Isn't heaven a place of perfection with no evil? If god is all good then he has no free will and neither does his nemesis. So god must have no choice and a puppet of fate. To solve the free will and evil problem all you need is separate paradigms for humans, or give humans the power to overcome evil alone without a savior would exceed the number going to heaven and changing hell into a place of redemption and rebirth for those who did fail. That way all could go to heaven.
@a1saouse I am failing to see where this argument mentions faith healing at all. The issue he is raising is that of God wanted to wipe out evil he would have to destroy all evil. Additionally he would be required to destroy potential evil but if he did that he would also destroy potential good. The issue is not the power of God. He could he just wont make us into automatons otherwise love would be impossible and he wants us to love him.
I appreciate where you went with this. You did not however answer the question of evil. Ravi zacharias has a wonderful response to this using moral law and the use of absolutes like good and evil. To refute the moral law giver this man would have to accept that there is no good or evil only ones "taste." If that taste would prescribe a relative morality and thus disprove God. If he does this then his original question breaks down where he feels sorrow for his friend for some cosmic injustice.
an aid to your sexual desire??? this guy wants us to live our lives by beliefs. we live in a material world. if you want a drink of water you need to get off your ass and get it, if the preacher was to fall and break his leg,i'll be willing to bet his good leg he'll go to the hospital and not a church.he'll call on a dr. and not a priest or any holy man.
He is not yelling for the purpose of strong arming, he has to speak in a loud voice for all to hear the truth. He isn't angry, just passionate about Gods truth.
being passionate has no bearing on what's most likely true. He's merely speaking with conviction in hope that it mysteriously becomes more convincing based upon conviction and simply asserting it's truth has no bearing on the ultimate reality of the issue. Frankly speaking I've personally seen no valid reason to believe that a god exists, much less the claimed god of the bible or it's associated miracles.
Wow! I may have to consider giving up my atheism after watching the rationalresponder videos! It seems like it's TRUE: christianity actually seems MARGINALLY LESS RIDICULOUS when screamed at you from someone standing on a stump!
Or else....we're just instinctively less inclined to see the subtleties and logical weaknesses in someone when they're YELLING at us. I guess we take YELLING seriously because it's slightly threatening/worrisome....
@tube09sssss In the example the father represents god the kid represents the humans and the beating represents the evil. A father can choose to beat or not his child(keep in mind the kid was't doing anything wrong). If he beats the kid and says that I did it because i love you, now that is sick. God does the same, he can choose to create evil or not, but hi/she/it chose to create it which means... Anyway this char limited comment section is to short to explain stuff and not to misunderstand it
@tube09sssss Beside the fact that i don't accept your God so in that case he didn't punished no one at all.... ur God apparently punish us for something that he knew that we will do before we done it and above that he created us to do that so called sin of his.. So he created a being that is determent to sin and then he punishes if it does just that ... its like chopping of someone legs and then tell him to win a running race or he will be punished for "eternity"
@shapingAfutureHe created Adam and Eve okay he gave them choices he told them what to do and what not to do and he also gave them free will in a way.So lucifer was in the garden and tricked Eve into eating the fruit.The reason God even allows evil once again is to show how big his love is for all of us but those that dont accept him will be punished.Saying God isn't real is like denying your birth father.And if he punished no one then why did you use that example?You obviously have 0 knowledge
@tube09sssss I think I know the basic stories of the bible, so no need to repeat it what you wrote is only available if we accept that the bible is 100% the truth (which its kind of impossible with that many contradictions in it) Why would he plant a forbidden tree in there? Its like giving a knife to a kid end telling it not to touch the sharp edge, eventual he will be curious and cut him self ... and after then blame the kid
(i need to stop torturing this imaginary kid of mine :)) )
@shapingAfuture Condridictions? Ha you make me laugh. and he did it because he gave Adam and Eve free will it was there choice to do what they did maybe you should study more
Yet he supposedly designed adam and eve with their tendencies, not to mention the talking snake and the magic knowledge bearing fruit, not to mention he supposedly designed adam and eve without the ability to determine right from wrong before eating the fruit. Sorry but if a scientist creates a robot with it's tendencies that does something destructive do we blame the creation or the creator
1) Atheists can believe in other causes for the universe without believing in a god. Also admitting when one doesn't know means one is honest rather than making up that magic man done it.
2) Sorry but creationists believe something from nothing, according to the bible god created everything from nothing using magic and then proceeded to make man from clay and woman from a rib, before you talk about absurd beliefs you should examine your own.
3) Besides this statement presumes the fact that everyone believes there was nothing to begin with, not everyone believes this even in the scientific community. The understanding of the big bang starts at a singularity as the understanding based upon Einstein's theory of general relativity breaks down. The big bang is merely what you get when you apply general relativity to what we observe
4) I fail to see how any of your statement addresses anything that I stated
5) is your idea of an honest conversation when you bring up a point, someone addresses it and you jump to another point rather than responding honestly. Besides the claimed characteristics of god and/or heaven actually spit all over the argument that free will necessitates the ability for evil unless you think that god has no free will or free will is taken away in heaven and you're turned into a robot soul.
@garith21 Wow it amazes me how little you know about the bible. And no God doesn't create something from nothing because God is something so God created us... Use your head here kid.
1) okay, so what did I get wrong? According to your theology did god create the rules, create adam/eve, the conditions that lead to what occurred, the punishments, etc etc.
2) Do you believe free will necessitates evil, if so do you believe god has free will or is evil and do you believe that free will is taken away in heaven or is there free will in heaven
3) "because God is something"
Okay, so where is this god? Or is god only a something that is indistinguishable from nothing?
@garith21 God create Adam and Eve and he said to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He gave them free will Eve had a choice to eat of the fruit and she choose the wrong thing.Your second question make's no sense. We have free will we choose what we do. You either choose evil or good. You do have free will in heaven yes. God is something. God holds the universe in his hands so we can't see him no one will EVER see him.
1) So you agree that he created the conditions and them with their tendencies, merely saying "they had the choice" but didn't even have the knowledge of good and evil to determine what was good or evil because they had to eat the knowledge bearing fruit first.
2) If you believe it's impossible to have free will without evil then you can't believe there's free will in heaven, believe that there is evil in heaven or god intentionally "designed" us with a flawed "free will".
@garith21 It's called the bible kid. And once again you think you came from nothing and that it was all by chance. Yeah because that makes a lot of sense...
So you justify mythical claims by pointing to an unjustified mythical book. "I believe the book because the book tells me to believe" when such claims can't be verified outside of the book the book cannot stand on it's own.
Secondly I believe it came from natural processes, whatever processes we can verify merely becomes part of our natural understanding.
Lastly I love how you're avoiding the fact that your myths refute your rationalizations for evil.
Oddly enough that statement still doesn't address any of my arguments, statements or questions in response to your statements if you really believe they're true.
As a believer and apologist the answer that was given is not only logically wrong but Biblically void. The proper answer to the question is that God desires evil in the world to accomplish His own purposes, for He “works all things after the council of His own will” Eph 1:11 and “everything” happens for a purpose. God has good reasons of why evil is in the world (Rom 9:22-23). For God could have prevented Adam from sinning if He so chose so that there would be no evil in the world.
Cancer isn't a result of human freewill - neither are hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, volcanoes, etc. God (assuming he exists...for a moment) must have created those.
@twoface4 I don't understand how everyone is mad at Chad for loving his neighbor and wanting to see them escape an eternal torment. Chad wants to see you saved. His life is proof of his beliefs. He put himself in harms way as a Navy SEAL to give you and others around the world freedom to disagree. He preaches because he loves the lost and wants to see them and you saved. I hope you understand this to be the truth, repent of your sins and trust in Jesus.
"She is just an accident " if you wanna make it that simplified then yes she is. Her personality will disappear and her atoms will go back in to nature after death. "If you were God how would you fix it ?" what a dumb question ... just wipe evil out of existence. You realy forget that your God that you cherish so much is omnipotent. So God wouldn't have to destroy good... just zap your magic finger and remove evil .
@tube09sssss you should really study evolution. Evolution is not about accidents. What you refer to as accidental its cause and effect. While science tries to answer all of the questions with the scientific method, religion claims to know everything. Science accepts if it has mistakes and never says that this is the truth. It is only saying that with our current knowledge this is the most plausible answer. Religion talks about universal truth witch they claim to have.... without evidence.
very disrespectful attack on the guy with the dying friend, in a public, arrogant display. Is this how you recruit people? No wonder churches are shutting down everywhere. Thank God, and yes, I did say Thank God.
If god would have to eliminate all to make a perfect world... How was god able to create heaven? Heaven proves that god can make a perfect world without evil.
Prove there is a heaven, oh wait you can't. I did create a perfect world without veggies though, its called meatopia! What? You don't believe in my divine creation?! Your soul will be condemned to a fiery place where I bake biscuits and corn bread!
The point I was making is that if god can create heaven, that means he can create a perfect world without evil. The fact that he made this world as shitty as it is when he could have made it better is a point against christians.
when that guy asked that qeustion @ around 55 seconds of the vid it irritated me so much! he asks a question about god then they ask him the same and how would he handle it, he says "you can't ask that" when he just did that a second before! what a looser
Everyones life can have purpose, meaning, and significance that they make for themselves or for others, and just because it does not matter on the grand cosmic scale does not mean that it does not matter on a smaller scale. If you want your arguement to hold, you need to show a necessary connection. This you have not done.
