I would like to point out that, in order for the "problem of evil" argument to fly, the atheist would first need to provide some evidence for the supposed existence of his "evil."
Fortunately, the atheist has failed to do so, so even if the argument were valid, which it is not, the fact that there is no proof or evidence for one of its premises (ie, "evil" supposedly exists) breaks the argument's neck at the starting gate.
Nice video Epy (although I can see you getting some pretty harsh criticisms for your attempts to refute the evidential problem of evil, but I know what you mean). I'm not convinced for a few main reasons though. I don't believe in free will (well I redefine the word because I think the standard formulation of free will is meaningless, but same thing really). I don't buy that human existence has a purpose. I just don't buy that this is a minimally evil universe. The last one is subjective though.
@nanoduckling May I ask how you came to the conclusion that free will somehow doesn't exist? Is there some unspoken argument leading to that conclusion? Is there some evidence for it?
@1GodOnlyOne Sure but I don't want to derail Epy's thread so if this goes on to long we should move it to PM. I consider determinism to be the statement 'natural science always works'. With determinism the only way to have free will is if there is some extra universal soul, or at least some kind of substance dualism. All forms of substance dualism I have encountered are incoherent, ergo I do not believe in free will. No evidence, it isn't the kind of thing I think you can test empirically.
Love isn't freely chosen matter of fact we know that biology has much to do with what we love. You do not choose what you like to eat, colors that are pleasing to you, sounds you like to hear and smells that are appealing, so what about forcing yourself to love a being on the threat of eternal torture or gain of eternal reward is free.
You seem to view heaven and hell as positive punishment/reward. I do not. Do you think it would be coersion if I said "you can freely touch the stove and burn your hand, or you can refrain from doing so and go unburned"?
@Epydemic2020 'Do you think it would be coersion if I said "you can freely touch the stove and burn your hand, or you can refrain from doing so and go unburned"'
If *you* authored the laws of physics? Most definitely.
My fundamental problem with theists is that you *never* seem willing to *even-handedly* accept all the conceptual constraints and logical implications of such analogies. (Though in your case I hesitate to say this so bluntly.)
So let me get this analogy straight.....you can freely "not love god" and burn your hand, or you can love god and go unburned? and you don't think this is coercion, considering god set up the system?
But my point was it is more sinister than that, it is by design people will fail gods tests. Unless his omniscience is limited to the the past and present.
I love most of your videos,but I must disagree here,man's will isn't free.Human philosophy asserts free will. . PV 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.
Proverbs 20:24 A man's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way?
Jeremiah 10:23 I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps.
Pv.21:1The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.
aw, d'you know, all theodicies are irrelevent once you posit an omnipotent omnibevolent , omnicient creator. The creator is\ the Auther of all, so is responsible for all. Please stop saying an all powerful being 'allows' evil. do you need me to go on? cos i shouldn't need to
@1GodOnlyOne 'Actually, God has no responsibilities whatsoever'. So you believe the author of everything is responsible for nothing? fair enough, but you must realise this being is immoral.
@snuju1 I did not mention any so-called "author of everything," so your post is nothing but a strawman.
I was talking about God, and my post stands unchallenged: God has no responsibilities whatsoever, and you have failed to provide any evidence otherwise, so you lose.
@1GodOnlyOne Ok sorry, God is what i'm talking about. God is indeed the author of everything isn't he? Is God therefore responsible for evil. That is to say, evil is here because of God. Maybe you think humanity brought about evil. That would make us co-creators..
@snuju1 No, God didn't write Stephen King's novels, so no, he is not the author of everything. Are you really that stupid? You think God wrote Stephen King's novels?
God has no responsibilities of any kind, and you have failed to provide evidence otherwise, so you lose.
You have also failed to provide evidence for the supposed existence of anything called "evil," so you lose doubly.
@1GodOnlyOne Hmm, Steven King novels. No indeed. Ok, you're not happy with the terminology. 'Creator', are you happy with 'God is the creator of everything'? The creator of everything must be responible for everything. How about that. Or has someone else had a hand in creation? Also, I'm not combatting you, I'm exploring the argument, and there's no need to be abusive.
@snuju1 No revealed scripture on the planet states God could somehow be the "creator" of everything. For example: God has always existed, so he did not "create" himself.
Why do you keep making things up about God?
Many people have created things. You created the text in the above post, for example. I have not been abusive -- I have been abundantly patient with your ignorance.
Again, God has no responsibilities, and you have failed to provide evidence otherwise, so you lose.
@1GodOnlyOne I'm not making things up. Theologans did that job for me. God is the creator of all that has been created (You'll have to do the theological reading for opinions about God's own origins and existence). So what is he not responible for? You say he is resposible for nothing, but he created everything (Im not getting into how he came about) in creation. Maybe you're not though. Maybe you could list some things he didn't create.
@snuju1 Yes, you are making things up. You made up the following:
1. that God is the "author of everything," and,
2. that God "created everything."
No revealed scripture states either of those -- you made them both up.
There is no revealed scripture that states "God is the creator of all that has been created." Also, there are things that were not created, so God is obviously not the creator of those anyway.
@snuju1 You have failed to provide evidence of any so-called "co-creator," and even if you did, it would be your responsibility to identify them, not mine, since the whole thing is your idea, which you made up.
@1GodOnlyOne No, it was probably someone else. Are you in any way familiar with the bible at all? Maybe take a cursery glance over Genesis, it's a good read. Well, where I am it's quite late, so I'll turn in. Merry Chistmas anyway(It's a Christian thing).
@1GodOnlyOne Nope, never spell check ever. God didn't create me, my sin or my suffering. God has no responsibilities. Exactly what game are we playing here? you assert things willy nilly, and I'm supposed to find evidence to the contrary? I'm just asking questions, and I have to say ,you aint doing so well with the answers.
@snuju1 Ok, three questions for you. 1. Is God the creator of the universe? That is to say; he created time and space and all things therein? 2. He created man. 3 Did he know man would sin before he created him. Yes or no answers will do.
@snuju1 Actually, you asserted things about God without evidence, and I denied them because you failed to provide evidence.
If you think that God created you, that makes you a creationist, but God's revealed scriptures do not state that he created you, so you are a church of one.
@snuju1 Mattew 5:22: 'whoever says 'You fool', shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell'. Let's hope 'Full throttle moron' doesn't count huh? Anyway, don't get sidetracked, those three questions hmm?
@snuju1 God has absolutely no responsibilities, and you have failed to provide evidence otherwise, so you lose.
No revealed scripture states that God "created everything." You made that up, and your own made-up fantasy only proves that you have an overly vivid imagination. it proves nothing at all about God.
@1GodOnlyOne Yes, you keep informing me that revealed scripture does not say God created everything. So what did he not create, and who created what he did not?
@snuju1 I already gave one example of something God didn't create -- himself. He has always existed, so he does not require to be created. Even if he were created, which he is not, but even if he were, it would be logically impossible for him to create himself.
No Theologian in history, and no revealed scripture on the planet, has ever stated that God created himself -- you just made that up.
I understand, you don't know even what are you talking about.You say that god is responsable of the "evils" novels (Hawkins, Steven King, Dawkins), but you forget that the TRUE evil is not god's fault, you are forgetting that Satan, in this case, is the one that infest the world with evil, in this case, Satan is the responsable of the novels that you say, in other words, you failed to provide the facs of why god is the "responsable" of those aberrations.
Contrast, good and evil are on this world, Is god responsable for Satan's actions?, or the humans are responsable of Satan's actions?, we are the ones that are temptated by the evil, by the ignorance (aka, atheism), by greed, and by many things, yes, we are god creation, but I think that it's a lil' lazy to ask god to do all for us, talking in a more philosophical way, if god mess up with us and broke up that contrast of good and evil, the laws of all the universe will be screwed, so...
Best answer ever, thanx for show the complete atheist ignorancein just one answer, I will sure go to bed, happy of not being an ignorant atheist that is uncapable of made better answer compared to this piece of shit that u give.
I have made no positive claim, this is getting ridiculous. Quit trying to put words in my mouth and attack positions I do not hold. Just take a minute to reflect on your own arguments and see if they hold water. Upon a little reflection I am confident you will see your own errors.
Even if God works evil deeds out for good, that does not imply that doing evil is something you "should" do. Having no evil at all > having evil but letting God bring good out of it.
I am not making a positive claim, you consistently make that mistake. I don't have to make any positive claims to recognize that you think if you are a theist it is logical to kill people based on an argument from ignorance.
"And if you believe that god will bring good out of evil, then you really SHOULD cause evil so that your god (or humans) will bring good out of it."
No offense, but that is a bad argument. There is no reason to think it is true.
That is a separate point entirely. This is your original claim: "If you believe that god will bring good out of evil, then you should follow that to its logical conclusion (namely, to cause evil and wait for god to bring good out of it)"
You skipped both of my objections, which you can go look at (posted 10 hours ago). Your new point is not good either. What certainty do you even have that killing children sends them to heaven?
You have yet to defend your original claim. You keep bringing up red herrings (speaking of stinky logic). I haven't read nor do I use Lee Strobel's arguments, so I don't see why you bring such things up other than to change the topic and avoid backing up your original claim or admitting it was incorrect.
