Little did I know that 9 months later, I'd be debating Frank himself on this very topic. Check it out here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-b5a3MxIqZOs.html
CosmicSkepic,the Universe proove God existence,and Jesus proove God Love,the same way you spend time to proove that God dont exist,that the Christian God is false,why you dont experience him to really know the true if he exist or not?I see you are so young and you know so much about Sciences,Philosophies,Can you tell me what is life after death?Can all your knowledges tell me whats come after death?And what if there is a hell and a heaven,if there is a life after life,what would you do?will you wish to go to hell or heaven,to be with God or to be with the devils in the hell for eternity? If the God of the Christians is really the one true God will you accept to lose your soul for fighting to wrong fight?what is after life for you?if you can proove me that i will surrender to your Big Bang Theories if not then you must give your life to Jesus Christ before its too late,because life is a gift from God we dont deserve it,we find life only through Jesus Chirst.Give your life to him because he want to saves you:God bless you.
Though we may die, Jesus says, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live” (John 11:25).so if you really want to know my answers lets go in private,i can see that you are an muslin right?join me on Facebook now and lets talk about life,because Jesus is Life,without him we're all dead.so im waiting for you there if you are insterested to know about my answers.
Logical problem of evil: 1. God created all things which exist 2. God cannot create a thing outside of his nature. (God cannot create a circular square, married bachelor, etc) 3. Gods nature is all good. 4. Evil exists 5. Given 1 and 4, god created evil 6. Given 3 and 5, there is a logical contradiction in the existence of an omnibenevolent god. 7. Logical contradictions do not exist in reality 8. Therefore, god does not exist in reality. The evidential problem of evil: 1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. 2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. 3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
ZTWarz Actually, the first argument is my own form of an argument from the logical problem of evil, but the second argument is William Rowe's argument, and it comes with some influence from JL Mackie, the Australian philosopher. I don't know if it is so, but TAV may have mentioned the evidential problem before.
ZTWarz Nice. Good to hear it gets around. I like Mehta's work. I don't think I've seen that video where he speaks about it, though. I read this argument in a paper on Rowe.
jordan w #4 is flawed. God did not create evil, in the same way that he did not create cold. Cold is not a tangible reality, as it cannot be observed without being in light of an actual reality, such as heat. Colds only characteristic is that it is the absence of something. on its own it does not become identifiable. evil only exists in light of goodness. evil is the deprivation of good
dannyboy765ify Is sickness truly just a privation of health? Is murder simply a privation of life? It seems to me on this view of evil as a privation, evil is not really evil. When god creates radiation, it is not really evil for this radiation to mutate the cells in a child, causing them to die. If I create a gun and sell this gun to a murderer, I am not really doing anything wrong, the wrongdoing is simply because the gun is in the hands of the privation of good. It also seems to me that if I can even choose to do something immoral, even that act is inconsistent with god, for how can I choose to do something god cannot choose to do? And also, again it seems, this thing just doing what it does is just doing what god says it does. Radiation has no free will, and yet god created it. And so god is immediately and directly the cause of the cancer in the child. But then, again, if god causes it, how is it really evil? Or how is he really good? If evil is just a privation of good, then good is just a privation of evil, but that would, of course, assume evil is an objective feature. So it seems privation as apposed to objectivity is logically inconsistent. And this "privatio boni" is a problem, I think, if the Christian believes god creates a perfect world. How does a perfect world go wrong? It does not, perfection is not destroyed unless there is imperfection to destroy it. If there is imperfection, where did it come from? I think either the world was not created perfect, or god made it go wrong. Also, if the world was created perfect, how do we choose to do wrong? If we are created perfect, how do we choose to do wrong? "Privation" to me seems to be sort of degrading. A person who looses a friend, mother, child to a murderer does not say "that person is deprived of good", they say "that person is evil." Those who lost their lives and freedom in soviet Russia or nazi Germany just were affected by a privation of good? I think evil to these people is an objective, real feature, not just a privation of some thing. Back to cancer, neither the radiation nor the DNA is perfect. The fact that the dna is corruptible means it is imperfect. God is perfect, is he corruptible? No. The radiation is not perfectly good either. Because it causes evil, it is evil. Because a person murders, he is a murderer. So it seems, on any basis, because god is the creator of all things he is the creator of evil. Even if it were that evil is a privation, it would not excuse the existence of evil. I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create evil. I the LORD do all these things.
jordan w something being a privation doesn't take away from the experience of it or it's impact. somethings ontology tells us about it's nature but doesn't take away from its significance. Cold isn't actually something on its own but cold is definitely a real experience. it's existential reality is different from that of heat being that it is not independent in its existence. it is not directly created by a God being, it is an effect of creation being created essentially. at least evil in our own universe is
@@anepicflyingbrick_4872 And the point of this video is Alex destroys the man's "evidence." He didn't provide legitimate evidence, and this video dismantles it. So...