Just because someones life on the athiest perspective does not necessarily have a cosmic significance does not mean that her life has no significance. You must first show how the two are connected by more then baseless assertions. Just because her life does not necessarily have cosmic meaning does not mean that her life has no meaning. Just because her life does not necessarily have cosmic purpose does not mean that her life has no purpose.
Also the christian guy states that the atheist view is that chrstina will die, her life will have no meaning, no purpose, and that she was just an accident. First off, this arguement that if there is no god everything happened by chance is a strawman, read stephen hawkings latest book, the universe arose as an inevitable result of the laws of physics, not by chance, but by necessity. Secondly...
This guy has failed to answer the question with regards to cancer. Sorry but no ones free will would be infringed on if god miraculously cured this girl, yet he doesnt, and so the problem of evil stands in stark contradiction to the idea of the christian god and this preacher kid fails.
The christian guy in this video answers the question of the problem of evil essentially by saying that god would have to get rid of free will which would be worse then allowing potential evil to exist in the first place. Fine, philosophers have already accepted Plantinga's free will arguement for people. However the question still remains with regards to diseaes, earth quakes, and other things i like to call "Natural Evils" (suffering if you prefere). The problem of evil remains Unanswered.
If you were God how would you fix it -- easy just click his fingers and get rid of cancer duh he is God after all..
He ( the first guy) was correct - he isn't looking for God to help her because God isn't going to do shit.. that is exactly what we have observed.. if everyone in the world prayer for her chance are she is still going to die
Cold hard facts - according to the laws of the "survival of the fittest", that poor, unfortunate girl with cancer will probably die because her body wasnt fit enough. Nature is cruel, sure. Scientific facts are cruel sometimes, yes - it is the cold, hard truth - but at least it IS the TRUTH and I am not going to bury my head in the sand and call out to some fairy-tale sky daddy to come rescue me. I am going to live life to the fullest while I can - by facing the TRUTH and dealing with it...
Just because there is no god does not mean there is no meaning. This guy uses the argument from ignorance. Just because they can't come up with "SOME" kind of answer, then he supposes that it is god... FAIL!!!
Also a bit of advice for this kid. When you debate religion don't bring in someone's personal history into the discussion. It brings up bad memories for that guy while making you look like a inconsiderate douche.
His argument for the destruction of evil was not bad but the whole rational, bending the paper clip thing, totally not necessary. He is arguing that God has the power to eradicate evil, which he does. Everyone knows that God is all powerful so its never been a question of power. Its a question made to point out the nature of the "world" God has created for us. Why would God, being all powerful, all knowing and all loving create a world like this for us to live.
Thumbs up if you agree that if god existed, he could easily just get rid of some 'evil' like Viruses. They aren't potentially good in any way at all, therefore According to this guy's blabbering, if there was a god, he would have rid viruses from this earth. Durrr
@kingalbert300 Lets consider one of the worst most deadly viruses in humans (HIV) the AIDS virus. Common in sheep, and other primates AIDS did not exist in humans until the 1950's. AIDS in sheep and primates is nothing more then a common cold, but is deadly to humans. There are many thoughts on how it was originally transmitted to humans but many agree AIDS was first documented with a sailor (David Carr) who most likely practiced beastiality. Is God responsible for AIDS? or is it mans evil?
Don`t forget that a perfect god would not create anything to begin with.
If he wanted to create a world for his creatures, why not create a perfect heavenly world and put everyone there to begin with, with eternal bliss for all?
Science never gave one life longevity unless you call eighty years longevity.The problem with the girl is flesh.All flesh even healthy and well will die.Flesh always wars with one another and flesh brings suffering left to its own devices.
What rubbish. If God is all powerful, surely he can destroy the bad without destroying the good. Anyway,cancer is something that occurrs in nature and not always because of human evil. The preacher has not addressed the real question of why a good and loving God would allow such a terrible thing to occurr. Also how dare the preacher say that an ill woman's life has no meaning or value without belief in God. This is arrogant and cruel. Has this preacher no ethics or sensitivity?
Walter Martin, my hero :-) Standing where others have run and hid. Jesus well said, that people reject the light because their deeds are evil the darkness rejects the light. Check out Ron Carlson as well, as he was a student of Walter Martin.
I'm sorry but Chad's awesome! Chad- 1 Cor 15:58 "Be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord knowing that your toil is not in vain."
This a simple syllogism that proves that God is imperfect, and since God is a perfect being that which no greater can be imagined, God does not exist. Syllogisms are formal expressions of logic and reason developed by Aristotle. So if you want to be intellectually honest based on the thoughts of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, you need to follow the conclusion that inescapably follows the two premises.
Evil is part of our evolution we have required evil as necessary part of our DNA, to push forward, to remedy the suffering we all witness and take part in, the blood shed by the root cause of evil is a reminder of our past and a goal for our future, the eliminatation of evil. Mankind has the psychological ability to forget, it is a coping mechanism we have inherited from our past, when we have forgotten how to be evil will be the time when mankind has truly evolved. Viva la revolution.
That was done very, very well, rationalresponder. No one seemed to object as well (in this clip)... they must of seen the truth in what you were saying.
Continue to defend the Gospel, precious brother in Christ.
Thank you for responding. You say you are sure that noone would rebel against god in heaven. However -- are we "morally free" to rebel against god in heaven? Do we still have the ability to commit evil in heaven as we do currently on earth?
The further one is from God, the more limits there are on one's free will, and conversely, the closer one gets to God, the greater and greater his free will becomes, the more choices he has to do whatever he wishes.
If by "Heaven," you mean God's home, then the answer is that in God's home, everyone has much more freedom to choose than anyone on earth has.
In order to answer specifically about choices for "evil," you would first have to define that word.
Since God doesn't ever "punish" anyone or send anyone to "hell," by your definition of the term, so-called "evil" does not exist.
Yes, if by "Heaven" you mean the abode where God lives, everyone there has the freedom to rebel against God, most definitely -- the residents there have even more freedom to choose their actions than we do here on earth.
According to the speaker in the video, suffering in this world (specifically, the cancer afflicting the questioner's friend) is a result of "evil", and the "potential for evil" in this world.
Since you say people have "more freedom to choose" than on earth, is the "potential for evil" greater in heaven than on earth? And is suffering in heaven therefore greater than it is on earth?
The heavenly planets are part of the material world, but the residents there do have more potential for free choice than the residents of this planet.
In the spiritual world, which is far higher than the heavenly planets, and where God Himself lives, the residents there have even greater potential for freely making good or bad choices.
Loss of life in the heavenly planets is very difficult to handle because the material attachments there are so strong, much more than on earth.
However, in the spiritual world, there is no death, there is no material attachment, and there is never any loss. Therefore, there is no suffering in the spiritual world at all, even though the freedom of choice there is greater than anywhere else in all of manifested reality.
The intelligent course of action, therefore, is to behave in such a way that we are invited to live in the spiritual world. This is done by accepting the good advice that God reveals in His scriptures.
Once again, the speaker's justification for suffering in this world is that suffering is a result of "evil" and "the potential for evil". He went further to say that if god took away this "potential for evil", we would not exist. Are you disagreeing with the speaker and saying we can exist without this "potential", or that this "potential" remains in heaven, simply without any suffering to go with it?
Yes, we can, and do, exist without "potential for evil," for, according to your own definition of "evil," it does not exist, and so neither can its "potential" exist.
I never said that the potential for "evil" was in heaven.
I suggest that you actually read my previous answers rather than asking the same questions repeatedly and putting words in my mouth -- my answers will not change through repetition of your questions, nor can I be held responsible for your own answers to your questions.
If I presumed too much with my proffered definition of evil, I apologize. The speaker does not detail his own definition, but since you appear to be defending his position: Are you saying we can, and do exist without the potential for evil (according to the speaker's definition, not mine)?
You did say we are morally free in heaven, which is the same as potential for evil (according to the speaker's definition, not mine). I suggest you pay attention since I made this clear in my initial post.
You just said that the speaker did not detail his own definition, then you asked me a specific question about that very non-detailed definition. I hope you realize that such a question cannot be answered, even though I am trying honestly to stay with you here.
I did not say that being morally free in heaven was the same as potential for evil -- you are again putting words in my mouth. In fact, according to your own definition of evil, the two concepts are extremely different.
PS -- At no point did I or the speaker say that suffering was somehow a result of "evil." Nobody in the video asked about the causes of suffering, and nobody in the video posited any specific causes of suffering.
Actually, you are the one who independently inserted that erroneous assertion (that evil causes suffering) into this conversation. Then you proceeded to argue against your own assertion -- that is called "straw-man logical fallacy."
The speaker says (at 1:05) that for there to be no suffering, god would have to get rid of all the "actual evil", and "potential for evil" in the world. He then says that if god did this he would have to get rid of us, since he would have to get rid of "morally free creatures". Using the speaker's terminology, I asked in my initial post if we are "morally free" in heaven.
It was wrong of you to ask me to define "evil" since we are discussing the speaker's concepts. I was wrong to provide a definition for the same reason.
So now: Make sure you first of all agree that the speaker correlated "potential for evil" with being "morally free" (starting at 1:05, in case you forgot).
Then tell me: Are we morally free -- with the potential for evil -- in heaven (using the speaker's definition of evil, not mine)?
