Why Would God Allow Suffering -The Problem of Evil - William Lane Craig

[RaynorGo]

Al Qaeda has more compassion that WLC.

[KevZen2000]

No matter what side of the evil issue, I can make cases for both sides, so I recommend we focus on something else.

[KevZen2000]

The Problem of Evil, and the Christian God(or any personal god)is a paradox, and it will never be answered, and both the Atheist, and Christian are correct in this scenario. Its true that God could resolve evil, but then that would mess with its path for humanity, but yet its still possible to resolve this issue, but not necessary. This question, will remain for all of time, and both are better focusing on questions, that can be resolved.

[DriscolDevil]

@KevZen2000 How can it be possible to end all evil? All of us being equal in every imaginable way? This would be evil because it takes away personal freedom.

A world of absolute freedom? Well then you have serial killers and rapists, also evil.

This is the only problem with the "paradox", the fact that there is no paradox. A universe with or without god must still contain evil because evil is a label we need to slap on anything that inconveniences us in our lives.

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

god sounds a bit like a sadist and a hedonist to me. You create people to bow down in your glory for your pleasure and make them reliant upon you, then you create a place of torture and send people there if they don't believe in you or love you and blame them for it. But how can you blame them when you make yourself unknown and questionable? How can you blame them for being created by your own hands? I just don't get it.

[DriscolDevil]

@Requiemxtoxinnocence And you are basing all of this on a document written by humans, not god.

Nobody knows what god really thinks or really wants so your assumption that god is a sadist or that people that don't believe go to hell is one based on blind faith.

Try to think for yourself before rejecting the concept of god.

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

@DriscolDevil I tend to think of myself along the lines of a pseudodeist/ignostic/agnostic. I don't think we can really know what the concept.

I based my assertions on the god of the bible. Yahweh does seem pretty sadistic to me, he's a god of war. Many Christians do believe in a hell, and that also helps my assertion as its sadistic to torture people forever with no end or escape. If there is a real god then I can't know its intentions, because I haven't observed it.

[DriscolDevil]

@Requiemxtoxinnocence Ok but you said "god" must be a sadist. Saying that god is a sadist because he's written that way (btw hell isn't a prison god sends people too, at least not in the story) is like saying Stephen King commits genocide because of all the characters he has killed.

I mean he locked an entire town inside of a dome for Cripes sake!

BTW the Jewish god is the sadistic one, the christian god is forgiving and kind of a pushover.

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

@DriscolDevil God/deistic version - an unknown mysterious being or thing that has not revealed its thoughts or emotions and by no means be judged because we don't know what it is.

Yahweh - god of the jews and christians - sadistic and hedonistic, created hell an eternal prison of torture and pain

Yahweh/jesus/holy spirit ( christian one) - same god, only now with more personalities than before

[DriscolDevil]

@Requiemxtoxinnocence Look if you really want to continue this, I have to say this.

The "christian god" (as in the one of the new testament) is a human eating alien. You can't call what he does genocide anymore than you can call it genocide when you kill a bunch of rats in your house.

If you are confused just read revelations. I am not exaggerating, god flies down on a white horse and uses a huge sword tongue to eat everyone. I. Am. Being. Serious.

Would make a great film

[tex959]

part 1..Craig correctly states that there are no absolutes either for or against the existence of God when reconciling the problem of evil. Craig continues to rebut the “probabilistic argument” for the non-existence of God. 5:51 -> for Craig’s first premise to work, God must be assumed thereby granting Craig’s entire argument before it’s concluded. 6:00 -> This is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy because God can’t be assumed before the conclusion can follow from the premises.

[tex959]

@tex959 part 2..6:57 -> This is a “what if” scenario that relies on an argument from ignorance to try to add credibility to a conclusion. 8:45 -> great movie. At this point, Craig’s argument is that if you are at the wrong or right place at the wrong or right time, this can have a dramatic affect on one’s life which can be used for or against a deity that is in control of everything. 10:00 -> Good things can come out of bad situation whether or not a personal God exists.

