As humans, our freedom is limited in many ways. The victim, for instance, is often unable to escape torture/rape/murder. Why not make, instead, the tormentor unable to keep the abuse going on?
I never really like the idea of God vs Evil, since evil itself is created by God (with the idea that God is an omnipotent), so everything that happen is because of God. Some people might have problem because of this, but for me personally, God did create everything but the universe He created didn't care about us.
"Is God willing to stop evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he willing but not able? Then he is not benevolent. Is he both willing and able? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus of Samos
+Jackboy019 The argument has been discredited over and over again. There should be no need to argue against it. Also, the point still stands. Atheists rarely think of their own arguments, instead choosing to rely on those of others, literally copy and pasting. The problem with the argument is that it assumes that the universe should exist solely for our pleasure, assuming the creator could not possibly have any possible alternative reason for creating the universe. It is little more than complaining about how the creator did not give us perfect lives, much like a child complains about the absence of cookies.
+Dantius Nope, you committed the fallacy of black and white thinking. First ,the universe has no objective meaning only subjective meaning in opinion only, therefore universe does not exist for pleasure or for suffering. Christians claim god is good, if god is not good then you have lost the argument. List of assumptions you made, commence Occam's razor: 1) You assume existence of mind out of body creator ie god. No real evidence of consciousness outside physical bodies. 2) Assume creation of the universe, which violates conservation of energy. 3) No objective physical evidence implies necessity of existence of any deities, therefore reasonable to assume anthropomorphic worship isn't credible. 4) You resort to ad hominem instead of argument from logic. Point loss in logical argument. Atheist asuumption: 1) No god exists. Why don't you demonstrate realistic evidence, since you know for certain deities exist? Until you can provide realistic physical proof of the existence of the alleged perfectly good interventionist type of deity then atheists are correct in their assumption. I doubt you will though because religious texts clearly don't know reality well enough if they can't make any correct specific predictions about it which means science as a method knows reality better than holy texts because enough scientific knowledge exists to predict future outcomes about reality. FYI, alleged claims in sacred texts is not evidence. For example, do you take the existence of anything in Harry Potter seriously because the reasoning and evidence in holy texts is equal to the fictional book.
From what I've seen, most religions/philosophies have an explanation for this that is internally consistent. (The religion I grew up with used this defense, and then for natural evil, it's part of a plan that we may not understand but will lead to the greater good.) But (and it took me way too long to realize this!) a model of the world that is internally consistent and matches observable facts is not necessarily true. If I believed I, the only real human, am a brain in a jar hallucinating everything I've ever experienced, well, that's internally consistent and it matches what I observe. But my friend believes that we're all physically real creatures with individual consciousnesses, heck, that's internally consistent and matches the observable universe too. We can't both be right..
The rubber has to meet the road with some good heuristics like Occam's razor and especially falsifiability. All consistent concepts are equal until you start looking to prove them wrong. Any concept that can't be proven wrong in any way is a bad concept.
Free will is the idea that chemistry and physics can be over ridden by some mysterious mental power. Yet that mental power clearly diminishes with the health of the brain.
That's not free will then. How do you know when you're exercising your free will is you can't act on it. That will be a virtual world not a real world.
@@thinkislamcheckmychannel then what about heaven? Do we have free will in heaven too? What's stopping evil happening there then? Or do we not have free will in heaven? Are we just slaves controlled by God as a result of living a good life? Does that sound like heaven? Does that mean hell is the only afterlife with free will?
@@whiteweb6546 No we have free will in heaven. But we will lose our unpleasant sides. There is perhaps free will in hell but no way of expressing it other than how loud to scream or how hard to gnash teeth.
the question is wether if a benevolent god shares his power inorder to stop conflict, which may induce the abuse of that power, which provides more conflict within the control of that power
If everyone having the sense of morality limits free will, then does having the sense of disgust a limitation of free will too? I want to hear your guys thoughts.
There are two things I don't like about defending free will: 1. "God gave us free will so we won't be like machines and this is better" - why better? The reason we don't like idea of being a machine is that it sounds for us demeaning, being controlled, used as a tool etc. Why we don't like thinking of ourselves this way? We choose to or we are designed to feel this way about this idea the same way we're designed to feel pain if we put hand into the fire and feel joy while laughing with our friends? If the first one then its begging the question because firstly we would need a free will to decide we like free will and if the latter then God could just created us otherwise and now this is only God's own selfish desire to do it the way it is done. 2. I think that most people don't understand how reality works. Imagine that we have a binary attribute - A and not A. So whatever A is then not A is just everything else. Its simple. In case of reality (universe, we, God, everything are parts of it) everything inside can be deterministic (this is A) or not deterministic (not A). This is fully exhaustive classification. Of course if reality is fully deterministic there is no free will. But if there is at least something to some degree non-determined then reality is not deterministic. However everything non-deterministic is just random. So on the other hand our will should have at least some portion of randomness in non-deterministic reality. Random will seems to be "free" but randomness in our behavior does not sound like something that we value in "free will".
Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21-22. Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37. 1 Samuel 3:14 God said “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.” That's Limited atonement.
Hmm, the problem of evil is clearly define in scripture, but the problem very few are willing to read and believe, that's why we struggle so with this issue. However, I understand that I had to wrestle with it as well, but after reading the scripture with an openmind things then began to make sense. If I may share what I have discovered concerning the problem of evil. 1. It began with the fall of Lucifer, Isaiah 14. That's not fake new thats reality. 2. The fall of Adam in the Garden, and the curse that followed. Gen 3 3. The choises of men to do evil, thats not God's fault but ours. 4. The great controversy between good and evil displayed in the naturally. Beyond what we can see, there is a war going on between Christ and Satan, and we sense the impact of it in the physical world. 5. The sin problem. The more we practice evil, the more we break the law of God, we the more we reject is the stronger evil becomes. That is undeniable, no wonder why our world is going crazy. The only defence against evil is Christ in the heart through faith in His righteousness. The choise is ours to make.
It began with god who made Satan knowing he'd fall and cause all suffering. He chose not to stop it He created Adam and eve lacking the knowledge of good and evil, the knowledge they needed to understand the snake was evil The knowledge they needed to know it was wrong to disobey god So your objection is totally moot
Regarding natural evil: Had i not been challenged by natural evl (sickness etc)...i would have chosen a path of self interest (which i did before). Why would i choose to be good when i gain more by being bad? Why would i even veaue goodness if there is no power that defines good or bad?...if its a a subjectve matter? I would not see the point of being good.....So for me natural evil did good. It tranformed me for the better. It made me realize my finiteness. Therefore natural evil can be explained if it tranforms human being for the better.
+Lakris A Self interest is not evil or bad. As long as it does not harm others. Of course goodness and badness is subjective. Since only you can decide if an action is good or bad for you. Example, you go to the dentist and have a filling, this causes pain, but you might judge it to be overall a good thing. There is no need to "explain" "natural evil" as being transformational. It just is as a consequence of physics and human behaviour.
Several thoughts: 1. The problem of evil is a big problem for theists, but its not a philosophical problem, for strong rebuttals from theists have been written and left unanswered. But it is an emotional problem, and sometimes, philosophical treatises don't do so well against a more primal gut response that is induced by the problem of evil. 2. However, the problem of evil is actually a larger problem for the atheist. Harry Shearer and Nigel Warburten fall into it when they start listing types of evil. "People inflicting pain on humans and other animals... enjoying others suffering... disease, famine, floods, and earthquakes." How can an atheist say any of these things are evil? All these things do is cause human and animal suffering. But why should causing animal and human suffering be considered evil? One can think like this if one has a very anthropocentric view of the universe as a believer can, but an atheist cannot. That is the problem of evil for the atheist: A. How to explain the fact that we experience all the things listed above as evil, when we live in a Godless world, where absolute standards of morality do not exist. 3. I am positive all those victims of the dictators mentioned would happily agree that it is better to live in a world of free will because that is what it means to live as a human being. Anyone who wishes to deny free will is denying our humanity, since part of what makes us human is our ability to self-direct through reason (i.e. free will.) And in that respect, such a person would be worse than all those dictators, since those dictators robbed the dignity of a portion of humanity, while the person who wants to get rid of free will wants to deny the dignity of all humanity. 4. Natural evil often can be explained by free will. Why are earthquakes evil? Not because they happen, but because they kill human beings. Knowing that Earthquakes consistently happen, why do we continue to build and rebuild large cities on fault lines, knowing that our choice to do so, will lead to people getting killed. Is it because we think it's worth the risk, and that a few people dying is outweighed by the financial benefits of building such a city in such a location? If that's our thought process then it seems we are the evil ones, not the earthquake. 5. Further, let us remember the Genesis story. Man was set as steward of creation. A steward is one who governs according to the will of the King. When man went contrary to the will of the king, he failed to be a good steward. And by failing to be a good steward of creation, he failed to govern creation well. By failing to govern it well, things contrary to the positive will of God came in. Thus, when mankind fell, man dragged all of creation down with him. Should we be surprised then that creation acts as it does, for we have failed to govern it. 6. Finally, what would happen if we were to see evils including natural evils as not just the result of people willing evil, but in fact as necessary at some level for us to reach our telos. For, as beings with free will, our telos is to become virtuous. But one can only be virtuous in a situation where one may be tempted to be vicious. For example, love, when it is virtuous is loving even those who are "unloveable." And who are the most unloveable if not those who refuse to love us and in fact actively harm us. In order for us to love those who hate us and persecute us, there must be people who hate us and persecute us. Similarly, we can only be merciful if we have a cause to seek revenge, which we forsake. But we can only have a cause to seek revenge if someone has wronged us. Thus, in order for us to be merciful, there must be people who harm us. Courage can only be practiced in the face of fear. Evil is tolerated to exist in this world, so that we may become courageous against it. Therefore, there must be something we ought to be fearful of. And faith, can only be practiced when there is cause for unbelief, and therefore, God allows there to be things in this world which seek to turn one from faith, in order to strengthen it. For virtues, like swords, are forged in fire.
being an atheist does not equal to having no morals. This is just a misconception. In my opinion being an atheist means having higher morality as you are being moral not because you fear being punished or crave an award, but to reduce pain and suffering from the world you currently live in. I think the only way to test whether someone is truly moral is to see whether they will continue to act morally when there are no consequences presented from God, and the only consequences are the pain and suffering caused to people badly affected by their actions.
As for natural evil I believe it may be a result of our agency, our ability to effect the world around us. For us to be able to physically change the world God had to create a world with physical laws and a world of change. And a world of change is inherently dangerous.
Who said earthquakes are evil? Earthquakes can harm people and would be considered horrible events, but they are not evil, since evil is a conscious act. Unless you're saying God causes earthquakes to harm people, which would be evil. And you talk about free will being necessary, as you can't be virtuous without the potential to be vicious. The problem there is that you subscribe to the idea that you will get heavily rewarded for doing something virtuous (riches and pleasure in heaven) and heavily punished for doing something vicious (eternal torture in hell). Good people do good deeds because it's the right thing to do. Selfish people do good things because they seek payment. And considering your version of Christianity says you'll be tortured forever simply for not believing Jesus is God when there is no proof, I don't think you're an authority of good or evil, as your whole worldview is based on the belief in an evil god.
Consider this: If God is all powerful and he created not only this universe, but its existence, then it stands to reason he created the rules of its existence: God created free will. He also created the constraints we perceive surrounding free will. This argument assumes God exists and did create our existence. What if he created all of existence with slightly different scientific rules? He not only has the power, apparently, to have done that, but to also do it now if he so chooses. He is omnipotent after all. Now, let's look at us. Our state of being is one of biochemical states, pulses of electricity in the brain, and so on. (Forgive me if my explanation is crude, I'm not a scientist but this does suffice for this argument) Our "free will" is nothing more than a specific state of electricity and biochemistry. Even we have learned how to alter the human brain to remove or suppress people's free will and make them supremely susceptible to suggestion. Is free will an illusion? No, it's simply a state of being ingrained in our biology. So here's what I'd like you to ponder: If God is omnipotent, and created the very rules of this existence, then it stands to reason he could have created human beings who, of their own free will, had already chosen good; once the choice is made, there would be a measurable electrical and biochemical state. From our crude thinking, if he replicated that state, such as it would appear in each individual, then everyone would be created having already chosen good. This can be used to even say that he could have created beings that, of their own free will, had already chosen to believe in him. Keep in mind, he controls the very rules by which this existence works, free will is his creation, it is he who decided how it should work. And it is we who are constrained by time. To us, free will is a process we must progress through in a linear fashion. God has no such constriction. Logically God could have created this world perfect. He made it how it is, free will is by his design. I guess this is where you ask yourself, does he truly love us? Or does our comprehension of love not apply to a being we may only have the chance to understand in death? Or may never understand? Is God a man-made device for man's ego-driven reasons? Maybe God is not all powerful. How does the belief of a soul affect this argument? I'm sure I could add many more questions. Unfortunately there are no answers here, just considerations. Cheers
Why do we choose to believe in a diety who allows children to be tortured; who is less compassionate than we are? Where is the free will of the child? It would make more sense to believe that this diety is all good but not all powerful. IMO the amount and distribution of pain and suffering cannot be justified by the allowance of free will for some people, so it is a flawed argument.
Even is you accept the free will defense, it doesn't get you out of the problem. If the free will defense is true, then a OOO god could not make a universe that can have free will without evil. Therefor there is something that god can't do. Therefor there is no OOO god.
I don't understand how God giving people the free will to do bad things as well as good things makes him good? Surely if we eradicated evil from the equation then the world wouldn't be any less happy and surely more.
I don't know if this comment will even get posted, but I have made several large comments to reply to posts that I have been notified of and youtube didn't even post them. So, other than this post (if it even gets posted) I won't be making any future replies to comments that I am notified of until I find out why youtube isn't posting my comments. I don't see the point in writing my comments if youtube isn't going to end up posting them. I don't know if any of you have had similar problems, but if you have and you know how to resolve it I'd be interested in knowing. Thanks. Bye for now and perhaps forever if I can't get this worked out.
there's a 3rd explanation : maybe we don't have the whole picture. Like if we are looking at a painting from very close, it doesn't make any sense. But If you step a step backward,the whole picture is revealed and it makes sense. Maybe we just don't have/get all the parameters. I mean, we only have acess to so little information, oir whole visio of the world is very limited. For the record, according to the little science we have, therecould be 11 dimensions, multiverses and habitable exoplanets, life based on something else than carbon... We are like ants looking at their tunnel and thinking "I only see 2 ways : upfront and backward, there's nothing more, so if it ain't upfront it must be backward, nothing else is possible".
All you're doing is making an argument through ignorance. It's just like saying "the Lord works in mysterious ways" both arguments completely refuse to confront the hard truth
in reality, I'm precisely rejecting "arguments from ignorance" here. Whereas the problem of evil is exactly following the dictionnary definition of argument from ignorance since it says "there's only those options, other options are false because they have not been proven true" excluding the 2 other possibilities (it's unknown or uknowable).
check out the dictionnary definition of argument from ignorance. But thanks you found the word I was searchong for to critize the logic of this video, it's exactly that : an argument from ignorance
And we can only come to conclusions based on the information we have. Based on it, I see that an omnibenevolent God could not exist. Of course I could be wrong, but I have no reason to think so.
@@amethyst7468 Mankind a few hundred years ago : "We can only come to conclusions based on the information we have. Based on it, I see that the Earth is flat. We could be wrong, but we have no reason to think so." Mankind a few decades ago " Based on it, we see that there are no exoplanets, no other planets outside of our solar system. We could be wrong, but we have no reason to think so". Your reasoning if it was applied to nowaday physics : "Based on it, I see that Earth is the only planet hosting life, no other planet could ever or have ever hosted any form of life. I could be wrong, but I have no reason to think so". See the scientific innacuracy of your reasoning ? Now you have a reason to think that you could be wrong ;)
Excellent point. Why are there psychopaths? While it should be noted not all are evil (see neuroscientist James Fallon who diagnosed himself), they are lacking empathy and can thus be amoral, and some go on to be evil. Most are just ruthless, and gravitate towards jobs like business and politics. So, did god make them to test us? Do they have free will? Or, is it an evolved trait which is harmful to societies in high numbers, but useful in conflict situations, in which case, the easiest explanation why evil exists is simply there is no god?
