils, such as animals hurting themselves without realizing it (this is 1 reason God created pain in the first place, it is giving our brains a message and triggering an oftentimes crucial response). In theory preventing all suffering sounds nice, but in actuality it may not be practical.
The problem of animal suffering is an internal critique of Christianity so we should go to the Bible to see if it's explained. In the Bible, God obviously holds animal life below human life, a simple reading of Genesis will tell you that. I believe this is because humans have souls while animals do not. The Bible teaches that the spirit is above the flesh, it doesn't glorify the flesh, it is a thing to temporarily used, overcome and eventually discarded. We (humans, including Alex) actually do the same thing, placing a hierarchy on the value of different lifeforms. We value a human life above an animals life, and we hold an animal's life above a plant life. We even hold different animal lives to be valued in their own ways. I'm positive Alex agrees that a dog's life is more valuable than an ant's. We are criticizing God for something we do ourselves. Maybe we really are made in his image.
Alex likes to use the phrase "what would you expect under Atheism/Christianity and which one lines up with reality". Well, I would say under atheism we would expect there to be nothing. We would not expect life to begin. We would not expect there to be time, space or matter. We would not expect to have morality, we would not expect to have consciousness, we would not expect fine-tuning, we would not expect to even be able to trust our logical faculties. We would not expect there to be beauty or the ability to experience it. All of this evidence on 1 side, and on the other your highest tier argument is "why do animals feel pain sometimes." "Why do animals suffer" doesn't hold weight in an argument when on the other side, you have the question "why is there life, and a universe and why do we have morality to even care". The weight of those arguments don't even come close to comparison.
There could be more suffering right? Why isn’t there far more suffering, explained under naturalism? Isn’t the fact that we just have some suffering, most of which can lead to higher order goods like soul building, an evidence for theism?
I would also reject the premise that millions of animal species living life on earth and dying out is an inherent evil. I think that is an assumption that's made by atheists without proper philosophical backing. Let's say that there is another higher life form that comes about through natural selection millions of years from now, making human life just another link in this evolutionary chain. As a human who is here now, experiencing suffering and eventual death, should I be mad at the creator for giving me my life? If you say yes, then that is just your opinion- I wouldn't share it.
These are some really good thoughts, thank you!
But the real problem of evil is how many Jews who died in the holocaust, not believing in Jesus, will wake up in God's eternal concentration camp called hell.
Animal death is not a problem for young Earth six day creationists. It's very simply the just result of man's sin. As far as Alex is concerned, having a problem with it?...how silly of him. His worldview can not even account for right or wrong or absolute truth claims. He has to borrow money from the Christian worldview to pay for his indignation.
@@kalu8652 Its rare that a long comment is a good comment, but this one is.
I thought the argument you made about the implications of what a world were animals can’t suffer was very thought provoking. I would say that an all powerful god could come up with a way that migrates thee problems and still have no suffering. I think this is a side step though as though it’s a possibility I can’t give you a direct response atm.
More interesting in the claims that Christianity could account for epistemology and how you would ground morality, knowledge etc in Christianity. I don’t believe this is possible under both atheism and Christianity as both require faith. In atheism there are frameworks for grounding stuff but all require us to presuppose that what we perceive is true. In Christianity we have no way of confirming that gods morality claims are true or he’s not deceiving in regards knowledge. God claims he can’t lie but we have no way to independently verify this claim. Given this I don’t believe it’s possible to 100% account for any of this in any world view I’ve come across as all attempts I’ve come across to ground epistemology lead to circular arguments.
Also under atheism the meaning of life exists though it’s subjective. Just because something is subjective doesn’t mean it non-existent. Alex meaning of life could be to do 50 backflips a day his meaning of life does exist it’s just subjective to him.
I am an atheist but think our universe had a creator. Those are not mutually exclusive.
interesting; who or what do you think the creator was?
@@TruthUnites an advanced alien race
The earth was put under Adam's domain and care. God put a connection between Man and nature. When he fell, his domain fell with him. (That makes sense. Biblically)
Why would the angel's fall cause nature to fall? What is the connection between angels and nature? (Biblically?)
Yes, very strong connection with Adam having dominion over earth. He "handed over the keys" as it were.
@Dizerner Then animal suffering happened at that time (and not before), right?
@@Tim.Foster123 Yes, I think it's very, very important to put all of the curse after the fall, and none of it before. Notice how Gavin in the video misquoted creation as only "good." Scripture says "very good," not good, and it's there for a reason. People who say animal suffering is very good need their heads and hearts checked.