[tex959]

@tex959 part 3..10:35 Craig’s second point, Once again, circular logic, because you have to grant Christian Theism to validate this premise. 11:33 -> Straw man fallacy, because our happiness is irrelevant to the existence of evil. 12:30 -> Maybe, or not. I don’t have any way of knowing. Craig asserts that humans need evil to produce knowledge of God while ironically Crag states that humans have finite and limited understandings of these matters.

[tex959]

@tex959 part 4(last)..12:51 -> Circular logic because, once again, Craig grants the existence God as a prerequisite for his premise. 14:10 till 15:55 -> arguments from ignorance=logical fallacy, regarding eternal life. Craig can’t grant eternal life as a prerequisite for his argument. 18:00 -> Craig is basically saying, don’t worry about the problem of evil, because I have other evidence that I don’t mention in this argument. My 2 cents, Craig is an expert debater, not an expert logician.

[tex959]

@tex959 Would an all knowing(omniscient), all powerful(omnipotent), and omnibenevolent or wholly good God rely on evil and/or intense suffering to achieve a higher goal for humanity? If evil is a result of free will then why keep gratuitous evils like Satan and the demons around? How is the problem of free will solved in heaven? If discipline has a purpose, what is the purpose of intense suffering in Hell rather than separation or annihilation? I find the Biblical God unlikely.

[Reinpret]

@tex959 - I think you may have missed the whole point of this video.. in your atheistic video viewing frenzy, you forgot that to know God Exists IS Christian. This video was made for Christians. Your logic as to accuses WLC of circular logic is illogical in of itself, as prescribing to this notion, "presupposition of God's existence, is a logical thing, when viewing a Christian video, made for Christians." It's the same with every atheist, you don't understand apologetics presuppositions.

[Reinpret]

@Reinpret - we actually with all our hearts, believe in a God, and many not all, have had real experiences that are explainable only through a presupposition of belief In a personal God. Basically what I'm saying is, you can't take God out of an argument to defend Christian faith, just because your presupposition is different as per your angle as a rebuttal. It is totally Illogical.

[tex959]

@Reinpret If you presuppose an all knowing, all powerful, and all loving God, then there is no more argument because God knows what’s best and we don’t. Actually, I have a lot of respect for Chris White, the guy that owns this channel, he’s one of the few Christians that seems to “walk the walk”, and I don’t give compliments lightly. I have very little respect for WLC. I’ve seen his dishonest tactics/bad logic and have emails from his Reasonable Faith web site begging for.. cont.

[tex959]

@tex959 100k, just last month, as if all his book and video sales weren’t enough to keep his lifestyle going. WLC says that we can’t and don’t know the mind or future intentions of God, but he has no problem explaining in great detail what those intentions are.  This video is an attempt at a logical rebuttal to an Atheistic argument regarding evil. WLC failed to address the problem of evil in my opinion unless you presuppose the Christian God which avoids the original argument.

[tex959]

@tex959 After some reflection, I do see your point of view and you do make an interesting point that I will now consider in the future. Also, the last thing I want to do is espouse my beliefs on a Christian Chanel posted from a guy I respect. if God is as real in your lives as the friends and family around you, then apologetics should be for skeptics, doubters, or agnostics at the very least, otherwise what is the point?

[Reinpret]

@tex959 hmm interesting.... i suppose the point, in many cases, is simply debate. Perhaps what we can agree on, is that both sides should understand exactly how the other side approaches, evidence, theology, and points of view. Your right.

[tex959]

@Reinpret Thanks for the convo.  After much thought, I'd like to admit to my flawed argument regarding circular logic in my original 4 part criticism of WLC's argument for anyone that might read this. Thanks to Reinpret, I now understand that God must be tentatively presupposed in order to show how he might be compatible with evil. however, I still stand by my other points.