Poor example. God is responsible for 100% of all life and death, a cop is not, they are responsible for enforcing the law and preventing all manner of crimes (including murder). 100% of people who are murdered and not, their life will be taken by God at some point either way. Your analogy just doesn't work.
The Problem of Evil is something that gets me at times. But despite all the chaos in the world, one should always keep their head up high. Always trust God 🙏
automata don't evolve. as to what the narrator refers to as 'natural evil' the same principle of evolution applies, sometimes, things happen that don't necessarily benefit humans/animals/general environment seemingly, no matter how cruel it seems, it is evolution in action. random mutations/events are the basis of natural evolution.
The other problem with the "free will" defense, is that God (according to abrahamic religions) is the one and true holder of all knowledge now, in the past, or in the future, in every possible vein of reality. God is omniscient. He knows what you're going to choose, or realistically and undeniably, what you DID Choose as you're only able to live in the reality and path that you went down regardless of possible alternative outcomes or choice. Regardless of whether he chooses to limit it or not, the knowledge is there as it's within his willpower whether to know or not know these things. Even if that was the case, and he willingly unleashed these things, and continues to ignore this despite knowing what will come of it, the question would then become why? This God, regardless of choice given to you, has instead of using its all reality controlling and warping power to simply place a precedent in place to prevent negatives, has simply and undeniably told us to go fuck ourselves or worship it. Now I know error of choice is there to make us grow as people, but things beyond our control, beyond our ability to predict precedent, beyond our ability to prevent aren't our fault yet are placed on our heads. God CREATED and let loose the very evils it portends to want to save us from, it's hypocrisy and *LITERALLY* the *HIGHEST* level.
Uhh, that argument was obliterated what, 1000 years ago by St Aquinas? Go read it in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it is literally proven to be a fallacious argument. "Knowing" and "causing" are two entirely different concepts. If I have a clock, and I "know" it is about to strike midnight, it does not mean that I'm are currently causing it to strike midnight. "Knowing" and omniscience, just means that you are very smart and knowledgeable, it proves exactly nothing as to the cause. If I throw a piece of bacon in front of my dog, I'm so "omniscient" in my knowledge of my dog's appetite and habits, that I'm 100% certain he will eat the bacon. This does not mean I made him eat the bacon. If God created creatures with free will, then they have free will, otherwise he did not create creatures with free will. Even if God is somehow so smart that he knows what everyone will do (for God, time does not even exist so seeing things that will happen in the future or past is not an issue), does not mean He is forcing them.
@@truebeliever6440 Here is a problem that I have with that argument. Why throw the bacon infront of the dog, if you know very well you will punish the dog for eating that bacon? To put things into better perspective, the punishment you bistow is as severe as eternal hell fire damnation.
So when an evil man uses his free will to kill innocent people, does the evil man's free will hold more importance than the free will of the victim? I am sure the victim has free will and it wasn't telling them to die that day for nothing, and the shooters free will led him to shoot them? Who's free will is more important?
The Elohim/Archons/Annunaki (insert name) harvest the ego which is grown around a soul trapped in physical form undergoing suffering. We are a farm. To them it is not evil. To us it ought to be.
the reason we can't reconcile this question is because we are finite and God is infinite, ISA 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts higher than your thoughts".
@@toothlessthenightfury2088 it’s not “EVIL” that’s just the concept and idea that we have been trained to think by. Nature is Nature. Too much Sun will burn your skin. High rise sea levels will take your home. Earthquakes is not evil, it’s just Nature. How it was all created. We were created to kill to eat. You don’t hunt you don’t eat. Is it evil? No.
Free will defense in a nutshell: Woman: "Help, help! I'm being beaten and raped! Somebody help me! Please God make it stop!" God: "Sorry, miss. Free will. Do continue." Woman: "But he's violating my free will right now! I have no choice in this matter. I'm being forced, and I want it to stop. You have the power to make this stop!" God: "Uh... free will? Carry on."
In the christian mythology, humans are not only capable of "evil", but inescapable leaned towards it from conception, and commanded to be good knowing the eternal punishment that awaits those who fail. And, the decisions while being menaced by supernatural fauna, and having also a pre-programed corrupted nature ... are called _"free-will"._ Suit yourselves.
+DeadbrainLives That is just a very vague usuage of words. Free will means nothing if one is not capable of exercising it. Otherwise God could have created us with this free will, but without the capacity to act on evil grounds. A world with free will and no evil... problem solved. But would that make sense?
+P.G. Burgess Wrong. Free will is our capacity to define our own thoughts as we see fit. A prisoner has free will, but not freedom. And even still, the argument stands: for God to fix evil, we would have to be deprived of our capacity to freely pursue evil. If God takes that capacity from us, then we are truly enslaved to God's will, and then your arguments against the moral nature of God would certainly be valid. The problem of evil also presupposes that the universe should exist solely for our pleasure. Even still, if no evil or suffering existed, then what is morality? If we have nothing to compare our actions to, then how can anyone be considered moral when that is the only choice? If you cannot embrace morality freely, then how is that morality? A world without free will is a world without morality. Period.
Dantius i don't think we differ to much. I just don't see an argument against the idea (using your terms cfr the prisoner): to have free will to do evil, but not the freedom to act. Why isvthat no option. I personally don't see much value in making a distinction between the concepts: free in mind vs freedom to act. But i guess that is a matter of semantics. i dont think it helps any discussion. I agree all discussion implies a god that has our best intrest at heart, and this is related to our experience of wellbeing. And i neither think the last paragraph adresses something i said. I mostly agree with that. I just dont think our free will, nor our morality has anything to do with a god.
The video series also credits philosophers with their thinking, until it gets to this one where it does not credit Alvin Plantinga. Do I detect ant theistic prejudice, I think so.
We don't have Free Will that is an illusion to keep us locked into this illusion that we call reality. Everything is programmed amor fati. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. ISAIAH 45:7
Even though God is behind creation, that doesn't mean that God is behind everything that happens within creation. Since certain creations, such as ourselves, have been given free will and are capable of being creators in our own right; including creating suffering for ourselves and others. This particular misunderstanding, that God is causing our suffering and perhaps punishing us, is one of the most dangerous misunderstanding promoted by religious teachers; for how can we become free from suffering if we don't understand what's causing it? As long as we believe that lie, we will blame God or others, or our circumstances for our suffering and not see that we are responsible for our suffering. Our mistaken thinking, and the negative emotions and negative actions that flow from our thoughts causes our suffering. Depending on what we choose to believe, and how we choose to respond to life; we create more Love in the world or the opposite. When we choose to express the opposite of Love or cause harm, it is not God that is at fault. God gifted us with the freedom to choose and to create, and we eventually learn from our choices to be better creators; to create happiness instead of suffering, and it is suffering that teaches us this; suffering points us away from what is anti-life, anti-Love. Our own personal suffering is the so-called "punishment" we receive when we make choices that are not aligned with Love; that is the only "punishment," if we will, meted out by God. We are designed to suffer whenever we miss the mark, which is the meaning of sin; the mark, the target or goal, is Love. We suffer whenever we fall out of alignment with Love. Suffering and joy are part of the guidance system we've been given; the homing device, which when followed, will bring us back home to Love. Suffering tells us that we are believing a lie or taking a wrong direction; while joy tells us the opposite. If we don't want to suffer, then we must stop believing and doing what causes us and others suffering; and start believing and doing what brings peace, Love and joy.
That doesn't explain natural evil. Surely you can't believe that natural disasters and cancer in babies has its root in human free will. How do you account for natural evil?
@@BMTroubleU God holds nothing, rejects nothing, condemns nothing, does not even see "wrongdoing." All that man does which man calls "sin" is only of this world and is only punished within this world - for it is a Law of Earthly Existence, as you know, that whatever you sow you will reap as a like harvest. Because man draws LIFE and MIND from God, man himself is creative in thought, words and deeds. Whatever man thinks, says, does and believes, returns to him in like form, some time later. Therefore there is no punishment from God - whatever ills come to mankind is of their own making entirely.
@@edgarmorales4476 I'm afraid you haven't answered the question. Earthquakes, tsunami, hurricane and inexplicable cancer in babies are natural evils. How can you say 'whatever ills come to mankind are of their own making entirely' when none of the natural evils in the world are of our own making?
@@BMTroubleU Modern mindsets have created the calamities and horrors which have been created in consciousness and are only just beginning to make themselves fully felt in our midst as diverse forms of pestilence and earthquakes, floods, famines, wars, revolution and other tragedies. Be assured! No evil which comes to earth is a "natural disaster." Everything inimical to our perfect welfare is bred first in our human consciousness and then given form within our global experience. This is what Jesus tried to teach religionists and non-believers when Jesus walked the earth - and WEPT - when religionists and non-believers laughed and refused to believe it. Religionists and non-believers called Jesus a madman for it. Meanwhile, until true understanding comes to you - teach, demonstrate and live: BROTHERLY LOVE with all the strength of soul, heart and mind - minute by minute in your daily lives. Because - to combat the global destructive consciousness forces, mankind must make every effort to move on swiftly to the next stage of its development.
I don't think free will is a really good argument. We obviously aren't entirely free. There's so much we cannot do. With just our bodies we cannot breathe underwater, fly, turn invisible, breath in space, read people's minds etc. If our freedom is limited anyway, why didn't God make it so that we still have a great range of freedom but without the ability to sin?
Is there evil in heaven? (How could it be heaven if there is?) So there's only good in heaven? So do you lose your free will at heaven's gates? And become a heavenly automaton? Or does God have some way of free will existing and only good being possible (not automatons, but only able to choose good)? If so, why did he not do that on earth and instead save it for heaven? Conclusion: There is either evil in heaven, or you lose all free will in heaven (and become a slave), or god created evil on earth because.. he likes it? The free will defence is bunk.
This is Modernity .. Aye, your wondering and wandering have not led you astray. You have stumbled upon a great truth... To your question; Is there sin in Heaven? Do you know the story of Lucifer, and the 1/3 of angels that sinned in Heaven against God? (sin in Heaven).. Do you know that after the second coming Christ that there will be a great apostasy as Lucifer will rebel again?... so, no, I do not believe the BIBLE is anywhere telling man that we will be automaton, but that there will be free will even in the eternal state. Although, there is biblical reason there can be hope of a sinless eternity, after that second rebellion is because He has gone through much pains to show Himself so glorious, so pleasurable, that we will willingly love and obey and not sin, because sin is seeking something in the place of God, but after all He has revealed and is going to reveal about Himself, man will finally see that He is utterly irreplaceable. And that is Heaven, a place where true love exists in its purest form, where all of creation will adore and worship God out of their own free will, because of His glory in Jesus.
Your questions are very good, but your complicated questions should bring simple answers. Firstly, yes there's good in heaven; God has made us in with good "will", not evil. It is only necessary to mention that Adam and Eve came to Earth due to the serpent's temptation. That is the evil. Adam and Eve (representatives of us humans) were initally purely good, until they encountered evil. That's why they did the wrong thing in which should not have happened. Secondly, heaven does not bring in automation. If there was such a thing as automation in heaven, then why aren't we automated now in earth? Because we have free will. The Bible mentions that we will live wih Jesus forever with the treasures in the Kingdom; what in the world did you get the idea of automation? Probably a self dential idea that you thought was compelling.
So in conclusion, God never created evil, nor does he like it. :) where did you even begin to think that he allows evil because He likes it? Evil exists because of Satan. Without heaven, there would be no evil or hell. For Christians, evil is a way for us to put more faith to God. And no, He doesn't erase free will in heaven. It wouldn't make sense in the first place to erase free will now, or even erase it anyway or else then people on earth would lose that free will too. Either way, free will is never erased, but something innate of us. Thanks for your questions/comments! Didn't really stump me but pretty thought-compelling.
Sasha Reyes Therefore, you don't believe evil people have free will. Therefore, god created evil beings, to do evil things...to teach us to choose good? Don't you were the problem of this, re: the video?
you are assuming that is what i think.... evil people do have free will, thats why i said evil was created so that we could choose good. not saying evil people cant be good, we change from one moment to the next.
The first thing can we cinsider so called 'natural evil' evil? By what means we consider it that way? Because I'm not sure we can judge it like that, even more if we have naturalistic worldview. Second I do not think by any means a human can fully judge God's work as Good or Evil, justified or unjustified. In that case we speak of Ominiscient God on the one hand and humans, who have quite narrow reason, knowledge and goodness compared to Him, on the other. Third - suffering in the world could be explained in two ways simultanouesly; first- it is element of the world when humans abonded God and were exiled - God is Just so he had to did that, second - it is a part of a way to reach the best possible world for humanity while still respecting free will of human beings and fallen angels and the just punishment for the Fall and sin of which I spoke. God bless You! ✝️
This might have nothing to do with the video but what if a six year old stole a piece of candy from a store and ran out into the street and got hit by a car and killed.. does God send the young child to heaven or hell?
Free will is not a good or effective defense of evil (man made or natural). The universe, whether we like it or not, has been setup on the basis with polarities. Light-dark, heat-notHeat, up-down, mercy-cruelty, happiness-suffering. Construct a universe without polarities and there is no action, no movement, no development, nothing. In traditional religions i have not come across this idea that God is "good", only that God is Omnipotent. Being "all-good" is humans who can't understand why suffering is needed, including religious ones who try to explain that God will deliver you from any situation because He cares. What they/we seem to miss is that suffering is a requisite to development, and their sacred texts explain as much.
1:11 Completely remove the concepts of greed, libido-dominandi and personal advantage from the human paradigm, and we can all exercise our "free will" (assuming self determination isn't an illusion) to our hearts content, without anyone getting hurt.
The way I see it, the free will defense is terrible for a couple reasons. You wouldn't know if you were an "automaton" or not, and wouldn't have any feedback on the matter to establish accuracy. We could all be "reading out a script" of innumerable interactions between particles(including our brain activity). But proposing such a thing would require the strongest of evidence to counteract the current state, where all evidence on the subject conflicts with it. Proposing a calculating structure that can predict all aspects of the interactions between the quantum particles in a grain of sand over a millisecond, let alone all particles in existence over billions of years of change, is not a meager claim. Especially when said calculating structure is proposed to not have a developmental phase, like in the case of the Yahweh character, something that also conflicts with all available evidence on the capacity for agency. The concept "omniscience" seems very anthropic to me. With remnants of being abstracted from an ambiguous concept of what "knowing" and "predicting" actually are. Another problem with the free will defense is the problem with the concept "free will" to begin with. "Free will" really only requires the ability to preconceive of at least more than one direction of action. One could be strapped to a table and still be deciding between innumerable directions of action to take from one's current state. Humans, along with most animals, are known to be able to preconceive a range of potential results, and then choose to act upon one. That is, a brain observed causation between identified elements, creating a conceptual framework that can be simulated mentally, providing a degree of certainty in how one could act to change that interaction in a future instance. It's not possible for a human in a functioning mental state to not to have "free will". The main use for the term "free will" seems to have been to remove blame from the Yahweh character, to sweep up the mess that the omni- attributes made while having their cake and eating it too. But it again fails to do so, because a good god could easily take any of millions of actions to reduce harm and evil, without ever getting close to reducing a human's preconceivable actions to only one(losing free will).
The deities portrayed in the three major Abrahamic religions-Judaism, Christianity, and Islam-bear characteristics that, when examined through a critical lens, reflect a conceptualization influenced by the perspective of an ancient warlord. Inherent in the depiction of these divine entities are attributes and narratives that resonate with the characteristics commonly associated with figures of authority, dominance, and martial prowess. It's not just a coincidence that in the Abrahamic religions, God decided to set certain individuals like prophets apart to convey his wishes. It's pretty clear that God is calling the shots here, and you can't deny there's a bit of a dictator vibe going on.