You are not distancing yourself from your original claim. Granted, this new claim is not any more logical than the first.. but nothing about bringing up this new claim implies that your original statement "If you believe that god will bring good out of evil, then you should follow that to its logical conclusion" is true. Quite frankly, you should be able to see the flaws in your own arguments,and it is suspicious that you aren't addressing them after I point them out to you.
Her medical records. Are you just trolling me now? Nothing about appealing to a person with a mental illness makes your position any closer to being logical. I presented two reasons why your reasoning is flawed, and all you did to counter it was by pointing to the actions of a clinically depressed individual with psychosis.
1. Saying you should behave immorally = self-refuting.
2. If God did bring about a greater good from your actions, that doesn't mean you would be able to tell. We don't always get to see all the consequences that came about because of our actions, nor do all of those consequences play out in our lifetime.
Also, Andrea Yates had psychosis. Do you think appealing to the behavior of a person with psychosis makes your position look more logical?
You two have quite the steamy bromance budding here! ;0)
What the only thing that is evil is Lord Voldemort. Then it would logically follow that Harry Potter and his friends are the vanquishers of all evil. If this is the case, then they are the first movers in a causal chain free of any evil at all!
So, Harry Potter has opened a world where Kant, Rawls, Aristotle, and Plato can all blow it out their ass!
@crixanjel4 Although it may logically follow that Potter and his sheep followers vanquished He Who Must Not Be Named, it HARDLY follows that evil has been destroyed. There are multiple instantiations of evil through the form of social constructions which you have yet to take into account.
The fact that Potter allows capitalism to run rampant through the wizarding community reeks of evil. As long as wizards of the working class continue to be abused, evil is still there.
My thoughts, for what little they are worth, on your opinions on the logical problem of evil:
1: This seems to be subjective opinion to me - I didn't really see this argued for in a convincing way (though maybe thats because of time constraints.)
2: Okay
3: Same as #1
4: God doesn't have to force people's actions to prevent evil (murder, rape, etc.) from occurring. Stopping evil acts in no way infringes upon ones free will.
I still find the logical problem of evil convincing.
The logical problem of evil claims that God's omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and evil are logically contradictory. There is no explicit contradiction, and the free will defense merely points out a possible scenario in which they are not contradictory.
Stopping evil acts from occurring doesn't have to infringe upon people's for my counterargument to work.
@Epydemic2020 My point was that the free will defense does not provide a possible scenario in which those attributes are not contradictory. My key disagreement is your 4th point. If stopping evil acts from happening doesn't infringe upon free will, then the free will defense is entirely irrelevant to the problem of evil. If God was good, He would stop evil. Free will in a naturalistic world may allow for evil, but free will + existence of an omni God wouldn't.
You just push the question into different terms. The new question becomes "is a world where God intervenes to prevent people from acting on their will a good one, to what extent should he intervene, etc." At no point have you shown a logical contradiction between the attributes.
@Epydemic2020 I don't think I can respond under the 500 character limit without either making multiple posts or leaving important points out - maybe I'll send you a PM later. Have a good one :)
I made a vid on this when my channel was small, I need to make another one because this question comes up all the time.
There are 4 basic theories I have heard on this one, I will only explain my view.
First, we should notice the difference between free will, and moral free will. If you have a world in which you choose to love God + abhor evil or not (like earth) then you can forgo the ability to do evil in heaven (moral free will) and still experience chosen love.
There's something most christians forget to mention when adressing the problem of evil: the christian god is said to be all-knowing and omnibenevolent.
God has the option not to create beings that will cause evil, thus removing evil whilst not affecting the free will of those that remain. He knows which beings not to create.
God can attain the same result without the evil, as he is said to be all-powerful.
God creates unnecessary evil, so he cannot be all-good.
You can't only create beings who will use their free will in a way that you like. Will isn't free if it is literally impossible for people to will evil.
So, according to this, God creating free will would go against his all-good nature. Because an all-good being would not create evil, no matter the value of the good available afterwards. That's what a limited human being would do (hoping for the greater good). An all-powerful being would be able to reach the same level of good without the evil.
It is perfectly possible to will evil in such an environment. God simply doesn't create those that will rather than torturing them later.
Could an all-powerful creator create world with free will and without evil?
Omnipotence creates such paradox. He should basically be able to create anything, yet he doesn't seem to be able to create the above.
I already stated above how this all-knowing being could simply not create beings that would cause evil, and let the others exist and use their free will as they may. Free will stays whole, evil disappears.
It is logically impossible to create a world with "free" will, in which there is no possible scenario in which those beings could freely choose to do evil.
They could choose to do evil. In that scenario, those that would would simply not be created. Those that remain could have chosen to do evil, but God knows they will not.
Thus, no one is affected by evil because it is prevented. Yet no one is prevented from choosing evil over good.
Yahweh kills people at numerous occasions in the Bible because they're evil, while he could have just not created them (agreed, Noah's story would lose much of its interest, but eh?)
The arguments depicted do not really answer my point. In the example, God intervenes and stops people from thinking evil.
The argument used against w3 is that God should basically STOP evil and suffering. I don't think that. I think he simply should not have ALLOWED IT. Not creating creatures that would (not could, god knows who will) use their free will to cause evil doesn't remove the free will from the other creatures.
I was talking about the argument against w4, since you seem to be arguing for w4.
If you create beings with free will.. then they are responsible for their own actions. You cannot only create beings who use their will in accordance with your will and then call that free will.
Angels, adam and eve, ect bibically were not created with a sin nature. Anytime you create a "self" with free will, you allow for the possibility of evil. The responsibility falls on the individual how they will use this "free" will.
The responsibility falls upon the individual even though God knows what the being will do? Would you not blame the person that knew there was to be a murder, yet told no one and did not try to stop it?
The Bible, not me, claims, in genesis, that evil is in the heart of man from birth
He gives them free will, but knows what they will do with it. He can either choose to create them anyways (thus creating unnecessary evil) or not create them and only create the people that choose good
You cannot ensure that the people you create will use their free will in the way you desire and still have "free will". Even with foreknowledge, you cannot have free will and no possibly of evil. If the will is free, then evil is possible.
So God, surely knowing this, would not have gone against his natural omnibenevolence and created free will.
According to your above statement, you cannot create free will without creating evil. Therefore, anyone creating free will would be a direct cause of evil. It ends with God creating evil. While claiming to be all-good.
We can thus assume the free will we use (or think we use) did not come from an omnibevolent being.
Greater good is a human concept. An all-loving being could do this if it wasn't all-powerful.
All-good = No-Evil. Therefore, it it creates any form of evil, it goes against its nature.
Here's some math: Assume the greatness of good is compared to the evil it creates. The good will always be greater if it is infinitely more present than evil. The only way to attain this is if evil equals zero.
Interesting, I went the math route as well. I actually did a full video on it addressing a very similar claim. The vid is called "re re why did God create?"
/watch?v=HdxnReNKZPo
I basically argue that it you have no reason to assume that maximizing percentage of good is > than total amount of good.
That is a question I get a lot. I made a video about it when my channel was small, but I should make another soon.
There is at least 4 diff ways people answer this, but I will share the one think is correct. Moral free will allows for chosen love, but also allows for the possibility of evil. The way to get the best of both worlds is to have a precursor world (earth) where you choose love and forgo the ability to do evil in heaven. Giving you chosen love in heaven and no evil.
The angels would be an example of being with free will in heaven, and subsequently the ability to sin and fall (ie satan).
The greatest possible world would be one with no possibility of evil and with chosen love. I explained how that is possible if moral free will exists i an precursor world (earth) after which the ability to do evil becomes superfluous.
Couldn't God simply create a world without moral free will in the first place? Anyways, if not having moral free will can still cause the Fall, my idea that it will happen again is still valid.
If he is to remove the ability in the end, wouldn't it have been most merciful not to create a precursor world? I mean, God does have the ability to skip the first steps and go directly to the results, right? He doesn't NEED the precursor world.
Sure he could. However, a world that never had free will can never have chosen love.
"if not having moral free will can still cause the Fall, my idea that it will happen again is still valid."
That is why I argued moral free will is given up after we use our free will to achieve chosen love (or not) in the precursor world (earth). Once you obtain chosen love, moral free will becomes superfluous.
Suppose a person goes to Heaven, but is so good it cannot tolerate people being tortured forever for it to live in Heaven
Because it goes against God's will and loves evil, should that person Fall?
What you said above means that even without moral free will, people can still sin and fall
Imagine God dreams up this world, and then zaps out beings that do evil before creating it. Does that remove the free will of the people that are left? If it doesn't, then why did God create evil?
@Xgya2000 "Imagine God dreams up this world, and then zaps out beings that do evil before creating it. Does that remove the free will of the people that are left? If it doesn't, then why did God create evil?"
Hmmmm couldn't there be a "limited" free will. For example, people say the U.S. is a free country. However, there are preventative measures against killing, stealing, raping, etc. so it isn't exactly 100% free. Couldn't an omnipotent being create a universe in which beings have free will yet are incapable of doing evil because it is "physically" impossible (enforced by God)? Which is more moral in this sense: God or the U.S.? Should the U.S. not try to prevent evil?
