Professor John Lennox discusses the Problem of Suffering

[buddy85442]

Very powerful,thank you

[madenew000]

awesome, john!

[zytigon]

I'm impressed by John Lennox's open mindedness. He has explored some of the issues, to look at both sides. His view might be tolerable if everyone was going to a happily ever after. I have faith & hope that there is no hades [ would people meet the Titans there?] , to cease to exist seems ok to me; this was the fate which the Hebrews imagined Yahweh had in mind for them- sheol-non existence.

[zytigon]

For the truth about religion try Robert M. Price, ' The reason driven life ' or John W. Loftus or Victor J. Stenger, ' God, the failed hypothesis' . Also interesting to have a look at the 1500BCE papyrus of Ani, with its god Osiris who weighs the heart to decide who can pass to the land of the living.[ The need to know the names of the gods & the negative confession & other magic texts to get there]. James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough' and C.S. Lewis, 'Mere Christianity'

[lacontrabasse]

John Lennox said he doesn't like the idea of living in a dangerous, violent Universe that is indifferent to the plight of those who suffer. He feels an emotional need for hope and justice, he feels a need to be reunited with dead loved ones.

Well, wishing doesn't alter the facts. And he admitted that there is no intellectual answer to the Problem of Suffering.

For a plausible reason for the existence of suffering, and a genuine offer of hope, see the YouTube video 'God says sorry'.

[pedroamaralcouto]

Professor Lennox missed the point of the problem of evil. It's not about the existence of a God, it's not about applying justice or a future salvation. It's about the existence of evil and an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being, especially if that being is the creator of all things - if that being never desires evil, always desires to prevent the existence of evil, can do everything it desires (and do it) and knows how to accomplish what it desires, then there's no evil.

[razorpayne13]

John Lenox is my HERO!!!!.... and William Lane Craig...

[johnsmithbsc]

He didn't answer that very well. All that talk about hope just reinforces the atheist delusion that religion is just a crutch to help people emotionally. The simple answer to his question (even without going into the Bible's answer to the question of suffering, which Lennox didn't really put across either) is that no, the universe isn't the way we would expect it without God - without God we would expect the non-existence of life.

[samuellis]

@johnsmithbsc You agree that atheist have a delusion? What do you mean the universe isn't the way we would expect it without God? Also clearify without God we would expect the non-existence of life? Life is in existence so why would you say we expect non-existence of life, your logic isn't clear here, can you clearify?

[sadathusain]

Beautifully put . This man is brilliant.

[AleximusMaximus]

I'm quite disgusted by the euphamistic reference to the suffering in the world as 'ragged ends', and to say that it's somehow justice to 'compensate' for suffering after the fact in an afterlife. Compensation is only the answer when you COULDN'T prevent the suffering. I doubt the daughter locked in a basement and raped by her father for years thinks much of your God's justice.

All the other arguments boiled down "it'd be nice if it were true" and "atheism doesn't make all these nice promises".

[kitwol]

The idea of god originally came from the sun being personified.

[kgouws]

If god was fair, why would he murder his own son (in fact himself thus suicide) in order to forgive humans for the sin that he himself had created? It makes no sense at all. If god really exists and is so powerful as to create the universe and everything in it why not protect the innocent from pain and suffering? So can he but he chooses not to? John Lennox is not answering the question at all. He declines to answer this but lets rejoice in jesus being crucified. It makes no sense.

[3Duga]

@kgouws God did not create sin, sin originated from Lucifer's desire.

Then again by Adam and Eve disobeying God's law. In both these cases sin originated from free will and desire. God allowed both the angel Lucifer and Adam & Eve to choose to either obey Him or not.

God provided His son as a sacrifice because the wage of sin is too high for us to purchase.

That's beyond being fair since no man deserves or can gain Gods grace.

[kgouws]

@3Duga if god created everything sin did not exist until he created beings capable of and wanting to do things, which he then promptly declared sin. Lucifer and all his desires were created, knowingly by your omniscient god. There is no way to claim that he could not have known the effect of creating beings with this capability or propensity. Being omniscient he created a situation which he desired, so why should we require punishment, and why is killing someone the only way to fix that?