This defense does nothing about the millions of years before mankind ni which there was suffering. It also doesn't say anything about current day suffering of animals caused by natural disasters.
maybe the definition of evil is subjectively depending on how we define the outcome of things rather positive or negative and even then we might not have the enough knowledge that would allow us to judge if something is actually negative or not , so we might not truly know what evil is and so if it exists to begin with , if things are of one nature then all experiences are of the same nature ass well , might everything just be good , and evil is just the good we don't understand or might things be of different natures that would allow true evil to exist ,and so on if we were of one of either natures wouldn't be anything of the opposite nature evil to us ?
+விஷ்ணு கார்த்திக். maybe you also don't exist , maybe you are just a figment of my imagination since im the only thing there is that i truly know of , any statement that doesn't hold the possibility of it being indefinite is a form of belief .
+விஷ்ணு கார்த்திக் well sure , but usually what i see from no religious people is that they seem to dismiss the possibilities of anything out of the ordinary which in a way is shortsighted just like what religious people do to help them support their faith and so atheism is now becoming the belief in the none existence in god. and i mean more of a religious type of belief rather than an opinion that can be subject to change with new data .
Ever heard of the phrase *"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!?"* If you assert the existence of God or any supernatural stuff you have to support it with evidence or else i'll dismiss your absurd proposition. *"so atheism is now becoming the belief in the none existence in god"* Just like how A-Supermanism is now becoming the belief in non-existence of Superman Right!? are you an A-supermanist? Are you!? lol What you mean to say is that more&more people stop believing in mythology and that's a GOOD thing! we live in the age of reason&logic not the age of superstition&faith.
+Zatoichiable Um, no. That seems really petty excuse for a alleged perfectly good diety to excuse horrible actions. Free will and perfect good are not compatible, A) if god is perfectly good then god is machine with no free will therefore there is no good reason to allow evil to exist otherwise god is not benevolent. B) If god lets evil exist then god favors evil over good therefore is malevolent meaning he would rather let a psychopath rape and butcher your friends and family than do anything to prevent or stop him even though he is all mighty, therefore why worship him? If a cop has all the authority and ability to stop a murder happening in front of him and claims to be good, but lets it happen anyways because it infringes the freedom of the murderer then the cop would be put on trial and lose his job for irresponsibility. Hence, either god does not exist (no physical evidence) or god is not worth worshiping for choosing evil over good.
+Zatoichiable You make a lot of assumptions based on no physical evidence you know? 1) Assuming evil is necessary to appreciate good. Debunked, good deeds can be appreciated without evil, doesn't state why evil is absolutely necessary. 2) Existence of a diety doing magic. Violates conservation of energy. 3) Case in point, you state yourself "Why must we demand from God that nature has to be convenient only to humans" therefore no need for religious worship because begging is petty in your own context.
+Dantius "God also lets good exist" Moving the goal posts does not answer the question of the absolute necessity of the existence of evil, hence commit fallacy. If god does not favor good over evil then religious claims of morality have lose moral value because god is not a moral agent. Perfect good implies god has no free will therefore he is a machine only capable of absolute good. If god is not perfect good then he has free will, but does not stop evil therefore he supports the evil over good and is irresponsible therefore malevolent.
+Jackboy019 "Moving the goal posts does not answer the question of the absolute necessity of the existence of evil, hence commit fallacy." When did I move the goal post? You said that by allowing evil to exist, then the creator must somehow favour it. Why does the same not apply to good? What you propose is a world without free will, where we are all forcibly inclined to follow the creator's morality. Would you prefer that? The Problem of Evil is a logical theoretical question. It warrents theoretical answers. If you cannot prove that the creator is malevolent, then no one has to explain why god created the universe. Like everything was at some point, it is simply an unknown. Has it not occured to you that the creator can be perfectly good because it defines morality for itself? It does not need to be a machine that lacks free will, for morality is essentially whatever the creator wishes. It creates morality, and is perfectly good as it CHOOSES to conform to its own morality. Again, you presuppose the universe should exist solely for our pleasure, yet never consider that the creator could just as easily have an alternative purpose for reality. You assume that the morality of the creator would require it to extinguish all evil, yet do not consider that there may be perfectly sound and valid reasons why evil exists.
OK . . . so, if I say, "God IS going to judge all wrongdoing", I am what? Crazy? Yeah, I believe in the book that "Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam..." etc. hated. Well, He will avenge. Believe me, I DO doubt sometimes; so I'm not trying to be Mr Holy/KnowitAll (No-Wit at All haha!) But, the prophecies of Christ were so exact, they were said to be written AFTER the fact. Fair enough - good critique! Until finally found in Qumran; (including the book of Isaiah, the oft-called "Old Testament Gospel!) every one agrees these are 100's of years BEFORE Christ. To be clear: I do NOT like religion. But, it doesn't say that "God so loved the world, He gave Religion", or started a "Club". He gave His Son. He WILL stop all evil. He waits for you. One day, it will be too late to repent. Blessings/Shalom.
+Joe A. Verage Is there any evidence that you-or I-exist? Funny, Richard Dawkins (author: "the God Delusion"), wrote that Jesus probably never existed; but then in debates has said that He probably DID exist... hmmmm. But, of course, we SCIENTIFIC folks believe that the whole universe came from (drum roll . . . ) a virgin birth of . . .uh, NOTHING....hmmmm. BTW; I mention NOTHING of" wars & rumors", etc. As to "vaugue Inevitabilities"; you are right! But not 100% - that's my point: UNBELIEVERS/SKEPTICS/etc., said these were written AFTER Christ; SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE they were so precise! AND then, the manuscripts from BEFORE the time of Christ were found. But, we all live by faith. Unless you are all-knowing. We will see... Blessings!!!
+Joe A. Verage Gee, I seem to have hit a nerve! Sorry! You say: "No one except for creationists say that the big bang was the entire universe magically coming from nothing." OK, then - from the scientists themselves!: "The universe burst into SOMETHING from absolutely NOTHING - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely NOWHERE." Discover Magazine, 2002 (emphasis in original) "In the realm of the universe, nothing really means NOTHING. However, physicists believe that from this state of NOTHINGNESS the universe began in a gigantic explosion, about 16.5 billion years ago." HBJ General Science Textbook, p.362 (1989) (emphasis added) "So, in the inflationary theory the universe evolves from essentially NOTHING AT ALL, which is why I frequently refer to it as the ultimate free lunch" Alan H. Guth, "Cooking Up A Cosmos", Astronomy, vol. 25, p. 57 Blessings!! (P.S. I actually wouldn't want to "learn sh**"; that is an extremely illogical thing to do - to me, anyway!)
+Shiva Sunar Bingo! I would like to add, there is no "objective" (whatever that means, seeing as subject-object are always actually one ; ) good/evil. There is only relative. We simply do NOT know what a "true" good/evil act looks like. One day what IS "good" turns out to be "evil" the next! So who is to ultimately judge? Could we have up w/o down? It is in this way that good/evil are really just disguises of one and the same coin. W/o idiots there is no such thing as intelligence.
"that if you don't want bad things done to you, don't do bad things" - If only that were the case, unfortunately it is not. You seem to be getting at something like karma? Which does not exist anymore than Heaven does. Perhaps I misunderstood you? Could you explain ur comment further?
+formless777 Then if I am suicidal, is it okay to kill others... or ISIS want Islamic Shariya law for themselves, then is it okay to force them to others...
This is the logical problem of evil in short if God is unwilling to stop evil he is not good if he unable to stop evil he is not all powerful. evil exist so God cannot exist. God made man with free will there all sorts of reasons why God would make a world where there is suffering and there good reasons to believe there a greater good that will shortly come out of it. suffering is only temporary but living in eternity with God is never ending bliss never has it enter the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love him!!!
But if God is all-good and all-powerful, then any reason God has for allowing suffering is not good enough, because God, an all-powerful being, should be able to achieve his goals without people suffering.
@@MMAGUY13 In Eden, Adam and Eve had free will. So, was Adam able to kill Eve, if his free will chooses so? If no, then his free will is not absolute, he cannot decides to commit murder, so that means God can make a world where people have free will, but they can't commit evil. If yes, if Adam could kill Eve in Eden, then Eden wasn't a perfect world, since some weapon or Adam's hands could kill Eve.
@@goranmilic442 There was limits on us we are finite creatures not all powerful but God gave a commandment he was free to obey or disobey. How can God have a creature who truly loves him if he does not obey? Jesus said if you love me obey my commandments. without choice there is no love no free will>
And what makes anything evil if there is no God who says what is and is not good? Free will actually does explain what we call "natural evil" because God created a perfect world for perfect humans. He wanted his creation to love him and to obey him in love, and so he gave them free will. They disobeyed him, and the consequences were death and other evils that affected the whole world, including innocent animals. The first humans' free will choice to disobey the God they KNEW personally punished us all. We can look at that as unfair, or we can accept it and try to figure out how to fix it for ourselves and others. We actually can't fix it, but God loved us so much that he became one of us and suffered our punishment in order to save us. He has promised us a perfect eternity with him if we choose to love and obey him.
Ironic, isn't it? I mean, if God is all about understanding, forgiveness, and integrity, you'd think he'd get where his own creations are coming from, even if they're atheists. It's a bit contradictory to send non-believers to hell when, at the end of the day, God is pretty much the ultimate atheist himself in the monotheistic sense. The establishment of religious laws and commandments, often communicated through intermediaries such as prophets, reinforces a hierarchical structure reminiscent of authoritative governance. The delineation of rewards and punishments based on compliance with these divine mandates further aligns with a dictatorial paradigm. Now tell me who likes dictators?
@tabs91 The reason free will doesn’t explain natural evil is because free will could exist without natural evil. Nothing about free will or sin requires there to be earthquakes or animal predation, for example. Just as we shouldn’t expect a loving father to torture the family dog as punishment for his child’s disobedience, we shouldn’t expect a loving god to make innocent animals suffer as punishment for the sin of human beings.
+Niko Wentworth I'd like to address your points if I may. 1. Instead of simply claiming that their have been unanswered rebuttals to the problem of evil, why don't you present them? I'd love to read them. 2. False. There is nothing to stop humans forming views on what is right or wrong in a Godless universe. If you believe there is, then that's something you have to prove, not just claim. 3. I agree. But firstly, this doesn't solve the problem of natural evil. And secondly, a truly omnipotent God would be able to create humans that had free will and simultaneously never did evil. An omnipotent God isn't constrained by paradoxes you know. If he can't do that, then he's not omnipotent. 4. A ridiculous argument. There is nowhere on the planet that is completely safe from natural evil. Hurricanes, tornados, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, meteor strikes. It's not like we are deliberately habituating the dangerous places on Earth - everywhere has natural disasters. 5. Again, ridiculous. Creation does not act according to our behaviours. A meteor strike would happen whether you are a good or bad person. 6. As presented in answer 3, an omnipotent God isn't limited by paradoxes. So he could create virtuous humans without the need for temptation. Thank you for your insights, they were an interesting read. But there's nothing here to even scratch away at the problem of evil.
Natural evil is explained by two things, 1-The curse(because of mans fall) and 2-Divine retribution(when God decides to punish some people like 10 plagues in Egypt, sodom & gomorrah etc)
Does God have free will? According to the Bible, yes. Can God sin? According to the Bible no. Therefore, God’s very character demonstrates that it is possible for free will to exist without the possibility of sin and evil. Furthermore, since God created man in his own image, could he not have given man the same ability to exercise free will while at the same time being unable to sin, even as God is unable to sin? It seems like God did a poor job at creating man in his own image. God’s nature refutes the argument that free will brings the possibility of sin - unless you want to argue that God can choose to sin, in which case we would have to conclude that Bible texts to the contrary are all lies.
Nah that isn't a super great argument. A lot of theists believe that God's nature is what moral values are. Gods decisions are then made based off of that nature. If humans had Gods nature they would be God.
@@notnpc7965 whatever God does is good. Therefore, when God ordered Israel to complete the slaughter and genocide of the Amalekites, his order and the subsequent act must have been good? Do you see how twisted a moral system can become when you believe rubbish like this?
@@BMTroubleU There is work done on those texts that suggests there is probably some exaggeration going on when the bible describes those events and the original authors and readers would understand it that way. That said: Theists don't believe the idea of God doing evil is coherent. He is morality. If you were to show a theist something that looks bad he isn't forced to agree with you. The theist believes is that God had some morally sufficient reason for it. You actually need to show that its either impossible or unlikely that God has some reason. That's a challenge that's really hard to meet.
@@notnpc7965 that's a good point. It's always challenging to prove a negative. It seems like lots of claims about God are like that- Unfalsifiable. That is a bad thing to be. If I make claims that a teapot is in orbit around mars, you would be unlikely to believe me and you would be justified in your disbelief. But you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong. That's how I feel about claims of gods existence.
@@BMTroubleU I haven't made any comments about the existence of God you know? You made the claim God as the source of morality is problematic and I responded to you. I don't find arguments from evil very persuasive at all but a lot of people do. Please remember that proving a negative is not something considered impossible by philosophers or even extremely difficult. If you can show a contradiction in God then he doesn't exist. That's not super controversial. The idea that you can't prove a negative is really dumb.
The problem is not free will. The problem is dominance. Free will to attack is likely to overpower free will to defend. That's why most fights are won by the person who instigates them. And what about pain? The victim not only loses, but is forced to suffer any abuse the evil wants them to. This is called torture. So as long as dominance and pain exist, which they do tremendously in the form of bullying, we confirm free will is evil. Just destroy the universe and start over.
God gave us all sentience and, with it, free will to do what we wish: to follow the moral code that we work together to create or not, at which point He punishes or rewards us in the end.
@@AppleOfThineEye I don't know about you but I believe that I have full control over my body and can do whatever I want with it....despite not being able to fly. I can have bodily autonomy without the ability to fly just like we can have free will without the ability to want to sin
@@BMTroubleU says: *And why did a perfect being like God allow that?* Because he wanted us to have free will and NOT be robots and then Adam and Eve abused the freedom that they had and sinned against God.
@@danielblair4413 If you believe that God is all powerful and made everything, then he also created sin. If you believe that God created everything except sin, then two beliefs follow- 1. God is not all powerful because he couldn't create sin 2. God engineered the system that would lead to the creation of sin If God was all knowing, then he knowingly created a system that would lead to sin. He could and should have been able to foresee his mistake and do otherwise. If I leave an open petrol tank next to an open fire, I should be able to foresee the likelihood of that house burning down. Did I create the fire that burnt the house down? Not really. It was a natural concequence. But I engineered the circumstances that would lead to the fire. So a court would still find me guilty. Is God guilty of creating sin or is he guilty of engineering the circumstances that lead to sin? Either way, an all knowing God shouldve know better.
@@BMTroubleU says: *If you believe that God is all powerful and made everything, then he also created sin.* *If you believe that God created everything except sin, then two beliefs follow-* *1. God is not all powerful because he couldn't create sin* *2. God engineered the system that would lead to the creation of sin* God created Adam and Eve to have free will and through having free will came the possibility for sin to occur. So, it technically it wasn't God that created sin it was the free will choice of Adam and Eve to disobey God that created sin. *If God was all knowing, then he knowingly created a system that would lead to sin. He could and should have been able to foresee his mistake and do otherwise.* The creation of free will wasn't a mistake despite the fact that it did lead to the creation of sin. Despite what you may think God isn't capable of doing all things with his power. God can only do what is logically possible with his power. So, God couldn't have created the existence of free will without allowing it to lead to the possibility of sin being created. If God didn't allow free will to lead to the possibility of sin, then free will wouldn't have existed in the first place. *If I leave an open petrol tank next to an open fire, I should be able to foresee the likelihood of that house burning down. Did I create the fire that burnt the house down? Not really. It was a natural concequence. But I engineered the circumstances that would lead to the fire. So a court would still find me guilty.* Of course, a court would find you guilty and God is guilty of creating free will that lead to the creation of sin because free will wouldn't be free will in the first place useless it could lead to the possibility to sin. It is due to God's responsibility of creating free will that he must punish those who abuse their free will and sin because if God didn't punish those who sin then God wouldn't be taking the responsibility of creating free will. *If God guilty of creating sin or is he guilty of engineering the circumstances that lead to sin?* *Either way, an all knowing God should've know better.* God did know better, but there was no way that he could create Adam and Eve to have free will without the possibility of the existence of sin to be created because free will couldn't exist in the first place without the allowance for sin to happen. To sin or NOT to sin is a choice and sin wouldn't never existed in the first place if Adam and Eve didn't choose to sin. Of course, technically the first being to ever sin against God was Lucifer aka. Satan.