[Reinpret]

@tex959 - any Christians reading tex959's reply, should see what has happened here, I think it's important. Although he agree's to disagree on a whole, he is, as am I, man enough to admit when something is off. I think if more people are like Tex here, smart, intelligent and conclusive based on his own research and conclusions, then we might actually get along. We currently see things differently, we have different world views, but that shouldn't negate the possibility of learning from someone.

[tex959]

@Reinpret Thank you for the kind words. 

[LordSauceness]

It's impossible to prove anything does not exist. William Lame Craig is being very disengenous when he makes that statement. Instead, all that is needed to dismantle WLC's god, is to dismantle the Book of Genesis.....which science has very easily done. However, WLC & company will never accept any evidence to said dismantling because whatever is presented, they will simply move the Genesis goal posts one foot wider. Today's Christians would all be called heretics by yesterday's believers.

[Badwolf182]

This was incredibly powerful for me to hear right now. It answered and clarified things for me and strenghtened my faith once again

Thank Dr Craig and poster of the video

[wjestick]

A lot of people have a problem with the death caused, or ordered by JHWH in the old testament. Life is a Journey, and death is only one step on that Journey. We only see death from one side, and can't fully understand it. So it an immense undertaking to ask the question why, and possibly an even greater undertaking to understand the answer.

Killing by humans is a different moral act since we don't understand the consequences, and cannot restore life.

[worldwiderelease]

A revelation from God that also deals with suffering :- What is creation?  -

To be found at the NEWMESSAGE website (specia; teachings)

[ResistDeception]

very effective visual aids, Chris

great work, as always

[amy2x]

Excellent!

[Jesusuniverse]

Great video this from William Lane Craig, a good question request a good answer, peace.

[seansalvador1]

@RealityGrapple "the easiest definitions and determinations to make are the ones we get to make up for our own selves"

...but of course, they are all 'made up' by humans.

"The more specific and less bombastic we are"

You really do speak some tripe, are you claiming that there is no room for any words that are not simple descriptions of material substances? Are you claiming that anything labelled evil is done so for ideological reasons?

[seansalvador1]

@RealityGrapple

What a load of nonsense. Evil has a definition, most people know what that is and can easily distinguish it.

[cyberpsygen7]

suffering is a result of poor decisions, whether by you or someone else. to end all suffering, god would have to prevent all people from making poor decisions. doing so would make him the oppressive tyrant many people already accuse him of being.

[Ninuoluwa]

Yea, as Christians we do expect it. Maranatha.

[PirateXzibit]

The access to salvation is open as always even with evil in the world. So, I guess, aslong as that wont get in the way of salvation, there no reason for God to stop people killing eachother and being wicked towards mankind. People want to kill eachother, rape and lie, and so they can. Such people dont live for very long because of the consequences of sin, but as soon as they die, another one comes and replace them, making it look like never-ending evil.

[igivesalt]

evil is a point of view



[gweems828]

Thanks for posting.

[AnglesM888]

The Rolling class has and are our GOD. They have changed our Beautifull food and fruits into Gen.MANIPULATED POISEN for their own Selfish interests. If there was a just GOD anywhere he had have shown his face at some point or another throu out this long History of ours. But no. We have some books (human made) and that was enough for sheeps......

[HooDooDat]

5-1-99 a off duty cop rear ended me driving 100 mph, I am not an evil person, try my best to be kind, generous, loving and a decent person. I've been suffering for 14 years now with a complete broken neck from C3-C7. At the time of the accident I had saved allot of my earnings to purchase property and a house for my aging mother. I lost it all, and now live on 655 a month disability. I do not know what it's like NOT to be in agony. I pray constantly and just barely surviving homebound. God?

[weazz]

@HooDooDat The book of Job contains many things that might assist you in your faith. However anything more I would say is more likely to incite your rage and further drive a wedge between you and GOD as I do not know the circumstances of your situation, nor what kind of lifestyle you lived prior to your tragic accident.