Did I harm you by asking you to define evil? If so, I apologize for the pain my cruel question caused you.
However, since you did define it, I answered according to your definition. Did my answer also harm you?
The speaker did not correlate as you posit above, no -- not before, not at, and not after 1:05.
Also, I already answered your final question (at least three times), and we already agreed that the speaker did not detail a definition for the word "evil."
The speaker says: "He would have to get rid of all the actual evil in the world, and all the potential for evil....if god did that though, he would have to destroy a very good thing also...and that's morally free creatures."
How is that not a correlation of "actual evil" and "potential for evil" with being "morally free"?
You have failed to establish that it's a correlation -- the supposed correlation is obviously part of your own personal belief system, but I won't accept your beliefs just because you say so. If you want to convince me of that supposed correlation, you'll need to provide some evidence, which you have failed to do.
I don't accept blunt personal beliefs backed merely by the weak "because I said so" line. I only accept facts with evidence to support them -- that's how I roll.
Got any evidence for your bizarre personal belief that there's supposedly some unspecified correlation between potential for evil and moral freedom, or did you just make it up?
I am not asserting that correlation -- the speaker is. When the speaker says
"if god [got rid of all the actual evil in the world, and all the potential for evil], he would have to destroy a very good thing also...and that's morally free creatures",
how is he NOT saying that removal of evil results in the removal of moral freedom?
With my initial question, I was addressing that "bizarre" correlation (made by the speaker, not me).
"He would have to get rid of all the actual evil in the world, and all the potential for evil....if god did that though, he would have to destroy a very good thing also...and that's morally free creatures."
Precisely what did you understand that to mean -- if not a correlation (by the speaker, not me) between "potential for evil" and being "morally free"?
Once again the speaker (not I) says that to get rid of suffering, god would have to get rid of "actual evil" and "potential for evil", but in doing so he would have to get rid of "morally free creatures". If you do not get that from what the speaker said, please present what he actually meant with the quote which I've provided multiple times now.
Obviously, that is what you personally believe, but you have failed to establish that bizarre personal belief of yours as fact -- failed miserably, actually.
He meant what he actually said by the quote -- his meaning was clear and direct. In contrast, your personal interpretation of his direct quote is biased, erroneous, and superfluous.
The quote to which you refer does not mention suffering at all -- you injected that concept into the quote dishonestly. Listen to what he says again, and point out the exact second when he supposedly says, "suffering." Actually, there is no such second, because he does not mention suffering in the quote to which you refer.
Whether or not he is referring to suffering, does he or does he not say that if god got rid of "actual evil" and "potential for evil", he would also have to get rid of morally free creatures?
He asks, "How would you FIX IT," and the atheist refuses to answer.
He then says that God would have to get rid of actual and potential evil, but this was unrelated to the question of suffering -- it was purely on the question of evil itself.
You need to review the actual words spoken in this video and stop employing straw-man fallacies.
I'm not sure how you find it unrelated, or why you're making a case of it; the questioner mentioned his friend's suffering, then went on to say "there's so much 'bad' in this world".
In any case: The speaker correlated "potential for evil" with being "morally free". You said at first we have more freedom in heaven than on earth, then said we can exist in heaven without "potential for evil".
So are you now disagreeing with the speaker's correlation? Please clarify.
You have failed to establish a relationship -- he didn't say that evil causes suffering anywhere in the video. You're the only one positing that strange personal belief -- not me, not the speaker, and not anyone else -- only you have said that.
No, the speaker also did not correlate "potential for evil" with being morally free, and neither did I.
In fact, I have already clearly stated several times that there is absolutely no correlation there, and more: I stated that there is no such thing as "evil" or its potential, according to your own definition of "evil."
"He would have to get rid of all the actual evil in the world, and all the potential for evil....if god did that though, he would have to destroy a very good thing also...and that's morally free creatures."
First i was dying of a rare illness called Behcets Syndrome UNTILL i got saved & new that i was sick with a lie from the pit of hell! I then got gitty with joy when i realized that i was already healed when Jesus died on the cross with my sins & my illness. in that joy i was healed from that moment on till now. it has been 8 years healed :)
The skeptic's challenge, and your response, both presuppose libertarian free will. But this is begging the question.
The biblically faithful answer can only be found in Calvinism. God has ordained the evil and suffering, and He has a *good* reason for doing so. Atheism has not shown any incompatibility with a "good" God. and the existence of evil in God's universe.
Also, his use of the term "good" has ethical implications that he must justify in the first place.
When the redeemed enter the Glory of God and are surrounded by the Cherubim, the Angels and the eternal majesty and rpesence of the LORD our God, then we wll be truly free. But in being surrounded by so much glory, I am sure that not a single person - having been redeemed ultimatley from sin, pain and death in this life on Earth - would rebell against God. So in answering - yes, we will be truly, eternally free.
We are by nature morally free, like God is, but we are also limited, unlike God. Therefore, our freedom of choice will always be limited, by our very nature.
However, we have the choice right now to move closer to God, or to move away from Him, and the natural reaction of those choices are that when we move closer to God, our free will becomes even more free, whereas when we move away from God, our free will automatically becomes covered and restricted.
Do you mean to say that the closer we get to god, the greater our free will - i.e., the greater our ability to choose between good & evil...and the further we get from god, the lesser our ability to choose?
2. You start off with a strawman and then waffle on for a few minutes without answering the question.
3. You claim that if one doesn't have the potential to do evil, we wouldn't exist. Kindly tell me RR, what's heaven?
4. You then waffle on about square circles without explaining what it has to do with anything. Removing this girls cancer or evil from the world is not a matter of logical impossibility. It CAN be done, god doesn't WANT to.
RationalResponder, I appreciate your zeal for faith, but I highly recommend you become educated on the diverse opinions on this matter. Reading just a few Christian philosophers and parroting their views may seem thorough, but it is not a complete education.
Read Kierkegaard, for beginners.
Read Nietzsche. Read Dawkins. Read intelligent and sincere and respectful atheists, and understand their position.
Don't emphasize the chasm through polarizing argumentation. Converse. Be respectful.
Oh, yeah. Keep it up. Keep up spreading false hope using fallacies and tautologies! Or, maybe get a little education before you open your ignorant mouth.
Using "sound bites" to fight truth is just pathetic.
LOL, in regards to logical fallacies please name them;)
In regards to tautology...you tend to be confusing here because you are using a word that has an equivocal meaning and you never defined what sense U intended. If U intended it in the sense of rhetoric...consider yourself GUILTY..if you meant it in the sense of a truth statement...well, ya I believe some things are Tautologically true ;)
What sound bites did I use??? LOL, that was un-cut audio...only the picture moves around ;)
@rationalresponder I disagree that god would have to "wipe out all humans" to eliminate evil. to quote the bible "all things are possible with god" therefore, god COULD just wipe out the evil and leave the remaining humans unable to commit evil anymore. After all, God is ALL POWERFUL and could do ANYTHING. At least according to the bible. However, the Abrahamic God does not want this. God Created Satan and he KNEW that Satan would betray him and "cause" evil. Therefore, God is Evil.
@rationalresponder Correct me if Im wrong, but God created Satan on Purpose, it was no accident, and in turn, created Evil, on purpose, God knew the consequences of his actions b/c he is "all knowing". Every women and child that is raped, is raped through the divine will of god, as it his will that it happens. He could stop it, but he allows it to happen.To believe in your God is to be on comfy terms with Evil, because, according to G. Bahnsen, there is a "morally sufficient" reason for Evil
@rationalresponder Morality has nothing to do with the bible, you will not see the word "morality" anywhere in the bible. Objectivism has all the answers we need when it comes to values, morals, and what to do and why, we do not need a "moral law giver". the god of the bible is evil b/c he created evil and every evil act carried out, god already knew it was going to happen, he could stop it, but he doesnt b/c he has a "morally sufficient reason" for it.
@rationalresponder A Christian could walk into a room with a woman being raped and say "there is a morally sufficient reason for this,because god is allowing it", then allow it to go on, knowing that everything will work out exactly as god intends it. an atheist such as myself who believesin RATIONAL MORALITY would walk in the room and say "there is no reason for this and it should not be happening" stop the rape and feel perfectly justified in doing so. this is not the case with Christianity
@actionjackson864 A Christian could walk into a room with a woman being raped and say "there is a morally sufficient reason for this,because god is allowing it", "
Dose that same logical allow catholic to justify child molesting priest.. as well
@rationalresponder you didnt answer the problem of evil. you said that god would have to wipe us out to eliminate evil or let us live and keep evil in tact. this is a false dichotomy (i named a falacy for frann133). this false dichotomy is based off of a strawman. no atheist takes the position that god should wipe evil out. we dont believe in a god in the first place. we are saying that your god under the definitions of an all good, all powerful god cannot exist in a world with evil.
You seem to dance around the questions people ask you Chad rather than giving a straight answer.
Anyway, your basically saying that if god doesnt exist then "her life had no meaning and no purpose." Then using your logic, you then purport; life must have meaning and purpose: therefore god exists.
But, do we need to have a god to give us purpose and meaning? I dont think so, I think people are able to choose for themselves whatever the hell it is they want the purpose of their life to be.