It raises interesting questions. Like to what extent does God stop evil? (after all even what we judge as small sins separate us from a sinless God aka give us hell). So the question instead becomes, "does God miraculously intervening all the time produce a better world?
Well, is God always intervening in heaven? Forgive my ignorance, but is there no way to sin in heaven? If sin is impossible in heaven, how is that any different from what I proposed? If sin is possible, why is heaven better (putatively) than this existence?
There is about 4 theories on that. Ill share my perspective, but its not the only option available.
I'd say free will exists because chosen love requires free will a prerequisite (but it also allows for the possibility of evil). The best world would be one with chosen love and no evil (aka heaven) but that is only possible with a precursor world where moral choice is available (earth) after which moral free will becomes superfluous.
That is kind of ambiguous. Free ticket to heaven? purgatory? other? I don't think we can be certain. The Bible doesn't tell us that one and that doesn't seem to be something we can figure out from logic alone. I think some guesses are more probable than others, but they all seem to boil down to arguments from ignorance.
@Epydemic2020 Quite a lot :). Tell me, why do you come out of hiding to address this but none of my other comments? I can't help but notice how you still haven't answered any of my question nor address this person's question.... Hmm but I suppose I shouldn’t antagonize you, I just found it curious.
I remember responding to a ton of your comments. On what video do you think there are unanswered questions?
How can you even say that I haven't answered any of your questions with a straight face? Blatant lies like that show me that holding a conversation with you is pointless. What incentive do I then have to answer your questions? I am down for a reasonable discussion, but I am not a big fan of wasting my time.
@Epydemic2020 No... You simply gave me a "free will" argument (which I refuted) then told me to check out more of your videos. You did not once answer in full how an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent deity is not a contradiction. Then you simply ignored me while I carried on the conversation with MerlinYoda it was only until I commented on @Xgya2000 did you finally decide to come back. Which I find curious. Telling my your opinion doesn't make a question disappear.
I don't have to explain to you why something is not a contradiction. If i do so, that is all fine and well, but the burden of proof falls on the person making the positve claim, and you are claiming that there is a contradiction. Obviously this contradiction is not explicit, and you have no reason to think the three variables are "logically contradictory".
I don't think you refuted the free will argument anyway.
I don't make a habit of butting into other people's conversations.
@Epydemic2020 It was OUR conversation to begin with! But I digress. I agree, the person making a positive statement must provide evidence of what they are saying. Which I have already done. You can't just ignore what I say then come back weeks later saying that I've done nothing. Good day.
Interesting, you seem to be addressing a logical fallacy. Saying that evil exists in the world doesn't disprove or prove any deity. However, an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent deity cannot exist based on the world that we have. However you can try and defend a deity has two of these traits, but not all three. Care to guess why? Because it's a contradiction :)
"Because it's a contradiction" You seem to just ignore that this entire video is presenting arguments that show it is not a contradiction. Instead of addressing my arguments or putting forward your own arguments, you just asserted the opposite conclusion.
So what you’re saying is your deity isn't omnipotent? And again with the free will, it ignores the victims. Your argument also doesn’t make sense, if our government enforces law, and prevents people from doing crimes (not everyone obviously) have we lost our free will? You're essentially saying that your god is powerless to stop evil. Like I said before, get a dictionary. You claim that emotions are superior, why? Is it because we have them already and you need to justify your deity?
Morality is composed of actions plus intentions, clearly to some extent actions are necessary.
Perhaps you mean to argue that God would not allow the extent of evil actions in the world, or that God would intervene and stop evil actions without stopping free will. It just so happens, that argument is addressed in this video.
"You claim that motions are superior"
When? If you got that from my vid I think you misunderstood my point.
1:51 Love is an emotion. Your video does not address my question. That is why I left a comment. Your video does not present "arguments that show it is not a contradiction" again, because free will ignores the victims. So I ask you again, how does free will clear up your deity to be an all loving one with the world that we have? Explain to me why your deity isn’t malevolent.
Omnipotence doesn't include the ability to do logically contradictory things just like omnivores are not expected to be capable of eating concepts.
"free will ignores the victims". Not really seeing as the victims have this same free will. Free will has negative consequences for all individuals, but it also has positive effects. Since there is no contradiction between benevolence and a world with suffering, I do not conclude God is malevolent. That's an extra assumption.
@Epydemic2020 Omnipotent: having unlimited power. Which in itself is a contradiction.
9/11, two people made a choice to kill roughly 3000+ people. Tell me, what were the choices of those 3000+ people? I did not say benevolence and suffering couldn't exist together, I said an Omnibenevolent Omniscient and Omnipotent deity is a contradiction. You're taking my statement out of context.
If multiple individuals have free will, they can use their free will in ways which will impact other people. You are claiming there is an implicit contradiction between omnibenevolence, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipotence and evil events but this is not the case. At best, you can only argue that you don't understand why God would allow such things to happen. There is no logical contradiction between those items.
@Epydemic2020 Omnipotence contradicts itself. Can an omnipotent being make a rock so big it couldn't lift it? You didn't answer my question on free will. Benevolence literally means "showing kindness" by definition your deity isn't benevolent. Thus he isn't omnibenevolent. And he isn't omnipotent because that is also a contradiction. At best I can argue that your deity doesn't exist, not that he allows "such things to happen" if he was benevolent, we could observe it by definition.
omnipotence only seems to contradict itself if you use it in a funny way. You seem to with that omnipotence be defined as the ability to do the logically contradictory. If you do so, any discussion about God being logically contradictory is now ironic because it wouldn't matter.
However, the standard use of the term is "God can do everything but the logically contradictory".
The idea that we exists is an example of God showing kindness. Your argument pertained to why God would allow us to inflict suffering/death on each other, as if it was logically contradictory for God to allow such things. There is clearly not explicit contradiction there.
@Epydemic2020 How is your deity showing kindness simply allowing us to exist? Does an abusive parent not allow their child to exist? Is this kindness? No the contradiction comes from the definition of words that you're using. No the standard term is not "God can do everything but the logically contradictory" the term Christians use is "God can do everything". You remind me of Humpty Dumpty with your use of wordplay.
I am not exactly discussing new terms here. The debate about "omnipotence" and what it means in a Christian context took place hundreds of years ago.
Perhaps you would prefer if a fellow atheist explained it to you. An atheistic youtuber named "knownnomore" did a great video summarizing the moral argument and omnipotence paradox recently.
@Epydemic2020 Ok you're not getting it. I'm not interested in people's personal connotations. I don't care what your "Christian" definition is do you know why? Because you still have yet to show me any evidence of anything you say. If you did I would get very interested very fast. Be definition your deity is evil (morally objectionable behavior). Evidence? He condones, rape, genocide, murder, infacide, slavery, etc. in the bible. Once again, you are like Humpty Dumpty.
If you critique a different definition, then every objection you make will misrepresent my position.
I have presented evidence for my beliefs, such as my nearly comprehensive series on the moral argument for God's existence.
You cannot judge the morality of an event by only lookin at actions and not intentions. Your perception of the Bible looks like it came straight from skepticsannotated bible or something.
@Epydemic2020 How exactly do you know the bible's "intentions", it's a book. And bringing up "You cannot judge the morality of an event by only looking at actions and not intentions" doesn't help anything, because until you can demonstrate that you know your deity's intentions, you can only judge his actions. Why do you hold on to your personal definitions (assuming he has them)? Is it because the actually definitions don't describe the character of your deity?
Of course the book doesn't have intentions, the book merely documents actions + intentions. Motivation/intentions are usually explicitly stated or evident from the context. Rarely do you have to rely completely on inference or be unable to know what the intentions where.
@Epydemic2020 Which you read from a book, written by people. Once again, you can't observe your deity's intentions. What is it with you and dodging questions anyway? I’ve watched one of your videos, then you sent me to several others and I watched them as well. You have yet to demonstrate that Epicurus was wrong.
The Christian God is discussed in the Bible. If you want access to the Christian God's intentions, the Bible is a good place to look. I didn't expect that claim to be controversial.
I am not dodging your questions, I just happen to have made videos on these subjects. Epicurus' statement "therefore God is malevolent" is a radical assumption and an argument from ignorance.
@Epydemic2020 How is Epicurus' argument an assumption from ignorance? He is simply calling out a contradiction. For the sake of argument, let's say Omnipotence is not a contradiction, and you claim that your deity is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. This is a contradiction given the world that we have today. 2 Samuel 12:11 is just one example that your deity is not kind. You have been brainwashed into thinking that he is by your church or whomever.
It is not an "assumption from ignorance" it is an "argument from ignorance" which is a type of fallacy. Epicurus does not know the intentions God has for allowing certain actions, and in spite his lack of knowing he makes a claim as if He did know with certainty. Thus, he is making an argument from ignorance.
Again with the humpty dumpty, he's not making an argument from ignorance. He's pointing out a contradiction. However I am the one calling you out to answer how your deity is all knowing, all powerful, and all good given the world we live in. Which you have yet to answer. You only lead me to more of your videos that raise more questions. Just answer the question. If your answer is “free will” I will eviscerate it.
@shadywolf91 Omnipotent does not mean "unlimited power" but "all powerful", something that has the ability to do anything. However that, "anything" also has to be logically possible. For instance, an omnipotent being could not make a necessarily false statement (like 0 = 1) be true as that is a logical impossibility.