@@danielblair4413 that is an interesting belief structure you have there. I'm going to leave aside the fact that the idea of Adam and Eve being the only two people on earth, but somehow their sons can find and marry other women, is not logically consistent. So let's spend spend some time to straighten out what you believe. You've made the claim that God is not all powerful. "God isn't capable of doing all things. God can only do what is logically possible with his power". I like that. You've cleverly avoided the logical impossibility of the question 'if god is all powerful can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?' You just drop one of the three aspects of God- the all powerful part. He can be all knowing and all good, but he can't be also all powerful without being logically inconsistent. If this sounds good to you, it sounds good to me. I don't think this absolves god from the responsibility of evil. Firstly there is a likely inconsistency with the concept of God here. Do you believe it's impossible to have free will without sin? Do you believe that God has free will? Do you believe that God is without sin? To believe all three of these things is impossible. If it is logically possible to have free will without sin, then god should be able to use his power to create this logically possible thing. But you've said it's impossible to have free will without sin. Therefore you must drop one of these three beliefs to be logically consistent. Either it IS possible to have free will without sin Or God doesn't have free will Or God isn't without sin. Secondly, There are two aspects of the problem of evil- moral evil and natural evil. You've said you believe that God is guilty of creating free will, therefore engineering the circumstances under which sin was created. Ok. Free will would only account for moral evil. How do we account for natural evil? Earthquakes, hurricanes, plagues, cancer and all manner of things that are part of the natural world that kill us? You've said you don't believe that God is all powerful. Ok. But an all knowing, all loving God would surely know that creating a planet like this would lead to all of these natural disasters. It is logically inconsistent to have such natural disasters if God is all knowing and all good. So which of these two aspects of God should we drop next? Is God not all knowing OR Is God not all good?
Chess is boring if you win every single time. You have to win some and lose some in order for it to be interesting. I mean, if you were in charge of this joint, and you had all eternity to create reality, you'd get bored of doing the same shit every day. You'd start out with everything being fine and dandy, then you'd gradually make things more challenging. And eventually end up with the world we are living in today. Good and evil must co-exist, like night and day, life and death, summer and winter, spring and fall. It's written in the DNA of the Universe. That's the kind of "God" - or whatever you want to call it - I believe in. Or rather, I enjoy that viewpoint. In reality, I have no fucking clue whatsoever about anything at all. At the same time, I know this to be true. In my bones, gut, heart, soul, or wherever. Whatever.
The Daily Vitamin "Yes, but if we picture a deity like that, then he/she is really anthropomorphic." - Yeah, like Zeus use to appear in human form to have sex with virgins. It's like Yahweh having human emotions. I have to wonder why an all powerful all knowing timeless god would be jealous for any reason ? Seems petty.
***** "If I had evidence that a being like that existed, I would feel a moral obligation to wrest control from it so that I could rescue my fellow beings - and myself - from unnecessary suffering." - A good case for Satanism.. if GOD exists, and god is really evil, then the OPPOSING forces ARE actually good. all this burning in hell stuff is just propaganda. I wonder if there's a novel like that.. I don't think it would sell in the Bible belt too much.. but their MIGHT be a niche market. all of us demonically possessed atheists.. what do you think?
The so-called Free Will Defence must be considered invalid, since free will does not imply a necessity of wrongdoing. YHWH or Gaawd could have created rational beings (free moral agents) who, of their own accord, would never sin (to use a theol. expression). If this is denied, the term free will loses its meaning, for it is taken as leading to sin by necessity (at some time).
Good point. However, I think your point is based on a misunderstanding of free will in this context. Being able to sin is part of the definition of 'free will' - as used by theists. It does not simply mean being able to choose A or B (although 'free will' means this in other contexts). According to the theist, a person must be free to choose or reject God. This means they must have the alternative of rejecting him (which amounts to sinning).
sgt7 Thanks for your reply. There is no doubt that a created being must have the ability to go against God to be called free, but this does not amount to sinning. We have to consider the difference between potentiality and actuality. According to Scripture, God created millions or billions of free moral agents who have never sinned and will never sin. This alone demonstrates the nullity of the Free Will Defence. A. Plantiga's "Transworld Depravity" is not a new idea. G.W. Leibniz called it the "metaphysical evil". In any case, both notions do not live up to orthodox Christian dogma.
Gehirnstruktur If I understand you correctly you mean the following: In order for a created being to have free will it only needs to have the potential to sin - but does not need to actually sin. God could create beings that could potentially sin but do not actually sin. If this is accepted one might ask why God didn't only create beings that would freely chose to not to actually sin. Well, if God exists then this is indeed a mystery.
Gehirnstruktur Well this creates a contradiction. What you are asking is, why can't God create humans who never choose to sin and yet still are free to sin if they choose to. This is an obvious contradiction. You're basically asking why God can't make a square-circle.
Are you talking about the objective existence of evil or just the general unpleasantness that comes with unsatisfied biological impulses like not being homeostatic or not existing anymore? Because proving the existence of a meaningful category called "evil" isn't exactly a strong point of a materialist worldview regardless of how sophisticated they think "the problem of evil" is as an argument against the existence of God.
To make that claim you presuppose that God is good. I could say that God is, in fact, all-evil and could explain it the same way you did. I have no reason to think that however
My two cents to the narrator's glaring omission. In the mortal words of Dan Akroyd on SNL: " Jane you ignorant witch, (Well ,close enough to his quote. In word and action I try to be a Christian.) Free will is just half the equation for us. Diseases, droughts, storms, floods, fires, deadly accidents/manmade failures earthquakes, asteroids impacts, and all other acts of nature are the other half of life. This is life outside the Garden. The Garden of Eden! Look, I don't walk around with a REPENT THE END IS NEAR sign on my off time but, I do tell everyone this: Today might suck to be the day I die but, I am at peace with myself, with my God. Christians pray everyone could be or know they have a chance to be at peace...🕊
Glen, my dude, God made the garden, he made the snake, he made the devil, he made the tree, he made the fruit, and he made Hell. He is omniscient and has seen the entirety of history from beginning to end. He knows what has been and what will yet be. You know what that means. He is responsible for all of it. Every earthquake, every flood, every tornado. Every witch burning, every lynching, every murdered homosexual. Every raped woman, every beaten child. Every slain innocent. Know that he is the source of every iota of horror in the universe. Lay it all at his feet, and call him good. There are no gods, Glen. And that brings me peace. Cheers.
The free will defense is goofy. The human soul in Heaven would necessarily be a brainwashed automaton, reprogrammed and wiped to be blissfully ignorant of the suffering in Hell of those it loved who obviously aren't there with it. Why should free will only last a few decades while we exist in the flesh when it will be wiped out for eternity in Heaven?
The free will defence is frankly bullshit, it supposed that the perpetrator has a free will and can choose between good and evil, but what about the free will of the victim? He/she didnt choose to be a victim and is then only the pawn of a divine test
Theist: Evil is a product of Free Will Atheist: Is there Evil in Heaven ? Theist: No, of course not. Atheist: Then is there Free Will in Heaven ? Theist: Yes...No...err... Atheist: Q.E.D. I am not claiming credit for this, just relaying it.
Soylent Green Well lucifer did sin, just because your in heaven doesn't guarantee you of a free pass to do what ever you want, you get chosen because of your faith and resilience to do the right choice
Soylent Green please refrain from using theist in examples like these (though the quote isn't originally yours) mixing christianity, buddhism, islam, hinduism is just as non sensical as mixing atheism, sciencetology, pantheism, etc.
***** Theism is the notion that such a thing as "gods" exist, though there is absolutely no evidence for this. The term theist, as a catch all bag and perjorative term for this collective delusion and its philosophy is a valid one 12345shushi. Atheism has very little to do with scientology, and less to do with pantheism... which is a form of theism. You can't make such an erroneous comparison.
+Soylent Green There IS free Will in Heaven. You are experiencing it. This post implies you are imagining yourself as an individual which, from the viewpoint of ecology, does not exist. i.e. u ARE your environment. This IS the garden of eden. Here, still now! Good implies evil just as up implies down. Take a hard look at concrete and it's just as beautiful as gold. Yes, that's right, go stare at the road outside :):
Rya M This is not heaven. You are delusional. I live in an environment. The only thing I provide an eco system for are the micro-organisms that live on me. As to Free Will... if God is omniscient or omnipotent then free will is impossible. If something greater than you knows what you will do next before you were even born then you don't have free will. If something greater than you can change your actions without you being aware of it then you don't have free will. In fact given that all free will provides is the opportunity for us to do things God will send us to hell for, what is the point of free will other than a delusional trap for humanity set by a monstrous tormenting God ? As to there being free will in heaven... no, you didn't come close to addressing the problem that how can the source of all evil... free will... be present in Heaven where there is no evil ? Your belief structure is inconsistent and makes bugger all sense as a result. You should quit believing in a judgmental sky rabbi who wants to torment humanity for not being Jewish enough; its fucking ludicrous.
To recognize that there is such a thing as evil... is to assume that there is such a thing as objective goodness. But to deny the existence of the only possible source of such a standard is irrational. Without God, there is only like and dislike. There is no real reason why men ought not do anything. As for natural evil, please see Genesis...
Roman Hoax Out of necessity. If God is the greatest possible being, the Creator of ALL things, then he must be the source goodness and justice. _(The Bible says that God is Love.)_ If he isn't, then there is no such thing as objective moral values and duties. To assume such a standard in an attempt to argue against the existence of God, is irrational and inconsistent. So, do YOU believe in objective morality? If so, WHO or WHAT is the source of whatever standard you are using?
Jesse Bryant Objective moral values do not in fact exist. there is as a matter of fact no such thing. Furthermore, if I grant the existence of objective morality which I don't. but if I did, and your god exists, he cannot in fact be the source of objective morality. the thought is absurd
Roman Hoax As a matter of fact? Can you prove that? Nearly all the world... including the dude who made the video above, do not live consistently with what you just proclaimed to be a fact... even though you have not argued for it. So, why do you object to men raping woman, owning slaves, or stealing your stuff? _I bet you don't know why!_
Jesse Bryant _As a matter of fact? Can you prove that? Nearly all the world... including the dude who made the video above, do not live consistently with what you just proclaimed to be a fact... even though you have not argued for it._ *I can prove that which you claim is the source of your objective moral standard CAN NOT BE and thus render your argument self refuted. I can also prove that what you consider to be morality is ultimately arbitrary and meaningless if you hold to the beliefs you do. Whenever you're ready to have it destroyed, you just let me know.* _So, why do you object to men raping woman, owning slaves, or stealing your stuff? I bet you don't know why!_ *As for this comment, it couldn't be more stupid. Why do I object to men raping women or stealing my stuff? because I possess empathy, because I have evolved the ability to feel the pain and suffering of others. Because I would not like my mother, daughter or sisters to be raped, I therefore would not like this act inflicted on others. because I do not like my stuff being stolen, I know I probably shouldn't do the same to others, Because man is a social animal that must live and co-exist together, we wouldn't have made it this far as a species if we didn't seek to reduce harm to one another. It's easy you start with some general assumptions which most would hold to be true, life is generally preferable to death, pleasure is generally preferable to pain and suffering. Only a moron would need a god or a book to teach them to be moral.* *Any internally or externally-driven conscious action or choice, including the choice of inaction, that is deliberate (intentional) and unnecessary (not essential to the survival of the self, the other or the species as a whole), that causes pain, harm, suffering, malice or death is an immoral act. From this I can derive moral action and immoral action quite easily.*
you as an theist, how can you determine what is right and what is wrong in the first place? But lets take your premise and lets say you have a valid definition of evil. You skip so much when it comes to god. For muslims the god that we know that exists has more than only 2 attributes, which are all loving and all knowing, he is also all wise. Alone with this attribute your argument is shattered.
anyone else notice that it's Skinners voice?
hahahahahahahaha. holy fuck
Damn, it's really the original voice actor, I even had to look it up....
You're cute.
As humans, our freedom is limited in many ways. The victim, for instance, is often unable to escape torture/rape/murder. Why not make, instead, the tormentor unable to keep the abuse going on?
I never really like the idea of God vs Evil, since evil itself is created by God (with the idea that God is an omnipotent), so everything that happen is because of God. Some people might have problem because of this, but for me personally, God did create everything but the universe He created didn't care about us.
true and I agree about the idea of God vs Evil and never really like it at all.
so, god isn't omnibenevolent?
the arguement is if god were omnibenevolent and omnipotent he would have created a universe with no evil
my teacher forced me to watch this and now my watch history is ruined
Same
"Is God willing to stop evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he willing but not able? Then he is not benevolent. Is he both willing and able? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus of Samos
+Alex Ian Matthews In many religion (mainly polytheistic) gods are neither omnipotent nor benevolent (maybe like Jesus).
+Alex Ian Matthews Typical. Copy-pasting arguments from elsewhere rather than formulating one's own. Sadly, all too common among atheists.
+Dantius Haha, dumb theist can't counter argue so resort to ad hominem. Tsk tsk, you should learn how physical evidence works.
+Jackboy019 The argument has been discredited over and over again. There should be no need to argue against it. Also, the point still stands. Atheists rarely think of their own arguments, instead choosing to rely on those of others, literally copy and pasting.
The problem with the argument is that it assumes that the universe should exist solely for our pleasure, assuming the creator could not possibly have any possible alternative reason for creating the universe. It is little more than complaining about how the creator did not give us perfect lives, much like a child complains about the absence of cookies.
+Dantius Nope, you committed the fallacy of black and white thinking. First ,the universe has no objective meaning only subjective meaning in opinion only, therefore universe does not exist for pleasure or for suffering. Christians claim god is good, if god is not good then you have lost the argument.
List of assumptions you made, commence Occam's razor:
1) You assume existence of mind out of body creator ie god. No real evidence of consciousness outside physical bodies.
2) Assume creation of the universe, which violates conservation of energy.
3) No objective physical evidence implies necessity of existence of any deities, therefore reasonable to assume anthropomorphic worship isn't credible.
4) You resort to ad hominem instead of argument from logic. Point loss in logical argument.
Atheist asuumption:
1) No god exists. Why don't you demonstrate realistic evidence, since you know for certain deities exist?
Until you can provide realistic physical proof of the existence of the alleged perfectly good interventionist type of deity then atheists are correct in their assumption. I doubt you will though because religious texts clearly don't know reality well enough if they can't make any correct specific predictions about it which means science as a method knows reality better than holy texts because enough scientific knowledge exists to predict future outcomes about reality.
FYI, alleged claims in sacred texts is not evidence. For example, do you take the existence of anything in Harry Potter seriously because the reasoning and evidence in holy texts is equal to the fictional book.
Here for one reason....home work 😐
ikr
same and i'm french LOL
Same
Same
Same bro
From what I've seen, most religions/philosophies have an explanation for this that is internally consistent. (The religion I grew up with used this defense, and then for natural evil, it's part of a plan that we may not understand but will lead to the greater good.) But (and it took me way too long to realize this!) a model of the world that is internally consistent and matches observable facts is not necessarily true. If I believed I, the only real human, am a brain in a jar hallucinating everything I've ever experienced, well, that's internally consistent and it matches what I observe. But my friend believes that we're all physically real creatures with individual consciousnesses, heck, that's internally consistent and matches the observable universe too. We can't both be right..