I think he means a monotheistic God in the least. He’s talking about “god” and not “God.” He believes in “God” but he says a “god” Art least has to exists.
"You wouldn't know what good was, unless God himself existed." Well actually, if the bible is to be taken literally, we know what good and evil are thanks to the serpent and a tree.
I know this is 4 years old, but I'd like to point out that even as an atheist, you can see that the Bible claims that God said that his creation was good prior to the serpent.
These people are just scared. I used to be a Christian, for about 18-19 years, believing in god is comforting. Believe that you will see you'r loved once again. Believe that it wont be dark after your last breath. (As stupid as that sounds) Believe that it will be some sort of justice for those who do evil things. I mean the list goes on and on. My point being, i had a really ruff time, from being a Christian to be a 100% non-believer. But, I'm glad, because now, i can live my life how i want to, and not like some dude who wrote a book 2000 years ago wanted me to.
North Viking as ive told many people, religion is used to comfort people, but facing the truth is better, for example, someone is sick his family prays for him to get better, should he get better they say god protected him, should he die they say god took him because god had plans for him.....illogical fallacy
I would say, religion is used to control people more than it is to comfort them. But i get where your coming from. And yeah, the bible has an explanation for everything, that's why we still have religious people.
North Viking the bible dosnt make you live a cerent way no action will send you to hell rejecting Christ sends you to hell sadlly you might be sent to hell put when the 7 trumpets sound and you have to choose a group I hope you choose right
Hell is a holding cell for fallen angles you would be sent to the lake of fire if you don't believe the almighty God and repent your sins choose right the proficiency are coming true Jeusus is coming back this is the series final just give it 15-30 years max all the sings are showing the amount of aithest in this generation has spiked tremendously and God said in the last day Critsanity would be watterd down there are also many more sings when the trumpents sound you should know what to do also keep this in your mind let's make a bet if a nation crisis happens and they keep Obama in presdincy I win and you have to repent your sins and believe in God and i it doesn't you could be an aithest
There is not even good or evil. There is only helping the species survive or harming the species. Its really hard to create the case that harming the species is even a bad thing. I don't want to harm our species because I have empathy, but I also recognize my empathy is irrational.
I only stopped believing in the gods 5 years ago. Things are so much more to the point now. I waste a lot less time. I don't criticize people for not believing in my gods. I no longer pretend to have a personal relationship with my gods. I watch youtube instead of making desperate efforts to make verses from my holy book fit. I don't expect any special treatment from others or my gods anymore.I am no longer disappointed when my prayers go unanswered. I take more time to understand how humans are using logic. I am beginning to understand mathematics and science. I am now 61.
The Ten Commandments 1. People are afraid of death. Promise them an immortal soul. 2. People fear, respect and obey their father more than anyone else. Give them a superhero version of dad to worship. 3. The greatest instinctive fear people have is fire. Threaten them with eternal hell if they START to doubt what you are telling them. 4. People are capable of reason. Tell them God's plan is an unsolvable mystery so they don't attempt to ask questions. 5. Promise that they will get to meet God and live happily ever after, just as soon as they are dead. 6. Make religion indispensable. Make anything good impossible without God. Blame humans for everything bad, including natural disasters. Don't let people feel good without giving God credit for it. If he isn't going to get the credit, make it a sin. 7. Tell them the most important thing is to have faith in God. Make sure they don't notice the amount of blind faith they are putting into their religion. 8. Get them while they're too young to know better and before they know anything else. By the time they're old enough to figure it out they will be too emotionally invested to change their minds. The older they get, the more dependent they will become. 9. Tell them to make lots of babies. (then see commandment #8) 10. Repeat.
Actually the biggest fear people have, is the fear of what other people think. I personally don’t give a flying fuck what people think. Plus the 10 commandments don’t apply to Christians today. Jesus only mentioned to keep 6 he left the first 4 out. But unless you actually read the books and know how to interpret them you wouldn’t know.
He's using a bastardisation of the stolen concept fallacy. In fact, his argument amounts to just another argument from incredulity - "I can't see how X could exist without God, therefore God exists."
sam njoroge That's because no matter the outcome of any debate, the creationist habitually disregards any information that runs counter to his/her narrative. Because if you're truly convinced of your position, you must be dishonest in support of it....