@MerlinYoda Omnipotent- having unlimited power, wordnetweb princeton edu/perl/webwn; freedictionary com; merriam-webster com. Care to try again? Yahweh is not omnipotent because it is logically impossible. So now I ask you what I've been asking him this whole time (which he has yet to answer). How can Yahweh be Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent? It was addressed by Epicurus 2200 years ago and has yet to be answered by any theist.
I literally addressed that argument in 10 different ways during this video.
First you show that there is no explicit logical contradiction between evil existing as well as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent deity. Then I presented 9 additional arguments towards the evidential problem of evil.
If you don't think epicurus has been answered, then you clearly have not read modern theistic or even atheistic philosophers.
@shadywolf91 if you had bothered to actually check the etymology for a better understand how "unlimited" is meant, then you might understand better that even "unlimited power" doesn't mean "can do anything I can meaningfully describe in words" (e.g. "create a rock so heavy He can't lift it") but rather anything which is logically possible (prior example is not).Omnipotent, from the Latin omnipotent (stem of omnipotēns ), equivalent to omni- (all) + potent- (powerful, mighty, persuasive)
@MerlinYoda Too bad you don't seem to understand that etymology doesn't define a word. It only explains where it comes from. Unlimited means, without limits. Literally. So for your deity to be unlimited (key word), he has to be able to create a rock so big, he can't lift it. Which is a contradiction. Again, get a dictionary. Don't be like Humpty Dumpty. Omnipotence means unlimited power, etymology can’t help you here.
@shadywolf91 If you wanna go down that road, then "unlimited" is basically a meaningless term as there are limits to pretty much everything (if not everything) that is able to be defined. However, one may legitimately say that numbers are "unlimited" in that as there is no finite set of them, but, on the other hand, a rock is not a number so there is a limit on what can *be* an number but there is no limit on the *quantity* of numbers available. Similar reason why "God/rock" is not a "power".
@MerlinYoda What does this have to do with a deity being omnipotent? Furthermore what does this have to do with the problem of evil? I told Humpty Dumpty here that a deity cannot be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent with the world that we have. So no deity under this category can logically exist and because of that I can say that his deity doesn't exist.
@shadywolf91 It has to do with "omnipotent" because if you define it rigidly as "unlimited power" and put undue focus on the "unlimited" part (basically strawman-ing the argument) and have such narrow definition of the term to mean "without *any* limits" then the word becomes just as meaningless in other everyday uses because, as I put forth in my example, even though the set of numbers is said to be "unlimited" it is still "limited" to those things that are numbers (cont. in pt 2).
@MerlinYoda Then I address that Omnipotence is already a contradiction within itself by definition. I’m sorry if you think that’s a straw man (which it isn’t), but you can’t just change the definitions of words to “prove your point” Here, I’ll give you a similar example that I gave him as to why this argument doesn’t work.
@shadywolf91 (part 2) In that same context, just as the set of numbers are limited to those things that are rationally called numbers the set of "powers" (i.e. abilities) one can have is limited to what is logically possible. Creating a rock so heavy that even an omnipotent being cannot lift from it's location it an outright logical contradiction as much as X == Y and X != Y being both true. Using such a contradiction to prove the existence/non-existence of such a deity is a non-starter.
@MerlinYoda You misunderstand, I'm not trying to prove/disprove a creator. What I was arguing with Humpty Dumpty about is that his deity cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. And I said he already isn't omnibenevolent because of all of the horrible atrocities in the bible. Most likely what happened is he was continuously told "God is good" when he was a child, then found out god isn't good so he tried changing the definition of good.
@MerlinYoda I am God, and by God I mean any sentient being capable of creating something. Tell me why I should think this other God is good, I’ve never destroyed any of my creations. I take care of what’s mine. So tell me my fellow God, why is this other God good? He destroys what’s his like a little child. What does his diaper need to be changed? He should stop acting like a spoiled brat and grow into a more mature God like myself.
@shadywolf91 What is "good" (w.r.t. omnibenevolence) doesn't mean necessarily what is seems desirable to us. Meeting with an undesirable short-term circumstance could have a better long-term gain then if one had not had that experience in the first place. God is usually also described as eternal so if we take that into account then such a God would have a much larger frame of reference than we to to determine the "most good" course even if it doesn't appear good from our limited reference.
@MerlinYoda I like this response, it shows me you're thinking. However I still disagree ( even though I can see your point), because there are observable universal morals. For example, protecting children (not just yours) from outsiders. That and if we go by the Golden Rule (treat others like you would want to be treated) then no, almost any deity is an ass. "Allowing" others to commit genocide is deemed bad according to this principle. Same goes with slavery and indoctrinization.
@shadywolf91 Sorry for delay, but glad you noticed my thinking ;-). I can see how the Golden Rule is tempting to apply here, but if we take it literally (and personify God a little more than I would) then if God didn't want anyone meddling in his "daily" affairs (assuming they could) despite intentions, then God, on principle, wouldn't meddle in ours ... even if doing so would seem to have some immediate and apparent good. Although, this is a bit less apparent w.r.t natural disasters.
I finally finished my response to this video haha :)
Check it out here: /watch?v=lEvXj23gTwM
TeamAwesomePanda 2 months ago
This is a great video -- thanks for uploading!
I would like to point out that, in order for the "problem of evil" argument to fly, the atheist would first need to provide some evidence for the supposed existence of his "evil."
Fortunately, the atheist has failed to do so, so even if the argument were valid, which it is not, the fact that there is no proof or evidence for one of its premises (ie, "evil" supposedly exists) breaks the argument's neck at the starting gate.
Merry Christmas!
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
Nice video Epy (although I can see you getting some pretty harsh criticisms for your attempts to refute the evidential problem of evil, but I know what you mean). I'm not convinced for a few main reasons though. I don't believe in free will (well I redefine the word because I think the standard formulation of free will is meaningless, but same thing really). I don't buy that human existence has a purpose. I just don't buy that this is a minimally evil universe. The last one is subjective though.
nanoduckling 2 months ago
@nanoduckling May I ask how you came to the conclusion that free will somehow doesn't exist? Is there some unspoken argument leading to that conclusion? Is there some evidence for it?
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Sure but I don't want to derail Epy's thread so if this goes on to long we should move it to PM. I consider determinism to be the statement 'natural science always works'. With determinism the only way to have free will is if there is some extra universal soul, or at least some kind of substance dualism. All forms of substance dualism I have encountered are incoherent, ergo I do not believe in free will. No evidence, it isn't the kind of thing I think you can test empirically.
nanoduckling 2 months ago
Love isn't freely chosen matter of fact we know that biology has much to do with what we love. You do not choose what you like to eat, colors that are pleasing to you, sounds you like to hear and smells that are appealing, so what about forcing yourself to love a being on the threat of eternal torture or gain of eternal reward is free.
Hexdoll 2 months ago
@Hexdoll
You seem to view heaven and hell as positive punishment/reward. I do not. Do you think it would be coersion if I said "you can freely touch the stove and burn your hand, or you can refrain from doing so and go unburned"?
Epydemic2020 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Epydemic2020 'Do you think it would be coersion if I said "you can freely touch the stove and burn your hand, or you can refrain from doing so and go unburned"'
If *you* authored the laws of physics? Most definitely.
My fundamental problem with theists is that you *never* seem willing to *even-handedly* accept all the conceptual constraints and logical implications of such analogies. (Though in your case I hesitate to say this so bluntly.)
polymath7 2 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Excellent point!
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Epydemic2020
So let me get this analogy straight.....you can freely "not love god" and burn your hand, or you can love god and go unburned? and you don't think this is coercion, considering god set up the system?
But my point was it is more sinister than that, it is by design people will fail gods tests. Unless his omniscience is limited to the the past and present.
Hexdoll 2 months ago
I love most of your videos,but I must disagree here,man's will isn't free.Human philosophy asserts free will. . PV 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.
Proverbs 20:24 A man's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way?
Jeremiah 10:23 I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps.
Pv.21:1The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.
CBALLEN 7 months ago
aw, d'you know, all theodicies are irrelevent once you posit an omnipotent omnibevolent , omnicient creator. The creator is\ the Auther of all, so is responsible for all. Please stop saying an all powerful being 'allows' evil. do you need me to go on? cos i shouldn't need to
snuju1 9 months ago
@snuju1 Actually, God has no responsibilities whatsoever.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne 'Actually, God has no responsibilities whatsoever'. So you believe the author of everything is responsible for nothing? fair enough, but you must realise this being is immoral.
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1 I did not mention any so-called "author of everything," so your post is nothing but a strawman.
I was talking about God, and my post stands unchallenged: God has no responsibilities whatsoever, and you have failed to provide any evidence otherwise, so you lose.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Ok sorry, God is what i'm talking about. God is indeed the author of everything isn't he? Is God therefore responsible for evil. That is to say, evil is here because of God. Maybe you think humanity brought about evil. That would make us co-creators..
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1 No, God didn't write Stephen King's novels, so no, he is not the author of everything. Are you really that stupid? You think God wrote Stephen King's novels?
God has no responsibilities of any kind, and you have failed to provide evidence otherwise, so you lose.