The rubber has to meet the road with some good heuristics like Occam's razor and especially falsifiability.
All consistent concepts are equal until you start looking to prove them wrong.
Any concept that can't be proven wrong in any way is a bad concept.
Were all free to do what we are inclined to do, and nothing more.
Free will is the idea that chemistry and physics can be over ridden by some mysterious mental power. Yet that mental power clearly diminishes with the health of the brain.
exactly
Off topic but their voice is really soothing
Lads, we all here for homework, let’s not deny it.
Cruelty exists because God is perfect 👍
*FACTS🤣🤣*
Aye lad
If there was a benevolent god, why not give us free will but not the means to actually harm others?
That's not free will then.
How do you know when you're exercising your free will is you can't act on it.
That will be a virtual world not a real world.
@@thinkislamcheckmychannel then what about heaven? Do we have free will in heaven too? What's stopping evil happening there then? Or do we not have free will in heaven? Are we just slaves controlled by God as a result of living a good life? Does that sound like heaven? Does that mean hell is the only afterlife with free will?
@@whiteweb6546
No we have free will in heaven.
But we will lose our unpleasant sides.
There is perhaps free will in hell but no way of expressing it other than how loud to scream or how hard to gnash teeth.
@@thinkislamcheckmychannel if we can lose our unpleasant sides in heaven then that shows that he CAN do it, but chooses not to on Earth?
@@whiteweb6546 yes of course. It's an essential part of this life
What are the free will defences premises then?
the question is wether if a benevolent god shares his power inorder to stop conflict, which may induce the abuse of that power, which provides more conflict within the control of that power
Thanks mr. Fox for bringing me here lol. Hope you're okay if you see this. Hi everyone
If everyone having the sense of morality limits free will, then does having the sense of disgust a limitation of free will too? I want to hear your guys thoughts.
Yea sure, why not.
A person may be free to chose to eat shit, but our natural sense of disgust will curb that choice for almost everyone.
That was it? "It's not true because feelings"?
There are two things I don't like about defending free will:
1. "God gave us free will so we won't be like machines and this is better" - why better? The reason we don't like idea of being a machine is that it sounds for us demeaning, being controlled, used as a tool etc. Why we don't like thinking of ourselves this way? We choose to or we are designed to feel this way about this idea the same way we're designed to feel pain if we put hand into the fire and feel joy while laughing with our friends? If the first one then its begging the question because firstly we would need a free will to decide we like free will and if the latter then God could just created us otherwise and now this is only God's own selfish desire to do it the way it is done.
2. I think that most people don't understand how reality works. Imagine that we have a binary attribute - A and not A. So whatever A is then not A is just everything else. Its simple. In case of reality (universe, we, God, everything are parts of it) everything inside can be deterministic (this is A) or not deterministic (not A). This is fully exhaustive classification. Of course if reality is fully deterministic there is no free will. But if there is at least something to some degree non-determined then reality is not deterministic. However everything non-deterministic is just random. So on the other hand our will should have at least some portion of randomness in non-deterministic reality. Random will seems to be "free" but randomness in our behavior does not sound like something that we value in "free will".
Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21-22. Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37. 1 Samuel 3:14 God said “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.” That's Limited atonement.
Hmm, the problem of evil is clearly define in scripture, but the problem very few are willing to read and believe, that's why we struggle so with this issue. However, I understand that I had to wrestle with it as well, but after reading the scripture with an openmind things then began to make sense. If I may share what I have discovered concerning the problem of evil.
1. It began with the fall of Lucifer, Isaiah 14. That's not fake new thats reality.
2. The fall of Adam in the Garden, and the curse that followed. Gen 3
3. The choises of men to do evil, thats not God's fault but ours.
4. The great controversy between good and evil displayed in the naturally. Beyond what we can see, there is a war going on between Christ and Satan, and we sense the impact of it in the physical world.
5. The sin problem. The more we practice evil, the more we break the law of God, we the more we reject is the stronger evil becomes. That is undeniable, no wonder why our world is going crazy.
The only defence against evil is Christ in the heart through faith in His righteousness. The choise is ours to make.
It began with god who made Satan knowing he'd fall and cause all suffering. He chose not to stop it
He created Adam and eve lacking the knowledge of good and evil, the knowledge they needed to understand the snake was evil
The knowledge they needed to know it was wrong to disobey god
So your objection is totally moot
Grayson Perry is a great way to do this game now I have them in a row so I built the same club who's columbian to go back in like
Regarding natural evil: Had i not been challenged by natural evl (sickness etc)...i would have chosen a path of self interest (which i did before). Why would i choose to be good when i gain more by being bad? Why would i even veaue goodness if there is no power that defines good or bad?...if its a a subjectve matter? I would not see the point of being good.....So for me natural evil did good. It tranformed me for the better. It made me realize my finiteness. Therefore natural evil can be explained if it tranforms human being for the better.
+Lakris A Self interest is not evil or bad. As long as it does not harm others. Of course goodness and badness is subjective. Since only you can decide if an action is good or bad for you. Example, you go to the dentist and have a filling, this causes pain, but you might judge it to be overall a good thing.
There is no need to "explain" "natural evil" as being transformational. It just is as a consequence of physics and human behaviour.
Several thoughts:
1. The problem of evil is a big problem for theists, but its not a philosophical problem, for strong rebuttals from theists have been written and left unanswered. But it is an emotional problem, and sometimes, philosophical treatises don't do so well against a more primal gut response that is induced by the problem of evil.
2. However, the problem of evil is actually a larger problem for the atheist. Harry Shearer and Nigel Warburten fall into it when they start listing types of evil. "People inflicting pain on humans and other animals... enjoying others suffering... disease, famine, floods, and earthquakes." How can an atheist say any of these things are evil? All these things do is cause human and animal suffering. But why should causing animal and human suffering be considered evil? One can think like this if one has a very anthropocentric view of the universe as a believer can, but an atheist cannot. That is the problem of evil for the atheist:
A. How to explain the fact that we experience all the things listed above as evil, when we live in a Godless world, where absolute standards of morality do not exist.
3. I am positive all those victims of the dictators mentioned would happily agree that it is better to live in a world of free will because that is what it means to live as a human being. Anyone who wishes to deny free will is denying our humanity, since part of what makes us human is our ability to self-direct through reason (i.e. free will.) And in that respect, such a person would be worse than all those dictators, since those dictators robbed the dignity of a portion of humanity, while the person who wants to get rid of free will wants to deny the dignity of all humanity.
4. Natural evil often can be explained by free will. Why are earthquakes evil? Not because they happen, but because they kill human beings. Knowing that Earthquakes consistently happen, why do we continue to build and rebuild large cities on fault lines, knowing that our choice to do so, will lead to people getting killed. Is it because we think it's worth the risk, and that a few people dying is outweighed by the financial benefits of building such a city in such a location? If that's our thought process then it seems we are the evil ones, not the earthquake.
5. Further, let us remember the Genesis story. Man was set as steward of creation. A steward is one who governs according to the will of the King. When man went contrary to the will of the king, he failed to be a good steward. And by failing to be a good steward of creation, he failed to govern creation well. By failing to govern it well, things contrary to the positive will of God came in. Thus, when mankind fell, man dragged all of creation down with him. Should we be surprised then that creation acts as it does, for we have failed to govern it.
6. Finally, what would happen if we were to see evils including natural evils as not just the result of people willing evil, but in fact as necessary at some level for us to reach our telos. For, as beings with free will, our telos is to become virtuous. But one can only be virtuous in a situation where one may be tempted to be vicious. For example, love, when it is virtuous is loving even those who are "unloveable." And who are the most unloveable if not those who refuse to love us and in fact actively harm us. In order for us to love those who hate us and persecute us, there must be people who hate us and persecute us. Similarly, we can only be merciful if we have a cause to seek revenge, which we forsake. But we can only have a cause to seek revenge if someone has wronged us. Thus, in order for us to be merciful, there must be people who harm us. Courage can only be practiced in the face of fear. Evil is tolerated to exist in this world, so that we may become courageous against it. Therefore, there must be something we ought to be fearful of. And faith, can only be practiced when there is cause for unbelief, and therefore, God allows there to be things in this world which seek to turn one from faith, in order to strengthen it. For virtues, like swords, are forged in fire.
being an atheist does not equal to having no morals. This is just a misconception.
In my opinion being an atheist means having higher morality as you are being moral not because you fear being punished or crave an award, but to reduce pain and suffering from the world you currently live in.
I think the only way to test whether someone is truly moral is to see whether they will continue to act morally when there are no consequences presented from God, and the only consequences are the pain and suffering caused to people badly affected by their actions.
As for natural evil I believe it may be a result of our agency, our ability to effect the world around us. For us to be able to physically change the world God had to create a world with physical laws and a world of change. And a world of change is inherently dangerous.
Who said earthquakes are evil? Earthquakes can harm people and would be considered horrible events, but they are not evil, since evil is a conscious act. Unless you're saying God causes earthquakes to harm people, which would be evil.
And you talk about free will being necessary, as you can't be virtuous without the potential to be vicious. The problem there is that you subscribe to the idea that you will get heavily rewarded for doing something virtuous (riches and pleasure in heaven) and heavily punished for doing something vicious (eternal torture in hell). Good people do good deeds because it's the right thing to do. Selfish people do good things because they seek payment. And considering your version of Christianity says you'll be tortured forever simply for not believing Jesus is God when there is no proof, I don't think you're an authority of good or evil, as your whole worldview is based on the belief in an evil god.
"Blood cancer in children? What's that about?" -Steven Fry
This is called Epicurus paradox
Could you ellaborate further?
Consider this: If God is all powerful and he created not only this universe, but its existence, then it stands to reason he created the rules of its existence: God created free will. He also created the constraints we perceive surrounding free will. This argument assumes God exists and did create our existence.
What if he created all of existence with slightly different scientific rules? He not only has the power, apparently, to have done that, but to also do it now if he so chooses. He is omnipotent after all.
Now, let's look at us. Our state of being is one of biochemical states, pulses of electricity in the brain, and so on. (Forgive me if my explanation is crude, I'm not a scientist but this does suffice for this argument) Our "free will" is nothing more than a specific state of electricity and biochemistry. Even we have learned how to alter the human brain to remove or suppress people's free will and make them supremely susceptible to suggestion. Is free will an illusion? No, it's simply a state of being ingrained in our biology.
So here's what I'd like you to ponder: If God is omnipotent, and created the very rules of this existence, then it stands to reason he could have created human beings who, of their own free will, had already chosen good; once the choice is made, there would be a measurable electrical and biochemical state. From our crude thinking, if he replicated that state, such as it would appear in each individual, then everyone would be created having already chosen good. This can be used to even say that he could have created beings that, of their own free will, had already chosen to believe in him. Keep in mind, he controls the very rules by which this existence works, free will is his creation, it is he who decided how it should work. And it is we who are constrained by time. To us, free will is a process we must progress through in a linear fashion. God has no such constriction.
Logically God could have created this world perfect. He made it how it is, free will is by his design. I guess this is where you ask yourself, does he truly love us? Or does our comprehension of love not apply to a being we may only have the chance to understand in death? Or may never understand? Is God a man-made device for man's ego-driven reasons? Maybe God is not all powerful. How does the belief of a soul affect this argument? I'm sure I could add many more questions.
Unfortunately there are no answers here, just considerations. Cheers
Evil is in the eye of the believer. What's evil to one is comedy to another.
Why do we choose to believe in a diety who allows children to be tortured; who is less compassionate than we are? Where is the free will of the child? It would make more sense to believe that this diety is all good but not all powerful. IMO the amount and distribution of pain and suffering cannot be justified by the allowance of free will for some people, so it is a flawed argument.
Even is you accept the free will defense, it doesn't get you out of the problem. If the free will defense is true, then a OOO god could not make a universe that can have free will without evil. Therefor there is something that god can't do. Therefor there is no OOO god.
I don't understand how God giving people the free will to do bad things as well as good things makes him good? Surely if we eradicated evil from the equation then the world wouldn't be any less happy and surely more.
0:17 did you just nonchalantly call me an animal!?
Well yes.....because we are...
I don't know if this comment will even get posted, but I have made several large comments to reply to posts that I have been notified of and youtube didn't even post them.
So, other than this post (if it even gets posted) I won't be making any future replies to comments that I am notified of until I find out why youtube isn't posting my comments.
I don't see the point in writing my comments if youtube isn't going to end up posting them.
I don't know if any of you have had similar problems, but if you have and you know how to resolve it I'd be interested in knowing.
Thanks.
Bye for now and perhaps forever if I can't get this worked out.
Schoolwork 🙄😤
there's a 3rd explanation : maybe we don't have the whole picture. Like if we are looking at a painting from very close, it doesn't make any sense. But If you step a step backward,the whole picture is revealed and it makes sense. Maybe we just don't have/get all the parameters. I mean, we only have acess to so little information, oir whole visio of the world is very limited. For the record, according to the little science we have, therecould be 11 dimensions, multiverses and habitable exoplanets, life based on something else than carbon... We are like ants looking at their tunnel and thinking "I only see 2 ways : upfront and backward, there's nothing more, so if it ain't upfront it must be backward, nothing else is possible".
All you're doing is making an argument through ignorance. It's just like saying "the Lord works in mysterious ways" both arguments completely refuse to confront the hard truth
in reality, I'm precisely rejecting "arguments from ignorance" here. Whereas the problem of evil is exactly following the dictionnary definition of argument from ignorance since it says "there's only those options, other options are false because they have not been proven true" excluding the 2 other possibilities (it's unknown or uknowable).
check out the dictionnary definition of argument from ignorance. But thanks you found the word I was searchong for to critize the logic of this video, it's exactly that : an argument from ignorance
And we can only come to conclusions based on the information we have. Based on it, I see that an omnibenevolent God could not exist. Of course I could be wrong, but I have no reason to think so.
@@amethyst7468 Mankind a few hundred years ago : "We can only come to conclusions based on the information we have. Based on it, I see that the Earth is flat. We could be wrong, but we have no reason to think so."
Mankind a few decades ago " Based on it, we see that there are no exoplanets, no other planets outside of our solar system. We could be wrong, but we have no reason to think so".
Your reasoning if it was applied to nowaday physics : "Based on it, I see that Earth is the only planet hosting life, no other planet could ever or have ever hosted any form of life. I could be wrong, but I have no reason to think so".
See the scientific innacuracy of your reasoning ? Now you have a reason to think that you could be wrong ;)
colmoni I believe that evil can be a trait in some. What about psychopaths? People who's brains are wired differently
Excellent point. Why are there psychopaths? While it should be noted not all are evil (see neuroscientist James Fallon who diagnosed himself), they are lacking empathy and can thus be amoral, and some go on to be evil. Most are just ruthless, and gravitate towards jobs like business and politics.
So, did god make them to test us? Do they have free will?
Or, is it an evolved trait which is harmful to societies in high numbers, but useful in conflict situations, in which case, the easiest explanation why evil exists is simply there is no god?
Victim: Help, I'm being murdered!
Cop: I'm sorry. I can't do anything, because it would interfere with the free will of the killer.
Poor example. God is responsible for 100% of all life and death, a cop is not, they are responsible for enforcing the law and preventing all manner of crimes (including murder).
100% of people who are murdered and not, their life will be taken by God at some point either way.
Your analogy just doesn't work.
The Problem of Evil is something that gets me at times. But despite all the chaos in the world, one should always keep their head up high. Always trust God 🙏
A gunman has the free will to shoot a bunch of people, but what about the free will of thee victims? Why does the shooter's free will trump theirs?
automata don't evolve. as to what the narrator refers to as 'natural evil' the same principle of evolution applies, sometimes, things happen that don't necessarily benefit humans/animals/general environment seemingly, no matter how cruel it seems, it is evolution in action. random mutations/events are the basis of natural evolution.
