The Problem of Evil: A Big Fat Thorn in Christianity's Side

[Flubly]

I'm surprised you didn't get into Plantinga's free will defense.

[okzoia]

J.L. Mackie has an interesting argument along these lines in his book, The Miracle of Theism.

[bitbutter]

@okzoia Mackie is the man :)

[Riffnspliff]

Good video man

[trifelgeputinage]

Empirical evidence is not good enough! So you finally say something meaningful! But you have still not even addressed the logical problems with your position - for all your hot air you are saying that your position comes down to this: I believe because I want to believe

Well you're right my standards of evidence are a bit more stringent than that, especially when it comes to matters that can potentially be harmful- and thats what blind faith is, that's what makes people fly planes into things .

[trifelgeputinage]

The 'message'of jesus Christ is a)open to interpretation (see the history of Christianity for details)

b)garbled and inconsistent

c)based on documents that are historically inaccurate and self contradictory

d)full of doubtful moral precepts about loving your enemy and turning the other cheek, coupled with threats of hellfire and eternal torment.

In short it offers less than my old Grandad gave me by way of example, morality and wisdom - and he was an atheist, a happy and content one.

e)

[trifelgeputinage]

You seem to have a problem understanding the word evidence. Simply making bald assertions without any hard facts to back it up is NOT satisfactory as far as I'm concerned. If I told you that I know for a fact that my neighbour has the power of invisibility would you take my word for it?

Why should I believe that you know the truth - where is your hard evidence - beyond just the fact that you believe it?

Why is that so hard to grasp?

[cyberdems]

Problem understanding the word evidence? That would be you, there's a very big difference between empirical evidence and evidence presented by deductive logic and plausibility assessment of that through reason and our experience of the life/world. This is why you're an atheist: without empirical evidence, you wont accept the most gracious solution humanity will ever get the chance to understand. So it would help to understand what evidence even is before resorting to telling me what it is, hehe

[trifelgeputinage]

If I refute every belief I have by doubting whether the universe is perfect or not why would it matter, since I have already condemned myself to eternal torment by simply not believing in a God who refuses to give me any evidence of his existence? What kind of idiotic, sadistic game is he playing with me? What kind of evidence are you going on to justify such bizarre beliefs?

Don't you wonder about all the other God's out there? Could Allah the one true God? How could you know objectively?

[cyberdems]

Yeah, Pain and suffering are a huge PROBLEM for us poor little humans, that's why Jesus Christ suffered not only physically for us, all our sins on his hands, but also cosmicly more than you will ever understand. So before you try use a selfish pity approach to try bring down Christianity, remember that its core is centered around Jesus Christ, God's own son, who suffered pain and suffering, because of our tendencies to do what's in this very video

[bitbutter]

Feel free to comment further if you want to start engaging with the arguments made in the video cyberdems.

Do you think it is evil to allow the torture and murder of a newborn baby if you have the power to prevent it?

[cyberdems]

He doesn't have the power if he is morally obliged to JUSTICE. If we do what is wrong (anything He is is Good), then we become less like him. Unless we follow who he is, we are sinning, so to reject him completely is sinning in its highest sense, which means separation and opposition to moral absolute Good. How can you flaw this logic? If God doesn't exist, the ability to know when you are doing wrong vanishes into the mist and you become a computer operating (for some reason) randomly ...

[cyberdems]

(continued) without any real purpose. Life becomes UTTERLY meaningless and any satisfaction you would gain from this (designed to be) seemingly insignificant spec in vaaaaast nothingness in this poppy seed of time becomes POINTLESS? Who cares what we achieve if it isn't for God - who represents faith, and good, and who loved us so much that he sacrificed in sucking up all our wrongs if we only choose to accept this fact as being manifested through the death and resurrection of Jesus?a

[bitbutter]

I notice you didn't answer the question. Do you think it's evil to allow the torture and murder of a newborn if you have to power to stop it?

[cyberdems]

You are judging a perfect system with your own pity towards it. That is to that that just because you don't like it, you reject it, which is logically incoherent. The consequence of sin is suffering, and this is fact, so who am I to even bother trying to bring down that fact with my irrational gap-seeking questioning about why this painful EMOTIONAL experience taking place through a natural world of randomness (where another person could be suffering) could not be like as such by necessity?

[cyberdems]

What this means is that the more we do moral wrong, the more we will see these natural events tend towards pain and suffering as a consequence, so more natural disasters, more animals suffering, more explicit pornography, it's all coherent with the moral view we hold about those things. They happen as a result of our separation from God, and are as such by necessity - it's how THIS world, which we observe through our OWN eyes (according to quantum physics) and so we see things we wouldn't like.