@FreakUni is that the way is HAS to be? the bible says "all things are possible with God" God doesnt HAVE TO kill us to wipe out the evil, he could will it since he is all powerful. but he wont, and according to John Calvin “God So Uses the Works of the Ungodly, and So Bends Their Minds to Carry Out His Judgments" Why cant god think of a better way to do things? wat a horrible way to go about accomplishing a plan, its obvious god is comfortable with "using" evil to carry out "his plan".
I am trying to point out that God IS merciful and patient with evil, as seen in the simple reason that many of us are indeed still alive and given a chance to repent. Although, He is perfectly justified whenever He looses patience and kills a man.
Most arguments using "God shouldn't allow evil" assume that men are innocent, my point is that all men are evil and God's temporary allowance of evil is a mercy on us.
(To be perfectly clear, practically every theodicy ever written uses the basic substance of your argument. It certainly isn't anything new. Though, in all fairness, I don't think I've ever seen it employed as offensively as this video depicts.)
Why did you refer to 'Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato' to justify your use of a 'law of logic' that I'm fairly certain cannot be traced to any of their writings?
The substance of your argument is quite profound, but it is hidden behind a lot of yelling, twisted phrases, and what appear to be attempts to belittle others.
On a side note, I would love to see you argue with a well-educated Nietzschean. ;)
@adambargoed - so -- once again -- are you implying that "moral qualities" did not come into practice until the NT was put together in the 4th century?
And do you further claim that suddenly humanity entered a golden age of "gentleness and goodness" immediately following the compilation of the NT?
Hey Skeptics...no debate here. Hang tight you are going to meet the God you dont Beleive. Every Knee will bow.You Will confess Jesus is lord. Be ready.
@hectorzit Shut up. And you're going to meet the Flying Spaghetti Monster when you die. I like how every Christian I come across ultimately uses fear to persuade people. They can't imagine someone who isn't weak-minded like them. You cannot love something and fear it at the same time. Fuck your stupid bullshit book by the way.
5.Yet, the source of his pleasure is actually the cause of his suffering. The whole face of the earth is nothing but ugly sores of suffering. Everywhere we look we see unspeakable pain. But instead of believing Gods explanation and asking Him to forgive us and change our appetite, we run deeper into sins sweet embrace. There we find solace in its temporal pleasures, thus intensifying our pain, both in this life and in the life to come.
4. Imagine if the weather worked for & not against us, if disease & pain was a thing of the past, if death was no more.The dilemma is that we are like a child whose insatiable appetite for chocolate has caused his face to break out with ugly sores. He looks in the mirror and sees a sight that makes him depressed. But instead of giving up his beloved chocolate, he consoles himself by stuffing more into his mouth.
3. Someday, there will be no more pain, suffering, disease, or death. We are told that no eye has ever seen, nor has any ear heard, neither has any mans mind ever imagined the wonderful things that God has in store for those who love Him (1 Cor 2:9).Think for a moment what it would be like if food grew with the fervor of weeds. Consider how wonderful it would be if the deserts became incredibly fertile, if creation stopped devouring humanity.
2:The Bible tells us that God cursed the earth because of Adams sin. Weeds are a curse. So is disease. Sin & suffering cannot be separated. We live in a fallen creation. God created man perfect in a perfect world without suffering. It was heaven on earth. Once sin came into the world, death and misery did too. Those who understand the Bible eagerly await a new heaven and a new earth "wherein dwells righteous-ness."
1: Sadly, many use the suffering as an excuse to reject any thought of God, when its existence is the very reason we should accept Him. Suffering explains the truth of the Word of God. But how can we know that the Bible is true? Simply by studying the prophecies of Matt 24, Lk 21, & 2 Tim 3. A few minutes of openhearted inspection will convince any honest skeptic that this is no ordinary book. It is the explains why there is suffering...and what we can do about it.
What is your basis for saying that? Are you implying that "moral qualities" did not come into practice until the NT was put together in the 4th century?
God could easily have gotten rid of cancer, what a fucking smuck.
astroboomboy 2 weeks ago
Isn't heaven a place of perfection with no evil? If god is all good then he has no free will and neither does his nemesis. So god must have no choice and a puppet of fate. To solve the free will and evil problem all you need is separate paradigms for humans, or give humans the power to overcome evil alone without a savior would exceed the number going to heaven and changing hell into a place of redemption and rebirth for those who did fail. That way all could go to heaven.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 2 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence i think you are trying to create your own theory haha.
theradworldofchad1 2 months ago
@a1saouse I am failing to see where this argument mentions faith healing at all. The issue he is raising is that of God wanted to wipe out evil he would have to destroy all evil. Additionally he would be required to destroy potential evil but if he did that he would also destroy potential good. The issue is not the power of God. He could he just wont make us into automatons otherwise love would be impossible and he wants us to love him.
justcheckingoklol 3 months ago
I appreciate where you went with this. You did not however answer the question of evil. Ravi zacharias has a wonderful response to this using moral law and the use of absolutes like good and evil. To refute the moral law giver this man would have to accept that there is no good or evil only ones "taste." If that taste would prescribe a relative morality and thus disprove God. If he does this then his original question breaks down where he feels sorrow for his friend for some cosmic injustice.
justcheckingoklol 3 months ago
Every response this guy defending God uses is COMPLETELY un-falsifiable! bad argument!! only convincing to the naive!!
seanoyler 3 months ago
who is this dummy defending the God....? lol..
gskowal 4 months ago
an aid to your sexual desire??? this guy wants us to live our lives by beliefs. we live in a material world. if you want a drink of water you need to get off your ass and get it, if the preacher was to fall and break his leg,i'll be willing to bet his good leg he'll go to the hospital and not a church.he'll call on a dr. and not a priest or any holy man.
a1saouse 4 months ago
omfg what a bag argument really...
i mean, you call this logic? xD
if god was omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent then he wouldn't have created evil in the first place.
he wouldn't have created humans that do evil things, but only good things
the mere word "evil" would be non-existing
such a god, could have created a universe with pure good, without the slightest breeze of anything evil.
thats a fact
there's no answer to the problem of evil, because it DISPROVES this kind of god.
KevinJamalCaldwell 4 months ago
He is not yelling for the purpose of strong arming, he has to speak in a loud voice for all to hear the truth. He isn't angry, just passionate about Gods truth.
Rochoa2884 4 months ago
@Rochoa2884
being passionate has no bearing on what's most likely true. He's merely speaking with conviction in hope that it mysteriously becomes more convincing based upon conviction and simply asserting it's truth has no bearing on the ultimate reality of the issue. Frankly speaking I've personally seen no valid reason to believe that a god exists, much less the claimed god of the bible or it's associated miracles.
garith21 4 months ago
@Rochoa2884 loud doesn't mean right
a1saouse 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do we have free will in heaven?
punnet2 5 months ago
Wow! I may have to consider giving up my atheism after watching the rationalresponder videos! It seems like it's TRUE: christianity actually seems MARGINALLY LESS RIDICULOUS when screamed at you from someone standing on a stump!
Or else....we're just instinctively less inclined to see the subtleties and logical weaknesses in someone when they're YELLING at us. I guess we take YELLING seriously because it's slightly threatening/worrisome....
GetMeThere1 6 months ago
a dim lamp looks bright when surrounded by even dimmer lights.
shawnwilliams77 6 months ago
The hilarious part about this kind of argument is that you basically said that heaven can't exist, congratulations.
garith21 7 months ago
obviously you have mental issues, cause ure only talking and not arguing,
this is not how we analyze the problem of evil :P this is what happens AFTER WE GO TO CHURCH...
lookingAclass 7 months ago
God ALLOWED evil into his world so he could show his love even more!
tube09sssss 8 months ago
@tube09sssss So if i beat my kid to the point of death for no reason and then nurture him that shows that i love him ?
shapingAfuture 8 months ago
@shapingAfuture Wow... What kind of example is that? Thats just horrible and its murder why would you even think up that example?
tube09sssss 8 months ago
@tube09sssss In the example the father represents god the kid represents the humans and the beating represents the evil. A father can choose to beat or not his child(keep in mind the kid was't doing anything wrong). If he beats the kid and says that I did it because i love you, now that is sick. God does the same, he can choose to create evil or not, but hi/she/it chose to create it which means... Anyway this char limited comment section is to short to explain stuff and not to misunderstand it
shapingAfuture 8 months ago
@shapingAfuture Dude your not getting it obviously. Okay let me ask you this when did God EVER punish someone for "doing nothing"
tube09sssss 8 months ago
@tube09sssss Beside the fact that i don't accept your God so in that case he didn't punished no one at all.... ur God apparently punish us for something that he knew that we will do before we done it and above that he created us to do that so called sin of his.. So he created a being that is determent to sin and then he punishes if it does just that ... its like chopping of someone legs and then tell him to win a running race or he will be punished for "eternity"
shapingAfuture 8 months ago
@shapingAfutureHe created Adam and Eve okay he gave them choices he told them what to do and what not to do and he also gave them free will in a way.So lucifer was in the garden and tricked Eve into eating the fruit.The reason God even allows evil once again is to show how big his love is for all of us but those that dont accept him will be punished.Saying God isn't real is like denying your birth father.And if he punished no one then why did you use that example?You obviously have 0 knowledge
tube09sssss 8 months ago
@tube09sssss I think I know the basic stories of the bible, so no need to repeat it what you wrote is only available if we accept that the bible is 100% the truth (which its kind of impossible with that many contradictions in it) Why would he plant a forbidden tree in there? Its like giving a knife to a kid end telling it not to touch the sharp edge, eventual he will be curious and cut him self ... and after then blame the kid
(i need to stop torturing this imaginary kid of mine :)) )
shapingAfuture 8 months ago
@shapingAfuture Condridictions? Ha you make me laugh. and he did it because he gave Adam and Eve free will it was there choice to do what they did maybe you should study more
tube09sssss 8 months ago
@tube09sssss
Yet he supposedly designed adam and eve with their tendencies, not to mention the talking snake and the magic knowledge bearing fruit, not to mention he supposedly designed adam and eve without the ability to determine right from wrong before eating the fruit. Sorry but if a scientist creates a robot with it's tendencies that does something destructive do we blame the creation or the creator
garith21 7 months ago
@garith21 You atheist believe you came from nothing... Im sorry it's so hard to realize that nothing comes from nothing...
tube09sssss 7 months ago
@tube09sssss
1) Atheists can believe in other causes for the universe without believing in a god. Also admitting when one doesn't know means one is honest rather than making up that magic man done it.