[BGfromGB]

@kgouws When I read your I immediately detected that you are a muslim. Am I correct? So from that aspect I can see why you make such irrational arguments. The reason being that THE ALMIGHTY did not create sin. Man did.\rvrry human being syffers from pain no one is excluded. We all have to die. Your questions are quite fallacious. I suggest ypu go worship your Allah who wills pain on Jews and christians. That's if youre a muslim of course.

[kgouws]

@BGfromGB to say that god created all things but then assert that man created sin is the only irrational argument I see here. "Every human being suffers from pain." a statement of fact which proves nothing. The same goes for "We all have to die". God create all things but then suddenly THE ALMIGHTY looses power and can no longer control his creations or stop them from doing what he does not wish them to do. Your reasoning is a joke. My questions are valid and should be asked by everyone.

[BGfromGB]

@kgouws challenge me that pain & suffering proves nothing. But at least you acknowledge it is a fact of life for which there is nothing to prove. You say God loses power and control when we die. It's not a valid statement. Why? Because in your deluded mind that is YOUR assumption which you expect all and sundry to accept as fact. Whether all questions are valid depends on whether one has an open mind and is prepared to listen to reason. I believe John Lennox has set out to do just that

[kgouws]

@BGfromGB I think that you are missing the point. God is either powerfull or not. You decide which it is. If your position that he is powerfull then he had the power to create a universe without sin and without satan, but did not. If he chose to create a universe with these attributes, it would be pointless to punish his little creations (us) for this decision, and in doing so, he has chosen to create a universe with being capable and likely to commit sin. His doing altogether..............

[BGfromGB]

@kgouws If he created the universe then he must be all powerful. But what I understand from scriptures He even created Heaven where I believe there will be no pain or suffering. He gave us a free will and has put us to the test by provide us with a moral set of rules & principles. If we live within those parameters, which I have no problem with, then there is no reason why we will not be rewarded with alife without sin or Satan. Shouls one despise him for that? No I don't think so.

[kgouws]

@BGfromGB if god had the incredible wisdom and power to create the universe at will, one would have thought that he would be able achieve all his desires and to do so without inflicting pain and suffering. But god failed to create beings that could meet his own requirements and being omniscient he did so with full knowledge what the outcome would be and yet holds those very beings responsible. It sounds like a totally illogical, imperfect being, quite contrary to your description god.

[kgouws]

@BGfromGB the clip is titled "....discusses the Problem of Suffering" but really he is being a vague as possible. This is what you would expect from someone who really cannot explain this fact which contradicts everything that you would like to tell the world about your god. In my personal case it fails to support the possibility that such incredible power and lack of ability to use that power could go together in one being. That is why this question is such an important one to answer....

[BGfromGB]

@kgouws From the tone of your post I get the impression that you are trying to make God out as if he is some sort of normal human being just like you and me. I may be wrong, But if you want to hate God on the basis of human suffering he supposedly causes then I cant take issue with that. But then if you are atheist then you ought to hate nature for the misery it has caused us.

[kgouws]

@BGfromGB human attributes are what god used to describe himself in his book. Jealous, loving, just and fair for instance. I am attempting to reconcile those attributes to the actions that I can observe in the world in order to conclude whether it would be reasonable to believe that such a god really exists. Being an atheist I can see the difference between someone punishing humans for his own failure and a natural process called evolution. It is easy to hold humans responsible for their own..

[kgouws]

@BGfromGB ..actions as soon as you assume that there is no god. That is why it is so important to answer these questions. If humans are fully responsible then we had all better stop praying to invisible gods in the assumption that they have a big plan, and start eliminating pain and suffering and bring perpetrators to justice in this world. Not easily achieved, but more likely to succeed than lying in your bed praying about it.

[BGfromGB]

@kgouws is trying to reconcile with the attributes in the "book". I presume you are referring to the Bible. I don't see how you can possibly reconcile. Man doesn't need God. He needs, selfishness, greed, fame ,money etc all of which are irreconcilable to what God expects of us.