[cyberdems]

* how the world behaves, as a result of our observation, if we do what is not right, we see thing's which will make us suffer separation from God who represents how things should be seen right. Which is everything as long as it's not done to hurt yourself or anybody - but through love for each other, an ideal which is the core of what an IDEAL God for us would be. So that's the God we're talking about. Which God are you rejecting? I don't like him either. We're talking about the perfect God here

[bitbutter]

I notice you're still avoiding answering the question. Do you think it's evil to allow the torture and murder of a newborn if you have to power to stop it?

[trifelgeputinage]

@cyberdems - you say this is a perfect system. If an all powerful God created us as sinners then it's in our nature to sin, everything we do is part of God's perfect system. You have ditched morality as an issue.

Another problem: you seem to know what God wants - but I don't. You seem to have some knowledge that there is a God and that he created a perfect world - but I apparently don't have access to the information/ evidence you have. What is it?

Why not answer bitbutter's question?

[cyberdems]

"@cyberdems - you say this is a perfect system." Indeed. Are you inferring the contrary? You realise you'd be refuting any other belief you might have then if you believe your life and ideas/goals have any worth.

"If an all powerful God created us as sinners then it's in our nature to sin" It's not in our nature to sin, if we were designed to have the choice between life or death, and choose rather walk off the cliff like zombies and cry about it like a moron

[trifelgeputinage]

I would like to know how you know it is a perfect system - what is your evidence for that - since the evidence I would present - lets just call it suffering for short - would suggest not. In anycase if I am 'allowed to be sin ful' but then must suffer for that - then I would suggest that free will is not the word to use in this context. Love me or be tortured for eternity does not sound like much of a choice to me. Surely a zombie would believe anything his empty head was filled with.

[cyberdems]

until you realise that just because it's aesthetically displeasing to what you'd like to see, doesn't mean it's not a perfect system (block A may not like when the impulse of block B changes block A's momentum on impact - that does not mean the system is functionally imperfect or logically flawed. God is absolutely just, meaning we should experience suffering manifesting in the natural world when our soul deserves it justly, and we are is conscious within that particular medium

[trifelgeputinage]

@cyberdems -Aesthetically displeasing! Are you denying the existence of suffering? You seem to be saying that suffering isn't really suffering - well it is to the one suffering, if God has some great plan in mind could he not have made a plan that did not include suffering? If he can eliminate suffering and he doesn't that IS logically flawed. If he can't prevent suffering then he is not all powerful and the 'plan' is out of his control.

[trifelgeputinage]

Again you fail to answer a direct question - where is the evidence that your God exists? Have you never heard a counter argument to the claim that your unevidenced God is necessary for an objective morality.

How can you say anything about morality unless you have been told by God what is right and what is wrong - I ask again what evidence can you give me that God has given you the truth and why did he choose you to reveal this to and not me?

[cyberdems]

I am presenting you the evidence? It just seems as though I'm speaking to a brick wall - no offence? Here I am presenting you logical arguments that justify and show the plausibility of a sane, purpose-driven world view, and you respond asking for EVIDENCE as though I hadn't opened my mouth? Don't you see the so deceptive DEATH trap that atheism is? I show you how ultimately useless atheism is and yet you defend it as though it were as awesome as the message of Jesus Christ? Well, your loss! :/

[NapoleonReece]

"The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."

-- Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 1, Section IV

[NapoleonReece]

God Does not love all people. God loves what is good and Hates what is evil.

Goodness is that which God says is good. There is NO higher standard than God and there can be none or else that standard would take the place of God

God is above His Law which is the highest standard since it is His command. God creates the moral Law.

Men are under the law of God, meaning God holds them accountable and gives them knowledge of good and evil.

This solves all of the problems that you posed.

[bitbutter]

'This solves all of the problems that you posed'

It also means that those who choose this route have to give up the notion that God is benevolent or good. I think many theists would not be prepared to do that.

[NapoleonReece]

Not true. God is Good.

God Hates the reprobate and loves the elect. He loves Justice and hates injustice. God is Good, but this does not mean He loves everyone. Goodness is defined by God. You will not deal with my system internally.

You impose external definitions without defining them concretely.

WHAT IS GOOD?

[bitbutter]

'Goodness is defined by God. You will not deal with my system internally.'

False, dealing with your system internally is exactly what I am doing.

You said: 'God is above His Law which is the highest standard'

So: God cannot be judged by any standard. But to say that something is good is to judge it relative to a standard. Therefore God cannot be good.