You have also failed to provide evidence for the supposed existence of anything called "evil," so you lose doubly.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Hmm, Steven King novels. No indeed. Ok, you're not happy with the terminology. 'Creator', are you happy with 'God is the creator of everything'? The creator of everything must be responible for everything. How about that. Or has someone else had a hand in creation? Also, I'm not combatting you, I'm exploring the argument, and there's no need to be abusive.
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1 No revealed scripture on the planet states God could somehow be the "creator" of everything. For example: God has always existed, so he did not "create" himself.
Why do you keep making things up about God?
Many people have created things. You created the text in the above post, for example. I have not been abusive -- I have been abundantly patient with your ignorance.
Again, God has no responsibilities, and you have failed to provide evidence otherwise, so you lose.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne I'm not making things up. Theologans did that job for me. God is the creator of all that has been created (You'll have to do the theological reading for opinions about God's own origins and existence). So what is he not responible for? You say he is resposible for nothing, but he created everything (Im not getting into how he came about) in creation. Maybe you're not though. Maybe you could list some things he didn't create.
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1 Yes, you are making things up. You made up the following:
1. that God is the "author of everything," and,
2. that God "created everything."
No revealed scripture states either of those -- you made them both up.
There is no revealed scripture that states "God is the creator of all that has been created." Also, there are things that were not created, so God is obviously not the creator of those anyway.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Right, so who is or are the co-creator/s? Interesting, cos it sounds like you have a theology all of your own.
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1 You have failed to provide evidence of any so-called "co-creator," and even if you did, it would be your responsibility to identify them, not mine, since the whole thing is your idea, which you made up.
Theology is not mine -- it is God's.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Ok Ok, What in creation did God not create????
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1 Your sin.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Ok, my sin. Did he know I woyuld sin before he created me?
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1 You have failed to provide evidence for your personal belief that God could have somehow "created" you.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne God didn't create me?
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1 No revealed scripture states that God created you.
Do you posit the personal belief that God did create you?
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne No, it was probably someone else. Are you in any way familiar with the bible at all? Maybe take a cursery glance over Genesis, it's a good read. Well, where I am it's quite late, so I'll turn in. Merry Chistmas anyway(It's a Christian thing).
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1 "Cursory" would be the correct spelling.
Spell-check much?
Genesis does not state that God created you.
Why do you posit the personal belief that he did?
You created your own sin, and God is not responsible for your sin, nor is he responsible for your suffering. You are responsible for your suffering.
In reality, God has no responsibilities whatsoever, and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary, so you lose.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Nope, never spell check ever. God didn't create me, my sin or my suffering. God has no responsibilities. Exactly what game are we playing here? you assert things willy nilly, and I'm supposed to find evidence to the contrary? I'm just asking questions, and I have to say ,you aint doing so well with the answers.
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1 Ok, three questions for you. 1. Is God the creator of the universe? That is to say; he created time and space and all things therein? 2. He created man. 3 Did he know man would sin before he created him. Yes or no answers will do.
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1 Actually, you asserted things about God without evidence, and I denied them because you failed to provide evidence.
If you think that God created you, that makes you a creationist, but God's revealed scriptures do not state that he created you, so you are a church of one.
You are a full-throttle moron.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Please indulge a full throttle moron and answer those three simple questions.
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1 Mattew 5:22: 'whoever says 'You fool', shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell'. Let's hope 'Full throttle moron' doesn't count huh? Anyway, don't get sidetracked, those three questions hmm?
snuju1 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Y'know, I thought we were getting on so well. Don't you have any answers for me? C'moon, It's been a week.
snuju1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snuju1 "Cursory" would be the correct spelling.
Spell-check much?
Genesis does not state that God created you.
Why do you posit the personal belief that he did?
You created your own sin, and God is not responsible for your sin, nor is he responsible for your suffering. You are responsible for your suffering.
In reality, God has no responsibilities whatsoever, and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary, so you lose.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snuju1 "Cursory" would be the correct spelling.
Spell-check much?
Genesis does not state that God created you.
Why do you posit the personal belief that he did?
You created your own sin, and God is not responsible for your sin, nor is he responsible for your suffering. You are responsible for your suffering.
In reality, God has no responsibilities whatsoever, and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary, so you lose.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@snuju1 God has absolutely no responsibilities, and you have failed to provide evidence otherwise, so you lose.
No revealed scripture states that God "created everything." You made that up, and your own made-up fantasy only proves that you have an overly vivid imagination. it proves nothing at all about God.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Yes, you keep informing me that revealed scripture does not say God created everything. So what did he not create, and who created what he did not?
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1 God was never created, since he has always existed.
You are stupid enough to ask "Who created that which was not created," but I'm not stupid enough to answer it.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne No I'm not. Dear me. I'm getting tired. Are you saying God did not create all things in creation?
snuju1 2 months ago
Comment removed
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snuju1 I thought you started out tired.
I did not state that, no. To see what I actually stated, scroll up.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@snuju1 I already gave one example of something God didn't create -- himself. He has always existed, so he does not require to be created. Even if he were created, which he is not, but even if he were, it would be logically impossible for him to create himself.
No Theologian in history, and no revealed scripture on the planet, has ever stated that God created himself -- you just made that up.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@snuju1 You have also failed to provide evidence of any Theologian ever making anything up, so you lose again and again, right down the line.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@snuju1
You are forgotten that Satan hate god so bad that make idiots like Hawking or Dawkins?.
You are a real funny guy.
ForceOfLight 2 months ago
@ForceOfLight Thank you. What is your point?
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1
I understand, you don't know even what are you talking about.You say that god is responsable of the "evils" novels (Hawkins, Steven King, Dawkins), but you forget that the TRUE evil is not god's fault, you are forgetting that Satan, in this case, is the one that infest the world with evil, in this case, Satan is the responsable of the novels that you say, in other words, you failed to provide the facs of why god is the "responsable" of those aberrations.
ForceOfLight 2 months ago
@ForceOfLight What can God NOT be responsible for in the realm of his creation?
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1
Contrast, good and evil are on this world, Is god responsable for Satan's actions?, or the humans are responsable of Satan's actions?, we are the ones that are temptated by the evil, by the ignorance (aka, atheism), by greed, and by many things, yes, we are god creation, but I think that it's a lil' lazy to ask god to do all for us, talking in a more philosophical way, if god mess up with us and broke up that contrast of good and evil, the laws of all the universe will be screwed, so...
ForceOfLight 2 months ago
@ForceOfLight Go to bed.
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1
Best answer ever, thanx for show the complete atheist ignorancein just one answer, I will sure go to bed, happy of not being an ignorant atheist that is uncapable of made better answer compared to this piece of shit that u give.
ForceOfLight 2 months ago
@ForceOfLight I'm not an atheist. Sleep tight.
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1
My god, then what kind of wierd thing are you?
ForceOfLight 2 months ago
@ForceOfLight Well, I promise niot to haunt your dreams. Night night.
snuju1 2 months ago
@snuju1
Excuse me?, is this a reasonable response? or just a mix of words to make a crappy post
ForceOfLight 2 months ago
@FujiwaraNoGo
I have made no positive claim, this is getting ridiculous. Quit trying to put words in my mouth and attack positions I do not hold. Just take a minute to reflect on your own arguments and see if they hold water. Upon a little reflection I am confident you will see your own errors.
Even if God works evil deeds out for good, that does not imply that doing evil is something you "should" do. Having no evil at all > having evil but letting God bring good out of it.
Epydemic2020 9 months ago
@FujiwaraNoGo
I am not making a positive claim, you consistently make that mistake. I don't have to make any positive claims to recognize that you think if you are a theist it is logical to kill people based on an argument from ignorance.
"And if you believe that god will bring good out of evil, then you really SHOULD cause evil so that your god (or humans) will bring good out of it."
No offense, but that is a bad argument. There is no reason to think it is true.
Epydemic2020 9 months ago
@FujiwaraNoGo
That is a separate point entirely. This is your original claim: "If you believe that god will bring good out of evil, then you should follow that to its logical conclusion (namely, to cause evil and wait for god to bring good out of it)"
You skipped both of my objections, which you can go look at (posted 10 hours ago). Your new point is not good either. What certainty do you even have that killing children sends them to heaven?
Epydemic2020 9 months ago
@FujiwaraNoGo
You have yet to defend your original claim. You keep bringing up red herrings (speaking of stinky logic). I haven't read nor do I use Lee Strobel's arguments, so I don't see why you bring such things up other than to change the topic and avoid backing up your original claim or admitting it was incorrect.
Epydemic2020 9 months ago
@FujiwaraNoGo
You are not distancing yourself from your original claim. Granted, this new claim is not any more logical than the first.. but nothing about bringing up this new claim implies that your original statement "If you believe that god will bring good out of evil, then you should follow that to its logical conclusion" is true. Quite frankly, you should be able to see the flaws in your own arguments,and it is suspicious that you aren't addressing them after I point them out to you.
Epydemic2020 9 months ago
@FujiwaraNoGo
"How do you know she had psychosis"
Her medical records. Are you just trolling me now? Nothing about appealing to a person with a mental illness makes your position any closer to being logical. I presented two reasons why your reasoning is flawed, and all you did to counter it was by pointing to the actions of a clinically depressed individual with psychosis.