[kgouws]

@BGfromGB then maybe god should have created what he expected......

[BGfromGB]

@kgouws Yes maybe....

[BGfromGB]

@kgouws asks why a god of power not use that power to protect the innocent? OK as I.m neither scholar nor psychoanalyst, I'll answer it the way I personally see it. If God does not use his powers to protect the innocent, then equally one might ask why God does not use his powers to stop perpetrators from harming innocent people? If he did use his powers as you ask, then we may well consider ourselves as being in paradise! No police, no crime, no prisons, no courts, just pure blissful paradise!!

[kgouws]

@BGfromGB if on the other hand god did not have control over the sinful nature of the universe and satan then it turns out he is not all-powerful, cannot control satan or sin. If this is the case that even god cannot control satan, why should mere mortals be expected to do so? In terms of the suffering question, if you assume that god is all-powerful then he is surely capable of protecting the innocent from suffering, but chooses not to. John Lennox did not address this issue at all.

[BGfromGB]

@kgouws asks if John Lennox did not address the issue of God protecting the innocent from suffering. Well, maybe he did. He could have addressed this issue in any one of this other debates and /or books. Be that as it may, the Bible relates to stories where he did just that. The story of the leper comes to mind. There were numerous others. The question you may ask why them and not others? That's a question I cannot answer. But it does tell me how powewrful he is

[kgouws]

@BGfromGB and no, I am not muslim, so launching from a failure to explain your position into attacking other religions, seems to suggest that you have no position to defend to begin with, but that you choose to delude yourself with reasoning which even a child can see is flawed from start to end.

[BGfromGB]

@kgouws OK then, I detect you are an atheist. If that is the case, then what is your point in asking questions about suffering?Pain and suffering is but a natural part of our lives, whether you believe in a God or not, and that nis not delusional reasoning and which a child will soon find out as he grows up.

[cperez1000]

@TYLERJB777,

Per his statements Dawkins does not hate religious people, he hates religion as he considers them evil.

Interesting you bring the word "afraid" as ironically it's mentioned is the Bible that you have to fear God.

Atheist don't believe in N gods. Christians are atheists too in a way, since they don't believe in N-1 gods, in which N is a very large number composed by all gods of the present, the past, the future, from other planets, and the rest that are unknown.

[bigguitar22]

This is superstitious nonsense. He nearly dies of a heart attack and his niece died of a brain tumour and yet he feels this is a part of god's plan that they will ultimately be reunited. Why didn't god stop their suffering in the first place if they both believe in him?

[garethac81]

As for Lennox's argument that religion "offers hope", that requires only the briefest of rebuttals:

Giving false hope is not an act of kindness.

[garethac81]

Prof. Lennox offers the notion that God permits incalculable amounts of suffering because the righteous will be "compensated" after they die. The obvious follow-up question is: why does God not "compensate" the living? What possible moral justification can there be for God allowing countless good, kind-hearted people to be tormented by suffering during their lifetimes? The concept of God "righting the wrongs" after death is no justification for God ALLOWING THOSE WRONGS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[kitas7]

@TYLERJB777 If there's no positive evidence to support your claim then I have no reason at all to believe its valid. I'm very curious what is your evidence (more like excuse) to sustain your assertion...

[nonseans]

@TYLERJB777 But you won't reveal a single of it, ofcourse...

[nonseans]

@TYLERJB777 You have right to belive in it and you have right to shut your mouth. I don't care what you carry in your mind.

Evidences? This is the most stupid thing I've read today. You don't have any evidences testifying that Christianity is right! Don't try to turn the logic upside down with me.

[nonseans]

@TYLERJB777 "Christians don't hate people. If they do then they are posers."

- If someones says: belive our faith or you will burn in hell for eternity, isn't it hatefull? Or this is just pretending? Or WHAT?

[includao]

yes, like the probability that physical laws are going to change just because jesus atoms need to reorganize into a living being again are high, like death is not the end.

[stovetop32]

"because death is not the end, I believe that god is going to be utterly fair.."