John Theos actually if someone gave me good sound evidence i would believe. all we get are assertions and take it on faith. and threats of eternal damnation. or eternal rewards of praising god forever or 2 virgins and rivers of wine depending on which monotheism am being urged to join.. .. i grant a god may exist but so far none of the ones ave encountered or been persuaded to believe could possibly be true.
sam njoroge I believe in a higher power, on account of the miracles and answered prayers I have experienced. On the other hand, I do not believe in the Hebrew, Christian and Muslim god because he is evil by his very nature. As a matter of fact, I have not found any modern religion that reflects what I believe. All I can say is that Jesus was a good man and probably the closest thing to a role model that I have in my life. If everyone acted like Jesus, this world would be heaven on earth for all of us. So all this bickering about whether God exists or not is pointless to me and distracts from the REAL issue that Christianity is atrocious, divisive and destructive. If you believe in God, at least believe in a God who is good. And If you don't believe in God, at least believe in goodness, something worth fighting for.
I think one of the best things that could happen to humanity would be to understand that "good" and "evil" are adjectives and not nouns. "Evil" exists as much as "big" exists.
@@goranmilic442 First of all, I'm not the one who suggested that word. Secondly, what I said, I think, makes your rebuttal to it being used as an example extra worthless. Thirdly, a word like big is only worth something in comparison to something else. I don't know how to describe your example other than that it's irrelevant.
It is nonsensical and contradictory to say that "objective good" requires a god. For one thing, "good" is a qualitative attribution, and so can't be objective (only quantitatives can be objective: There are 5 oranges on this table - that would be true whether I was here to report it or not). For example, is it good to eat chocolate cake? If you are trying to lose weight, it is not good. If you want a delicious experience, then it is. So whether it is good or not depends on a point of view, hence is subjective. Is it good to punch someone in the face? It is if you are a boxer, or if you are defending yourself. Is it good to kill someone? It is if it's a mercy killing, or if you are defending yourself or someone else. Another thing: if "god" makes a decision about something, then it is subjective of him. He has decided what is good, so God's "good" is in fact arbitrary. A third possibility is that there is some standard of "good" apart from God (though of course there isn't, as I pointed out in my first point), but if there were, and God was bound by this description of good (he couldn't do anything evil), then he wouldn't be omnipotent, and hence not god.
If free will exists, then your god is not in control of us. Congratulations, you have just pointed out that your god is not all powerfull and no god at all. Well done.
Zasz Without evil, good cannot exist. Without good and evil, free will cannot exist. Without free will, love cannot exist. And yes God knows you will not choose love. Congratulation!!!, I wouldn't expect a reprobate to understand the mind of God. " I want this world not to have meaning. A meaningless world frees me to pursue my own erotic pursuits"-Aldous Huxley. Learn your world view before spewing ignorant statements.
Talladega Tom I would just make the distinction religion is dishonest. One can be a theist, believing that God exists but not claiming it or subscribing to religion. However that is far less common. Religion misuses faith and turns people into gnostic individuals, which is very dishonest. ...Just the opinion of an agnostic atheist.
The God of the old testament was kinda a dick. He certainly might cause tsunamis and other natural disasters. I mean he is the guy who killed every firstborn son just to prove a point. God (of the OT atleast) certainly is not all benevolent, far from it.
Kinda of a dick is putting it rather mildly. Not only did this god kill every firstborn to show off. He also gave Pharaoh an ultimatum to let the Jews go free or he would kill all the firstborn. So it's pretty bad just at that point. However it's gets down right maniacal and sadistic when you add in the God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that Pharaoh wouldn't let the Jews go free. I mean that is pretty twisted stuff.
Tobias F Another really great example is the story of Lot. So this is the guy that God finds to be worthy of saving. Yet this is also the guy that offered up his daughters to be gang raped in order to try to appease a mob. Yeah sounds like a great guy to me.....
"objective morals exist only is god exists" untrue. if morals came from a god, then they would still subjective. they would be suject to the whims of said god. so even within Christianity object morals cannot exist.
Wrong. Christianity's objective morals are rooted in two laws. Love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and mind. Do unto others as you would have do unto you. All other religions are rooted in ... Do as thou wilst is the whole of the law..
+AboutMy FathersBusiness You silly theists. You picked one God out of hundreds. You picked one denomination out of thousands. You picked which bits are literally true, and which are symbolic. You then, rather quaintly, insist that your morality is 'objective.' Laughable.