2) Sorry but creationists believe something from nothing, according to the bible god created everything from nothing using magic and then proceeded to make man from clay and woman from a rib, before you talk about absurd beliefs you should examine your own.
garith21 7 months ago
@tube09sssss
3) Besides this statement presumes the fact that everyone believes there was nothing to begin with, not everyone believes this even in the scientific community. The understanding of the big bang starts at a singularity as the understanding based upon Einstein's theory of general relativity breaks down. The big bang is merely what you get when you apply general relativity to what we observe
4) I fail to see how any of your statement addresses anything that I stated
garith21 7 months ago
@tube09sssss
5) is your idea of an honest conversation when you bring up a point, someone addresses it and you jump to another point rather than responding honestly. Besides the claimed characteristics of god and/or heaven actually spit all over the argument that free will necessitates the ability for evil unless you think that god has no free will or free will is taken away in heaven and you're turned into a robot soul.
garith21 7 months ago
@garith21 Wow it amazes me how little you know about the bible. And no God doesn't create something from nothing because God is something so God created us... Use your head here kid.
tube09sssss 7 months ago
@tube09sssss
1) okay, so what did I get wrong? According to your theology did god create the rules, create adam/eve, the conditions that lead to what occurred, the punishments, etc etc.
2) Do you believe free will necessitates evil, if so do you believe god has free will or is evil and do you believe that free will is taken away in heaven or is there free will in heaven
3) "because God is something"
Okay, so where is this god? Or is god only a something that is indistinguishable from nothing?
garith21 7 months ago
@garith21 God create Adam and Eve and he said to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He gave them free will Eve had a choice to eat of the fruit and she choose the wrong thing.Your second question make's no sense. We have free will we choose what we do. You either choose evil or good. You do have free will in heaven yes. God is something. God holds the universe in his hands so we can't see him no one will EVER see him.
tube09sssss 7 months ago
@tube09sssss
1) So you agree that he created the conditions and them with their tendencies, merely saying "they had the choice" but didn't even have the knowledge of good and evil to determine what was good or evil because they had to eat the knowledge bearing fruit first.
2) If you believe it's impossible to have free will without evil then you can't believe there's free will in heaven, believe that there is evil in heaven or god intentionally "designed" us with a flawed "free will".
garith21 7 months ago
@tube09sssss
"God holds the universe in his hands so we can't see him no one will EVER see him"
So what's your evidence that any of this is true?
garith21 7 months ago
@garith21 It's called the bible kid. And once again you think you came from nothing and that it was all by chance. Yeah because that makes a lot of sense...
tube09sssss 7 months ago
@tube09sssss
So you justify mythical claims by pointing to an unjustified mythical book. "I believe the book because the book tells me to believe" when such claims can't be verified outside of the book the book cannot stand on it's own.
Secondly I believe it came from natural processes, whatever processes we can verify merely becomes part of our natural understanding.
Lastly I love how you're avoiding the fact that your myths refute your rationalizations for evil.
garith21 7 months ago
@garith21 *sigh* You really have a lot to learn.
tube09sssss 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tube09sssss
I can do that to
*sigh* You really have a lot to learn.
Oddly enough that statement still doesn't address any of my arguments, statements or questions in response to your statements if you really believe they're true.
Dance puppet dance =P
garith21 7 months ago
Comment removed
a1saouse 4 months ago
As a believer and apologist the answer that was given is not only logically wrong but Biblically void. The proper answer to the question is that God desires evil in the world to accomplish His own purposes, for He “works all things after the council of His own will” Eph 1:11 and “everything” happens for a purpose. God has good reasons of why evil is in the world (Rom 9:22-23). For God could have prevented Adam from sinning if He so chose so that there would be no evil in the world.
akaturbo7 8 months ago
Cancer isn't a result of human freewill - neither are hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, volcanoes, etc. God (assuming he exists...for a moment) must have created those.
redblade79 8 months ago
Comment removed
akaturbo7 8 months ago
he would half to actually be omniscient and omnipotent. go figure lol.
Jaym505 8 months ago
I would love to just beat that guys ass....Aristotle would be rolling in his grave.
twoface4 8 months ago
@twoface4 I don't understand how everyone is mad at Chad for loving his neighbor and wanting to see them escape an eternal torment. Chad wants to see you saved. His life is proof of his beliefs. He put himself in harms way as a Navy SEAL to give you and others around the world freedom to disagree. He preaches because he loves the lost and wants to see them and you saved. I hope you understand this to be the truth, repent of your sins and trust in Jesus.
SavedNations 8 months ago
"She is just an accident " if you wanna make it that simplified then yes she is. Her personality will disappear and her atoms will go back in to nature after death. "If you were God how would you fix it ?" what a dumb question ... just wipe evil out of existence. You realy forget that your God that you cherish so much is omnipotent. So God wouldn't have to destroy good... just zap your magic finger and remove evil .
shapingAfuture 9 months ago
@shapingAfuture Okay so what your saying is that we are all accidents? everything the planets stars and so on were just accidents?
tube09sssss 8 months ago
@tube09sssss you should really study evolution. Evolution is not about accidents. What you refer to as accidental its cause and effect. While science tries to answer all of the questions with the scientific method, religion claims to know everything. Science accepts if it has mistakes and never says that this is the truth. It is only saying that with our current knowledge this is the most plausible answer. Religion talks about universal truth witch they claim to have.... without evidence.
shapingAfuture 8 months ago
very disrespectful attack on the guy with the dying friend, in a public, arrogant display. Is this how you recruit people? No wonder churches are shutting down everywhere. Thank God, and yes, I did say Thank God.
estebandesade 9 months ago
If god would have to eliminate all to make a perfect world... How was god able to create heaven? Heaven proves that god can make a perfect world without evil.
bdcarlitosway 9 months ago
@bdcarlitosway
Prove there is a heaven, oh wait you can't. I did create a perfect world without veggies though, its called meatopia! What? You don't believe in my divine creation?! Your soul will be condemned to a fiery place where I bake biscuits and corn bread!
plator99 9 months ago
@plator99 You misinterpreted what I said lol.
The point I was making is that if god can create heaven, that means he can create a perfect world without evil. The fact that he made this world as shitty as it is when he could have made it better is a point against christians.
bdcarlitosway 9 months ago
when that guy asked that qeustion @ around 55 seconds of the vid it irritated me so much! he asks a question about god then they ask him the same and how would he handle it, he says "you can't ask that" when he just did that a second before! what a looser
nightmare187able 9 months ago
The best argument for the existence of God is that without God you could not argue.
Childinfaith 10 months ago
Everyones life can have purpose, meaning, and significance that they make for themselves or for others, and just because it does not matter on the grand cosmic scale does not mean that it does not matter on a smaller scale. If you want your arguement to hold, you need to show a necessary connection. This you have not done.
MrTechFox 11 months ago
Just because someones life on the athiest perspective does not necessarily have a cosmic significance does not mean that her life has no significance. You must first show how the two are connected by more then baseless assertions. Just because her life does not necessarily have cosmic meaning does not mean that her life has no meaning. Just because her life does not necessarily have cosmic purpose does not mean that her life has no purpose.
MrTechFox 11 months ago
Also the christian guy states that the atheist view is that chrstina will die, her life will have no meaning, no purpose, and that she was just an accident. First off, this arguement that if there is no god everything happened by chance is a strawman, read stephen hawkings latest book, the universe arose as an inevitable result of the laws of physics, not by chance, but by necessity. Secondly...
MrTechFox 11 months ago
This guy has failed to answer the question with regards to cancer. Sorry but no ones free will would be infringed on if god miraculously cured this girl, yet he doesnt, and so the problem of evil stands in stark contradiction to the idea of the christian god and this preacher kid fails.
MrTechFox 11 months ago
The christian guy in this video answers the question of the problem of evil essentially by saying that god would have to get rid of free will which would be worse then allowing potential evil to exist in the first place. Fine, philosophers have already accepted Plantinga's free will arguement for people. However the question still remains with regards to diseaes, earth quakes, and other things i like to call "Natural Evils" (suffering if you prefere). The problem of evil remains Unanswered.
MrTechFox 11 months ago
If you were God how would you fix it -- easy just click his fingers and get rid of cancer duh he is God after all..