[xander5670]

@HooDooDat All I can say is that I'm sorry for what your situation is, sorry that life has dealt you an unfair hand that your suffering. But just like what this guy was saying and that reference to the bible remember (And I know this might get you/others angry) but, Life and its problems however gruesome are only a temporary affliction. Life in the grand scheme of eternity is nothing and once this life is over and your trust in God prevails in the afterlife your suffering will end for all time.

[ChumpanZees]

This needs more views

[woofalot13]

So if their was a god he,s an idiot .

[woofalot13]

Why waste life on something that doesn't exist .

[Ramohog]

The Biblical answer to this would be, that God gave dominion over to mankind. We choose the blessing or the curse (Deut 30:19) Yes those who live Godly will suffer persecution, but it only gives the true believer more joy and strenght, because it was already prophesied to happen like this. A lot of suffering we bring on to ourselves. We always need to go back to God, and allow His Spirit to work in order to conquer and overcome!

[woofalot13]

@Ramohog yeah and if we round up all the fairies and stop goats hassling trolls it will all be ok ,lord of the rings chapter 17 , .

[Ramohog]

@woofalot13 Prophecy backed up by documented history and current world affairs is no fairytale. The long long ago evolved stardust abiogenesis mutation myth is.

[VaiRoth]

@Ramohog Our friend here(you) has prophesiesed ww3 before 2012,our friend has 20 days in his favour,there will be excuses,if any of these excuses start bending the time allowance,then accurate prophecy flies straight out the window.Will our friend give up his ct's?Not a chance,the goalposts will merely change until the sun turns into a red dwarf,thereby rendering accurate prophecy what...er NOT ACCURATE

[KevZen2000]

@Ramohog. Abiogenesis, is not a myth, nor does it function like you described it as.Abiogenesis is a natural chemical process, that enables the building blocks of life, to build the elemental backup, to where natural reactions can enable complex life to come into existence. Abiogenesis, is not cosmology, its only inorganic biology.

[Ramohog]

@KevZen2000 No it does not happen and has never been observed. You need added information in the process which testifies of intelligence. The evidence is towards degeneration and genetic entropy.

[KevZen2000]

@Ramohog. Inorganic biology, already has the "information," necessary to complete abiogenesis. The Miller Urey experiment, is an example of this, but its not complete.

As for entropy, inorganic material, does not decay so much that life, cannot come into existence. Abiogenesis, is not spontaneous generation, its natural chemical reactions, of material. As for some kind of designer/intelligence to life, that question is not of concern with this subject, because its theological.

[Ramohog]

@KevZen2000 Miller Urey did not even come close to produce life.... quite the opposite, even the experiment itself was manipulated. It's really sequential information, digital algorithmic coding and de-coding, structure and design all together, that we can conclude intelligence since it has never been observed otherwise, so it's the logical conclusion

[KevZen2000]

Intelligent design, is not a valid scientific conclusion,the conclusion of the ultimate origin of everything is a theological or philosophical question. Placing a theological conclusion,for a scientific question,you wind up with inconsistency.The origin of the universe, and life,requires methodological naturalism, for proper explanations. Supernaturalism, does not hold any explanatory power, within the scientific realm, which abiogenesis describes, so your left with naturalism with such

[KevZen2000]

@Ramohog "backup," I meant makeup.

[DriscolDevil]

@Ramohog That's the most ignorant interpretation of evolution I have ever seen. Please attempt to educate yourself before debating any kind of theory.

[Voidroid]

Very excellent audio track.

[anddihier]

God cannot sin, because it is not of Him, it's of the enemy....not all evil is sin.

[dtadeo2006]

15:32 gave me chills...

[taubstumm]

God allows evil because man deserves it. It is a miracle anyone is even alive!

[jethrofortruth]

His ways are not our ways, his time is not our time. We must have faith and belief.

