Atheist Physicist Gets OWNED by William Lane Craig on God, EVIL and Suffering-EPIC Debate 

Why is it necessary? It’s completely possible to make a structure where individuals don’t have pain or experience suffering. Heaven is the best example (no evidence to believe heaven exist)

Free will causes pain and suffering. Do we have free will in heaven? Yes? Then why is there no evil and suffering in heaven. Do we not have free will in heaven? Then we're just moral robots running around worshiping god. Please consider this when thinking about heaven and honestly ask yourself these questions

​@@JosePineda-jl9qpHeaven is not an example because there we will see the greatest conceivable good (and more than we can conceive), which will make us no longer interested in bad things. That good is God himself. In the world in which we are, no one has seen God. But to get there each one has to freely accept to have a loving relationship with God. God's purpose is to reach as many people as possible who freely choose that relationship. God does not force you to be with Him against your will because otherwise it would not be freely and it would not be a genuine relationship. For your argument to be valid you have to demonstrate that it is possible to create a world in which no one has seen God in which there is an equal or greater number of creatures who freely choose God but there is less suffering. I invite you to demonstrate that.

​@@SharedPhilosophyFree will cause suffering because we haven't seen God. In heaven we will see God. So, despite the fact that there will be free will in heaven, no one there would choose evil

@@SharedPhilosophy the whole point of my statement was to show you that it is possible to build a “world” deprived of evil and suffering. That world is heaven. You say that in heaven, we will find the greatest good well why isn’t that already just the simply the case for existence. Heaven is an example of a world that is already perfect and good. Your God has not put us there. It’s immoral to set up a system, where a “world” like heaven is the greatest form of good and not simply make us live in heaven from the start

Why is empathy right and the opposite of empathy wrong?

@@rafaelbetancurt7920 If by "opposite of empathy" you mean cruelty, then I'd say its wrong because it clearly produces pain and suffering. And that is what our morals should be based on. Limiting the amount of suffering in the world. I think we can all as mentally sane human beings, agree that pain and suffering is uncomfortable, so logically why would we inflict such a thing on other people. Instead of saying that feeling in your head telling you that you shouldn't do something is the objective morality of god you should just realize that its your natural human capacity for empathy which nudges at you and tells you to feel bad about something because it naturally recognizes that this action has caused suffering and harm to a fellow member of the species

@@SharedPhilosophyCruelty is not just bad because it produces suffering. But suffering also reduces a persons ability to carry out their functions, even functions from the Bible. It’s harder to work and procreate and use their natural gifts if one is under extreme suffering. So it is to be avoided under a humanist or theist framework.

@@joecheffo5942 this is true

@@joecheffo5942 great point!!

I watched the whole podcast and honestly I don't see any problem with that framework.

@@rafaelbetancurt7920 So you would kill children if god commanded it? You’re an evil, insane psychopath.

But a schizophrenic or psychopath might have different standards of things they want done to them and therefore do to others. Some people lack empathy. There IS objective morality and objective truth

Empathy is biochemical "brain barf". Empathy according to the materialist worldview is a set of chemical reactions that have arisen by an unguided and accidental process of physical mutations that have evolved over the course of millions of years. Empathy within individuals are ultimately chemical accidents without meaning. Empathy is a chemical accident that will never change the eventual heat death of the universe. Empathy is a chemical accident in a cold and uncaring universe that will eventually dissolve into nothing. Why not throw away empathy and live for short term pleasure? It would ultimately make no difference. Everyone you love will die, all of your offspring will die, and the universe will eventually dissolve into nothing anyway. What makes the suffering of others more meaningful than your own suffering? We're all going to suffer and die anyway. Personal satisfaction should be all that matters because empathy, selfishness, and suffering are all simply meaningless speedbumps (chemical accidents) on the way to what will eventually be a permanently dead universe. If "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." is the result of an unguided and accidental chemical process then how can you trust that it's beneficial? And even if beneficial, what difference does it make if everyone and the universe will eventually dissolve into nothing? Throwing away empathy and living for short term pleasure should be the logical conclusion of the materialist/relativistic worldview in the face of an ultimately meaningless universe. (Unless you somehow feel deep down that there could be a God that could have the power to save humanity and morally justify your own existence).