I am probably alone in saying this, but I genuinely believe and have faith that Alex will be a Christian one day. And when he does, he will become one of the greatest evangelists of our generation.
The triune God can. do. anything!
Well said
I really appreciate a thoughtful and modest response to this problem. Coming from a science background though I was very confused by the point you made with stars and angels. Obviously our knowledge of stars and astronomy has progressed multitudes since Aquinas. Currently it seems from what we have observed that stars behave essentially identical based on their material constituents. What is the necessity of the angels and is there a difference between stars controlled by angels and fallen angels? Similarly when and how did angels impact the laws of our universe in such a way that there still was fine tuning but yet now suffering that was not intended in creation?
The Christian cosmology is that reality is not limited to the material universe, so whatever role they do have would be best explored through theology through revelation.
Indeed, astronomy has come a long way. However, Gavin is focusing on the metaphysical level of reality, not merely the material level of reality.
Hence when everything is made right the “wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and lion yearning together”. Isaiah 11. Romans8:22 “all creation is groaning”
What happens to the wolf's teeth then, because a wolf is a killing machine.
If it can't kill, it's not a wolf.
Yeah once you see it, the idea seems to be alluded to quite a bit in Scripture
My issue with the problem of evil vs finetuning is that, while the problem of evil is pointing at a logical incosistancy between God and reality, the finetuning argument is simply filling in a gap in our knowlegde with God. To me there is no reason why any specific god has to be the answer as supposed to any other explanation, and I think the same can be said in relation to the existence of the universe, morality and consciousness.
To give some rationale for Alex, his saying that the fine tuning is going to be explained in 100 years is because that’s a scientific question. Moral questions, such as the problem of evil, are harder to solve. Im saying this as a theist, and I generally agree with his intuition
Couldn’t the fine tuning tip either direction? As I see it, the scientific community would love to find what happened, but they’ll be content to find what could have happened. Fine tuning means it is so improbable that it’s irrational to exclude a creator. If it’s proven or relatively certain that it “could have” happened a certain way within a reasonable probability without a designer, then fine tuning is defeated. But that’s just a hope at this point, no?
@ at this point, I would agree that it is a hope. But, as we know by Hume’s guillotine (a moral “ought” cannot be explained by a scientific “is”), there is possibly an explanation for the scientific reason of fine tuning. However, we cannot know with any explanatory manner why suffering exists. That’s some more reasoning for the intuition, but yes, generally, both are hopes at this point
@ I’ve been thinking about the idea of the transcendent. We seem to be wired for it as humans. I don’t see the point of pure rationality to resolve a question about “feelings”(suffering). Like you said, how do you get an is from an ought? It’s a religious problem, should be a religious solution. We’re wired for an emotional experience of transcendence. People describe an experience of emotional healing.
If the question is about people who never get to experience this resolution, I get that. I can only really get to the answer of “it was worth it to create this world”. I don’t know the justice of each individual’s experience. I say in faith, “shall not the judge of the earth deal justly?” (From Gen 18 Abraham appeal about Sodom)
@@collin501 Can God even prove to Himself that He was *not created by a more powerful God?* How would God prove to Himself that *He wasn't in a computer program a la matrix?* Without this answer God doesn't *really know if He really has authority?* And we are not justified in following any God who doesn't or can't answer this.
@@calmingwavesjulian I think that’s unreasonable skepticism, sorry. That doesn’t match the overall picture of how the world works. I have no reason to think that kind of way.
If anyone is interested in the area of evolutionary theodicy, two great books are 'The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil' by Christopher Southgate, and 'God, Evolution, and Animal Suffering: Theodicy without a Fall' by Bethany Sollereder.' I highly recommend these books. They both defend a Christian worldview, and take evolutionary science incredibly seriously, but don't believe a hypothetical Fall (either human or angelic) can be used to explain non-human, natural suffering.
Sollereder raises some of the problems with the notion of an angelic fall:
"First, there is no biblical evidence for a satanic fall corrupting the world. Modern biblical scholars would strongly challenge Augustine's notion that a fall, particularly a satanic fall, is present in the Genesis narrative. Second, despite its presence in the tradition, the ancient thinkers who developed this position did not know that it is the very presence of the disvalues that give rise to so much of nature's values. Would we then be forced to honour the fallen angels for the flee-footedness of the deer or the coordination and strength of the orca? Satan would end up being the (possibly unintentional) originator of the diversity generated by cellular mutation and all the speciation events arising from predation or natural disasters. Finally, this position contradicts the continual biblical refarin that God created the world good. The goodness of creation is constantly affirmed, including at the end of the first account of creation when all the creatures, even the great leviathan and the beasts of the field, are present. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the complexity of the natural world in its totality - even in its more troublesome elements - brings honour and glory to God."