AboutMy FathersBusiness _"Wrong. Christianity's objective morals are rooted in two laws. Love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and mind."_ That isn't a moral and has nothing to do with objective morality. How are you supposed to make a moral decision on a situation using that statement as a basis? _"Do unto others as you would have do unto you. All other religions are rooted in ... Do as thou wilst is the whole of the law.."_ While I mostly agree with the sentiment of this old adage. It isn't a christian one and you are wrong about your second statement. Most of the existing major religions have this adage in their texts in some version. The "golden rule" predates Christianity. The earliest reference to it we have is from an Egyptian text 'The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant'. While it is a good place to start, it is not an objective moral. What is good for you may not always be good for everyone else. So while you could base your morality off of this premise, any moral decision made would ultimately be based on the individuals subjective opinion of what is "good to have done to you". It also clashes with the bible. How exactly does it apply to the ordered genocides in the bible or the condoning of slavery.. which seems to completely go against the golden rule?
No they are not, they are based on the same principles that human morals tend to to be - since we have an innate sense of morality, as social beings. The principle of 'treat others as you would want to be treated' does appear in many religions, as it makes sense (at the same time it can be seen more as a rule of thumb, since not everything you like done to you, I would like also, and vice versa). Anyway, for example, "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517
KLanD Tine "It also clashes with the bible. How exactly does it apply to the ordered genocides in the bible or the condoning of slavery.. which seems to completely go against the golden rule?" You are ignorant on the plan of salvation. I would not expect you to understand it but I will give you a synopsis... Every other belief including atheism give moral relativism the soil to grow. (What is good for one may not be good for another). AKA Do what thou wilst is the whole of the law. Regarding Genocide, from the beginning " I will put emnity between thy seed and her seed" The serpent's seed was to wipe out the womans seed. In the womans seed was to come the savior of the world and the serpent knew this. God was killing the attacker of his seed and his plan for salvation of his creation. They were and ARE not born of woman aka not human. No human can keep all the 600 laws of God. No human can keep the two laws Jesus gave which encompassed all the laws. We have a wicked heart and need salvation. " It is finished"- Jesus
Wow. Apparently a doctorate in apologetics from a creationist "university" is enough for Mr. Turek to be introduced as "Dr.".... Where's my bleach at?...
DaemonZec No problem sir, we have that too. It'll be ready in a minute. In the meantime you can snack on this appetizer. **puts rat poison on the table** Anything else sir?
I think people like this is exactly why appeals to authority is a logical fallacy. Legitimate expertise should be valued. But "dr."s like this man are why we can't have nice things.
*Oh* I must have mistaken it with mine, which was almost empty *Sorry man* here you got, one last zip *Zlurrrrrp* Oh... I got sodium too, do you want some?
Evil exist, they run the word in darkness. U can have stronghold over u now. Without u knowing. U need Jesus to break your Bondage, only then u will understand.
@@deonliberator8953 With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg
That was a completely reasonable question from Turek, which Hitchens dodged by making a funny remark. As funny as it is, I would prefer he contented with the question
Can you imagine how this child must be angering God? An ant about to be crushed by a hiking boot telling the hiker that he’s not afraid of humans or hiking boots and that he doesn’t believe that they exist...
I see Turek and I cry... Albeit, how people can be that dopey to fall for that religious con-man. A man or woman wants to believe in a god ... ''then believe in a god''. But please ... don't let the Tureks of this world take you for fools!
LOL at that...Men didn't create god..Heck we not even smart enough to keep earth under fully control ...If we created gods we would of created creation gen 1:1 which is something we did not do....
Aidan Suma So in our heads we created earth to and the moon and the stars and we created each other along with dna...SURE ...Man isnt smart enough to create none of that ...You can get 100 scientist together and they still couldnt create earth or creation..Heck we barely can keep in from falling apart
Aidan Suma I didnt misunderstood anything ..IF man didnt create it then who did..Please dont say evolution because evolution cant make dna nor man cant create it either...Dna is like computer code with instructions..Something had to give DNA insstructions for it to work correctly...So its bs when peole say "durrrrrr dna came out of no wheere and knew exactly what do it though science" Because everything has a cause and that cause points back to god...
There are, of course, further blurred lines. Subjective morals are basically what evolved for us to survive as a species in a tribal context. A tribe would cease to exist, if, within it, murder, rape, theft, dishonesty etc thrived. It would be an unsustainable model. However, outside the tribe, such "immoral" acts would, in some cases, even be sanctioned, as it maintains the separateness of each tribal unit. As we outgrew the tribal confines, and became city states and then countries, some of the tribalism had to be subsumed into the philosophy of the greater good for the greater number of people. Now in certain countries that have a system of government, vestiges of tribalism remain, whereas in other countries, by and large, people have outgrown petty tribal concerns. Countries where honour killings still take place have not rid themselves of this tribalism (there are other examples too)and among certain of those people, those acts are justified and are thought to be for the greater good of the tribal group. I won't elaborate on countries where the worst examples of negative tribal actions occur, anyone can discover that for themselves. Therefore, what is considered "moral" to an isolated tribe in the mountain fastnesses of New Guinea, would be abhorrent to western thought, meaning that an objective, god-driven morality is a chimera.