This doesn't solve the problem. This would indicate that heaven and the afterlife are not equally grand either subjectively or objectively to those who reach it. So he has the intellectual problem and the suffering problem both still on the table. His argument is incredibly weak.

[nonseans]

@jason5332 No. Christians hate Dawkins so much, because he appears to be quite nice guy with a peaceful appearance, instead of having a long tail, tridend and spliting around with ignited sulphur. It's hard to convince the flock that they should afraid of an older man.

[Sidowse]

@jason5332 Atheism is the default way of thinking because:

#1.Religion is taught to people, it isn't discovered by those people.

#2.Atheism means not to believe in a deity/God. The "God enitity" being a human creation.

Clarification on #2 do you believe in fairies, goblins, orcs, trolls etc. All man-made creations. You can't belive in everything as there are things which have yet to exist/ be known.

[Sidowse]

No LENNOX! atheism is the default why of thinking; accepting that there are things about which we know not. "God did it" doesn't explain anything! I think though that because he is in the media he has to make up bullshit for his "View" for that is an easier burden than changing his mind. As soon as the media is involved out goes objectivity. No objectivity leads to biased opinions as aspects opposing your beliefs are never considered. 21st century aztec.

[nonseans]

Dawkins, Dawkins and Dawkins... boooring. Don't you christians have anything new to say?

[Shweet7248]

this guy lolz.. how was he even put against dawkins?? he is talking in fucken circles take this idiot back to his cage.

[spootyrat]

@Shweet7248 Don't be fresh. Perhaps the material is just a bit over your head right now?

[Shweet7248]

@spootyrat nope. listen to his arguments its just shit seriously.. ive seeen waaaay better christian arguments

[elky5987]

we must remember God gave mankind freewill. as any scientist will tell you natural disasters are of vital importance to the continuation of Earths ecosystems. but with mans freewill God cannot just force us to move out of the way of the disaster. this same free will that we enjoy is why God cannot simply cause man to stop being evil towards one another. Suffering is just part of the human experience. it seems to me that many of you are looking for a solution to suffering; it does not exist!

[99minerkc]

Is this the best argument theists have? God I hope not!! Someone please refer me to a better answer because if this is the best I would rather be Agnostic or Atheist!!

[99minerkc]

VERY WEAK ARGUMENT HERE! I would have been more impressed if Lennox simply said "I don't know the answer to this very difficult question" vs suffering people will benefit in the end! BS!! GOD IS NOT PART OF HUMAN SUFFERING!!!!!

[sentientist]

"death is not the end"

this doesn't solve the problem of evil because it doesn't take animal suffering into account....unless he believes all animals have an afterlife.

[bernardvg]

If John Lennox is convinced he can put all his life and all his trust in life and that of others into the resurrection of Jesus, for which there is no other positive evidence than some ancient scribblings apparently, then you can't touch him. He does this wilfully and consciously, because you cannot definitely disprove his claim. Thus, he can go to church safely and not feel lonely.

[BelieveNoGod]

john lennox are just a simple lier.

[99minerkc]

I don't see him as a liar but rather a person who is SLINGING a lot of BS on a problem he cannot solve! I would rather him simply say he has no answer to suffering then his PATHETIC response!

[Jurassic56]

The only answer I can give is the one I already gave at the start - when God created the world it was good and the sin of man cursed the earth and everything that's ugly came after that. If that's not enough, Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Jurassic56]

Several very hot summer days are always followed by a massive thunder storm and what happens ? IT COOLS THE PLACE DOWN

It's true not all natural diasters are weather, but they all shape the earth, eg. the Hawaiian islands are all the result of undersea volcanic activity.

[Jurassic56]

Like all weather they regulate temperature. That's why life exists on earth and not on other planets in the solar system, which are either too hot or too cold. Please, do some research and stop blaming God for everything that's wrong in life!

[MrLogicalPositivist]

If God exists He is ultimately responsible for every little thing that has occur, currently occurs and will occur.

[99minerkc]

Your response is simple and to the point which is better than the BS artist response Lennox gave

[arktheball]

No he isnt because he gave his creation (us) the ability to do what we want. I.E. free will. He is no more responsible for the choices of a human being, than a parent is for their adult childs.