This is so ridiculous. The suffering of animals is related to the fact that many animals have to eat meat to survive, and this is something built into the original structure of animals itself. We see this in the physiological structure of predators, such as their large canines or sharp fangs, which are used for hunting. This is not a "corruption" in any way. Obviously, God had to originally design animals like this from the very beginning. It is either that or postulating that somehow God went and changed the animals after demons rebelled. But why did he have to do that? There was zero need for it.
You need to postulate angels to be the creators of nature, rather than protectors and governors, for your defence to work. This is because the structures of predators are clearly not corrupted or broken. They are obviously designed from scratch to work this way.
one clarification: every proponent of angelic fall theodicy I know of thinks nature was corrupted before any biological life appeared. Whether correct or not, "God went and changed the animals after demons rebelled" would not apply.
God can do anything, he makes the rules. He couldv made all animals herbavours, or be able photosynthesis. Theres no law or logical requirement that animals need to rip eachother apart to simply exist.
@@TruthUnites Ok, I see your point. So it is like angels were meant to be closely linked to material creation, and since they were corrupted, material creation ended up corrupted from the start?
Wouldn't this deny the "and God saw it was good" part in Genesis?
There was zero need to a biological system to consume energy (meat) in order for it to continue surviving and propagating? Did you just hear yourself?
@@modernatheism I see you're an atheist, but thank you for using a steelman argument that doesn't undermine the existence of God.
Hi Gavin, is this view compatible with Romans 5:12?
I think Gavin just wanted to talk about Angelic Falll Theodicy. 😂
Not that I'm complaining. Great Video!
From a biblical point of view we know that this is a temporary situation and that God will redeem the entirety of creation from suffering. Suffering shows us that the world is cursed and that we should focus on trusting Christ and being righteous so that we can share in God´s new, redeemed world that he will create. By seeing how bad sin and its effect on the world really is, God helps us focus on the new, holy world.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
I find Alex's argument to be a thinly veiled assumption that science always gets answers and philosophy and religion don't. Science is more arrogantly confident in its answers, but changes with every little new discovery. It also has little to no ground at all to stand on when attempting to answer the real questions that are the bread and butter of philosophy and religion. It is the struggle and answers to the deepest questions found in the Bible that stand the test of time and will ultimately be vindicated over every human attempt to avoid our ultimate appointment with our Creator.
What about the problem of how many Jews who died in the holocaust, not believing in Jesus, will wake up in God's eternal concentration camp called hell.
This isn’t convincing to non-believers.
I think something that isn’t even acknowledged is that human suffering was near on par with animal society for most of human history until the rise of agriculture. Then it slowly became better. However most of humanity was still widely suffering until the 1950’s. Yet even now alot of people suffer from diseases that don’t have cures, wars, addiction, food insecurity and everything else. So its really a question of a degree and severity of suffering, and that suffering is an inevitable part of the human experience and animal experience at some point.
Suffering in a world (for animals, humans, plants), where humanity was given stewardship over the world and by their volitional will opened the door to suffering and evil, doesn't seem like an argument against God, but rather an argument for him. God trust deeded the earth to humans and they in turn trust deeded it to evil rather than choosing goodness. Angels falling away being responsible for evil sounds like Mormonism.... I know as I was raised one.
It's just standard problem of evil, not that it disproves God, but disproves a maximally good God.
yes.Before there was harmony with God very present and everything directly under his love and care.
if God said the world was good then it was good not " good enough" He was the perfect creator.There was no such thing as shades of goodnes .We corrupted it when we allowed evil in.God told that pain and suffering follows for all as it seems.He didn't punish us He told the natural outcome.
@@Dizernerif i was the most powerful the most intelligent the creator of everything i wouldn't be "mostly"good.God if you believe in Him is by definition TOTAL in everything.
God lets the world be filled with suffering..... so humans can fix it? Do you start fires so, your kids can put them out?
I found a watch, I'm unsure why someone made it, how or when someone made it, I can guess of course... but the far heavier burden would be to convince me NO ONE made it, even the atheist has to admit such a proposition is daunting.
Fine tuning is not the gotcha some think. It strikes me as a big concern for theists too - like, why would a God make a universe that demanded such a narrow set of parameters? Does that mean that God is subject to those laws? If so, why? It’s impressive to us as humans but not to a deity.