@@Nickisgodly3781 "Why not throw away empathy and live for short term pleasure? It would ultimately make no difference" Because you can't just throw away empathy. You either have it or you don't. >Everyone you love will die, all of your offspring will die, and the universe will eventually dissolve into nothing anyway. What makes the suffering of others more meaningful than your own suffering? Suffering is bad because it hurts people. Empathy allows you to understand that. >We're all going to suffer and die anyway. Personal satisfaction should be all that matters because empathy, selfishness, and suffering are all simply meaningless speedbumps (chemical accidents) on the way to what will eventually be a permanently dead universe. So if you didn't believe god exists, this is how you would live your life? Do you not gain personal satisfaction by doing good things for other people? Most people do.

@@Ste_Brit Yes, but like moral it is a reflection of circumstance.

@@Nickisgodly3781 Yes, to argue that we are somehow not biochemical. Is nonsensical. Again, morals are inherent, they are rules of behavior All social animals have them. Because without them they could not maintain a social group. And their survival relies on that social interaction. Morals are fluid, they are not written in stone. Our ability to think and make judgement based on circumstances makes them subjective.

Maybe because their point is microscopic. Morality grounded in a nebulous nee invisible deity vs morality grounded in clear humanism.

So we have a 30 year old video with a narrator making half the arguments 30 years later. It was the tribes at the time of the Bible that sacrificed babies in fire because of RELIGION. That’s the only time you see such a thing en masse. Even Judea tribe did it. So talking about torturing babies is really ironic from a theist. Same with rape, genocide and slavery. If you were a biologist and not a physicist, he would’ve replied that our morals come from our being a social species, and that these traits like empathy and altruism developed over time as adaptive traits for the group. Again, ironically it seemed that religion is one of the main ways to override these natural traits. Political brainwashing too.

u just ignored the point being made. humanism is clear to you. humanism and even as far as human rights are subjective. @@carl7674

@@carl7674 humanism cannot ground morality. also, you can keep the cheeky remarks to yourself. if you are going to engage with theists in an honest manner, you can at at least be respectful

@whitemat76 Humanism can certainly ground morality. Without humans, morality perse is a moot point. Also, sarcasm does not diminish truth. Sorry, your "God" is invisible. I'm never respectful of sophistry.

I feel like this was 100% AI generated

And if morals are relative, nothing objectively or subjectively matters. Assuming that the Big Bang is correct and the leading theories that evolution as an origin not just a process is how all of life and matter came to be. As evolution has no direct creative mechanism driving its direction towards bettering the next generations other than chance/the ones who survived. Everything existing is just an absurd possibility that it should exist just because it does, doesn't validate its existence. Meaning that if everything that came to be is just a result of a process of evolution we are here by chance. Everything created is the product of the process and that process as the universe doesn't care that there are beings in it. So life ultimately means nothing. Adding value to anything ultimately means nothing because if everything is a result of the process, then it just is. It just happened, nothing valuable in there and nothing valuable coming out of it.

@tbishop4961 this right here! Honestly, the meta behind this simple comment is: 1. hilarious to me because it seems accurate. 2. There is no way to prove or have evidence that the comment wasn't generated by AI even if they respond! Which is the hilarity in it! 3. Everything can't be proven to 100%, and honestly, how do I prove I'm not an AI writing this comment?

@@terrordude11 you have to count their fingers. They still aren't good at hands🤔

@tbishop4961 the get it right sometimes, not all but sometimes. Also Stan Lee (Marvel comics huge starter) couldn't draw certain things early on. The individual in question could be a human with poor art skills or AI

Einstein never raped nor murder anyone, even though he didn't believe in a personal God and had the sane free will as you😅

Thanks for showing how little you think of atheists. It tells us you lack the maturity to talk about these things.