You don't have to look much farther than the bible to see a perfect example of what you just brought up as well. Numbers 31:17 and 31:18 spells that out quite succinctly. Yet, if you were to ask most christians today if rape and slavery are wrong, they will say that is it.
He claims darkness can not exist without light, but I would argue that darkness existed prior to light and may actually be the natural state of things.
wdsbhb actually darkness doesn’t exist. Darkness is simply an absence of light, but there is no such thing as darkness just like there’s no coldness. It’s simply an absence of heat.
@@liqritrs8391 Darkness being the absence of light definitely coincides with darkness being the natural state of being... you're acting like you're correcting, when really you're agreeing but using different terminology.
Traditional magicians use sleight of hand, whereas the religious preacher uses sleight of word, and the religious believer uses sleight of thought. Although pleasing, these actions must be remembered to be fictions, or self-deception may overwhelm the senses and retard other activities.
6:25 is a perfect example of the double standard towards god. We thank him for saving someone from an accident, but we don’t thank him for making the accident happen and putting that person in that position.
Yeah, I think this guy is a kid in the philosophy by saying he believes objective morals do not exist. BTW all great philosophers Identity objective morals.
@@hkicgh7277 I agree with him. If objective morals exist, it should be provable without appeal to opinion - thats what "objective" means. Nobody has been able to do that.
@@JMUDoc sounds like you are a kid in the philosophy too, objective morals are AXIOMATIC by virtue, we recognise them but you don't prove them, otherwise their prove will also require a prove which can go on forever. If you can "prove" to me you exist in the first place I would take you seriously, because you already presuppose your existence, after all we could all be in some kind of aliens' video game.
@@hkicgh7277 Declaring them to be axiomatic doesn't make them axiomatic; a Christian may "recognise" that blasphemy and coveting are ("objectively") immoral - do you? I don't. Once we agree on the definition of "moral", objectivity is possible. But only after the defintion is settled.
4:12 That only explains tribal loyalty. If we evolved with that mindset we shouldn't be able to self sacrifice for those outside our tribal identity yet everyday people lay down their lives to protect those they've never met.
Reise Keller I think it was quite the opposite .hitchens arguments were extremely weak .i dont mind quoting some atheists, on what they thought of the debate .
@@ahaan-thakker9142 ... Interesting. Since Hitchens arguments are considered "weak", perhaps you can give real evidence of God's existence? After 40 plus years in the faith, I have yet to find any.
@Mickey Barnyard ... Pride? Let's try this... as long as you cling to wishful belief (faith), you'll always settle for mythology, rather than proven evidence.
@@reisekeller6859 the Bible will literally prove itself in the future. Not even science will be needed then to prove God or whatever your definition of actual evidence is.
This is the only channel where I don't put the speed to 1.25x or 1.5x speed so people would get to their point faster. With you there's so much content I would need to slow it down to digest all of it. 🐺
I think you’re just looking for a reason to criticize the argument. Replace sunlight with any other source of light and the principle remains the same.
@@Tyler-Hoskins That is the point. You can replace sun with any source of light. So that argument doesnt prove God. Sun(God) and other source of light(other possible explanations)
@@Tyler-Hoskins the argument is every effect has a cause and *if we dont want that to continue for to infinity* there has to be a first causer who is not the effect of another cause, but as you can see firstly this argument just wants to assume that cause and effect chain doesnot comes from infinity, we dont have any sufficient reason to eliminate this possibility. This universe doesnt work as our intuition would like we know this already. And secondly, why they assume that cause and effect chain is straight line, not a circle. If it was a circle then the question that "what is the first cause" would became meaningless just like asking "what is the starting point of circle". Cause and effect very well can be like that also
@@Tyler-Hoskins I hope that i have explained without causing to any misunderstandings. English is not my first language, that is why there can be some grammatical errors which could blur my point if you find, please let me know
He's basically saying that just because a higher power knows what will happen to her beforehand doesn't mean she doesn't have free will even if her future is predetermined. This still doesn't answer what is causing her to end up in a particular predetermined future. If you're saying it is her free will how could it be free if it's going to end up somewhere only someone else can predict? Above all she should be the one predicting it if it's her free will. How can anyone cause a particular predestination without knowing beforehand they're causing it? The whole problem is that most don't know beforehand where they're going in life and most people don't even know what they want in the smallest matters. But with respect to what somebody really truly wishes in life they should be able to envision it and then create it and then I would say that is the case of free will. this usually does not happen and yet all these other cases are conflated with free will. What is discernible is the fact that not knowing one's future causes a pain of uncertainty which is quickly relieved by the pleasure of glorification promised by faith. Tellingly he's using logical argument and not faith To persuade towards faith. Yet here I have already shown how his argument fails.