[Jurassic56]

Natural disasters are actually a good thing because they cool the earth thus making it able to sustain life. Unfortunately humans continue to put themselves in the path of these events which is why so many consistently die. For eg. we know that hurricanes hit the Florida coast every year (which is why the native americans never set up their communities within 200 miles of the coastline) yet we continue to build and rebuild there in spite of the risk. Nature has given us fair warning.

[jandarian]

It's interesting to note how these 'disasters' are only labelled so for our benefit...to describe these events only as they affect US. Scientists aren't as guilty of this of course..it's more those with a need to blame the Earth, as if it strikes out at us..or worse, put it onto God.

Theism seems selfish to me, as only Science strives to label the events of the Universe as what they actually are, and not what they mean to humans. Theism attempts to tie the whole of everything into humanity.

[hooch175]

thats because the whole of everything is tied into humanity!! God created us in His image, and breathed His Spirit in us!! He gave the universe and everything in it as a gift to us!

[Englishdosser86]

You really belive that the infintudes of time and space including all the natural laws that hold them together, all the failed stars, planets, galaxies and cosmoses (of which humans inhabit only the most infitesimal portion of), all the trillions of organisms living now and those that are now extinct were created specifically with US in mind?

[Englishdosser86]

If a loving creator went through all that effort then it seems a waste to condemn billions of us to hell because he hasn't demonstrated beyond a doubt that he even exists. It is slightly odd that sending his Son over 2000 years ago in an obscure part of the middle East with shakey evidence is the best he could do.

[Jurassic56]

Well, the Bible says that when God created the world it was good. It was the sin of mankind that created disease and suffering. We abused the gift of free will, basically.

[Chimpdaddy]

No, the bible is quite clear. Jesus says "I am the way, the truth and the light, no one gets to the father but by me". It is *all* about belief, not about suffering. Please, show me a story in the bible where a person who does not believe in God, Jesus, gains everlasting life.

[Chimpdaddy]

Oh please. The New Testament is all about believing in Jesus. He says "The only way to get to the father is but by me." That is the only way. Belief or perish. So if you've had a tough life, but don't believe in God or Jesus, then you go to hell.

[Chimpdaddy]

So because you don't believe in a supernatural being, you give up all hope? Wrong. People do good to those who are less fortunate, whether they are religous or not.

Believing in a fair after-life is simply wishful thinking. It does not answer whether God exist or not. Drinking makes me happy, but I still have to live with reality whether it is fair or not. And the bible says nothing about those who have suffered getting a good eternal life. It is all about simple belief. Mindless following.

[JpAiMpEeSr]

The Christian world view tells us the reason we can do science. The reason we can understand the exterior universe with our interior minds, is because ultimately by what ever processes go back to rationality on God.

[JpAiMpEeSr]

The foundation on which all science builds is faith. Faith that the universe is rational, faith that our minds are rational, and faith that the rationality of our minds mirrors the rationality of the universe. The worst thing about atheism is that its apposed to rationality; it gives no justification for believing science.

[JpAiMpEeSr]

You say I'm not interested in anything but rationalizing what can not be rationalized. Please give me an example. I think its irrational to think that non rationality can produce rationality. You are telling me not to believe you, in fact it would be irrational for me to believe you. You have giving me no reason to trust what your saying is rational thought.

[JpAiMpEeSr]

Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse writes this, Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I am doing and why should you even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort? No one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this.The point is that there is no scientific answer.

[Limbsy]

true

[JpAiMpEeSr]

Even Charles Darwin recognised this, he wrote With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of mans mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkeys mind, if there are convictions in such a mind?

[JpAiMpEeSr]

So where did we get this other capacity to figure out not only what helps our genes to make it into the nest generation, but also to understand what is going on in the world? To put it another way what is the survival value of truth itself?

[JpAiMpEeSr]

How would you explain the origin of a finite universe from a timeless cause???

Please could you give me a better explanation for the incredible fine tuning of the universe to sustain intelligent life, other than a creator? Steven Hawkings says this "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapased before it reached its present size." .