[NapoleonReece]

"So: God cannot be judged by any standard. But to say that something is good is to judge it relative to a standard. Therefore God cannot be good."

Wrong.

Righteousness/goodness is what God does, and He judges men by His commands.

God owns us and places us under His law.

He is not subject to His commands just like any parent is not subject to what he commands his children to do.

That which God does is righteous because He does it. That which He commands is righteous because He commands it.

[bitbutter]

'He is not subject to His commands just like any parent is not subject to what he commands his children to do.'

Right: So it's inappropriate to describe God as good in the same way that it's inappropriate to describe a parent as 'well behaved'.

[NapoleonReece]

No. A parent can be well behaved by some standard, but he is not required to do all that he commands his children.

Righteousness is necessarily what God does.

Righteousness is contingently what God Commands.

The contingent righteousness depends upon the existence of the necessary righteousness of God for its contingent existence.

[bitbutter]

"A parent can be well behaved by some standard"

Not by the same standard that 'well behaved', as describing a child, refers to. And that's the point.

As I said before it's inappropriate to call God good, if good, in this context means something completely different to what 'good' means as applies to a mortals--unless you're going to explain what this alternative meaning of 'good' is.

[NapoleonReece]

@bitbutter Good is whatever God does since God is the standard. For rational creatures the standard is His command.

His mind is His own standard. He does as He pleases.

God does not need a standard higher than His own mind. There is nothing higher than God.

we have no place to judge God. The point is to understand him and worship Him in Truth with our minds.

Thoughts and actions cannot be morally neutral. They are either good or evil. God does no evil. Who can hold Him responsible?

[bitbutter]

@NapoleonReece "Good is whatever God does since God is the standard"

And that's exactly why it makes no sense to claim that God is good. On your view God is in fact amoral.

How did you find out that God is the standard of good? And is it possible to test this belief?

[NapoleonReece]

@bitbutter The positive test is "what does the Bible say?" The negative test is contradiction.

The definition holds internally for "good". I don't accept your amoral claim. I am saying that there is no middle between good and evil, which excludes amorality as a logical possibility in Christianity.

"Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good;Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!"

Psalm 34:8

[GronTheMighty]

God thought it was ok for him to kill babies... I DONT AGREE, my moral standards are better than your gods.. suck on that! ;)

[NapoleonReece]

@GronTheMighty I'm glad you don't want to kill babies. Why do you think it is wrong to kill babies?

[PastApolo]

The christian god was most likely a joke by the true Creator for our amusement.

The true creator is not evil but often lazy, drunk or stoned. Therefore he is not always capable to prevent evil from happening.

He is guilty of DUI (Designing Under the Influence) which further explains the many flaws of our universe.

[gambleor]

I do understand and subjective morality was in brackets in your statement. I proposed that subjective morality is the same as no morality, or rather that we cannot have subjective morality and insist that there can be such a thing that could be considered immoral.

[gambleor]

We can't have subjective morality, but we can have relative morality. The main difference between the two is that subject morality is only dependent of the perspective of the subject while relative morality is dependent on how the situation impacts all parties it affects. Subjective morality = no morality at all = if Hitler won, he was right because he perceived that he was.

[jezuzzfreek777]

Ik ga voor je bidden.

[gambleor]

What sect/sects of Christianity is this supposed to target? I ask because the problem of evil and suffering is handled as a problem by some sects and by others, it's handles as a non-issue.

[bitbutter]

The video is relevant to any version of Christianity claiming the existence of a perfectly loving god.

[gambleor]

Right, but from your comments below, I can only make the assumption that you believe that all sects of Christianity claiming the existence of said loving God also asserts that good and evil are more than concepts. Could you clarify if this is the case?

[bitbutter]

"I can only make the assumption that you believe that all sects of Christianity claiming the existence of said loving God also asserts that good and evil are more than concepts."

I wouldn't claim that. I'm interested in 'mainstream' Christianity.

[gambleor]

So then you're pointedly asking fundamentalists how they account for it. I don't think that they can make a solid case in defense and this argument has been the Achilles' heel of fundamentalist Christianity since its conception. Good job.

[jbooks888]

OK - your video starts off with a false statement - God is not ALL- loving and nowhere in the Bible does it say that He is. Newborn babies? WTF? Are you for real?

[seanmPWH]

As a Christian I find your observations to be as sound as humanly possible. In fact I don't have any compelling counter arguments other than to say that the Word of God is not ultimately weighed as a philosophical entity but rather it must be weighed historically, i.e. if events such as the resurrection of Christ are historical facts then the questions that you raise are academic. Much as particle physics presents conundrums these paradoxical evidences do not prevent their existence.