[holdfastthyword]

Well done, Good food for thought. God bless you. This is the call Paul makes for us to come to a saving knowledge and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

[Intellectual4God]

Very nice video, i gained something from it

[ZeroShift5000]

A friend of mine was recently the victim of a hit and run, his legs were shattered and neck broken. This has caused me to have to answer this question to many of my non Christian friends. I plan to share this on facebook for more to see.



[mebe84]

what a bad misrepresentation of the problem of evil. he probly is seen as intelligent but only because he refutes dumbed down versions nontheist arguments, as in this video.

[Onetruthrgv]

@mebe84 whats a good version?

[mebe84]

@Onetruthrgv first, he acts as if this is a problem apart from theism. the point is that god AS DEFINED BY THEISTS is omnipotent and benevolent. that is where the conflict is,between the omnipotence and benevolence. he then goes on to appeal to ignorance to try and solve the conflict. he says it is solved by his ignorance. he doesn't even give a hypothetical scenario of god's "morally sufficent reasons". he just gives analogies of butterflies and gwyneth paltrow that mean nothing.

[mebe84]

@mebe84 to try and make this more clear, if craig had an opponent to press him on this we could see that craig's explanaiton renders at least the benevolence of god unintelligable. how can we call him good if we cannot assess his moral reasoning? if he says it's because it ends well, then he believes the ends justify the means? also, it doesn't end well for the majority of humanity burning in hell for eternity. hell is the biggest evil there is(though to be fair is usually treat seperately)

[Voidroid]

@mebe84 Actually his approach is not anything unlike the typical form of rebuttal in the field of philosophy. It's extremely short sighted and dismissive to say "He's refuting dumbed down version of X" when you yourself are not providing a counter refutation.

[mebe84]

@Voidroid craig states that the logical problem is solved, yet he did nothing but appeal to ignorance. so he says it could be logically consistent, yet gives no scenario showing what he claims. so his rebuttal to evil and god being inconsistent is "it might not be, we're too stupid to know if it is or not". see my replies to onetruthrgv for more don't feel like typing it again

[Voidroid]

@mebe84 You're wrong though; he's not trying to argue that their compatible – to do that would be an impossibly complex undertaking – he's arguing that they're 'not incompatible'. And again, he's using the same kind of logical argument that is used frequently in philosophy, and he's borrowing HEAVILY from Nagel's argument "What is it like to be a bat?" Which is considered to be the argument that stemmed the current tradition in the philosophy of mind. To say it is dumbed down is misinformed.

[mebe84]

@Voidroid when did i say he argued they were compatible?

what i said was his claim that the problem of evil is "solved" is based on nothing more than an appeal to ignorance. and it looks like u admit this

"there seems to be a problem of evil, but there's not because god could have good reasons for all the misery,pain and evil that we don't know about." well we could all be brains in vats,anything is possible,but that's a poor argument even if it is logically valid. it's a cop out

[Voidroid]

@mebe84 You said that he claimed they were logically consistent. He never made such a claim; he did speak about compatibility I assumed that's what you meant. His argument is not attempting to prove that God exists, his argument is intended to prove that God can coexist with evil. He's replying to the logical claims of atheists for why God can't coexist with evil, and giving reasons for WHY he can. Which, to be honest is refreshing from the constant emotional arguments of atheist vs Christian.

[mebe84]

@Voidroid ur right, i found my previous comment, i did say that. but tell me, if something isn't logically inconsistent,what is it?hint:there's only 1 option.but maybe ur right. maybe he's appealing to ignorance more than i thought.lol it's just that when he says the problem of evil is solved, it sounds like a truth claim.if the answer to the problem is "we just don't know",i don't think "solved" would be the right word.so what reasons did he give to show god can coexist with evil? give just 1

[Voidroid]

@mebe84 Well, because the argument is concerning impossibility. If God is inconsistent with evil, it does not necessarily mean that a lack of inconsistence makes it consistent. Possibility is uncertain where impossibility is certain. Hence why he uses the terms 'inconsistent' with 'compatible'. One reason he gives is that there is no explicit contradiction; his second reason is that nobody has ever given an implicit reason for incompatibility. In short, there's no evidence to argue against.