He ( the first guy) was correct - he isn't looking for God to help her because God isn't going to do shit.. that is exactly what we have observed.. if everyone in the world prayer for her chance are she is still going to die
badpanda84 11 months ago
Comment removed
badpanda84 11 months ago
The problem is that while I understand that some of the evil is cause by humans what about things like babies born with genetic defects.
Surely a perfect God wouldn't screw up and "create" babies with genetic defects if he was perfect
badpanda84 11 months ago
Comment removed
badpanda84 11 months ago
tHIS GUY IS A PRICK
simplyme926 11 months ago
Kinda sad... this video...
TheCopaceticMan 11 months ago
A debate worthy of Kirk Cameron.
-_-
jackyll 1 year ago
Cold hard facts - according to the laws of the "survival of the fittest", that poor, unfortunate girl with cancer will probably die because her body wasnt fit enough. Nature is cruel, sure. Scientific facts are cruel sometimes, yes - it is the cold, hard truth - but at least it IS the TRUTH and I am not going to bury my head in the sand and call out to some fairy-tale sky daddy to come rescue me. I am going to live life to the fullest while I can - by facing the TRUTH and dealing with it...
SkepticalBliss 1 year ago
Just because there is no god does not mean there is no meaning. This guy uses the argument from ignorance. Just because they can't come up with "SOME" kind of answer, then he supposes that it is god... FAIL!!!
SkepticalBliss 1 year ago
Also a bit of advice for this kid. When you debate religion don't bring in someone's personal history into the discussion. It brings up bad memories for that guy while making you look like a inconsiderate douche.
callenification 1 year ago
His argument for the destruction of evil was not bad but the whole rational, bending the paper clip thing, totally not necessary. He is arguing that God has the power to eradicate evil, which he does. Everyone knows that God is all powerful so its never been a question of power. Its a question made to point out the nature of the "world" God has created for us. Why would God, being all powerful, all knowing and all loving create a world like this for us to live.
callenification 1 year ago
Thumbs up if you agree that if god existed, he could easily just get rid of some 'evil' like Viruses. They aren't potentially good in any way at all, therefore According to this guy's blabbering, if there was a god, he would have rid viruses from this earth. Durrr
kingalbert300 1 year ago
@kingalbert300 Lets consider one of the worst most deadly viruses in humans (HIV) the AIDS virus. Common in sheep, and other primates AIDS did not exist in humans until the 1950's. AIDS in sheep and primates is nothing more then a common cold, but is deadly to humans. There are many thoughts on how it was originally transmitted to humans but many agree AIDS was first documented with a sailor (David Carr) who most likely practiced beastiality. Is God responsible for AIDS? or is it mans evil?
superbill2 1 year ago
You're bit on the paper clip escaped me, I did not follow.
liuping999 1 year ago
Don`t forget that a perfect god would not create anything to begin with.
If he wanted to create a world for his creatures, why not create a perfect heavenly world and put everyone there to begin with, with eternal bliss for all?
JPWMT 1 year ago
If you really believed what you were doing, you`d be torturing people so that god could bring good out of their suffering.
So why aren`t you out causing evil and suffering?
JPWMT 1 year ago
Science never gave one life longevity unless you call eighty years longevity.The problem with the girl is flesh.All flesh even healthy and well will die.Flesh always wars with one another and flesh brings suffering left to its own devices.
polopowers1 1 year ago
What rubbish. If God is all powerful, surely he can destroy the bad without destroying the good. Anyway,cancer is something that occurrs in nature and not always because of human evil. The preacher has not addressed the real question of why a good and loving God would allow such a terrible thing to occurr. Also how dare the preacher say that an ill woman's life has no meaning or value without belief in God. This is arrogant and cruel. Has this preacher no ethics or sensitivity?
davar19 1 year ago
Walter Martin, my hero :-) Standing where others have run and hid. Jesus well said, that people reject the light because their deeds are evil the darkness rejects the light. Check out Ron Carlson as well, as he was a student of Walter Martin.
marthale7 1 year ago
We don't have to explain God or His word, simply have faith and spread the word!!
Matt. 28:18-20.....Hebrews 11:6
Speedfirst 1 year ago
keep up the good work.
mbison83 1 year ago
I'm sorry but Chad's awesome! Chad- 1 Cor 15:58 "Be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord knowing that your toil is not in vain."
BrianDHarris 1 year ago
If God is willing but not able to eliminate evil then he is not omnipotent.
If God is able but not willing then he is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither willing nor able then why call him God?
Epicurus
themanofearth 1 year ago
Human free will is imperfect
God creates human free will
Therefore, God is imperfect
This a simple syllogism that proves that God is imperfect, and since God is a perfect being that which no greater can be imagined, God does not exist. Syllogisms are formal expressions of logic and reason developed by Aristotle. So if you want to be intellectually honest based on the thoughts of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, you need to follow the conclusion that inescapably follows the two premises.
ammar6842 1 year ago
A benevolent creator of all things cannot coexist with evil
God is a benevolent creator of all things
God and evil cannot coexist
ammar6842 1 year ago
Evil is part of our evolution we have required evil as necessary part of our DNA, to push forward, to remedy the suffering we all witness and take part in, the blood shed by the root cause of evil is a reminder of our past and a goal for our future, the eliminatation of evil. Mankind has the psychological ability to forget, it is a coping mechanism we have inherited from our past, when we have forgotten how to be evil will be the time when mankind has truly evolved. Viva la revolution.
VoxJoxx 1 year ago
That was done very, very well, rationalresponder. No one seemed to object as well (in this clip)... they must of seen the truth in what you were saying.
Continue to defend the Gospel, precious brother in Christ.
Brightstar27 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thank you for responding. You say you are sure that noone would rebel against god in heaven. However -- are we "morally free" to rebel against god in heaven? Do we still have the ability to commit evil in heaven as we do currently on earth?
punnet2 2 years ago
The further one is from God, the more limits there are on one's free will, and conversely, the closer one gets to God, the greater and greater his free will becomes, the more choices he has to do whatever he wishes.
If by "Heaven," you mean God's home, then the answer is that in God's home, everyone has much more freedom to choose than anyone on earth has.
In order to answer specifically about choices for "evil," you would first have to define that word.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
"Evil" would be anything god would punish us for by sending us to hell.
Are we free to rebel against god in heaven?
punnet2 1 year ago
Since God doesn't ever "punish" anyone or send anyone to "hell," by your definition of the term, so-called "evil" does not exist.
Yes, if by "Heaven" you mean the abode where God lives, everyone there has the freedom to rebel against God, most definitely -- the residents there have even more freedom to choose their actions than we do here on earth.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
According to the speaker in the video, suffering in this world (specifically, the cancer afflicting the questioner's friend) is a result of "evil", and the "potential for evil" in this world.
Since you say people have "more freedom to choose" than on earth, is the "potential for evil" greater in heaven than on earth? And is suffering in heaven therefore greater than it is on earth?
punnet2 1 year ago
The heavenly planets are part of the material world, but the residents there do have more potential for free choice than the residents of this planet.
In the spiritual world, which is far higher than the heavenly planets, and where God Himself lives, the residents there have even greater potential for freely making good or bad choices.
Loss of life in the heavenly planets is very difficult to handle because the material attachments there are so strong, much more than on earth.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
However, in the spiritual world, there is no death, there is no material attachment, and there is never any loss. Therefore, there is no suffering in the spiritual world at all, even though the freedom of choice there is greater than anywhere else in all of manifested reality.
The intelligent course of action, therefore, is to behave in such a way that we are invited to live in the spiritual world. This is done by accepting the good advice that God reveals in His scriptures.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
Once again, the speaker's justification for suffering in this world is that suffering is a result of "evil" and "the potential for evil". He went further to say that if god took away this "potential for evil", we would not exist. Are you disagreeing with the speaker and saying we can exist without this "potential", or that this "potential" remains in heaven, simply without any suffering to go with it?
punnet2 1 year ago
Yes, we can, and do, exist without "potential for evil," for, according to your own definition of "evil," it does not exist, and so neither can its "potential" exist.
I never said that the potential for "evil" was in heaven.
I suggest that you actually read my previous answers rather than asking the same questions repeatedly and putting words in my mouth -- my answers will not change through repetition of your questions, nor can I be held responsible for your own answers to your questions.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
If I presumed too much with my proffered definition of evil, I apologize. The speaker does not detail his own definition, but since you appear to be defending his position: Are you saying we can, and do exist without the potential for evil (according to the speaker's definition, not mine)?
You did say we are morally free in heaven, which is the same as potential for evil (according to the speaker's definition, not mine). I suggest you pay attention since I made this clear in my initial post.
punnet2 1 year ago
You just said that the speaker did not detail his own definition, then you asked me a specific question about that very non-detailed definition. I hope you realize that such a question cannot be answered, even though I am trying honestly to stay with you here.
I did not say that being morally free in heaven was the same as potential for evil -- you are again putting words in my mouth. In fact, according to your own definition of evil, the two concepts are extremely different.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
How about we just cut through the BS and you ask me directly the question that you're so transparently attempting to work up to???
Asking the same questions over and over and employing straw-man fallacies will get us nowhere.
What are you trying to ask -- the old hackneyed "Why does God make us evil" nonsense? If that's it, just come out and ask it, for God's sake!