0:55 If I show somebody a unicorn, I think I do disprove the proposition “there are no unicorns”. And I have never heard an atheist who does not at least sometimes summarize their view as “there is no god” or similar, even when speaking more precisely they clarify that they don’t see sufficient evidence for a god. I have also met at least one person who made the positive statement that there was no god deliberately and would acknowledge that his position had been disproven if a god were shown to exist.
@@ianderonde5719 I gave the wrong timestamp (I linked to the end of the part I was talking about and should have said 0:40), but I think my point stands. He’s claiming that you cannot disprove atheism because atheism makes no positive claims; I’m saying both that he used a bad example (most people who don’t believe in unicorns actively believe they don’t exist) and that he spoke too broadly (many atheists do actively claim that there is no god). Although, really, the right way to talk about beliefs isn’t just “believe X”, “believe not-X”, or “no active belief about X”. It’s theoretically possible I’m wrong about anything I believe, and I acknowledge that, but it isn’t useful to say “it’s not that I believe the sky is blue; it’s that I lack a belief the sky is green”. By that reasoning, unicorns are in fact more likely than God, but I still believe neither exist (unless, in either case, you play weird games with definitions).
Jeff C -- Quite evidently. To complete your logical trail, then: if they are objective externally to the god in question, then he cannot be God in the omnipotent, monotheistic sense. Cosmic Skeptic has debunked a load of philosophical fiddle faddle. And good for him.
_"We regard these things as evil because they harm us"_ So a fire fighter who sacrifices his live to save a little girl trapped inside a burning house is an evil action? How do avoid Henry Sigdwick's dualism of practical reason?
I agree. In addition, he was also saying that morality is relative and then went on to give it an objective definition (evil = things that harm us). If it was truly subjective, then we could each have our own definitions for it.
The shadow of your arm is still caused by the light in the room, the point is without some form of light, there wouldn’t have been a shadow; not that the light has to be specifically from the source of sunlight
The same reason as Hitchens. They’ve suppressed the truth most of their lives therefore suppressing their soul. I can suppress my emotions. That doesn’t mean I don’t have them. Checkmate.
Suz Cruz There’s that buzzword again that every atheist says. “Zero evidence” along with the usual, “because your parents told you” line. You guys are so predictable at this point. What is evidence?
I do like Alex's reasoning with regards to natural disasters and evil. We only regard them as evil because they harm humans, except there's nothing malicious about them. Spot on!
Watching Turek perform, and I mean PERFORM, is not unlike watching a small child ask his Mommy: ''Where do babies come from''? Almost embarrassing to consider Turek an adult with an adults intellect. More likely: simply a con-artist who makes a living selling religion: and quite successfully!
The reason I love mythologies and ancient religions is that they don't try to trick themselves into believing that any higher beings are all-loving. They believed in appeasing them so that that natural disasters didn't happen and if there was an earthquake, flooding or other natural disaster they would say it was the wrath of a god.
Exactly! I would define evil (which doesn't actually exist as an entity or supernatural force) as selfishness. A serial killer's selfish need to kill and torture someone has made his need to dominate and kill someone more important then that person's right to live. So a person can be "evil" but it's not a supernatural force.
No, he was evil because he caused huge amounts of harm to people. Of course, if you would like to take the theistic view, he was good because he eliminated those elements which would be considered to be against his god. Atheistic Communists, Jews, Homosexuals-- He was, from a biblical theistic standpoint, fairly good. Of course from a human standpoint, he wasn't.
Why do humans have such value? If we're all just matter in motion.(Theoretical) Why should I care if I harm someone if there is absolutely no meaning in life except pleasure? Do you eat burgers?