Epydemic2020 9 months ago
@FujiwaraNoGo
That is not good use of logic.
1. Saying you should behave immorally = self-refuting.
2. If God did bring about a greater good from your actions, that doesn't mean you would be able to tell. We don't always get to see all the consequences that came about because of our actions, nor do all of those consequences play out in our lifetime.
Also, Andrea Yates had psychosis. Do you think appealing to the behavior of a person with psychosis makes your position look more logical?
Epydemic2020 9 months ago
@FujiwaraNoGo
lol. I just hope that was a joke.
Epydemic2020 9 months ago
You two have quite the steamy bromance budding here! ;0)
What the only thing that is evil is Lord Voldemort. Then it would logically follow that Harry Potter and his friends are the vanquishers of all evil. If this is the case, then they are the first movers in a causal chain free of any evil at all!
So, Harry Potter has opened a world where Kant, Rawls, Aristotle, and Plato can all blow it out their ass!
crixanjel4 9 months ago
@crixanjel4 Although it may logically follow that Potter and his sheep followers vanquished He Who Must Not Be Named, it HARDLY follows that evil has been destroyed. There are multiple instantiations of evil through the form of social constructions which you have yet to take into account.
The fact that Potter allows capitalism to run rampant through the wizarding community reeks of evil. As long as wizards of the working class continue to be abused, evil is still there.
haytallfitlyer17 9 months ago
My thoughts, for what little they are worth, on your opinions on the logical problem of evil:
1: This seems to be subjective opinion to me - I didn't really see this argued for in a convincing way (though maybe thats because of time constraints.)
2: Okay
3: Same as #1
4: God doesn't have to force people's actions to prevent evil (murder, rape, etc.) from occurring. Stopping evil acts in no way infringes upon ones free will.
I still find the logical problem of evil convincing.
Take care! :)
redsaint182 10 months ago 3
@redsaint182
The logical problem of evil claims that God's omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and evil are logically contradictory. There is no explicit contradiction, and the free will defense merely points out a possible scenario in which they are not contradictory.
Stopping evil acts from occurring doesn't have to infringe upon people's for my counterargument to work.
Epydemic2020 10 months ago
@Epydemic2020 My point was that the free will defense does not provide a possible scenario in which those attributes are not contradictory. My key disagreement is your 4th point. If stopping evil acts from happening doesn't infringe upon free will, then the free will defense is entirely irrelevant to the problem of evil. If God was good, He would stop evil. Free will in a naturalistic world may allow for evil, but free will + existence of an omni God wouldn't.
Thanks, take care!
redsaint182 10 months ago
@redsaint182
You just push the question into different terms. The new question becomes "is a world where God intervenes to prevent people from acting on their will a good one, to what extent should he intervene, etc." At no point have you shown a logical contradiction between the attributes.
Epydemic2020 10 months ago
@Epydemic2020 I don't think I can respond under the 500 character limit without either making multiple posts or leaving important points out - maybe I'll send you a PM later. Have a good one :)
redsaint182 10 months ago
Question, on the assertion that evil is the product of free will.
Is there evil in heaven? If not, how could there be free will?
Akerfeldtfan 11 months ago
@Akerfeldtfan
I made a vid on this when my channel was small, I need to make another one because this question comes up all the time.
There are 4 basic theories I have heard on this one, I will only explain my view.
First, we should notice the difference between free will, and moral free will. If you have a world in which you choose to love God + abhor evil or not (like earth) then you can forgo the ability to do evil in heaven (moral free will) and still experience chosen love.
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
There's something most christians forget to mention when adressing the problem of evil: the christian god is said to be all-knowing and omnibenevolent.
God has the option not to create beings that will cause evil, thus removing evil whilst not affecting the free will of those that remain. He knows which beings not to create.
God can attain the same result without the evil, as he is said to be all-powerful.
God creates unnecessary evil, so he cannot be all-good.
Xgya2000 11 months ago
@Xgya2000
You can't only create beings who will use their free will in a way that you like. Will isn't free if it is literally impossible for people to will evil.
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020
So, according to this, God creating free will would go against his all-good nature. Because an all-good being would not create evil, no matter the value of the good available afterwards. That's what a limited human being would do (hoping for the greater good). An all-powerful being would be able to reach the same level of good without the evil.
It is perfectly possible to will evil in such an environment. God simply doesn't create those that will rather than torturing them later.
Xgya2000 11 months ago
@Xgya2000
"Because an all-good being would not create evil, no matter the value of the good available afterwards."
That doesn't follow.
"An all-powerful being would be able to reach the same level of good without the evil."
Unless preventing evil creates a logical contradiction... such as requiring "forced free will".
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020
The underlying question is as follows:
Could an all-powerful creator create world with free will and without evil?
Omnipotence creates such paradox. He should basically be able to create anything, yet he doesn't seem to be able to create the above.
I already stated above how this all-knowing being could simply not create beings that would cause evil, and let the others exist and use their free will as they may. Free will stays whole, evil disappears.
Xgya2000 11 months ago
@Xgya2000
It is logically impossible to create a world with "free" will, in which there is no possible scenario in which those beings could freely choose to do evil.
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020
They could choose to do evil. In that scenario, those that would would simply not be created. Those that remain could have chosen to do evil, but God knows they will not.
Thus, no one is affected by evil because it is prevented. Yet no one is prevented from choosing evil over good.
Yahweh kills people at numerous occasions in the Bible because they're evil, while he could have just not created them (agreed, Noah's story would lose much of its interest, but eh?)
Xgya2000 11 months ago
@Xgya2000
Alvin plantiga addresses your objection at length on the internet encyclopedia of philosophy. You should check it out.
ww w . iep . utm . edu/evil-log/
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020
The arguments depicted do not really answer my point. In the example, God intervenes and stops people from thinking evil.
The argument used against w3 is that God should basically STOP evil and suffering. I don't think that. I think he simply should not have ALLOWED IT. Not creating creatures that would (not could, god knows who will) use their free will to cause evil doesn't remove the free will from the other creatures.
Good article though.
Xgya2000 11 months ago
@Xgya2000
I was talking about the argument against w4, since you seem to be arguing for w4.
If you create beings with free will.. then they are responsible for their own actions. You cannot only create beings who use their will in accordance with your will and then call that free will.
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020
There is no true argument against W4. It's perfectly logical, if everyone that exists would choose good.
They will act in accordance to the nature you give them.
God himself, in the Bible, says that man is evil at its core. Doesn't the fact he creates a base go against free will?
He has the option of not creating such beings, or cause torment to other beings and end up torturing the first forever
Even though he creates only beings that act according to His will, they still choose
Xgya2000 11 months ago
@Xgya2000
Angels, adam and eve, ect bibically were not created with a sin nature. Anytime you create a "self" with free will, you allow for the possibility of evil. The responsibility falls on the individual how they will use this "free" will.
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020
The responsibility falls upon the individual even though God knows what the being will do? Would you not blame the person that knew there was to be a murder, yet told no one and did not try to stop it?
The Bible, not me, claims, in genesis, that evil is in the heart of man from birth
He gives them free will, but knows what they will do with it. He can either choose to create them anyways (thus creating unnecessary evil) or not create them and only create the people that choose good
Xgya2000 11 months ago
@Xgya2000
You cannot ensure that the people you create will use their free will in the way you desire and still have "free will". Even with foreknowledge, you cannot have free will and no possibly of evil. If the will is free, then evil is possible.
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020
So God, surely knowing this, would not have gone against his natural omnibenevolence and created free will.
According to your above statement, you cannot create free will without creating evil. Therefore, anyone creating free will would be a direct cause of evil. It ends with God creating evil. While claiming to be all-good.
We can thus assume the free will we use (or think we use) did not come from an omnibevolent being.
Xgya2000 11 months ago
@Xgya2000
Free will allows for a greater good of chosen love. That is consistent with what an all loving/all good being would create.
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Greater good is a human concept. An all-loving being could do this if it wasn't all-powerful.
All-good = No-Evil. Therefore, it it creates any form of evil, it goes against its nature.
Here's some math: Assume the greatness of good is compared to the evil it creates. The good will always be greater if it is infinitely more present than evil. The only way to attain this is if evil equals zero.
Xgya2000 11 months ago
@Xgya2000
Interesting, I went the math route as well. I actually did a full video on it addressing a very similar claim. The vid is called "re re why did God create?"
/watch?v=HdxnReNKZPo
I basically argue that it you have no reason to assume that maximizing percentage of good is > than total amount of good.
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Here's another question, asking about your other video:
You think the Fall happened, right? Then, you also think free will caused the Fall?
If so, do people have free will in Heaven? Does that mean that some of those Fall even nowadays and nobody is in Heaven forever?
Some people think Eden was actually on this planet. Is that your case?
If people Fall in Heaven, does that mean there might be multiple Heavens? Multiple Earths?
Xgya2000 11 months ago
@Xgya2000
That is a question I get a lot. I made a video about it when my channel was small, but I should make another soon.
There is at least 4 diff ways people answer this, but I will share the one think is correct. Moral free will allows for chosen love, but also allows for the possibility of evil. The way to get the best of both worlds is to have a precursor world (earth) where you choose love and forgo the ability to do evil in heaven. Giving you chosen love in heaven and no evil.
