Atheist Pulls Uno Reverse Card on God?

first, he presents the problem of evil.

this is the idea that the existence of evil logically infers that a good God does not exist. he compares this with the idea that the existence of good refutes the existence of maximally evil God.

the idea is that these two arguments cancel each other out, that we cannot believe that a good God exists based on the same kind of logic.

but that is not the kind of logic that the Bible uses to explain the existence of evil. that's what we will be looking at today

#god #bible #debate

[lePirateMan]

When people say problem of evil they are including suffering. Cancer is not evil because cancer doesnt have morals. Its a problem of God creating a world of suffering thats contradictory

[Zaloomination]

Love the thumbnail. Excited to take this one slow and fully digest it.

[sergiosarmiento]

The fact that we feel wronged by evil shows our affinity towards the good.

In the image we were made, and our path is one of redemption.

We pursue the good to be reunited at the side of the father.

[ecta]

An eternalist god creating billions of people who he knows will suffer in hell doesn’t seem impossible to me.

The incomprehensible thing is that sort of deity having a fundamentally loving character. Those things seem completely at odds - it’s like a triangle with two right angles in it. Impossible.

If you were a fundamentally loving deity then why on earth would you build a completely predetermined universe with a specific realm set aside for infinite punishment? That’s insane lol - it’s literally the thing where a spouse hits their partner and then says ‘look what you made me do’. On a more fundamental level, if god predetermines that someone will either reject or accept him, why is that rejection or acceptance even worth rewarding or punishing if it was always going to happen? It would be like rewarding or punishing 2 + 2 for equaling four.

I could believe far more easily that such a god has a fundamentally creative or aesthetic character, and that the universe is some sort of work of art. That could make sense. But love? Nah.

[josephbevan]

ok this is a really annoying tactic that you're doing where people are like "there are contradictions with this part of your worldview" and you're like "yeah well that part doesn't exist in your worldview so you can't use it against me" that is literally a non-sequitur. you don't need to objectively define evil in your worldview to criticise a different worldview because you can adopt those premises from the worldview you're criticising. it's literally a proof by contradiction method.

[MusingsFromTheJohn]

The existence of evil is only a problem for a Deities existence if you define that Deity as all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing, and all-loving. Such a Deity logically cannot exist.

Now, a Deity like Cosmos is:
> All-powerful in the sense of containing all power, but that does not mean Cosmos can do anything.
> All-knowledge in the sense that all knowledge and all information is contained within Cosmos.
> All-present because all of existence exists within Cosmos.
> All loving in the sense that Cosmos is also all hating, because all emotions exist within Cosmos.

Thus, the existence of evil is not a problem for the existence of the Deity Cosmos.

[jtbtdlkt]

I'm convinced that this notion of autonomous free-will is just a glimpse at the filthy nature of sin in even the believer's life; pride.

[TwitchyTheologian]

Ayyye!!! Rogue is back at it!!! Good stuff brother.

[bjavin]

"This atheist is wrong because of my presupposition and my book says a thing" the video

[FirstLast-zkow]

God exists regardless of whatever anyone on the planet can dream up in attempt to prove otherwise.

[MusingsFromTheJohn]

The argument around 9:45 into the video relies on the God of Abraham not being all-powerful, all-knowing and all-present. Even in the text here is states "He (God) can't cause or determine them to do only what is right." This text then shows he (God) is not all-powerful, because their is something he (God) cannot do. Further, he (God) would have to NOT be all-knowing, because if he was then when he created a person he would know with superdeterminism everything that person did and that all their descendants did throughout all time and how he created them would decide those actions.

But the real problem here is where the God of Abraham directly takes actions which by modern ethical moral values is the worst unethical immoral crime within humanity or he commands and rewards his followers for carrying out such extreme crimes, like genocide.

[smidlee]

This is arguing as if God is a cosmic clock maker. Of course if God wanted to create a world of machines then there wouldn't be any evil.
It's exactly like Richard Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker" .He claimed in that book no engineer would ever design the inverted retina, thus "God wouldn't do it that way" so NATURE DID IT. He thinks the best argument for God is the fine tuned argument which again it assuming God is some clock maker.
A watch exist apart from the watchmaker which is not so with God. Nothing can exist apart from God.
Notice often atheist assumes the machine metaphor is the absolute truth and we are only biological machines so when we die that's the end. "How can a good God allow 6 million "biological machines" cease to exist in WW2?"

The Bible reveals man can't be good without God. God is good. The fall of man is thinking he can decide good and evil for himself. This is the rebellion against God. Atheist believe they have something GOOD without God, their intelligent.

[Jaycub-numr]

People are quick to blame YHVH for evil, but forget that Yeshua WAS God in human form. He also made the statement that we ARE gods. To quote a man, whom i admire very much, "Youre the image of God. Act like it."

[JeffBedrick]

So much of philosophy seems to be nothing more than arguing over how to define abstract principles that we invented in the first place. We come up with words like good and evil to describe things that we like or don't like, and then pretend that these mere adjectives must have some transcendent existence apart from how we use them to describe specific things. Even so-called rational secular philosophers often fall into this trap.

[cba]

The Bible explains suffering and evil, etc. The atheists must explain what part of the explanation they take issue.

[amac]

The idea that you can't have a valid objection to God being both all good and evil existing in the world when your foundation of morality is ultimately subjective is incorrect. It is only a problem if we disagree on the basic definition of morality but we don't own the big things so the problem of evil is a very valid one...

[ableVelo]

"If a good God existed, he would want to remove all That's actually not a true logical assumption, even though it sounds good on paper. A lot of these arguments are strawman arguments to begin with -- but simple people want them to sound logical. And so it's all kind of silly to begin with in refuting or arguing against some of these challenges.

But if we are to refute it, the Bible does have an answer for this (if only people would read it and think about it deeply), even though the answer will infuriate those who do NOT want to believe in a God, much less the God of the Bible.

[mr.spider]

That's why I use the term suffering. No one who lets people suffer are called good. How much so should we hold God to at least as much.

[watchman]

Good and evil are negations of each other so if God is good then evil is the complete opposite of him. Evil is the effect if God becomes a contradiction and the opposite of himself, like dying, all his creation is affected. God is existence, so the opposite is non-existence. Good and evil are states of being. Evil is Satan's presentation that it should exist. God demonstrated evil when he died on the cross and answered Satan's claims. Evil is the rejection of God. Good abolishes evil and only allows good to exist.

[rubif]

God will eliminate Evil. Trust me. The bible tells me so.