Why do humans have such value? Well, we tend to value our own species. We are matter in motion. If that is all we are, then it is important what happens to and what we do with said matter. If the theists are correct and the matter is no more than a temporary casing for the eternal soul, then it wouldn't really matter what we do to and with said matter, would it? What makes you think there would be no meaning in life except pleasure? And no, I don't eat burgers.
cjermevpg, So, human value is based on opinion? What makes your opinion any more valid than Hitler's or a cannibal's opinion that some or all human life doesn't have value. There really isn't a reason you shouldn't kill people, that's just your opinion against Jeffrey Dahmer's. To Theistic worldview, Humans do have value because this is the life and body God has given us for the time being and no one can violate life and body except the one who gave it. To the Atheistic standpoint, Life has no meaning at all, and any subjective meaning you give it is just illusory (even pleasure). Do you eat any kind of meat? Are you a vegetarian?
In regards to people who suffer in this life... don’t you see how much hope there is that even though people suffer here on earth, they can enjoy eternal life. That’s real true hope for people suffering in this life. Like Jesus said, the first shall be last in the kingdom and the last shall be first. So the greatest in the kingdom heaven will be the poor the meek the humble.
Did I mention that this young man is wise beyond his years. Wise beyond Jesus. Whoa there. Stopped to think. Yup, after 1 second, this guy is Jesus times 10 on the wisdom chart!
An all powerful knowing God has a choice to not let evil exist and he does. Not only does he let it but he encourages it in his written word. Either God doesn't exist or he is a sociopath. We don't tolerate earthly dictators so why heavenly ones
+Rich Hartzell tried to link it to the biggest atheist pages on Facebook in their PM. The Australian postet it (has like 30.000 likes), and the Danish where I am from also postet it. The more who does it the better. Hope Atheist Republic with around 1,3 million post it
My favorite quote by this guy is"atheist in general, if you are just an atheist and you're not taking part in a debate, um I thank you don't necessarily have to justify your position in the same way." Referencing to a atheist who is supporting a position. This is on a video about moral argument with Frank turek. When you involve yourself in any sort of situation that you hold some sort of position on and you are an influencer or speaker in a specific position especially on RU-vid. Even to the point where you are willing to participate in a conversation with a radio show about a moral argument you are in need of a burden of proof. To say that you don't would prove your viewpoint as inadequate. Romans 1:21-22 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claim to be wise they became fools. Don't hold a position, thought, or stance on any subject if you don't have an answer.
I’ve always thought that “good” was a gradient where someone is on a slider bar of very good and less good. That way there is no neutral zero, but just an increase or decrease of good. Thoughts?
Then you would need an objective grounding for morality. If you have no grounding for morality, you'd have to remove "very good" and "less good" from each side because with no grounding there can be no talks of improvement, but rather moral change.
Michael Hoang well the term good and bad is a relative term. I’m just using the word good to make a point. The sliding scale of morality being less and more moral. You do not need an objective grounding since it’s all relative. Having a sliding scale with no objective grounding will push people to want to be more moral by comparison to the rest of the people instead of using a number. Similar thing is retirement age. You don’t wake up at 65 unable to work, so it needs to be relative. Can you still function compared to other people when you’re 65 or are you just deemed incapable. So good and bad objectively means you’re looking at it in a bubble and not as a whole.
Then what about those haunted places on Earth. If you wanna prove theists wrong then go ahead, spend a night or two in those places. If bad spirits exist then good spirits should exist too.
I would like to point out that even if something to observe or contradict a particular facet of reality, it still exists. Explanation, if a tree falls in the the middle of nowhere, it still makes a sound whether something is there to observe it. It still produces sound waves as a method of equalizing the energy released upon impact. Darkness is only defined by it's counter relation to light, but it would still exist without it. Even if it cannot be described, such as dark matter, we are able to infer its existance due to it's apparent gravitational affects on other objects, but we have no idea what it is other than that.
If moral convictions were a thing of social evolution i.e culture passed down, then different cultures would have ended up with extreme variations of basic moral convictions as they have with culture. But this is not so.
"Evil cannot exist without Good" OK that's true, "Good cannot exist without god" think about that logical argument, think back to highschool geometry with proofs and logical statements. With the Conditional (if p then q), Converse (if q then p), Inverse (of not p then not q), and Contrapositive (if not q then not p) and even Biconditional (p if and only if q) statements. Now for something to be Biconditional, it must be true under the other four statements. The statement "Evil cannot exist without Good" is synonymous to the more simplified "if good then evil" which is our conditional, "if evil then good" is our converse, etc. We only need to discuss two types of statements because the truth values of the converse and the inverse are the same, and the truth values of the conditional and the contrapositive are the same. So if you can show the conditional/contrapositive and the converse/inverse to be true, then you can write a biconditional statement, in our case that would be "good if and only if evil" For the second statement "Good cannot exist without god" we can again simplify in the same way as last time "if good then god" and then we take the inverse "if not good then not god" but we proved earlier that good had to exist alongside evil. So something that isn't good exists, yet if something isn't good then there is no god. Your argument is flawed.