The other problem with the "free will" defense, is that God (according to abrahamic religions) is the one and true holder of all knowledge now, in the past, or in the future, in every possible vein of reality. God is omniscient. He knows what you're going to choose, or realistically and undeniably, what you DID Choose as you're only able to live in the reality and path that you went down regardless of possible alternative outcomes or choice. Regardless of whether he chooses to limit it or not, the knowledge is there as it's within his willpower whether to know or not know these things.
Even if that was the case, and he willingly unleashed these things, and continues to ignore this despite knowing what will come of it, the question would then become why? This God, regardless of choice given to you, has instead of using its all reality controlling and warping power to simply place a precedent in place to prevent negatives, has simply and undeniably told us to go fuck ourselves or worship it.
Now I know error of choice is there to make us grow as people, but things beyond our control, beyond our ability to predict precedent, beyond our ability to prevent aren't our fault yet are placed on our heads. God CREATED and let loose the very evils it portends to want to save us from, it's hypocrisy and *LITERALLY* the *HIGHEST* level.
Uhh, that argument was obliterated what, 1000 years ago by St Aquinas? Go read it in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it is literally proven to be a fallacious argument.
"Knowing" and "causing" are two entirely different concepts. If I have a clock, and I "know" it is about to strike midnight, it does not mean that I'm are currently causing it to strike midnight. "Knowing" and omniscience, just means that you are very smart and knowledgeable, it proves exactly nothing as to the cause. If I throw a piece of bacon in front of my dog, I'm so "omniscient" in my knowledge of my dog's appetite and habits, that I'm 100% certain he will eat the bacon. This does not mean I made him eat the bacon.
If God created creatures with free will, then they have free will, otherwise he did not create creatures with free will. Even if God is somehow so smart that he knows what everyone will do (for God, time does not even exist so seeing things that will happen in the future or past is not an issue), does not mean He is forcing them.
@@truebeliever6440 Here is a problem that I have with that argument. Why throw the bacon infront of the dog, if you know very well you will punish the dog for eating that bacon? To put things into better perspective, the punishment you bistow is as severe as eternal hell fire damnation.
So when an evil man uses his free will to kill innocent people, does the evil man's free will hold more importance than the free will of the victim?
I am sure the victim has free will and it wasn't telling them to die that day for nothing, and the shooters free will led him to shoot them?
Who's free will is more important?
The Elohim/Archons/Annunaki (insert name) harvest the ego which is grown around a soul trapped in physical form undergoing suffering. We are a farm. To them it is not evil. To us it ought to be.
This is not the free will defence but a free will theodicy.
the reason we can't reconcile this question is because we are finite and God is infinite, ISA 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts higher than your thoughts".
If we cannot judge God's actions how can we know if they are good?
Except natural evil .. is not really "evil".
Yes it is. Earthquakes aren't good are they? BTW I aint religious.
@@toothlessthenightfury2088 it’s not “EVIL” that’s just the concept and idea that we have been trained to think by. Nature is Nature. Too much Sun will burn your skin. High rise sea levels will take your home.
Earthquakes is not evil, it’s just Nature. How it was all created. We were created to kill to eat. You don’t hunt you don’t eat. Is it evil? No.
Free will defense in a nutshell:
Woman: "Help, help! I'm being beaten and raped! Somebody help me! Please God make it stop!"
God: "Sorry, miss. Free will. Do continue."
Woman: "But he's violating my free will right now! I have no choice in this matter. I'm being forced, and I want it to stop. You have the power to make this stop!"
God: "Uh... free will? Carry on."
In the christian mythology, humans are not only capable of "evil", but inescapable leaned towards it from conception, and commanded to be good knowing the eternal punishment that awaits those who fail.
And, the decisions while being menaced by supernatural fauna, and having also a pre-programed corrupted nature ... are called _"free-will"._
Suit yourselves.
+AntiCitizenX One still has the capacity for free will, even if one is unable to exercise it.
+DeadbrainLives That is just a very vague usuage of words. Free will means nothing if one is not capable of exercising it.
Otherwise God could have created us with this free will, but without the capacity to act on evil grounds. A world with free will and no evil... problem solved. But would that make sense?
+P.G. Burgess Wrong. Free will is our capacity to define our own thoughts as we see fit. A prisoner has free will, but not freedom.
And even still, the argument stands: for God to fix evil, we would have to be deprived of our capacity to freely pursue evil. If God takes that capacity from us, then we are truly enslaved to God's will, and then your arguments against the moral nature of God would certainly be valid.
The problem of evil also presupposes that the universe should exist solely for our pleasure.
Even still, if no evil or suffering existed, then what is morality? If we have nothing to compare our actions to, then how can anyone be considered moral when that is the only choice? If you cannot embrace morality freely, then how is that morality? A world without free will is a world without morality. Period.
Dantius i don't think we differ to much.
I just don't see an argument against the idea (using your terms cfr the prisoner): to have free will to do evil, but not the freedom to act. Why isvthat no option.
I personally don't see much value in making a distinction between the concepts: free in mind vs freedom to act. But i guess that is a matter of semantics. i dont think it helps any discussion.
I agree all discussion implies a god that has our best intrest at heart, and this is related to our experience of wellbeing.
And i neither think the last paragraph adresses something i said. I mostly agree with that. I just dont think our free will, nor our morality has anything to do with a god.
The video series also credits philosophers with their thinking, until it gets to this one where it does not credit Alvin Plantinga. Do I detect ant theistic prejudice, I think so.
We don't have Free Will that is an illusion to keep us locked into this illusion that we call reality. Everything is programmed amor fati.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things.
ISAIAH 45:7
Free will hey? So evil persists because of the illusion of free will?
Even though God is behind creation, that doesn't mean that God is behind everything that happens within creation.
Since certain creations, such as ourselves, have been given free will and are capable of being creators in our own right; including creating suffering for ourselves and others.
This particular misunderstanding, that God is causing our suffering and perhaps punishing us, is one of the most dangerous misunderstanding promoted by religious teachers; for how can we become free from suffering if we don't understand what's causing it?
As long as we believe that lie, we will blame God or others, or our circumstances for our suffering and not see that we are responsible for our suffering.
Our mistaken thinking, and the negative emotions and negative actions that flow from our thoughts causes our suffering.
Depending on what we choose to believe, and how we choose to respond to life; we create more Love in the world or the opposite.
When we choose to express the opposite of Love or cause harm, it is not God that is at fault.
God gifted us with the freedom to choose and to create, and we eventually learn from our choices to be better creators; to create happiness instead of suffering, and it is suffering that teaches us this; suffering points us away from what is anti-life, anti-Love.
Our own personal suffering is the so-called "punishment" we receive when we make choices that are not aligned with Love; that is the only "punishment," if we will, meted out by God.
We are designed to suffer whenever we miss the mark, which is the meaning of sin; the mark, the target or goal, is Love. We suffer whenever we fall out of alignment with Love.
Suffering and joy are part of the guidance system we've been given; the homing device, which when followed, will bring us back home to Love.
Suffering tells us that we are believing a lie or taking a wrong direction; while joy tells us the opposite.
If we don't want to suffer, then we must stop believing and doing what causes us and others suffering; and start believing and doing what brings peace, Love and joy.
thanks for doing my hw for me
That doesn't explain natural evil.
Surely you can't believe that natural disasters and cancer in babies has its root in human free will.
How do you account for natural evil?
@@BMTroubleU
God holds nothing, rejects nothing, condemns nothing, does not even see "wrongdoing." All that man does which man calls "sin" is only of this world and is only punished within this world - for it is a Law of Earthly Existence, as you know, that whatever you sow you will reap as a like harvest. Because man draws LIFE and MIND from God, man himself is creative in thought, words and deeds. Whatever man thinks, says, does and believes, returns to him in like form, some time later. Therefore there is no punishment from God - whatever ills come to mankind is of their own making entirely.
@@edgarmorales4476 I'm afraid you haven't answered the question.
Earthquakes, tsunami, hurricane and inexplicable cancer in babies are natural evils.
How can you say 'whatever ills come to mankind are of their own making entirely' when none of the natural evils in the world are of our own making?
@@BMTroubleU
Modern mindsets have created the calamities and horrors which have been created in consciousness and are only just beginning to make themselves fully felt in our midst as diverse forms of pestilence and earthquakes, floods, famines, wars, revolution and other tragedies. Be assured! No evil which comes to earth is a "natural disaster." Everything inimical to our perfect welfare is bred first in our human consciousness and then given form within our global experience. This is what Jesus tried to teach religionists and non-believers when Jesus walked the earth - and WEPT - when religionists and non-believers laughed and refused to believe it. Religionists and non-believers called Jesus a madman for it.
Meanwhile, until true understanding comes to you - teach, demonstrate and live:
BROTHERLY LOVE with all the strength of soul, heart and mind - minute by minute in your daily lives.
Because - to combat the global destructive consciousness forces, mankind must make every effort to move on swiftly to the next stage of its development.
I don't think free will is a really good argument. We obviously aren't entirely free. There's so much we cannot do. With just our bodies we cannot breathe underwater, fly, turn invisible, breath in space, read people's minds etc.
If our freedom is limited anyway, why didn't God make it so that we still have a great range of freedom but without the ability to sin?
Is there evil in heaven? (How could it be heaven if there is?) So there's only good in heaven?
So do you lose your free will at heaven's gates? And become a heavenly automaton? Or does God have some way of free will existing and only good being possible (not automatons, but only able to choose good)? If so, why did he not do that on earth and instead save it for heaven?
Conclusion: There is either evil in heaven, or you lose all free will in heaven (and become a slave), or god created evil on earth because.. he likes it?
The free will defence is bunk.
This is Modernity This is gold lol
MrSidney9 Thanks! I've stumped tons of Christians with it for years ;)
This is Modernity .. Aye, your wondering and wandering have not led you astray. You have stumbled upon a great truth... To your question; Is there sin in Heaven? Do you know the story of Lucifer, and the 1/3 of angels that sinned in Heaven against God? (sin in Heaven).. Do you know that after the second coming Christ that there will be a great apostasy as Lucifer will rebel again?... so, no, I do not believe the BIBLE is anywhere telling man that we will be automaton, but that there will be free will even in the eternal state. Although, there is biblical reason there can be hope of a sinless eternity, after that second rebellion is because He has gone through much pains to show Himself so glorious, so pleasurable, that we will willingly love and obey and not sin, because sin is seeking something in the place of God, but after all He has revealed and is going to reveal about Himself, man will finally see that He is utterly irreplaceable. And that is Heaven, a place where true love exists in its purest form, where all of creation will adore and worship God out of their own free will, because of His glory in Jesus.
Your questions are very good, but your complicated questions should bring simple answers. Firstly, yes there's good in heaven; God has made us in with good "will", not evil. It is only necessary to mention that Adam and Eve came to Earth due to the serpent's temptation. That is the evil. Adam and Eve (representatives of us humans) were initally purely good, until they encountered evil. That's why they did the wrong thing in which should not have happened. Secondly, heaven does not bring in automation. If there was such a thing as automation in heaven, then why aren't we automated now in earth? Because we have free will. The Bible mentions that we will live wih Jesus forever with the treasures in the Kingdom; what in the world did you get the idea of automation? Probably a self dential idea that you thought was compelling.
So in conclusion, God never created evil, nor does he like it. :) where did you even begin to think that he allows evil because He likes it? Evil exists because of Satan. Without heaven, there would be no evil or hell. For Christians, evil is a way for us to put more faith to God. And no, He doesn't erase free will in heaven. It wouldn't make sense in the first place to erase free will now, or even erase it anyway or else then people on earth would lose that free will too. Either way, free will is never erased, but something innate of us. Thanks for your questions/comments! Didn't really stump me but pretty thought-compelling.
simple. evil was created so that we can see good. and choose it.
And yet, some don't. Were they also made evil so that others could see them and be good?
probably yes. thats what i think
Sasha Reyes Therefore, you don't believe evil people have free will. Therefore, god created evil beings, to do evil things...to teach us to choose good? Don't you were the problem of this, re: the video?
colmoni were=see
you are assuming that is what i think.... evil people do have free will, thats why i said evil was created so that we could choose good. not saying evil people cant be good, we change from one moment to the next.
Well...it does explain natural evil, if God is all good, then he is also all just. We get what we deserve for our doing.
I don’t think we deserve to be born in this evil world.
So… then we ALL deserve to suffer we suffer no matter what. No matter what you do, we will always suffer
The first thing can we cinsider so called 'natural evil' evil? By what means we consider it that way? Because I'm not sure we can judge it like that, even more if we have naturalistic worldview.
Second I do not think by any means a human can fully judge God's work as Good or Evil, justified or unjustified. In that case we speak of Ominiscient God on the one hand and humans, who have quite narrow reason, knowledge and goodness compared to Him, on the other.
Third - suffering in the world could be explained in two ways simultanouesly; first- it is element of the world when humans abonded God and were exiled - God is Just so he had to did that, second - it is a part of a way to reach the best possible world for humanity while still respecting free will of human beings and fallen angels and the just punishment for the Fall and sin of which I spoke. God bless You! ✝️
Thank you, very interesting !
This might have nothing to do with the video but what if a six year old stole a piece of candy from a store and ran out into the street and got hit by a car and killed.. does God send the young child to heaven or hell?
Eternal flames sounds like a harsh punishment
Free will is not a good or effective defense of evil (man made or natural).
The universe, whether we like it or not, has been setup on the basis with polarities. Light-dark, heat-notHeat, up-down, mercy-cruelty, happiness-suffering.
Construct a universe without polarities and there is no action, no movement, no development, nothing.
In traditional religions i have not come across this idea that God is "good", only that God is Omnipotent. Being "all-good" is humans who can't understand why suffering is needed, including religious ones who try to explain that God will deliver you from any situation because He cares. What they/we seem to miss is that suffering is a requisite to development, and their sacred texts explain as much.
1:11 Completely remove the concepts of greed, libido-dominandi and personal advantage from the human paradigm, and we can all exercise our "free will" (assuming self determination isn't an illusion) to our hearts content, without anyone getting hurt.
lol, you may as well have just said "remove the ability to do evil, but we will still have the free will to do good or evil"
The way I see it, the free will defense is terrible for a couple reasons.
You wouldn't know if you were an "automaton" or not, and wouldn't have any feedback on the matter to establish accuracy. We could all be "reading out a script" of innumerable interactions between particles(including our brain activity). But proposing such a thing would require the strongest of evidence to counteract the current state, where all evidence on the subject conflicts with it. Proposing a calculating structure that can predict all aspects of the interactions between the quantum particles in a grain of sand over a millisecond, let alone all particles in existence over billions of years of change, is not a meager claim. Especially when said calculating structure is proposed to not have a developmental phase, like in the case of the Yahweh character, something that also conflicts with all available evidence on the capacity for agency. The concept "omniscience" seems very anthropic to me. With remnants of being abstracted from an ambiguous concept of what "knowing" and "predicting" actually are.
Another problem with the free will defense is the problem with the concept "free will" to begin with.
"Free will" really only requires the ability to preconceive of at least more than one direction of action. One could be strapped to a table and still be deciding between innumerable directions of action to take from one's current state. Humans, along with most animals, are known to be able to preconceive a range of potential results, and then choose to act upon one. That is, a brain observed causation between identified elements, creating a conceptual framework that can be simulated mentally, providing a degree of certainty in how one could act to change that interaction in a future instance. It's not possible for a human in a functioning mental state to not to have "free will".
The main use for the term "free will" seems to have been to remove blame from the Yahweh character, to sweep up the mess that the omni- attributes made while having their cake and eating it too. But it again fails to do so, because a good god could easily take any of millions of actions to reduce harm and evil, without ever getting close to reducing a human's preconceivable actions to only one(losing free will).
1:36 Tony Blair.
Misleading conclusion...