Just ask it directly, whatever it may be. I have already answered all of your clumsy preliminary questions many times.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
PS -- At no point did I or the speaker say that suffering was somehow a result of "evil." Nobody in the video asked about the causes of suffering, and nobody in the video posited any specific causes of suffering.
Actually, you are the one who independently inserted that erroneous assertion (that evil causes suffering) into this conversation. Then you proceeded to argue against your own assertion -- that is called "straw-man logical fallacy."
Purushadasa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The speaker says (at 1:05) that for there to be no suffering, god would have to get rid of all the "actual evil", and "potential for evil" in the world. He then says that if god did this he would have to get rid of us, since he would have to get rid of "morally free creatures". Using the speaker's terminology, I asked in my initial post if we are "morally free" in heaven.
punnet2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It was wrong of you to ask me to define "evil" since we are discussing the speaker's concepts. I was wrong to provide a definition for the same reason.
So now: Make sure you first of all agree that the speaker correlated "potential for evil" with being "morally free" (starting at 1:05, in case you forgot).
Then tell me: Are we morally free -- with the potential for evil -- in heaven (using the speaker's definition of evil, not mine)?
punnet2 1 year ago
Did I harm you by asking you to define evil? If so, I apologize for the pain my cruel question caused you.
However, since you did define it, I answered according to your definition. Did my answer also harm you?
The speaker did not correlate as you posit above, no -- not before, not at, and not after 1:05.
Also, I already answered your final question (at least three times), and we already agreed that the speaker did not detail a definition for the word "evil."
Purushadasa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The speaker says: "He would have to get rid of all the actual evil in the world, and all the potential for evil....if god did that though, he would have to destroy a very good thing also...and that's morally free creatures."
How is that not a correlation of "actual evil" and "potential for evil" with being "morally free"?
punnet2 1 year ago
You have failed to establish that it's a correlation -- the supposed correlation is obviously part of your own personal belief system, but I won't accept your beliefs just because you say so. If you want to convince me of that supposed correlation, you'll need to provide some evidence, which you have failed to do.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
I don't accept blunt personal beliefs backed merely by the weak "because I said so" line. I only accept facts with evidence to support them -- that's how I roll.
Got any evidence for your bizarre personal belief that there's supposedly some unspecified correlation between potential for evil and moral freedom, or did you just make it up?
Purushadasa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am not asserting that correlation -- the speaker is. When the speaker says
"if god [got rid of all the actual evil in the world, and all the potential for evil], he would have to destroy a very good thing also...and that's morally free creatures",
how is he NOT saying that removal of evil results in the removal of moral freedom?
With my initial question, I was addressing that "bizarre" correlation (made by the speaker, not me).
punnet2 1 year ago
How do you mean?
Purushadasa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Once AGAIN: The speaker says,
"He would have to get rid of all the actual evil in the world, and all the potential for evil....if god did that though, he would have to destroy a very good thing also...and that's morally free creatures."
Precisely what did you understand that to mean -- if not a correlation (by the speaker, not me) between "potential for evil" and being "morally free"?
punnet2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Once again the speaker (not I) says that to get rid of suffering, god would have to get rid of "actual evil" and "potential for evil", but in doing so he would have to get rid of "morally free creatures". If you do not get that from what the speaker said, please present what he actually meant with the quote which I've provided multiple times now.
punnet2 1 year ago
No, he never said that -- only you say that.
Obviously, that is what you personally believe, but you have failed to establish that bizarre personal belief of yours as fact -- failed miserably, actually.
He meant what he actually said by the quote -- his meaning was clear and direct. In contrast, your personal interpretation of his direct quote is biased, erroneous, and superfluous.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
The quote to which you refer does not mention suffering at all -- you injected that concept into the quote dishonestly. Listen to what he says again, and point out the exact second when he supposedly says, "suffering." Actually, there is no such second, because he does not mention suffering in the quote to which you refer.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
Whether or not he is referring to suffering, does he or does he not say that if god got rid of "actual evil" and "potential for evil", he would also have to get rid of morally free creatures?
punnet2 1 year ago
How about we cut through the BS and you just ask me directly the question that you're so transparently attempting to work up to???
Asking the same questions over and over and employing straw-man fallacies will get us nowhere.
What are you trying to ask -- the old hackneyed "Why does God make us evil" nonsense? If that's it, just come out and ask it, for God's sake!
Just ask it directly, whatever it may be. I have already answered all of your clumsy preliminary questions many times.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
Actually, no, that is not what he says at 1:05:
He asks, "How would you FIX IT," and the atheist refuses to answer.
He then says that God would have to get rid of actual and potential evil, but this was unrelated to the question of suffering -- it was purely on the question of evil itself.
You need to review the actual words spoken in this video and stop employing straw-man fallacies.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm not sure how you find it unrelated, or why you're making a case of it; the questioner mentioned his friend's suffering, then went on to say "there's so much 'bad' in this world".
In any case: The speaker correlated "potential for evil" with being "morally free". You said at first we have more freedom in heaven than on earth, then said we can exist in heaven without "potential for evil".
So are you now disagreeing with the speaker's correlation? Please clarify.
punnet2 1 year ago
You have failed to establish a relationship -- he didn't say that evil causes suffering anywhere in the video. You're the only one positing that strange personal belief -- not me, not the speaker, and not anyone else -- only you have said that.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
No, the speaker also did not correlate "potential for evil" with being morally free, and neither did I.
In fact, I have already clearly stated several times that there is absolutely no correlation there, and more: I stated that there is no such thing as "evil" or its potential, according to your own definition of "evil."
Purushadasa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Once again: The speaker says,
"He would have to get rid of all the actual evil in the world, and all the potential for evil....if god did that though, he would have to destroy a very good thing also...and that's morally free creatures."
Precisely what did you understand that to mean?
punnet2 1 year ago
holy shit, this guy is fucking crazy,
Jarut195 2 years ago
Yes, thank God the Christian is there to help him.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
First i was dying of a rare illness called Behcets Syndrome UNTILL i got saved & new that i was sick with a lie from the pit of hell! I then got gitty with joy when i realized that i was already healed when Jesus died on the cross with my sins & my illness. in that joy i was healed from that moment on till now. it has been 8 years healed :)
paulaannettekempf 2 years ago
it is spelled "giddy"
carrots001 1 year ago
Chad,
The skeptic's challenge, and your response, both presuppose libertarian free will. But this is begging the question.
The biblically faithful answer can only be found in Calvinism. God has ordained the evil and suffering, and He has a *good* reason for doing so. Atheism has not shown any incompatibility with a "good" God. and the existence of evil in God's universe.
Also, his use of the term "good" has ethical implications that he must justify in the first place.
TheClarkianCalvinist 2 years ago
Preach it brother!
preachingtheword 2 years ago
rationalresponder:
Are we "morally free creatures" in heaven?
punnet2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@punnet2
"Are we "morally free creatures" in heaven?"
When the redeemed enter the Glory of God and are surrounded by the Cherubim, the Angels and the eternal majesty and rpesence of the LORD our God, then we wll be truly free. But in being surrounded by so much glory, I am sure that not a single person - having been redeemed ultimatley from sin, pain and death in this life on Earth - would rebell against God. So in answering - yes, we will be truly, eternally free.
Brightstar27 2 years ago
Comment removed
punnet2 2 years ago
We are by nature morally free, like God is, but we are also limited, unlike God. Therefore, our freedom of choice will always be limited, by our very nature.
However, we have the choice right now to move closer to God, or to move away from Him, and the natural reaction of those choices are that when we move closer to God, our free will becomes even more free, whereas when we move away from God, our free will automatically becomes covered and restricted.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
Do you mean to say that the closer we get to god, the greater our free will - i.e., the greater our ability to choose between good & evil...and the further we get from god, the lesser our ability to choose?
punnet2 1 year ago
By your own definition, "evil" does not exist: God does not punish anyone or send anyone to "hell."
Other than the fact that so-called "evil" does not exist (as you defined it), the rest of your post is absolutely correct.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
RR:
1. Calm down, you'll get a hernia
2. You start off with a strawman and then waffle on for a few minutes without answering the question.
3. You claim that if one doesn't have the potential to do evil, we wouldn't exist. Kindly tell me RR, what's heaven?
4. You then waffle on about square circles without explaining what it has to do with anything. Removing this girls cancer or evil from the world is not a matter of logical impossibility. It CAN be done, god doesn't WANT to.
Snakeystew 2 years ago
RationalResponder, I appreciate your zeal for faith, but I highly recommend you become educated on the diverse opinions on this matter. Reading just a few Christian philosophers and parroting their views may seem thorough, but it is not a complete education.
Read Kierkegaard, for beginners.
Read Nietzsche. Read Dawkins. Read intelligent and sincere and respectful atheists, and understand their position.
Don't emphasize the chasm through polarizing argumentation. Converse. Be respectful.
Suitecake 2 years ago
Impressive debating style!
1. Offering to shake a strangers hand and asking him to move to control the debate from the start.
3. Mocking his beliefs related to his dying friend. (VERY classy!)
4. Distracting him with an unrelated question and following up by answering the question yourself.
5. Falsely stating that something is based on logic without explanation. (Aristotle and Socrates? Really?)
6. End by ignoring the individual questions and sermonizing about the evil of atheism.
joeyjoe 2 years ago 13
Oh, yeah. Keep it up. Keep up spreading false hope using fallacies and tautologies! Or, maybe get a little education before you open your ignorant mouth.