[mebe84]

@Voidroid if 2 things are not logically inconsistent, then they are consistent. possibility is uncertain,yes,i'll give u that,but as he gave no reason to show how,he is appealing to ignorance as i said. there is an explicit contradiction, because the problem of evil refers specifically to the theistic conception of god,which is supposedly benevolent and omnipotent.how could such a god create or allow misery pain and evil? the evidence is the existence of evil,obviously.

[Voidroid]

@mebe84 That's not evidence though. You're just creating a donut argument. He said that there is no reason explicit reason why a good God would not allow evil, and there has never been an implicit reason given either. Evil can't be the reason that a good God would not allow evil because it just returns us to the same question: why not?

[mebe84]

@Voidroid he appeals to ignorance to deny the problem is a problem(which doesn't necessarilly follow)in order to escape having to give a substantive argument.saying there might be sufficient reasons that we are ignorant does not in itself show evil and god are compatible/consistent(whatever­). so we have actual evidence of an apparent problem vs a denial of the problem based on an appeal to ignorance.craig barely scratches the surface of this topic

[Voidroid]

@mebe84 He doesn't NEED to give a substantive argument because he's not arguing an absolute. He's arguing against an absolute for an uncertainty; and he's right. We can't say it's impossible by any means because there's no reason to say it's impossible. Again, donut argument: "A good God would not allow evil." "Why?" "Because a good God would not allow evil."

[mebe84]

@Voidroid actually he argues against both the impossible and improbable versions. he says we cant say either cause wer'e too ignorant.

if u don't see the inconsistency of being benevolent and omnipotent and allowing evil, then your even worse than craig. at least he acknowledges it seems to be inconsistent.

perhaps a hypothetical will help u understand.

[Voidroid]

@mebe84 It's not inconsistent though; it only appears to be 'from our limited perspective'. And yes, he does argue against improbability but you never mentioned that until now. If that's what you had in mind I won't disagree with you because I don't think his four points aren't strong enough to constitute proof in my mind. To say it's impossible however is foolish; to say it's improbable is much stronger. I don't see how he says we're too ignorant to know about improbability? Timemark please?

[mebe84]

@Voidroid it's not inconsistent? that sounds like a claim that needs to be backed up. as i said multiple times, saying there might be reasons why it's not inconsistent(or improbable,he uses same appeal to ignorance for both) doesn't show that it's not. that is a poor argumen. i could use it now to argue u don't exist and my world is a vast deception by a malevolent demon, a la descartes.

craig saying we're too ignorant too assess probability(10:00

[Voidroid]

@mebe84 I caught what he said at 10:00, but he's not talking about the probability of the existence of God here, he's talking about the probability as it concerns to the chaos theory; that we can't assess the outcome of events with miniscule variables. He never says that point invalidates the argument he's countering – hence why he gives two more points. From 18:00 - 18:28 he verifies that despite his pro-probability position that improbability is still present. That's why it's weak to me....

[mebe84]

@Voidroid "we are not in good position to assess the probability that god has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evils that occur"

it's written on the screen. an appeal to ignorance

as we have been discussing his position on the problem of evil, and i mentioned he argues against the improbability of evil and god being compatible, why would u think i was referring to god's existence?

[mebe84]

@Voidroid let's say ur dad builds your room. but while ur sleeping it starts to collapse,in a moment a 2x4 will smash your head in. ur father, who supposedly loves u, stands by and doesn't save your life even though he loves u and,since he happens to be superman, is on no danger himself and could easily save u. if u see no inconsistencies here your moral compass is broken

he NEEDS to give a substantive argument if he wants his argument to be something other than a cop out

[Voidroid]

@mebe84 Thats not a relevant hypothetical situation. If you're comparing with God, you have to consider that the child's pain is not comparable to the rewards you get for believing in God.

Cont'd...