I always thought the free will defense was rubbish
Exactly but people choose evil
And God made evil a choice
We gotta eat
The deities portrayed in the three major Abrahamic religions-Judaism, Christianity, and Islam-bear characteristics that, when examined through a critical lens, reflect a conceptualization influenced by the perspective of an ancient warlord. Inherent in the depiction of these divine entities are attributes and narratives that resonate with the characteristics commonly associated with figures of authority, dominance, and martial prowess. It's not just a coincidence that in the Abrahamic religions, God decided to set certain individuals like prophets apart to convey his wishes. It's pretty clear that God is calling the shots here, and you can't deny there's a bit of a dictator vibe going on.
Glups...I must change thinks by thoughts...sorry!
This defense does nothing about the millions of years before mankind ni which there was suffering. It also doesn't say anything about current day suffering of animals caused by natural disasters.
"and other animals" No, I do not cede nor make my own natural rights inferior or equal to animals. Yet I still abhor animal abuse.
maybe the definition of evil is subjectively depending on how we define the outcome of things rather positive or negative and even then we might not have the enough knowledge that would allow us to judge if something is actually negative or not , so we might not truly know what evil is and so if it exists to begin with , if things are of one nature then all experiences are of the same nature ass well , might everything just be good , and evil is just the good we don't understand or might things be of different natures that would allow true evil to exist ,and so on if we were of one of either natures wouldn't be anything of the opposite nature evil to us ?
God doesn't exist.. THE END.
+விஷ்ணு கார்த்திக். maybe you also don't exist , maybe you are just a figment of my imagination since im the only thing there is that i truly know of , any statement that doesn't hold the possibility of it being indefinite is a form of belief .
MAYBE.. but what matters is if we're being logical or not.
+விஷ்ணு கார்த்திக் well sure , but usually what i see from no religious people is that they seem to dismiss the possibilities of anything out of the ordinary which in a way is shortsighted just like what religious people do to help them support their faith and so atheism is now becoming the belief in the none existence in god. and i mean more of a religious type of belief rather than an opinion that can be subject to change with new data .
Ever heard of the phrase *"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!?"* If you assert the existence of God or any supernatural stuff you have to support it with evidence or else i'll dismiss your absurd proposition.
*"so atheism is now becoming the belief in the none existence in god"*
Just like how A-Supermanism is now becoming the belief in non-existence of Superman Right!? are you an A-supermanist? Are you!? lol
What you mean to say is that more&more people stop believing in mythology and that's a GOOD thing! we live in the age of reason&logic not the age of superstition&faith.
u man whose doing the hw
@@hamza_10t is that u hamza?
@@scott2617 yes m8
@@hamza_10t r we meant to do it abt the comments from other ppl
@@scott2617 yhhh we are
Also, if you accept the free will defence, that means god isn’t omniscient neither is god omnipotent.
Shit happens - get over it - and try to avoid it.
God Doesn't exist-stop acting like he does and stop acting like he's Good.
@@விஷ்ணு_கார்த்திக் yes God does exist he just never reveal himself that's why it's hard for people to believe he exist
SPANK!
This narrator sounds like Skinner.
It requires evil to appreciate good. Why must we demand from God that nature has to be convenient only to humans?
+Zatoichiable Um, no. That seems really petty excuse for a alleged perfectly good diety to excuse horrible actions. Free will and perfect good are not compatible, A) if god is perfectly good then god is machine with no free will therefore there is no good reason to allow evil to exist otherwise god is not benevolent.
B) If god lets evil exist then god favors evil over good therefore is malevolent meaning he would rather let a psychopath rape and butcher your friends and family than do anything to prevent or stop him even though he is all mighty, therefore why worship him?
If a cop has all the authority and ability to stop a murder happening in front of him and claims to be good, but lets it happen anyways because it infringes the freedom of the murderer then the cop would be put on trial and lose his job for irresponsibility. Hence, either god does not exist (no physical evidence) or god is not worth worshiping for choosing evil over good.
+Jackboy019 God also lets good exist. How can god favour one over the other when your logic implies that god must somehow favour that which exists?
+Zatoichiable You make a lot of assumptions based on no physical evidence you know?
1) Assuming evil is necessary to appreciate good. Debunked, good deeds can be appreciated without evil, doesn't state why evil is absolutely necessary.
2) Existence of a diety doing magic. Violates conservation of energy.
3) Case in point, you state yourself "Why must we demand from God that nature has to be convenient only to humans" therefore no need for religious worship because begging is petty in your own context.
+Dantius "God also lets good exist" Moving the goal posts does not answer the question of the absolute necessity of the existence of evil, hence commit fallacy. If god does not favor good over evil then religious claims of morality have lose moral value because god is not a moral agent.
Perfect good implies god has no free will therefore he is a machine only capable of absolute good. If god is not perfect good then he has free will, but does not stop evil therefore he supports the evil over good and is irresponsible therefore malevolent.
+Jackboy019 "Moving the goal posts does not answer the question of the absolute necessity of the existence of evil, hence commit fallacy." When did I move the goal post? You said that by allowing evil to exist, then the creator must somehow favour it. Why does the same not apply to good? What you propose is a world without free will, where we are all forcibly inclined to follow the creator's morality. Would you prefer that?
The Problem of Evil is a logical theoretical question. It warrents theoretical answers. If you cannot prove that the creator is malevolent, then no one has to explain why god created the universe. Like everything was at some point, it is simply an unknown.
Has it not occured to you that the creator can be perfectly good because it defines morality for itself? It does not need to be a machine that lacks free will, for morality is essentially whatever the creator wishes. It creates morality, and is perfectly good as it CHOOSES to conform to its own morality.
Again, you presuppose the universe should exist solely for our pleasure, yet never consider that the creator could just as easily have an alternative purpose for reality. You assume that the morality of the creator would require it to extinguish all evil, yet do not consider that there may be perfectly sound and valid reasons why evil exists.
well, that was, nothing - no conclusion, no point.
OK . . . so, if I say, "God IS going to judge all wrongdoing", I am what? Crazy? Yeah, I believe in the book that "Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam..." etc. hated. Well, He will avenge. Believe me, I DO doubt sometimes; so I'm not trying to be Mr Holy/KnowitAll (No-Wit at All haha!) But, the prophecies of Christ were so exact, they were said to be written AFTER the fact. Fair enough - good critique! Until finally found in Qumran; (including the book of Isaiah, the oft-called "Old Testament Gospel!) every one agrees these are 100's of years BEFORE Christ. To be clear: I do NOT like religion. But, it doesn't say that "God so loved the world, He gave Religion", or started a "Club". He gave His Son. He WILL stop all evil. He waits for you. One day, it will be too late to repent. Blessings/Shalom.
+Joe A. Verage Is there any evidence that you-or I-exist? Funny, Richard Dawkins (author: "the God Delusion"), wrote that Jesus probably never existed; but then in debates has said that He probably DID exist... hmmmm. But, of course, we SCIENTIFIC folks believe that the whole universe came from (drum roll . . . ) a virgin birth of . . .uh, NOTHING....hmmmm. BTW; I mention NOTHING of" wars & rumors", etc. As to "vaugue Inevitabilities"; you are right! But not 100% - that's my point: UNBELIEVERS/SKEPTICS/etc., said these were written AFTER Christ; SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE they were so precise! AND then, the manuscripts from BEFORE the time of Christ were found. But, we all live by faith. Unless you are all-knowing. We will see... Blessings!!!
+Joe A. Verage Gee, I seem to have hit a nerve! Sorry! You say:
"No one except for creationists say that the big bang was the entire universe magically coming from nothing."
OK, then - from the scientists themselves!:
"The universe burst into SOMETHING from absolutely NOTHING - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely NOWHERE." Discover Magazine, 2002 (emphasis in original)
"In the realm of the universe, nothing really means NOTHING. However, physicists believe that from this state of NOTHINGNESS the universe began in a gigantic explosion, about 16.5 billion years ago." HBJ General Science Textbook, p.362 (1989) (emphasis added)
"So, in the inflationary theory the universe evolves from essentially NOTHING AT ALL, which is why I frequently refer to it as the ultimate free lunch" Alan H. Guth, "Cooking Up A Cosmos", Astronomy, vol. 25, p. 57
Blessings!!
(P.S. I actually wouldn't want to "learn sh**"; that is an extremely illogical thing to do - to me, anyway!)
Maybe there is no Good or Evil at all...
+Shiva Sunar
Bingo! I would like to add, there is no "objective" (whatever that means, seeing as subject-object are always actually one ; ) good/evil. There is only relative. We simply do NOT know what a "true" good/evil act looks like. One day what IS "good" turns out to be "evil" the next! So who is to ultimately judge?
Could we have up w/o down? It is in this way that good/evil are really just disguises of one and the same coin.
W/o idiots there is no such thing as intelligence.
"that if you don't want bad things done to you, don't do bad things"
- If only that were the case, unfortunately it is not. You seem to be getting at something like karma? Which does not exist anymore than Heaven does.
Perhaps I misunderstood you? Could you explain ur comment further?
+formless777 Then if I am suicidal, is it okay to kill others...
or ISIS want Islamic Shariya law for themselves, then is it okay to force them to others...
+formless777 "What you want others to do with you" is also relative to who you are... then it implies Good/Evil is objective...
+formless777 If one went to a person and said " I want to kill you. It's okay to me if you can kill me". Is that good?
anyone from my school lol
Better off being Innocent for eternity
This is the logical problem of evil in short if God is unwilling to stop evil he is not good if he unable to stop evil he is not all powerful. evil exist so God cannot exist. God made man with free will there all sorts of reasons why God would make a world where there is suffering and there good reasons to believe there a greater good that will shortly come out of it. suffering is only temporary but living in eternity with God is never ending bliss never has it enter the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love him!!!
But if God is all-good and all-powerful, then any reason God has for allowing suffering is not good enough, because God, an all-powerful being, should be able to achieve his goals without people suffering.
@@goranmilic442 no God can’t make free will without man freely able to disobey anymore Then he can make a married bachelor
@@MMAGUY13 In Eden, Adam and Eve had free will. So, was Adam able to kill Eve, if his free will chooses so? If no, then his free will is not absolute, he cannot decides to commit murder, so that means God can make a world where people have free will, but they can't commit evil. If yes, if Adam could kill Eve in Eden, then Eden wasn't a perfect world, since some weapon or Adam's hands could kill Eve.
@@goranmilic442 There was limits on us we are finite creatures not all powerful but God gave a commandment he was free to obey or disobey. How can God have a creature who truly loves him if he does not obey? Jesus said if you love me obey my commandments. without choice there is no love no free will>
And what makes anything evil if there is no God who says what is and is not good?
Free will actually does explain what we call "natural evil" because God created a perfect world for perfect humans. He wanted his creation to love him and to obey him in love, and so he gave them free will. They disobeyed him, and the consequences were death and other evils that affected the whole world, including innocent animals. The first humans' free will choice to disobey the God they KNEW personally punished us all. We can look at that as unfair, or we can accept it and try to figure out how to fix it for ourselves and others. We actually can't fix it, but God loved us so much that he became one of us and suffered our punishment in order to save us. He has promised us a perfect eternity with him if we choose to love and obey him.
Even if there was no god people would still have their own perspective
That which you consider good for you others may consider evil or wrong
Ironic, isn't it? I mean, if God is all about understanding, forgiveness, and integrity, you'd think he'd get where his own creations are coming from, even if they're atheists. It's a bit contradictory to send non-believers to hell when, at the end of the day, God is pretty much the ultimate atheist himself in the monotheistic sense. The establishment of religious laws and commandments, often communicated through intermediaries such as prophets, reinforces a hierarchical structure reminiscent of authoritative governance. The delineation of rewards and punishments based on compliance with these divine mandates further aligns with a dictatorial paradigm. Now tell me who likes dictators?
@tabs91 The reason free will doesn’t explain natural evil is because free will could exist without natural evil. Nothing about free will or sin requires there to be earthquakes or animal predation, for example. Just as we shouldn’t expect a loving father to torture the family dog as punishment for his child’s disobedience, we shouldn’t expect a loving god to make innocent animals suffer as punishment for the sin of human beings.
+Niko Wentworth
I'd like to address your points if I may.
1. Instead of simply claiming that their have been unanswered rebuttals to the problem of evil, why don't you present them? I'd love to read them.
2. False. There is nothing to stop humans forming views on what is right or wrong in a Godless universe. If you believe there is, then that's something you have to prove, not just claim.
3. I agree. But firstly, this doesn't solve the problem of natural evil. And secondly, a truly omnipotent God would be able to create humans that had free will and simultaneously never did evil. An omnipotent God isn't constrained by paradoxes you know. If he can't do that, then he's not omnipotent.
4. A ridiculous argument. There is nowhere on the planet that is completely safe from natural evil. Hurricanes, tornados, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, meteor strikes. It's not like we are deliberately habituating the dangerous places on Earth - everywhere has natural disasters.
5. Again, ridiculous. Creation does not act according to our behaviours. A meteor strike would happen whether you are a good or bad person.
6. As presented in answer 3, an omnipotent God isn't limited by paradoxes. So he could create virtuous humans without the need for temptation.
Thank you for your insights, they were an interesting read. But there's nothing here to even scratch away at the problem of evil.
Natural evil is explained by two things, 1-The curse(because of mans fall) and 2-Divine retribution(when God decides to punish some people like 10 plagues in Egypt, sodom & gomorrah etc)
Does God have free will? According to the Bible, yes. Can God sin? According to the Bible no. Therefore, God’s very character demonstrates that it is possible for free will to exist without the possibility of sin and evil.
Furthermore, since God created man in his own image, could he not have given man the same ability to exercise free will while at the same time being unable to sin, even as God is unable to sin? It seems like God did a poor job at creating man in his own image.
God’s nature refutes the argument that free will brings the possibility of sin - unless you want to argue that God can choose to sin, in which case we would have to conclude that Bible texts to the contrary are all lies.
Nah that isn't a super great argument. A lot of theists believe that God's nature is what moral values are. Gods decisions are then made based off of that nature. If humans had Gods nature they would be God.
@@notnpc7965 whatever God does is good. Therefore, when God ordered Israel to complete the slaughter and genocide of the Amalekites, his order and the subsequent act must have been good?
Do you see how twisted a moral system can become when you believe rubbish like this?
@@BMTroubleU There is work done on those texts that suggests there is probably some exaggeration going on when the bible describes those events and the original authors and readers would understand it that way.
That said:
Theists don't believe the idea of God doing evil is coherent. He is morality. If you were to show a theist something that looks bad he isn't forced to agree with you. The theist believes is that God had some morally sufficient reason for it. You actually need to show that its either impossible or unlikely that God has some reason. That's a challenge that's really hard to meet.
@@notnpc7965 that's a good point. It's always challenging to prove a negative. It seems like lots of claims about God are like that- Unfalsifiable.
That is a bad thing to be. If I make claims that a teapot is in orbit around mars, you would be unlikely to believe me and you would be justified in your disbelief. But you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong.
That's how I feel about claims of gods existence.
@@BMTroubleU I haven't made any comments about the existence of God you know? You made the claim God as the source of morality is problematic and I responded to you. I don't find arguments from evil very persuasive at all but a lot of people do.
Please remember that proving a negative is not something considered impossible by philosophers or even extremely difficult. If you can show a contradiction in God then he doesn't exist. That's not super controversial.
The idea that you can't prove a negative is really dumb.
The problem is not free will. The problem is dominance. Free will to attack is likely to overpower free will to defend. That's why most fights are won by the person who instigates them. And what about pain? The victim not only loses, but is forced to suffer any abuse the evil wants them to. This is called torture. So as long as dominance and pain exist, which they do tremendously in the form of bullying, we confirm free will is evil. Just destroy the universe and start over.
God gave us all sentience and, with it, free will to do what we wish: to follow the moral code that we work together to create or not, at which point He punishes or rewards us in the end.
Yea I use to to believe in free will until Sam Harris explained how stupid the concept actually is.
He could have given us both of these things without the ability to want to do evil things
@@shanestrickland5006 "I believed in free will until a hack said otherwise."