For example, imagine that there was a village only accessible by a single train line. You can’t reach it by road, on foot, by helicopter or water. And you arrive and say to the person at the inn “You’re not going to believe this but we arrived by train”. Does the inn keeper’s jaw drop in wonder? Is he impressed by your creativity?
So apparently we now know there was only one way to make the universe and that’s how God did it. Not so impressive is it? Especially when you then throw in all the inadequacies - 99% of all life ‘created’ has died out, there’s animal suffering, the Earth is unsettled with earthquakes and volcanoes etc.
Now it seems less impressive that God made it and more like he’s weak - no wonder we have all the problems, God was incapable of doing it differently because of fine tuning.
Assuming fine tuning is the epitome of megalomanias.
”If things were just a little different humans would not exist.”
So? What would humans be the ultimate goal of everything?
Think of all the wonderous things that cannot exist in this universe but that could exist if it was different.
Besides, ”fine tuned for life” seems very much an overstatement. In an unfathomable large universe we know of one place where life exists. That’s negligible. You can drop humans in a thousand billion billions random places in the universe and they will all die instantly, every single one. Is that fine tuned?
@ To be fair (and you know that I’m unconvinced by fine tuning) the science part is that a small variation of just one of four constants means the universe doesn’t exist. So it’s not that *this* version of the universe doesn’t exist but another one where we’re all lighter or breath CO2 instead of O2 does. It’s that with a small tweak the Big Bang happens and everything flies so quickly there’s no planets or celestial bodies just dust.
But like I said, I’m unconvinced for other reasons.
(19:18)final thought: Gavin, you’re right that animal suffering is real-but your leap to “theism” as the explanation for labeling it “evil” misses a fundamental point. Without theism, there’s no need to impose moral labels like "good" or "evil" on the natural world. The natural world simply is. It operates without intention, purpose, or morality. Ecosystems find balance through cycles of birth, reproduction, predation, parasitism, and death. What we call "suffering" is a projection of our human value system onto processes that are indifferent to our moral constructs.
Life is dynamic, self-sustaining, and beautiful in its complexity-but it’s not “evil” when a lion hunts a zebra or a parasite infects a host. It’s just nature doing what nature does. Theism doesn’t solve the problem of animal suffering-it just anthropomorphizes it, adding unnecessary moral weight to a world that simply operates as it must.
Thomists have already answered this. Animals don't have a rational soul, so they don't experience pain like humans. And, the details are quite different than what Michael Murray and Neo-cartesians propose
But they do experience pain. Have you ever killed an animal?
@@Tim.Foster123I actually didn't contest that. I said "like"
@@Tim.Foster123What is pain? I could program a computer to feel "pain" too.
@@MBarberfan4life I did note that; it just doesnt pass muster with me. Or with Gavin. He said that dogs are apprehensive of bad people. This implies they had a bad experience with bad people in the past ....and that only happens when the dog remembers the experience of suffering.
But one of the indicators of God-corrected nature is that animals are no longer afraid of man. Isaiah 65.
Honestly tho - have you never watched an animal when you kill it and it cries out in pain? Is that cry of pain consistent with a good ordered nature?
How is that animal suffering insufficiently like man's suffering the it counts as acceptable in nature?
Pain isn't rational. It's visceral.
Hey Gavin, always love the content. My question is, you say Christian’s have always had an understanding that angels were involved in the creation of physical things. This is foreign to me since through Christ all things were made and not anything was made but by him (John 1).
Thoughts on this?
I don't believe it's anywhere in the bible (could be wrong). It seems like it's mostly people's poetic answers to various issues and the creation of a cosmic order.
5:36 To Alex’s “80 years down the road” idea, I would argue that the problem of evil, while it most likely won’t be solved (in a way that atheists accept), it at least can’t get much harder to answer. We already have been exposed to the lowest depths of human depravity, from the crucifixion of Christ tothe countless modern-day war atrocities. The argument from fine-tuning, on the other hand, has historically become harder and harder to explain as science progresses. The more detailed our knowledge of the universe and its intricate workings grows, the more explaining the anti-theists have to do to justify their beliefs. So, while neither problem will be solved, or even be closer to being solved, the argument from evil will be *relatively* closer to being solved, because if historical trends continue, the argument from fine-tuning will become harder and harder to answer.
How do you figure? We've yet to discover any evidence the constants could have been otherwise than they are.