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020
So, Heaven is full of people that do not have free will. Because they make a promise they cannot break.
God could have created only people like he accepts into Heaven, and kept it that way.
But didn't.
The Bible accepts Heaven as a perfect place. God found out the only way was to rid it of free will.
Which means he knew free will was a mistake, but still went on with it.
Xgya2000 11 months ago
@Xgya2000
Heaven has free will, just not moral free will.
The angels would be an example of being with free will in heaven, and subsequently the ability to sin and fall (ie satan).
The greatest possible world would be one with no possibility of evil and with chosen love. I explained how that is possible if moral free will exists i an precursor world (earth) after which the ability to do evil becomes superfluous.
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Couldn't God simply create a world without moral free will in the first place? Anyways, if not having moral free will can still cause the Fall, my idea that it will happen again is still valid.
If he is to remove the ability in the end, wouldn't it have been most merciful not to create a precursor world? I mean, God does have the ability to skip the first steps and go directly to the results, right? He doesn't NEED the precursor world.
Xgya2000 11 months ago
@Xgya2000
Sure he could. However, a world that never had free will can never have chosen love.
"if not having moral free will can still cause the Fall, my idea that it will happen again is still valid."
That is why I argued moral free will is given up after we use our free will to achieve chosen love (or not) in the precursor world (earth). Once you obtain chosen love, moral free will becomes superfluous.
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Suppose a person goes to Heaven, but is so good it cannot tolerate people being tortured forever for it to live in Heaven
Because it goes against God's will and loves evil, should that person Fall?
What you said above means that even without moral free will, people can still sin and fall
Imagine God dreams up this world, and then zaps out beings that do evil before creating it. Does that remove the free will of the people that are left? If it doesn't, then why did God create evil?
Xgya2000 11 months ago
@Xgya2000 "Imagine God dreams up this world, and then zaps out beings that do evil before creating it. Does that remove the free will of the people that are left? If it doesn't, then why did God create evil?"
Wow that's brilliant! lol
shadywolf91 10 months ago
@shadywolf91
How many people do you think would be left unzapped?
Epydemic2020 10 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Hmmmm couldn't there be a "limited" free will. For example, people say the U.S. is a free country. However, there are preventative measures against killing, stealing, raping, etc. so it isn't exactly 100% free. Couldn't an omnipotent being create a universe in which beings have free will yet are incapable of doing evil because it is "physically" impossible (enforced by God)? Which is more moral in this sense: God or the U.S.? Should the U.S. not try to prevent evil?
twaallen32 10 months ago
@twaallen32
It raises interesting questions. Like to what extent does God stop evil? (after all even what we judge as small sins separate us from a sinless God aka give us hell). So the question instead becomes, "does God miraculously intervening all the time produce a better world?
Epydemic2020 10 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Well, is God always intervening in heaven? Forgive my ignorance, but is there no way to sin in heaven? If sin is impossible in heaven, how is that any different from what I proposed? If sin is possible, why is heaven better (putatively) than this existence?
twaallen32 10 months ago
@twaallen32
There is about 4 theories on that. Ill share my perspective, but its not the only option available.
I'd say free will exists because chosen love requires free will a prerequisite (but it also allows for the possibility of evil). The best world would be one with chosen love and no evil (aka heaven) but that is only possible with a precursor world where moral choice is available (earth) after which moral free will becomes superfluous.
Epydemic2020 10 months ago
@Epydemic2020
For the most part that makes sense, and I thank you for sharing that. What do you think/believe happens to babies or anyone who dies young?
twaallen32 10 months ago
@twaallen32
That is kind of ambiguous. Free ticket to heaven? purgatory? other? I don't think we can be certain. The Bible doesn't tell us that one and that doesn't seem to be something we can figure out from logic alone. I think some guesses are more probable than others, but they all seem to boil down to arguments from ignorance.
Epydemic2020 10 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Agreed.
twaallen32 10 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Quite a lot :). Tell me, why do you come out of hiding to address this but none of my other comments? I can't help but notice how you still haven't answered any of my question nor address this person's question.... Hmm but I suppose I shouldn’t antagonize you, I just found it curious.
shadywolf91 10 months ago
@shadywolf91
I remember responding to a ton of your comments. On what video do you think there are unanswered questions?
How can you even say that I haven't answered any of your questions with a straight face? Blatant lies like that show me that holding a conversation with you is pointless. What incentive do I then have to answer your questions? I am down for a reasonable discussion, but I am not a big fan of wasting my time.
Epydemic2020 10 months ago
@Epydemic2020 No... You simply gave me a "free will" argument (which I refuted) then told me to check out more of your videos. You did not once answer in full how an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent deity is not a contradiction. Then you simply ignored me while I carried on the conversation with MerlinYoda it was only until I commented on @Xgya2000 did you finally decide to come back. Which I find curious. Telling my your opinion doesn't make a question disappear.
shadywolf91 10 months ago
@shadywolf91
I don't have to explain to you why something is not a contradiction. If i do so, that is all fine and well, but the burden of proof falls on the person making the positve claim, and you are claiming that there is a contradiction. Obviously this contradiction is not explicit, and you have no reason to think the three variables are "logically contradictory".
I don't think you refuted the free will argument anyway.
I don't make a habit of butting into other people's conversations.
Epydemic2020 10 months ago
@Epydemic2020 It was OUR conversation to begin with! But I digress. I agree, the person making a positive statement must provide evidence of what they are saying. Which I have already done. You can't just ignore what I say then come back weeks later saying that I've done nothing. Good day.
shadywolf91 10 months ago
@Xgya2000
If you don't want to read the whole thing, just use the search function to find "w4:"
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
big fail...
gskowal 11 months ago
@gskowal
big assertion...
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020 , sorry for such a short conclusion, but I don't feel like writing pages of your bad arguments...
gskowal 11 months ago
you look like my pinky with hair.
C1arenc3 1 year ago
Interesting, you seem to be addressing a logical fallacy. Saying that evil exists in the world doesn't disprove or prove any deity. However, an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent deity cannot exist based on the world that we have. However you can try and defend a deity has two of these traits, but not all three. Care to guess why? Because it's a contradiction :)
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91
"Because it's a contradiction" You seem to just ignore that this entire video is presenting arguments that show it is not a contradiction. Instead of addressing my arguments or putting forward your own arguments, you just asserted the opposite conclusion.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
So what you’re saying is your deity isn't omnipotent? And again with the free will, it ignores the victims. Your argument also doesn’t make sense, if our government enforces law, and prevents people from doing crimes (not everyone obviously) have we lost our free will? You're essentially saying that your god is powerless to stop evil. Like I said before, get a dictionary. You claim that emotions are superior, why? Is it because we have them already and you need to justify your deity?
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91
I am not saying God is not omnipotent.
Morality is composed of actions plus intentions, clearly to some extent actions are necessary.
Perhaps you mean to argue that God would not allow the extent of evil actions in the world, or that God would intervene and stop evil actions without stopping free will. It just so happens, that argument is addressed in this video.
"You claim that motions are superior"
When? If you got that from my vid I think you misunderstood my point.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 You are saying that god is not omnipotent 2:08-2:14 and 2:28.
1:51 Love is an emotion. Your video does not address my question. That is why I left a comment. Your video does not present "arguments that show it is not a contradiction" again, because free will ignores the victims. So I ask you again, how does free will clear up your deity to be an all loving one with the world that we have? Explain to me why your deity isn’t malevolent.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91
Omnipotence doesn't include the ability to do logically contradictory things just like omnivores are not expected to be capable of eating concepts.
"free will ignores the victims". Not really seeing as the victims have this same free will. Free will has negative consequences for all individuals, but it also has positive effects. Since there is no contradiction between benevolence and a world with suffering, I do not conclude God is malevolent. That's an extra assumption.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Omnipotent: having unlimited power. Which in itself is a contradiction.
9/11, two people made a choice to kill roughly 3000+ people. Tell me, what were the choices of those 3000+ people? I did not say benevolence and suffering couldn't exist together, I said an Omnibenevolent Omniscient and Omnipotent deity is a contradiction. You're taking my statement out of context.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91
What exactly does omnipotence contradict?
If multiple individuals have free will, they can use their free will in ways which will impact other people. You are claiming there is an implicit contradiction between omnibenevolence, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipotence and evil events but this is not the case. At best, you can only argue that you don't understand why God would allow such things to happen. There is no logical contradiction between those items.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Omnipotence contradicts itself. Can an omnipotent being make a rock so big it couldn't lift it? You didn't answer my question on free will. Benevolence literally means "showing kindness" by definition your deity isn't benevolent. Thus he isn't omnibenevolent. And he isn't omnipotent because that is also a contradiction. At best I can argue that your deity doesn't exist, not that he allows "such things to happen" if he was benevolent, we could observe it by definition.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91
omnipotence only seems to contradict itself if you use it in a funny way. You seem to with that omnipotence be defined as the ability to do the logically contradictory. If you do so, any discussion about God being logically contradictory is now ironic because it wouldn't matter.
However, the standard use of the term is "God can do everything but the logically contradictory".