[bitbutter]

That's fair enough.

[Retartedflyinghippos]

Now seeing as the Bible has things that're immoral to modern society today, he would be evil as judged by the un-bias people. Except people are bias towards certain teachings that were taught at a young age. That's the problem.

[shoyhoy]

If God is the author of good and evil, as I believe it states in the OT, then can he be measured by the concepts that he created? Can God be either good or evil?

[bitbutter]

If God can be measured by the standards he created, then hes simply evil. If he can't then he's amoral. And not 'all good'.

[legodesi]

Bitbutter, do you believe that evil exists?

[bitbutter]

It depends on how you're using the word.

[legodesi]

The way you use it in your video, particularly the statements about distinguishing between evil and good.

[bitbutter]

I believe that we can sensibly talk about evil in terms of the totality of suffering (and the characteristic of enjoying or allowing preventable suffering), that's how I'm using it here. The existence of suffering challenges the Christian claim that the biblical God is omnibenevolent.

[legodesi]

well, if it is to be inconsistent with moral goodness, we have to talk about suffering in terms of moral evil. (I do agree, btw, that the problem of evil challenges the Christian claim that the biblical God is omnibenevolent; I'm just unsure of how naturalists are in any better a predicament)

[bitbutter]

"I'm just unsure of how naturalists are in any better a predicament"

The existence of suffering in the world is consistent with naturalism, it requires no special explanation.

[legodesi]

"P1: Suffering is evil" puts naturalism in jeopardy. If P1 is true, then naturalism has to explain why events that no person is responsible for are evil. Theism may have difficulty harmonizing evil and a Good God. But this presupposes the reality of good and evil, which don't exist as facts in a physical world where the only facts are descriptive, not prescriptive.

[legodesi]

So if P1 is used to lower the credibility of theism, it must refute strict physicalism. (I withdraw from referring to naturalism, and will instead refer to specifically physicalism/materialism).

[bitbutter]

"So if P1 is used to lower the credibility of theism, it must refute strict physicalism."

The problem of evil is a challenge to the internal consistency of Christianity. It's not necessary to assume the actual existence of Evil (capital E) in order to point this out.

[legodesi]

Oh, so you don't actually believe that P1 is true? Would Christianity is more likely than materialism with respect to P1 (if you did believe in P1)?

[bitbutter]

"Would Christianity be more likely than materialism with respect to P1 (if you did believe in P1)? "

No. Because I don't see that Divine Command Theory is any more successful at deriving an 'ought from an is' than are ethical systems that don't assume theism.

[legodesi]

I can counter this, but doing that would lead us into circles.

[ShaundalynChic]

CS Lewis wrote at least a couple of books directly on this subject [problem of evil] if it is a problem for you.

[bitbutter]

I have a hard time taking Lewis seriously as an apologist since since i found out about his fallacious 'liar lunatic lord' trilemma. But If you think think he makes an argument relevant to the content of this video, feel free to post a video or comment that states it.

[ShaundalynChic]

What is fallacious? Lewis made clear the point was on the assumption that (1) if Jesus existed & (2) if Jesus was quoted accurately in the gospels. Seems to me that when you make a statement, only 4 possibilities exist. You can be telling the truth (lord), you can think you are telling the truth but are mistaken, you are lying (liar), or you don't mentally have the capacity to know if what you said was true or not (lunatic). Once you show being mistaken is impossible, then the other 3 are left.

[TachiRdiesDirty]

i think we can distinguish between good and evil... its one of the reasons I reject religion.

[rozeboosje]

excellent

[qanazir]

The traits many theists ascribe to their god are impossible considering the state of our world.

An Omnibevolent and omnipotent god simply can't exist.

[LotusGreenX]

"An Omnibevolent and omnipotent god simply can't exist."

One could exist possibly. Maybe there is some ultimate greater good in the afterlife that will make all the evils something necessary for some future good. And maybe eventually everyone will go to heaven. But since there isn't evidence for this I would say it's improbable, but not impossible.

However, the God you seem to be thinking of that sends most of his creation to hell yet loves his creation is a contradiction.

[UnBeguiled]

The Christian has an easy out. The Christian god has an unknowable reason for allowing a baby to die painfully. How could we, with finite knowledge, ever understand why the Christian god allows certain things. The Christian god has a higher purpose, that is good, but we just don't understand it.

So, they appeal to mystery, and slither away.