@ my point wasn’t trying to deal with specific constants or anything like that. I simply pointed out that the more details we discover about the universe, the more detailed the explanation for its beginning must become.
Genesis 3:17 and 5:29 explain animal suffering: God cursed the fallen creation. This suffering won't exist in the new heavens and new Earth where the lion and the lamb will live peacefully together.
We were made to take care of animals, animals are left in our hands, we don’t take care of animals, God wouldn’t let them suffer because of us.
Also, the argument is really~
“An all powerful, loving God wouldn’t restrain His love, allowing for pain and suffering to exist”.
He’d be demanded to stop all pain.
“God does stop all pain, but He allows it to happen for a time, so He’s not all loving”.
So we shouldn’t see any pain for there to be healing love expressed.
The problem is animals are innocent because they cannot rationalize a less primal kill or be killed pathway to survival . This should free them from judgment and exempt them from suffering by any rational standards of a all loving creator. Who would make innocence suffer for the sins of others ? This being said an intelligent causal,agent for the highly complex specified code found in living cells is the only reality based conclusion one can come to. Where does that leave us is the unanswerable question?
The fact that we can identify any suffering as natural evil, not just animal suffering, and steward the world to heal nature through protective measures and medication, shows that morality came from designed intention.
If we acknowledge: Romans 8:18 about the groaning of creation, Isaiah 11:6 and Isaiah 65:25 as the unity of the animal kingdom, and Acts 10:9-15, when God reveals to Peter the purity of all animals in contrast to the Old Covenant - then it is safe to conclude that despite animal suffering, God recognizes the awe of the animal kingdom and will restore them wholeheartedly and with greater presentation.
The animals that have ceased in existence, will come back to existence, with more majesty than before.
But the real problem of evil is how many Jews who died in the holocaust, not believing in Jesus, will wake up in God's eternal concentration camp called hell.
The fine tuning argument fails immediately because no theist can show any evidence that the parameters of the universe could possibly be different. Unless you presuppose, without any basis, that the parameters could be other than what they are, the fine tuning argument is just silly.
I say this with sincerity, not attacking, but I think you may be misunderstanding what theists are trying to get at in the fine tuning argument.
From what I understand what they are saying is that a universe of chaos shouldn’t have consistent constants from what we understand of chaos.
Chaos as we see it (from our limited view yes, but no other view is able to be seen in our mind besides the human view) doesn’t create order. We see order though in the universe, so how could chaos create this things as we see them. I definitely could be missing something.
@@JmPie74 You make the assumption that the default state of the universe is chaos - why? Unless you assume this, there is no reason to believe that the order we see in the universe is not simply the default state. And since we have never seen utter chaos anywhere, there is no evidence or basis to believe that this ordered universe came from chaos.
You also assume that something 'created' the universe. There is also no evidence of that; it's just a presupposition.
Finally, there is no reason to think that even if the default state was chaos, that an ordered universe would not develop. Everything we see in the universe has inherent properties, and those inherent properties are the reason that the universe is, now, ordered. Unless you assume, again, that some thing injected those properties into the universe, it is perfectly reasonable to hypothesize that an ordered universe would necessarily develop.
Sort answer: the fine-tuning argument only makes sense if you assume many things for which we have no evidence. And order may develop from the inherent properties of the constituents of the universe.
This is a good answer and is along the path to the ultimate unanswerable question that I've come across:
Why did God create Satan with the ability to turn bad? In other words, Adam and Eve fell due to the snake but who tempted Satan? Also, how could he CHOOSE to rebel when angels are not supposed to have free will - unlike humans.
This is an honest question and I've love to hear an explanation because I've thought about it quite a bit and have so far not found a good one. The only answer to me is that this was God's choice. I accept that this could have been ultimately for the best - at least in theory - but this is quite a hard thing to try and defend in the face or real life suffering and evil.
At least you responded to the question. The challenge with your response is that it only adds explanatory value if you are already a committed Christian.
Inventing new entities “angels” in order to explain away suffering sounds similar to the complaint that theist have against the multiverse - using some strange metaphysic as a stop gap.
A couple other points:
- still depends on a notion of libertarian free will, which is another strange metaphysic that will likely only be compelling to committed theists
- The responsibility of animal suffering still ultimately rests with God. I didn’t understand how your response dealt with this. Regardless of the mechanisms by which evil entered the world you can still ask if it was worth it. It still seems to be a logical contradiction that an all loving all powerful god would create a world full of such suffering, particularly if animals will not be recompensed for their suffering in any way.