[JpAiMpEeSr]

To think like you I would have to believe that, nothing produces everything, non life produces life, randomness produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness and non-reason produces reason. I would have to believe in existence with a creator, order without intelligence , laws without a legislator and design with out a designer.This wouldrequire a blind leap of Faith that I am not willing take.

[JpAiMpEeSr]

I'm an agnostic as far as the pink unicorns. I dont think you understand what I mean by God. I mean a unique, personal, plural, spiritual, eternally self-existent, transcendent, immanent, omniscient, immutable, holy, loving being, the creator and ruler of the entire universe and the judge of all mankind. The God I believe in is over and above all things, outside of time and space, completely distinct from the universe, and not to be confused with anything in it.

[JpAiMpEeSr]

The Christian world view tells us the reason we can do science. The reason we can understand the exterior universe with our interior minds, is because ultimately by what ever processes go back to rationality on God.

[JpAiMpEeSr]

The foundation on which all science builds is faith. Faith that the universe is rational, faith that our minds are rational, and faith that the rationality of our minds mirrors the rationality of the universe. The worst thing about atheism is that its apposed to rationality; it gives no justification for believing science.

[JpAiMpEeSr]

If God doesnt exist then my mind is essentially my brain, because the universe consists of only material things. If this is the case then my brain has been cobbled together over the years by unguided natural process and my thoughts are nothing more than natural events.If my brain havent been "designed" for processing rational intelligent thinking, why should I believe what they produce is rational intelligent thought?

[JpAiMpEeSr]

way when the atoms inside of my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange them selfs into a certain way this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? And if I cant trust my own thinking, I cant trust the argument leading to atheism, and therefore I have no reason to be an atheist. Unless I believe in God, I cant believe in thought, so I can never use thought to disbelieve God.

[dimagogos]

Do you understand that Dr Lennox is merely using his title as a mathematician to impress the audience? His arguments are totally naive. Moreover, I would like to challenge him on his knowledge of probability, quantum mechanics, and information theory which he often uses to argue that (his version of) god exists.

[Mathenaut]

No God = No Rhyme and Reason? Oh come on, not even 15 seconds into the video! On the 'problem' of suffering, I present Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus Atheists don't believe in justice? Be thankful that I don't have enough space to keep ranting.

[bushfingers]

Epicurus' thoughts are superficial here.

"Atheists don't believe in justice?" Where exactly does he say this? To imply that he says this is dishonest and misleading.

[Mathenaut]

He implies this in the statement that 'Atheism removes all hope of justice'. It is at the height of imply that Justice either does not exist, or is not possible outside of belief in your particular brand of god.

[Mathenaut]

Should read:

'It is the height of arrogance to imply that Justice either does not exist, or is not possible outside of belief in your particular brand of god.'

[bushfingers]

OK, I'll try again. What form of justice was meted out to Stalin, who was responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people?

[Mathenaut]

What form of justice was meted out to Stalin? That is pretty ignorant to ask, given the assumed perspective of justice.

This is because it isn't enough for him to have died, or for the country to have collapsed; you're wanting the 'burn forever in hellfire' response that you think is 'just' for someone you are using as a scapegoat to target ideals unrelated to his.

This is also ignorant of the fact that Stalin is part of the reason why we aren't speaking german now.

[bushfingers]

:-) You're a moron. Seriously.

[polymath7]

bushfingers, please tell me you don't actually admire this Lennox guy?! His arguments are almost unbelievably stupid.

[bushfingers]

Dear polymath7

Some of his arguments are better than others. But where do get the idea that I admire him? - I don't think I have mentioned him once in any of my comments.

I don't normally write directly insulting comments like I did above, but sometimes I just can't help myself when faced with dismal stupidity.

[polymath7]

I didn't really get the idea that you admire him -given your apparent intelligence this seemed unlikely- I just wanted to ascertain this was not the case.

And I have read enough of your comments to know that you are a nice and extremely fair-minded guy, and assure you I quite understand your difficulty in resisting the urge to become vituperative in the face of slobbering bovine stupidity. I can be almost brutally tactless myself -frequently to my own regret.