[bitbutter]

"The Christian has an easy out. The Christian god has an unknowable reason for allowing a baby to die painfully."

If he takes this route then he has also to concede that we are not capable of discerning between good and evil, and he has to abandon the claim that god is good.

[MenoftheInfinite]

Defining God as ominbenevolent commits the same nonsensical act as the Ontological Argument - i.e. defining something into existence. It's tommy rot.

[EverettsVLOG]

one can just define good in terms of what god does.

[bitbutter]

If God's actions are definitionally good, then he's amoral, and not omnibenevolent.

[EverettsVLOG]

LOL... "if god's actions are definitonally good ... [he is not good]" nice twist

[LotusGreenX]

"If God's actions are definitionally good, then he's amoral, and not omnibenevolent."

Definitionally good or not the question is if he loves humanity or not. If God loves humanity that means he wants the best for us. So if he's all powerful by definition he cannot allow or command any useless punishment or evil, which seems pretty apparent in the world.

[Cainer666]

Then if God decided to rape a child, that would make child-raping "good".

[MenoftheInfinite]

Mary didn't seem to like it that much.

[EverettsVLOG]

by this theory yes it would

[UrsusSapien]

Maybe Christians are putting too much pressure on God. Instead of simply claiming that "God is good" which is indefensible, they should just go with "God is good enough." This gives them some wiggle room. I mean, it's not like Yahweh is Cthulhu or anything. Cut the guy some slack.

[Atheistprimate]

Or they could say God is as good as he is able to be given what he has to work with.

I agree with you that they over focus on the idea of something being "all good" when that is clearly not the case even by the myths in their own holy books.

[LotusGreenX]

Atheistprimate: The God of the Bible never claimed to be bound by some kind of infinite attributes. It's philosophers and theologians that insert those beliefs into the text. God makes a lot more sense if you throw out logic and critical thinking.

[RyuDarragh]

The other problem is, if it is evil for the creations to do X, is it also evil for the creator to do X?

If it isn't evil for the creator to do X, but *is* evil for the creations to do X, then the definition of evil is meningless.

[KT45]

Great video!

[riversonthemoon]

If we can't distinguish between good and evil, then the words are meaningless and we couldn't say for sure that God is good. God may be malevolent and the problem of evil could very well be the problem of good.

But Christians also make the claim that our moral intuition was written into our hearts (I think in Romans). And if that is the case, it is strange that our moral intuition tells us that inaction, when one has the power to stop a murder or rape, is evil.

Great video.

[bitbutter]

"But Christians also make the claim that our moral intuition was written into our hearts (I think in Romans). And if that is the case, it is strange that our moral intuition tells us that inaction, when one has the power to stop a murder or rape, is evil."

Excellent point rotm. Very strange indeed.

[AmericanApostate]

"But Christians also make the claim that our moral intuition was written into our hearts (I think in Romans)."

It is even stranger when our moral intuition tells us to do things vastly different from Christian dictates. Then they need to be selective and ignore large parts of human nature.

[LotusGreenX]

"Then they need to be selective and ignore large parts of human nature."

Isn't this a common theme by Christian apologists? They seem to play off people's emotions and intuitions then in the next breath they say that God's ways are totally different than our ways.

I don't believe in a God that asks me to use my moral intuition in order to reject my reasoning to distinquish what is morally right or wrong.

[AmericanApostate]

The case most prominent in my mind was a discussion with a street preacher who wouldn't give a straight answer when I challenged him in his assertion that polygamy is socially acceptable in most cultures, but that monogamy is "natural." From a biological perspective, there's a bizarre balance between the two, meaning that one is as natural as the other, but all of that was irrelevant anyway considering his prominent (and hackneyed) use of naturalistic fallacies.

[LotusGreenX]

AmericanApostate: The Bible supports palygamy. That's why he can't really give an argument against it other than social rejection of that practice. You should tell him it's also very "natural" to sin.

[AmericanApostate]

Actually, scratch that, I was the one who said polygamy was socially acceptable in most cultures. He said that illustrates man's sinful nature, and then I showed him the contradiction between one evil natural thing and another claim regarding something being good because it's natural. If I brought up polygamy in the Bible (or any other fun OT laws for that matter), I probably could have taken him to task for asserting TWO contradictory but equally "objective" moral standards.

[LotusGreenX]

"...I probably could have taken him to task for asserting TWO contradictory but equally "objective" moral standards."

And Christians wonder why I don't buy into their argument about objective morals prove God's existence? What God says isn't their real rational basis for morality. Just like us they believe there are actions that bring greater good.