Using "sound bites" to fight truth is just pathetic.
Frann133 2 years ago
Fran:
LOL, in regards to logical fallacies please name them;)
In regards to tautology...you tend to be confusing here because you are using a word that has an equivocal meaning and you never defined what sense U intended. If U intended it in the sense of rhetoric...consider yourself GUILTY..if you meant it in the sense of a truth statement...well, ya I believe some things are Tautologically true ;)
What sound bites did I use??? LOL, that was un-cut audio...only the picture moves around ;)
rationalresponder 2 years ago 2
@rationalresponder I disagree that god would have to "wipe out all humans" to eliminate evil. to quote the bible "all things are possible with god" therefore, god COULD just wipe out the evil and leave the remaining humans unable to commit evil anymore. After all, God is ALL POWERFUL and could do ANYTHING. At least according to the bible. However, the Abrahamic God does not want this. God Created Satan and he KNEW that Satan would betray him and "cause" evil. Therefore, God is Evil.
actionjackson864 1 year ago
@rationalresponder Correct me if Im wrong, but God created Satan on Purpose, it was no accident, and in turn, created Evil, on purpose, God knew the consequences of his actions b/c he is "all knowing". Every women and child that is raped, is raped through the divine will of god, as it his will that it happens. He could stop it, but he allows it to happen.To believe in your God is to be on comfy terms with Evil, because, according to G. Bahnsen, there is a "morally sufficient" reason for Evil
actionjackson864 1 year ago
@rationalresponder Morality has nothing to do with the bible, you will not see the word "morality" anywhere in the bible. Objectivism has all the answers we need when it comes to values, morals, and what to do and why, we do not need a "moral law giver". the god of the bible is evil b/c he created evil and every evil act carried out, god already knew it was going to happen, he could stop it, but he doesnt b/c he has a "morally sufficient reason" for it.
actionjackson864 1 year ago
@rationalresponder A Christian could walk into a room with a woman being raped and say "there is a morally sufficient reason for this,because god is allowing it", then allow it to go on, knowing that everything will work out exactly as god intends it. an atheist such as myself who believesin RATIONAL MORALITY would walk in the room and say "there is no reason for this and it should not be happening" stop the rape and feel perfectly justified in doing so. this is not the case with Christianity
actionjackson864 1 year ago
@actionjackson864 A Christian could walk into a room with a woman being raped and say "there is a morally sufficient reason for this,because god is allowing it", "
Dose that same logical allow catholic to justify child molesting priest.. as well
badpanda84 11 months ago
@rationalresponder you didnt answer the problem of evil. you said that god would have to wipe us out to eliminate evil or let us live and keep evil in tact. this is a false dichotomy (i named a falacy for frann133). this false dichotomy is based off of a strawman. no atheist takes the position that god should wipe evil out. we dont believe in a god in the first place. we are saying that your god under the definitions of an all good, all powerful god cannot exist in a world with evil.
leuby4 10 months ago
You seem to dance around the questions people ask you Chad rather than giving a straight answer.
Anyway, your basically saying that if god doesnt exist then "her life had no meaning and no purpose." Then using your logic, you then purport; life must have meaning and purpose: therefore god exists.
But, do we need to have a god to give us purpose and meaning? I dont think so, I think people are able to choose for themselves whatever the hell it is they want the purpose of their life to be.
theoje143 2 years ago
I like to say: "if God shouldn't allow evil, why didn't He kill you last night for the sins you committed against Him yesterday??"
:D
KEEP AT IT BRO!!
FreakUni 2 years ago
FreakUni:
oooh...good one...I may have to use that sometime in an open-air situations
little sound bites like that get across better sometimes than philosophical premises ;)
rationalresponder 2 years ago
@FreakUni is that the way is HAS to be? the bible says "all things are possible with God" God doesnt HAVE TO kill us to wipe out the evil, he could will it since he is all powerful. but he wont, and according to John Calvin “God So Uses the Works of the Ungodly, and So Bends Their Minds to Carry Out His Judgments" Why cant god think of a better way to do things? wat a horrible way to go about accomplishing a plan, its obvious god is comfortable with "using" evil to carry out "his plan".
actionjackson864 1 year ago
@actionjackson864
I am trying to point out that God IS merciful and patient with evil, as seen in the simple reason that many of us are indeed still alive and given a chance to repent. Although, He is perfectly justified whenever He looses patience and kills a man.
Most arguments using "God shouldn't allow evil" assume that men are innocent, my point is that all men are evil and God's temporary allowance of evil is a mercy on us.
FreakUni 1 year ago
@FreakUni is that the way it HAS to be? are all things possible with god?
actionjackson864 1 year ago
(To be perfectly clear, practically every theodicy ever written uses the basic substance of your argument. It certainly isn't anything new. Though, in all fairness, I don't think I've ever seen it employed as offensively as this video depicts.)
Suitecake 2 years ago
Suitecake:
ya...nothing new...I list the men in the info section that I gleamed from the most in putting this together.
Walter Martin "Potential & Actual Evil"
Dr. Craig "Morally free Creatures"
Koukl "Not a power problem"
Zacharias "adopting the atheists worldview for a moment to show its emptiness"
There is more to it but that is a rough thumbnail sketch of it....
P.S. I got a BIG FAT HUG from that guy later :)
rationalresponder 2 years ago
Why were you screaming at that kid?
Why did you refer to 'Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato' to justify your use of a 'law of logic' that I'm fairly certain cannot be traced to any of their writings?
The substance of your argument is quite profound, but it is hidden behind a lot of yelling, twisted phrases, and what appear to be attempts to belittle others.
On a side note, I would love to see you argue with a well-educated Nietzschean. ;)
Suitecake 2 years ago 2
AWSOME !
IN JESUS NAME.......AMEN !
Eyosef 2 years ago
excellent job again brother, keep it up
billredeemed 2 years ago
Sweet! The volume on the video is a bit hot though.
AaronKnudson1974 2 years ago
Good Job Brother!
Keep Spreading The Truth Of Our Loving Lord And Savior Jesus Christ!
HAPPYDOGSUZ 2 years ago
Good stuff man!
JarridWilson 2 years ago
@adambargoed - so -- once again -- are you implying that "moral qualities" did not come into practice until the NT was put together in the 4th century?
And do you further claim that suddenly humanity entered a golden age of "gentleness and goodness" immediately following the compilation of the NT?
punnet2 2 years ago
Well done my brother! :)
ishellreal 2 years ago
Hey Skeptics...no debate here. Hang tight you are going to meet the God you dont Beleive. Every Knee will bow.You Will confess Jesus is lord. Be ready.
hectorzit 2 years ago 3
@hectorzit Shut up. And you're going to meet the Flying Spaghetti Monster when you die. I like how every Christian I come across ultimately uses fear to persuade people. They can't imagine someone who isn't weak-minded like them. You cannot love something and fear it at the same time. Fuck your stupid bullshit book by the way.
ndvak13 1 year ago
BS. The Mayans had a reasonable society and they knew nothing of a Christian God, so did the Australian Aboriginals.
baconeater 2 years ago
5.Yet, the source of his pleasure is actually the cause of his suffering. The whole face of the earth is nothing but ugly sores of suffering. Everywhere we look we see unspeakable pain. But instead of believing Gods explanation and asking Him to forgive us and change our appetite, we run deeper into sins sweet embrace. There we find solace in its temporal pleasures, thus intensifying our pain, both in this life and in the life to come.
Eszlee1 2 years ago 2
4. Imagine if the weather worked for & not against us, if disease & pain was a thing of the past, if death was no more.The dilemma is that we are like a child whose insatiable appetite for chocolate has caused his face to break out with ugly sores. He looks in the mirror and sees a sight that makes him depressed. But instead of giving up his beloved chocolate, he consoles himself by stuffing more into his mouth.
Eszlee1 2 years ago 2
3. Someday, there will be no more pain, suffering, disease, or death. We are told that no eye has ever seen, nor has any ear heard, neither has any mans mind ever imagined the wonderful things that God has in store for those who love Him (1 Cor 2:9).Think for a moment what it would be like if food grew with the fervor of weeds. Consider how wonderful it would be if the deserts became incredibly fertile, if creation stopped devouring humanity.
Eszlee1 2 years ago
2:The Bible tells us that God cursed the earth because of Adams sin. Weeds are a curse. So is disease. Sin & suffering cannot be separated. We live in a fallen creation. God created man perfect in a perfect world without suffering. It was heaven on earth. Once sin came into the world, death and misery did too. Those who understand the Bible eagerly await a new heaven and a new earth "wherein dwells righteous-ness."
Eszlee1 2 years ago 2
1: Sadly, many use the suffering as an excuse to reject any thought of God, when its existence is the very reason we should accept Him. Suffering explains the truth of the Word of God. But how can we know that the Bible is true? Simply by studying the prophecies of Matt 24, Lk 21, & 2 Tim 3. A few minutes of openhearted inspection will convince any honest skeptic that this is no ordinary book. It is the explains why there is suffering...and what we can do about it.
Eszlee1 2 years ago 2
What is your basis for saying that? Are you implying that "moral qualities" did not come into practice until the NT was put together in the 4th century?
punnet2 2 years ago
in response to the video:
So how does it work in heaven? Is there suffering and evil in heaven? Or are we destroyed by going to heaven?
ConversationAtheist 2 years ago