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@shadywolf91
The idea that we exists is an example of God showing kindness. Your argument pertained to why God would allow us to inflict suffering/death on each other, as if it was logically contradictory for God to allow such things. There is clearly not explicit contradiction there.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 How is your deity showing kindness simply allowing us to exist? Does an abusive parent not allow their child to exist? Is this kindness? No the contradiction comes from the definition of words that you're using. No the standard term is not "God can do everything but the logically contradictory" the term Christians use is "God can do everything". You remind me of Humpty Dumpty with your use of wordplay.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91
I am not exactly discussing new terms here. The debate about "omnipotence" and what it means in a Christian context took place hundreds of years ago.
Perhaps you would prefer if a fellow atheist explained it to you. An atheistic youtuber named "knownnomore" did a great video summarizing the moral argument and omnipotence paradox recently.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Ok you're not getting it. I'm not interested in people's personal connotations. I don't care what your "Christian" definition is do you know why? Because you still have yet to show me any evidence of anything you say. If you did I would get very interested very fast. Be definition your deity is evil (morally objectionable behavior). Evidence? He condones, rape, genocide, murder, infacide, slavery, etc. in the bible. Once again, you are like Humpty Dumpty.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91
If you critique a different definition, then every objection you make will misrepresent my position.
I have presented evidence for my beliefs, such as my nearly comprehensive series on the moral argument for God's existence.
You cannot judge the morality of an event by only lookin at actions and not intentions. Your perception of the Bible looks like it came straight from skepticsannotated bible or something.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 How exactly do you know the bible's "intentions", it's a book. And bringing up "You cannot judge the morality of an event by only looking at actions and not intentions" doesn't help anything, because until you can demonstrate that you know your deity's intentions, you can only judge his actions. Why do you hold on to your personal definitions (assuming he has them)? Is it because the actually definitions don't describe the character of your deity?
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91
Of course the book doesn't have intentions, the book merely documents actions + intentions. Motivation/intentions are usually explicitly stated or evident from the context. Rarely do you have to rely completely on inference or be unable to know what the intentions where.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@shadywolf91
Here is an incredibly cliche example.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..."
Action = gave son
Intention = love
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Which you read from a book, written by people. Once again, you can't observe your deity's intentions. What is it with you and dodging questions anyway? I’ve watched one of your videos, then you sent me to several others and I watched them as well. You have yet to demonstrate that Epicurus was wrong.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91
The Christian God is discussed in the Bible. If you want access to the Christian God's intentions, the Bible is a good place to look. I didn't expect that claim to be controversial.
I am not dodging your questions, I just happen to have made videos on these subjects. Epicurus' statement "therefore God is malevolent" is a radical assumption and an argument from ignorance.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 How is Epicurus' argument an assumption from ignorance? He is simply calling out a contradiction. For the sake of argument, let's say Omnipotence is not a contradiction, and you claim that your deity is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. This is a contradiction given the world that we have today. 2 Samuel 12:11 is just one example that your deity is not kind. You have been brainwashed into thinking that he is by your church or whomever.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91
It is not an "assumption from ignorance" it is an "argument from ignorance" which is a type of fallacy. Epicurus does not know the intentions God has for allowing certain actions, and in spite his lack of knowing he makes a claim as if He did know with certainty. Thus, he is making an argument from ignorance.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
Comment removed
shadywolf91 1 year ago
Comment removed
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Typo.
Again with the humpty dumpty, he's not making an argument from ignorance. He's pointing out a contradiction. However I am the one calling you out to answer how your deity is all knowing, all powerful, and all good given the world we live in. Which you have yet to answer. You only lead me to more of your videos that raise more questions. Just answer the question. If your answer is “free will” I will eviscerate it.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91 Omnipotent does not mean "unlimited power" but "all powerful", something that has the ability to do anything. However that, "anything" also has to be logically possible. For instance, an omnipotent being could not make a necessarily false statement (like 0 = 1) be true as that is a logical impossibility.
MerlinYoda 1 year ago
@MerlinYoda Omnipotent- having unlimited power, wordnetweb princeton edu/perl/webwn; freedictionary com; merriam-webster com. Care to try again? Yahweh is not omnipotent because it is logically impossible. So now I ask you what I've been asking him this whole time (which he has yet to answer). How can Yahweh be Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent? It was addressed by Epicurus 2200 years ago and has yet to be answered by any theist.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91
I literally addressed that argument in 10 different ways during this video.
First you show that there is no explicit logical contradiction between evil existing as well as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent deity. Then I presented 9 additional arguments towards the evidential problem of evil.
If you don't think epicurus has been answered, then you clearly have not read modern theistic or even atheistic philosophers.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@shadywolf91 if you had bothered to actually check the etymology for a better understand how "unlimited" is meant, then you might understand better that even "unlimited power" doesn't mean "can do anything I can meaningfully describe in words" (e.g. "create a rock so heavy He can't lift it") but rather anything which is logically possible (prior example is not).Omnipotent, from the Latin omnipotent (stem of omnipotēns ), equivalent to omni- (all) + potent- (powerful, mighty, persuasive)
MerlinYoda 1 year ago
@MerlinYoda Too bad you don't seem to understand that etymology doesn't define a word. It only explains where it comes from. Unlimited means, without limits. Literally. So for your deity to be unlimited (key word), he has to be able to create a rock so big, he can't lift it. Which is a contradiction. Again, get a dictionary. Don't be like Humpty Dumpty. Omnipotence means unlimited power, etymology can’t help you here.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91 If you wanna go down that road, then "unlimited" is basically a meaningless term as there are limits to pretty much everything (if not everything) that is able to be defined. However, one may legitimately say that numbers are "unlimited" in that as there is no finite set of them, but, on the other hand, a rock is not a number so there is a limit on what can *be* an number but there is no limit on the *quantity* of numbers available. Similar reason why "God/rock" is not a "power".
MerlinYoda 1 year ago
@MerlinYoda What does this have to do with a deity being omnipotent? Furthermore what does this have to do with the problem of evil? I told Humpty Dumpty here that a deity cannot be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent with the world that we have. So no deity under this category can logically exist and because of that I can say that his deity doesn't exist.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91 It has to do with "omnipotent" because if you define it rigidly as "unlimited power" and put undue focus on the "unlimited" part (basically strawman-ing the argument) and have such narrow definition of the term to mean "without *any* limits" then the word becomes just as meaningless in other everyday uses because, as I put forth in my example, even though the set of numbers is said to be "unlimited" it is still "limited" to those things that are numbers (cont. in pt 2).
MerlinYoda 1 year ago
@MerlinYoda Then I address that Omnipotence is already a contradiction within itself by definition. I’m sorry if you think that’s a straw man (which it isn’t), but you can’t just change the definitions of words to “prove your point” Here, I’ll give you a similar example that I gave him as to why this argument doesn’t work.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91 (part 2) In that same context, just as the set of numbers are limited to those things that are rationally called numbers the set of "powers" (i.e. abilities) one can have is limited to what is logically possible. Creating a rock so heavy that even an omnipotent being cannot lift from it's location it an outright logical contradiction as much as X == Y and X != Y being both true. Using such a contradiction to prove the existence/non-existence of such a deity is a non-starter.
MerlinYoda 1 year ago
@MerlinYoda You misunderstand, I'm not trying to prove/disprove a creator. What I was arguing with Humpty Dumpty about is that his deity cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. And I said he already isn't omnibenevolent because of all of the horrible atrocities in the bible. Most likely what happened is he was continuously told "God is good" when he was a child, then found out god isn't good so he tried changing the definition of good.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@MerlinYoda I am God, and by God I mean any sentient being capable of creating something. Tell me why I should think this other God is good, I’ve never destroyed any of my creations. I take care of what’s mine. So tell me my fellow God, why is this other God good? He destroys what’s his like a little child. What does his diaper need to be changed? He should stop acting like a spoiled brat and grow into a more mature God like myself.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91 What is "good" (w.r.t. omnibenevolence) doesn't mean necessarily what is seems desirable to us. Meeting with an undesirable short-term circumstance could have a better long-term gain then if one had not had that experience in the first place. God is usually also described as eternal so if we take that into account then such a God would have a much larger frame of reference than we to to determine the "most good" course even if it doesn't appear good from our limited reference.
MerlinYoda 1 year ago
@MerlinYoda I like this response, it shows me you're thinking. However I still disagree ( even though I can see your point), because there are observable universal morals. For example, protecting children (not just yours) from outsiders. That and if we go by the Golden Rule (treat others like you would want to be treated) then no, almost any deity is an ass. "Allowing" others to commit genocide is deemed bad according to this principle. Same goes with slavery and indoctrinization.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@shadywolf91 Sorry for delay, but glad you noticed my thinking ;-). I can see how the Golden Rule is tempting to apply here, but if we take it literally (and personify God a little more than I would) then if God didn't want anyone meddling in his "daily" affairs (assuming they could) despite intentions, then God, on principle, wouldn't meddle in ours ... even if doing so would seem to have some immediate and apparent good. Although, this is a bit less apparent w.r.t natural disasters.
MerlinYoda 11 months ago
@MerlinYoda I don't understand the message you're trying to convey. Are you saying that God is the personified Golden Rule? And because we do