@@amethyst7468 "I don't know what free will is."
Not my problem sry
@@AppleOfThineEye
I don't know about you but I believe that I have full control over my body and can do whatever I want with it....despite not being able to fly. I can have bodily autonomy without the ability to fly just like we can have free will without the ability to want to sin
Natural evil is due to the existence of sin being in the world.
When sin entered the world all of creation became corrupted by it.
And why did a perfect being like God allow that?
@@BMTroubleU says: *And why did a perfect being like God allow that?*
Because he wanted us to have free will and NOT be robots and then Adam and Eve abused the freedom that they had and sinned against God.
@@danielblair4413 If you believe that God is all powerful and made everything, then he also created sin.
If you believe that God created everything except sin, then two beliefs follow-
1. God is not all powerful because he couldn't create sin
2. God engineered the system that would lead to the creation of sin
If God was all knowing, then he knowingly created a system that would lead to sin. He could and should have been able to foresee his mistake and do otherwise.
If I leave an open petrol tank next to an open fire, I should be able to foresee the likelihood of that house burning down. Did I create the fire that burnt the house down? Not really. It was a natural concequence. But I engineered the circumstances that would lead to the fire. So a court would still find me guilty.
Is God guilty of creating sin or is he guilty of engineering the circumstances that lead to sin?
Either way, an all knowing God shouldve know better.
@@BMTroubleU says: *If you believe that God is all powerful and made everything, then he also created sin.*
*If you believe that God created everything except sin, then two beliefs follow-*
*1. God is not all powerful because he couldn't create sin*
*2. God engineered the system that would lead to the creation of sin*
God created Adam and Eve to have free will and through having free will came the possibility for sin to occur.
So, it technically it wasn't God that created sin it was the free will choice of Adam and Eve to disobey God that created sin.
*If God was all knowing, then he knowingly created a system that would lead to sin. He could and should have been able to foresee his mistake and do otherwise.*
The creation of free will wasn't a mistake despite the fact that it did lead to the creation of sin.
Despite what you may think God isn't capable of doing all things with his power.
God can only do what is logically possible with his power.
So, God couldn't have created the existence of free will without allowing it to lead to the possibility of sin being created.
If God didn't allow free will to lead to the possibility of sin, then free will wouldn't have existed in the first place.
*If I leave an open petrol tank next to an open fire, I should be able to foresee the likelihood of that house burning down. Did I create the fire that burnt the house down? Not really. It was a natural concequence. But I engineered the circumstances that would lead to the fire. So a court would still find me guilty.*
Of course, a court would find you guilty and God is guilty of creating free will that lead to the creation of sin because free will wouldn't be free will in the first place useless it could lead to the possibility to sin.
It is due to God's responsibility of creating free will that he must punish those who abuse their free will and sin because if God didn't punish those who sin then God wouldn't be taking the responsibility of creating free will.
*If God guilty of creating sin or is he guilty of engineering the circumstances that lead to sin?*
*Either way, an all knowing God should've know better.*
God did know better, but there was no way that he could create Adam and Eve to have free will without the possibility of the existence of sin to be created because free will couldn't exist in the first place without the allowance for sin to happen.
To sin or NOT to sin is a choice and sin wouldn't never existed in the first place if Adam and Eve didn't choose to sin.
Of course, technically the first being to ever sin against God was Lucifer aka. Satan.
@@danielblair4413 that is an interesting belief structure you have there.
I'm going to leave aside the fact that the idea of Adam and Eve being the only two people on earth, but somehow their sons can find and marry other women, is not logically consistent.
So let's spend spend some time to straighten out what you believe.
You've made the claim that God is not all powerful. "God isn't capable of doing all things. God can only do what is logically possible with his power".
I like that. You've cleverly avoided the logical impossibility of the question 'if god is all powerful can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?' You just drop one of the three aspects of God- the all powerful part. He can be all knowing and all good, but he can't be also all powerful without being logically inconsistent.
If this sounds good to you, it sounds good to me.
I don't think this absolves god from the responsibility of evil.
Firstly there is a likely inconsistency with the concept of God here.
Do you believe it's impossible to have free will without sin?
Do you believe that God has free will?
Do you believe that God is without sin?
To believe all three of these things is impossible.
If it is logically possible to have free will without sin, then god should be able to use his power to create this logically possible thing.
But you've said it's impossible to have free will without sin.
Therefore you must drop one of these three beliefs to be logically consistent.
Either it IS possible to have free will without sin
Or God doesn't have free will
Or God isn't without sin.
Secondly, There are two aspects of the problem of evil- moral evil and natural evil.
You've said you believe that God is guilty of creating free will, therefore engineering the circumstances under which sin was created. Ok.
Free will would only account for moral evil.
How do we account for natural evil? Earthquakes, hurricanes, plagues, cancer and all manner of things that are part of the natural world that kill us?
You've said you don't believe that God is all powerful. Ok.
But an all knowing, all loving God would surely know that creating a planet like this would lead to all of these natural disasters.
It is logically inconsistent to have such natural disasters if God is all knowing and all good.
So which of these two aspects of God should we drop next?
Is God not all knowing OR Is God not all good?
Chess is boring if you win every single time. You have to win some and lose some in order for it to be interesting. I mean, if you were in charge of this joint, and you had all eternity to create reality, you'd get bored of doing the same shit every day. You'd start out with everything being fine and dandy, then you'd gradually make things more challenging. And eventually end up with the world we are living in today. Good and evil must co-exist, like night and day, life and death, summer and winter, spring and fall. It's written in the DNA of the Universe. That's the kind of "God" - or whatever you want to call it - I believe in. Or rather, I enjoy that viewpoint. In reality, I have no fucking clue whatsoever about anything at all. At the same time, I know this to be true. In my bones, gut, heart, soul, or wherever. Whatever.
Yes, but if we picture a deity like that, then he/she is really anthropomorphic.
The Daily Vitamin
"Yes, but if we picture a deity like that, then he/she is really anthropomorphic."
- Yeah, like Zeus use to appear in human form to have sex with virgins. It's like Yahweh having human emotions. I have to wonder why an all powerful all knowing timeless god would be jealous for any reason ?
Seems petty.
***** "If I had evidence that a being like that existed, I would feel a moral obligation to wrest control from it so that I could rescue my fellow beings - and myself - from unnecessary suffering."
- A good case for Satanism.. if GOD exists, and god is really evil, then the OPPOSING forces ARE actually good.
all this burning in hell stuff is just propaganda. I wonder if there's a novel like that.. I don't think it would sell in the Bible belt too much.. but their MIGHT be a niche market.
all of us demonically possessed atheists.. what do you think?
The so-called Free Will Defence must be considered invalid, since free will does not imply a necessity of wrongdoing. YHWH or Gaawd could have created rational beings (free moral agents) who, of their own accord, would never sin (to use a theol. expression). If this is denied, the term free will loses its meaning, for it is taken as leading to sin by necessity (at some time).
Good point. However, I think your point is based on a misunderstanding of free will in this context. Being able to sin is part of the definition of 'free will' - as used by theists. It does not simply mean being able to choose A or B (although 'free will' means this in other contexts). According to the theist, a person must be free to choose or reject God. This means they must have the alternative of rejecting him (which amounts to sinning).
sgt7
Thanks for your reply. There is no doubt that a created being must have the ability to go against God to be called free, but this does not amount to sinning. We have to consider the difference between potentiality and actuality. According to Scripture, God created millions or billions of free moral agents who have never sinned and will never sin. This alone demonstrates the nullity of the Free Will Defence. A. Plantiga's "Transworld Depravity" is not a new idea. G.W. Leibniz called it the "metaphysical evil". In any case, both notions do not live up to orthodox Christian dogma.
Gehirnstruktur If I understand you correctly you mean the following:
In order for a created being to have free will it only needs to have the potential to sin - but does not need to actually sin. God could create beings that could potentially sin but do not actually sin.
If this is accepted one might ask why God didn't only create beings that would freely chose to not to actually sin. Well, if God exists then this is indeed a mystery.
sgt7
Exactly!
Gehirnstruktur Well this creates a contradiction.
What you are asking is, why can't God create humans who never choose to sin and yet still are free to sin if they choose to. This is an obvious contradiction. You're basically asking why God can't make a square-circle.
Are you talking about the objective existence of evil or just the general unpleasantness that comes with unsatisfied biological impulses like not being homeostatic or not existing anymore? Because proving the existence of a meaningful category called "evil" isn't exactly a strong point of a materialist worldview regardless of how sophisticated they think "the problem of evil" is as an argument against the existence of God.
The solution is simple (biblically): God allows evil to happen for a greater good. Read the book of Job
To make that claim you presuppose that God is good. I could say that God is, in fact, all-evil and could explain it the same way you did. I have no reason to think that however
My two cents to the narrator's glaring omission. In the mortal words of Dan Akroyd on SNL: " Jane you ignorant witch, (Well ,close enough to his quote. In word and action I try to be a Christian.) Free will is just half the equation for us. Diseases, droughts, storms, floods, fires, deadly accidents/manmade failures earthquakes, asteroids impacts, and all other acts of nature are the other half of life. This is life outside the Garden. The Garden of Eden! Look, I don't walk around with a REPENT THE END IS NEAR sign on my off time but, I do tell everyone this: Today might suck to be the day I die but, I am at peace with myself, with my God. Christians pray everyone could be or know they have a chance to be at peace...🕊
Glen, my dude,
God made the garden, he made the snake, he made the devil, he made the tree, he made the fruit, and he made Hell. He is omniscient and has seen the entirety of history from beginning to end. He knows what has been and what will yet be. You know what that means.
He is responsible for all of it.
Every earthquake, every flood, every tornado. Every witch burning, every lynching, every murdered homosexual. Every raped woman, every beaten child. Every slain innocent. Know that he is the source of every iota of horror in the universe. Lay it all at his feet, and call him good.
There are no gods, Glen. And that brings me peace. Cheers.
@@joshuaholton7547 Voltaire: I disagree with every thing you say but, will defend to the death your right to say it. Lord's peace to you.
@@ZuluLifesaBeech- Yeah, Voltaire is pretty cool😄
The free will defense is goofy. The human soul in Heaven would necessarily be a brainwashed automaton, reprogrammed and wiped to be blissfully ignorant of the suffering in Hell of those it loved who obviously aren't there with it. Why should free will only last a few decades while we exist in the flesh when it will be wiped out for eternity in Heaven?
Stupid?
The free will defence is frankly bullshit, it supposed that the perpetrator has a free will and can choose between good and evil, but what about the free will of the victim? He/she didnt choose to be a victim and is then only the pawn of a divine test
Theist: Evil is a product of Free Will
Atheist: Is there Evil in Heaven ?
Theist: No, of course not.
Atheist: Then is there Free Will in Heaven ?
Theist: Yes...No...err...
Atheist: Q.E.D.
I am not claiming credit for this, just relaying it.
Soylent Green Well lucifer did sin, just because your in heaven doesn't guarantee you of a free pass to do what ever you want, you get chosen because of your faith and resilience to do the right choice
Soylent Green please refrain from using theist in examples like these (though the quote isn't originally yours) mixing christianity, buddhism, islam, hinduism is just as non sensical as mixing atheism, sciencetology, pantheism, etc.
***** Theism is the notion that such a thing as "gods" exist, though there is absolutely no evidence for this. The term theist, as a catch all bag and perjorative term for this collective delusion and its philosophy is a valid one 12345shushi. Atheism has very little to do with scientology, and less to do with pantheism... which is a form of theism. You can't make such an erroneous comparison.
+Soylent Green
There IS free Will in Heaven. You are experiencing it. This post implies you are imagining yourself as an individual which, from the viewpoint of ecology, does not exist. i.e. u ARE your environment.
This IS the garden of eden. Here, still now! Good implies evil just as up implies down.
Take a hard look at concrete and it's just as beautiful as gold. Yes, that's right, go stare at the road outside :):
Rya M This is not heaven. You are delusional. I live in an environment. The only thing I provide an eco system for are the micro-organisms that live on me.
As to Free Will... if God is omniscient or omnipotent then free will is impossible. If something greater than you knows what you will do next before you were even born then you don't have free will. If something greater than you can change your actions without you being aware of it then you don't have free will.
In fact given that all free will provides is the opportunity for us to do things God will send us to hell for, what is the point of free will other than a delusional trap for humanity set by a monstrous tormenting God ?
As to there being free will in heaven... no, you didn't come close to addressing the problem that how can the source of all evil... free will... be present in Heaven where there is no evil ?
Your belief structure is inconsistent and makes bugger all sense as a result. You should quit believing in a judgmental sky rabbi who wants to torment humanity for not being Jewish enough; its fucking ludicrous.
To recognize that there is such a thing as evil... is to assume that there is such a thing as objective goodness. But to deny the existence of the only possible source of such a standard is irrational. Without God, there is only like and dislike. There is no real reason why men ought not do anything. As for natural evil, please see Genesis...
Jesse Bryant how is God the source of morality?
Roman Hoax
Out of necessity. If God is the greatest possible being, the Creator of ALL things, then he must be the source goodness and justice. _(The Bible says that God is Love.)_ If he isn't, then there is no such thing as objective moral values and duties. To assume such a standard in an attempt to argue against the existence of God, is irrational and inconsistent.
So, do YOU believe in objective morality? If so, WHO or WHAT is the source of whatever standard you are using?
Jesse Bryant
Objective moral values do not in fact exist. there is as a matter of fact no such thing.
Furthermore, if I grant the existence of objective morality which I don't. but if I did, and your god exists, he cannot in fact be the source of objective morality. the thought is absurd
Roman Hoax
As a matter of fact? Can you prove that? Nearly all the world... including the dude who made the video above, do not live consistently with what you just proclaimed to be a fact... even though you have not argued for it.
So, why do you object to men raping woman, owning slaves, or stealing your stuff? _I bet you don't know why!_
Jesse Bryant
_As a matter of fact? Can you prove that? Nearly all the world... including the dude who made the video above, do not live consistently with what you just proclaimed to be a fact... even though you have not argued for it._
*I can prove that which you claim is the source of your objective moral standard CAN NOT BE and thus render your argument self refuted. I can also prove that what you consider to be morality is ultimately arbitrary and meaningless if you hold to the beliefs you do. Whenever you're ready to have it destroyed, you just let me know.*
_So, why do you object to men raping woman, owning slaves, or stealing your stuff? I bet you don't know why!_
*As for this comment, it couldn't be more stupid. Why do I object to men raping women or stealing my stuff? because I possess empathy, because I have evolved the ability to feel the pain and suffering of others. Because I would not like my mother, daughter or sisters to be raped, I therefore would not like this act inflicted on others. because I do not like my stuff being stolen, I know I probably shouldn't do the same to others, Because man is a social animal that must live and co-exist together, we wouldn't have made it this far as a species if we didn't seek to reduce harm to one another. It's easy you start with some general assumptions which most would hold to be true, life is generally preferable to death, pleasure is generally preferable to pain and suffering. Only a moron would need a god or a book to teach them to be moral.*
*Any internally or externally-driven conscious action or choice, including the choice of inaction, that is deliberate (intentional) and unnecessary (not essential to the survival of the self, the other or the species as a whole), that causes pain, harm, suffering, malice or death is an immoral act. From this I can derive moral action and immoral action quite easily.*
you as an theist, how can you determine what is right and what is wrong in the first place? But lets take your premise and lets say you have a valid definition of evil. You skip so much when it comes to god. For muslims the god that we know that exists has more than only 2 attributes, which are all loving and all knowing, he is also all wise. Alone with this attribute your argument is shattered.
This is like two stoned freshmen who don't understand the basic concepts of 'framing'.
Rather shocked at the 'progressive' bias in this series. Never thought they'd stoop so low on the subject of ideas.
irony? It's hard to tell if you're a fundy or a parody of a fundy.. I'm not sure what you mean by 'progressive' anyway, even if it IS just a joke.
Ne dessine pas Dieu merci
This is so good (not)