[Voidroid]

2. No, he doesn't need to give a substantive argument because his argument by default is correct as long as impossibility can't be proven. If he were arguing that God and evil DO coexist, he would have to give a substantive argument, but that's not his argument. He's saying there's a possibility of either. If no one can say they do or don't coexist, then both are possible.

[mebe84]

@Voidroid he does say it's logically possible they are compatible(whatever). he should say it's possible that it's possible they are compatible(what ur saying). he also says we can prove god and evil are compatible(around 4 minutes).

it doesn't matter if it's logically valid/correct. notice when i spoke of his need to give a substantive argument it was contigent on whether he wanted to give a cop out or not. not whether it's correct.

[Voidroid]

@mebe84 Well, I think what he's saying is the same as what I'm saying (hence why I interpreted it that way), but I guess there's ambiguity there since you interpreted it the way you did; in light of that I can't say if he intended the meaning I interpreted or the one you did... I'd be willing to leave it at that in any case.

Sorry, I meant to say awhile back that I agreed he was copping out, but you know... Youtube character limits and what-not.

[mebe84]

@Voidroid well i'm getting tired so i'll take that out.

i might leave a comment 2morrow though 

[Voidroid]

@mebe84 I look forward to it, it's been better than the regular flame wars on YT. =[

[Voidroid]

@mebe84 To be honest, I think you're just being defensive because you don't want to believe in a God who would allow evil in the world. I am an agnostic, and I have not been persuaded to either side of the argument, but one thing I can say for sure is that it is silly to say such a concept is impossible, just as it is silly to say that if God exists then evil has to exist.

[mebe84]

@Voidroid wow, quick to pull the mad at god card,eh?this sounds familiar... perhaps u haven't been an agnostic long? raised as a christian perhaps? just curious

i'm agnostic as well,in one sense. terms like agnostic and atheist have been used different ways. i didn't say it was imposible. i expressed my displeasure at what i found to be poor argument and cop out.

[Voidroid]

@mebe84 No, I was atheist my whole life up until last year but I realized I was only atheist for emotional reasons.

[mebe84]

@Voidroid thnx for answering. u just just reminded me of me when o first left christianity. coincidentally, i didn't have good reasons for believing what i believed either.

well that's refreshing to hear. most of these utube atheists are just as dogmatic as the christians are.

leave more comments if u like, i'm going to bed. i'll comment again tomorrow. g'night

[mebe84]

@mebe84 but again that's only if he is a christian. a possible implication of your response would be it's alright for people to ignore someone in life-threatening peril if u know he's a christian. 3.the analogy doesn't really include an afterlife, because that's not the point. in it, the father is god,standing by idly even though he has superpowers and could save the child with ease and without risk of injury. is it morally correct for him to allow this?

[Voidroid]

@mebe84 But I will admit, if you're looking for an inarguable answer, you're not going to get anything but cop outs, since the very nature of good and evil is subjective from our perspective.

[mebe84]

@Voidroid an inarguable answer? does that exist? but there are people who attempt to answer the problem of evil, unlike craig who refuses to acknowlege it by appealing to ignorance

[mebe84]

@Voidroid i tend to think morality and ethics have objective and subjective elements, but in the end do not exist at all without a perspective.

[Voidroid]

@mebe84 I agree with the last bit, except I don't necessarily believe that there are any objective elements involved in our perspective at all; I think they are largely culturally and socially inherited.

[mebe84]

@Voidroid our biological and chemical make-up influence our psychological dispositions,along with our environment. 

[FlyingAxblade]

wow, how serendipitous!

I just gave a Bible to a seeker, placing "Why Suffering"--a tract in the Bible and hooray here is a sermon on it!

gonna re-upload it!

Thanks ?Pastor White? did you find someone to ordain you...oh wow!

even deeper serendipity! if an immovable object was being coerced by an irresistable force for follow it...could the force put under the object a beltdrive, so that the object doesn't move but follows the force?