Hope to hear from you soon.

[Mathenaut]

Was this a cheap prod to cull my interest?

Or are you honestly out of ammo, figuratively?

[polymath7]

"Was this a cheap prod to cull my interest?"

Was this addressed to me, Mathenaut?

I wasn't alluding to you at all with my phrase "slobbering bovine stupidity" and none of my ammo was marked for yo to begin with.

Sorry if it appeared otherwise.

[Mathenaut]

No, it was directed at bushfingers, in response to his personal attack.

It seems to have appeared below your comment due to how youtube organizes these things.

[farvision]

There is no problem! It is completely explained by the absence of gods. "you do get rid of all hope" GARBAGE!!

[bushfingers]

Okay, please tell me about hope in the absence of God. I really would like to find out more.

[Mathenaut]

If you honestly don't have the determination or will to find strength outside of your mental cage, then by all means, stay inside of it.

Don't claim that there is no hope outside of God. Plenty without God have hope, dreams, and aspirations.

Then again, your only definition of 'hope' is that you'll have your greed for immortality sated, and all of the people who disagree with you will burn, right?

Please, show me wrong. Many don't see hope in your god for many reasons.

[bushfingers]

What you have here are two fallacies. The ad hominem fallacy, and begging the question.

And how can I show you wrong when you have not said anything.

[farvision]

The extremely likely truth is that there are no gods. So do what you do and if it fails then so be it. If it succeeds, then so be it. If you are drowning, struggle to survive until all is lost or you win. That is 'hope'.

[bushfingers]

I can accept that, but it is not 'hope' in the usual sense of the word.

[Mathenaut]

Hope in the usual sense?

You mean it's not the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best?

You mean to tell me that isn't possible without deferring to a god to beg at and worship?

This was my claim to begin with. This is what farvision has expanded upon. Hope isn't something tangible that is given to you. It is idealistic.

If that counts as ad hominem and begging the question (they don't), then...just lol.

[bushfingers]

Let me help you.

"If you honestly don't have the determination or will to find strength outside of your mental cage, then by all means, stay inside of it."

That's ad hominem.

"Don't claim that there is no hope outside of God. Plenty without God have hope, dreams, and aspirations.".

That's begging the question, because the whole point under consideration is the nature of 'hope' without God.

[bushfingers]

(Cont)

"Then again, your only definition of 'hope' is that you'll have your greed for immortality sated, and all of the people who disagree with you will burn, right?". Ad Hominem 2. And utter nonsense to boot.

But as you say, LOL.

[Mathenaut]

""Then again, your only definition of 'hope' is that you'll have your greed for immortality sated, and all of the people who disagree with you will burn, right?". Ad Hominem 2"

That is closer to a strawman. In this case, a statement made in ironic ridicule of the traditional creationist belief of heaven, hell, and justice. So yes, LOL is appropriate.

[Mathenaut]

Hmm...Let me help you.

""If you honestly don't have the determination or will to find strength outside of your mental cage, then by all means, stay inside of it."

That's ad hominem."

No. 'You're wrong because you're stupid' is ad hominem. Learn what that fallacy is, it helps.

"That's begging the question, because the whole point under consideration is the nature of 'hope' without God."

So, pointing to the fact that people without god have hope is begging the question?

[bushfingers]

"""If you honestly don't have the determination or will to find strength outside of your mental cage, then by all means, stay inside of it."

That's ad hominem."

No. 'You're wrong because you're stupid' is ad hominem. Learn what that fallacy is, it helps."

Clearly, you are implying that if I were not so weak (or stupid), then I'd be able to see that you are right and I am wrong.

Essentially, you are saying 'You're wrong because you're weak'. If that's not ad hominem...

[Mathenaut]

"Clearly, you are implying that if I were not so weak (or stupid), then I'd be able to see that you are right and I am wrong. "

You're reaching to find offense, and ignoring the point that people have hope and justice outside of your particular diety. Yet, how is this explained from your end? It's all just false?

[bushfingers]

Look Mathenaut, I don't want to get into protracted arguments with you. The problem is that you are making endless assumptions about me and my beliefs. For example, you wrote "you're wanting the 'burn forever in hellfire' response that you think is 'just' for someone you are using as a scapegoat to target ideals unrelated to his."

How do you know this? How do you know that I believe hell, or that I would think it just if people spent eternity there? How do you even know that I believe in God???

[Mathenaut]

You know...I'll actually concede this point.

Maybe you were just playing DA, maybe you actually believe the stuff...but yes, I jumped the gun as a consequence of the stance you are defending. I owe you an apology for that.

I'll say this, though. Hope existed before christianity, and will exist after it is gone. Justice existed before christianity, and justice will continue to exist after it is gone.

[bushfingers]

It's about time you conceded a bloody point :-)

I believe inquiries into the nature of justice and hope are always relevant, whether expressed in a theistic or atheistic context.

Many people of religions other than my own have quite different hopes to those that I have, but I would only very rarely (and in exceptional circumstances) try to take that hope away from them.

Would I want Christianity (or any other religion) to ever be lost to humanity? Not at all.

And the same goes for atheism.

[Mathenaut]

Agreed, that Justice and Hope are open-ended concepts, that aren't so easily defined (Justice is blind, yes?).

Thinking of it in one sense or another isn't so bad...but to say that it doesn't exist outside of faith?

That is ridiculous.

[farvision]

bushfingers, perhaps someone played a nasty trick on you and tied 'hope' to 'god' so that without god there would be no hope, thus trapping you?

[bushfingers]

Yep, that's it - I fell for a nasty trick. You see, I'm very stupid and am therefore easily tricked. I will try to extricate myself from this terrible trap of ignorance.

[farvision]

I did not say you are stupid. Everybody is ignorant (just search for evolution at pubmedcentral to see that nobody could possibly read every scientific paper on evolution!). The only way out is to read and investigate. Now you now that there are people who have hope but who don't think there are gods. That's a step.

[bushfingers]

Farvision, I think the fact that you and Matheraut provide such facile answers to the question of hope without God means that you have not thought deeply about this. (That is not to say that hope without God is not possible.) Also, perhaps I am wrong and you have.

Your pithy responses her on the subject are in stark contrast to the thoughts of great thinkers like Sartre, Camus and Nietzsche.

But maybe I'm just being absurd.

[farvision]

Obviously I reserve my careful writing for publications, not for conversations on youtube.

[bushfingers]

Fair enough.

In the field of evolutionary biology?

[farvision]

Molecular biology.

[bushfingers]

Cool - a very interesting subject.

[Mathenaut]

"Farvision, I think the fact that you and Matheraut provide such facile answers to the question of hope without God means that you have not thought deeply about this"

Facile? If you're disappointed than an explanation of hope outside of god doesn't exactly require much, well...sorry to say, but that should tell you something about the concept of hope with your god. It is not such a profound thing.

[Mathenaut]

"Your pithy responses her on the subject are in stark contrast to the thoughts of great thinkers like Sartre, Camus and Nietzsche"

Pithy because they are Pithy? Pithy because they so easily dismiss the notion of your god? Pithy because you want the notion to be more profound than it really is?

To compare our answers to the likes of other thinkers and claim that they are weak by contrast, solely in being contrasted, is fallacious.

"But maybe I'm just being absurd."

Understatement.

[bushfingers]

Obviously you missed the allusion - what was I thinking.

[Mathenaut]

Enlighten me, then.

[bushfingers]

Absurdism is a central element of existentialism (see the above mentioned philosophers for examples).

[polymath7]

Hey, bushfingers. I hope you got the email I sent. It's little more than a suggested list of topics we might discuss, but the question of "hope in the absence of God" (or, much more to the point, I think, "in the absence of an afterlife") is one I had overlooked and seems an excellent addition. It is also I suspect the only point on which we are likely in large part to agree.

[bushfingers]

Hi polymath7. I did receive your email - thanks. I'll reply in the next few days.

I think we will agree on more than you may now believe. But we shall have to see :-)