I disagree with you on objective morality. I believe morality is entirely objective. While there are infinite complications, such as having to take the intent into account, and having to take the happiness and sorrow the action caused into account, I believe that if an action has caused Harm, the Harm part of the action, is Evil. The fact that we are causing pollution, is causing harm to us, the other animals of this Earth, and the Earth itself. This, in my opinion, makes pollution Evil. Now, sure, I hope that one day we will find a way past mess, perhaps be able to harness pollution somewhere else, or figure out how to make it less/non-harmful, then the action would no longer be Evil. This doesn't change the fact, that it was Evil to begin with, as it was causing harm, before. To put it in Short-Form; If something causes Harm, it is Evil, regardless of what it had caused beforehand, or after.
Yeah, I like it how he said that morality isn't objective and then went on to define morality as an objective thing. He basically refuted himself by saying that anything that is harmful to humans is objectively evil. I mean, if it was truly subjective, then I could have a completely separate definition of evil from him. Also, whether unborn children are scientifically people or not, it's still harmful to humanity as a whole because they have the potential to be people. Unless you're gonna say that population control is helpful to humanity and stuff, in which case, why did Hitler or Stalin do anything wrong?
@@terrorist_nousagi8747 objective facts can change with time. Take pluto being a planet for example. In order for something to be relative it must be able to be both true and false at the same time. Take, "pizza tastes good." That can be true for me and false for you at the same time. Thus, it's relative. Now take 2 + 2 = 4. For all we know, that could become false sometime in the future, but right now it is only true and not false no matter one's perspective of it. That is the difference between something relative and objective. So, if it is wrong for anyone and everyone to do something harmful to humanity, then morality is objective.
@@jacobmeyers9514 Okay. Then let's change morals with place. We are talking about ocidental morals all this time. But people on the middle east think it's moral to abide to their religion and kill infidels or commit a lot of acts we think it's immoral. What he talked in this video is basically what sociological studies gave us as morals now.
@@terrorist_nousagi8747 So then it is moral for them to do that? Anyway, it doesn't matter because that's not what he said. He said that it is evil to harm humanity. That's an objective definition. Thus, my point still stands. If you want to say that his definition is slightly wrong and tweak it so that morality changes based on location, that's fine. But you still run into the problem from earlier. Why stop other countries from doing what we call evil if, according to them, it's good? Also, what makes morality any more worthwhile or meaningful than common manners like don't chew with your mouth open or don't pick up a fork that fell on the ground?
Scenario: I start slapping your bum. Cosmic Skeptic asks me to, "please stop, my good sire.". Since what I doing ain't objectively immoral , because anarchy morality, I don't stop.
@Mark Branham How? How can you reasonably be outraged at anything on the basis of morality if you don't know if that person's morality is the same as yours? Maybe it is moral for murderers to murder? How can you be reasonably outraged at people for doing what is moral to them? If you say it's because of the law, then if we were on the moon and there were no laws, would then would you still be outraged at murder?
Evil exists because the God of Pure Love created it to work in mysterious ways. Got it. Let me try out this argument at work. Me: "yeah boss, I created that bug so that we could tempt our users and so that I can do ... mysterious things." Boss: "Huh? What? WTF did you do?" Me: "Hey, it's ok. I love you. You have to have faith in me!"
I know. Addressing the actual arguments are hard aren’t they? It’s easier to resort to ad hominem fallacies than use your brain that you accuse someone else of not using right?
The Conservative Christian I use my brain all the time.......that’s why I’m an athiest. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to his PHD. I believe it’s in theology or music education or something like that. Certainly not a science discipline yet he argues with scientists about science.
SuperEdge67 I don’t know what his degrees are in. My point is that your comment is not an argument it’s a fallacious opinion that doesn’t address the claim made.
SuperEdge67 I would disagree with Alex’s explanation. If atheism is true then evil is a subjective claim and so is everything else including slavery, rape, murder, etc basically anything that an atheist would say is bad. Likewise so would everything that would be considered to be good such as charity, truth, justice etc. It would just be a subjective opinion based on chemicals rearranging themselves in a way that causes a person to react that way. But on that notion, again, so would everything else including survival. It’s purely subjective, and we all know innately that this is false. If it is false then it follows that there is also correct. If false and correct are axiomatic then atheism can’t be true by default. Otherwise this entire conversation is completely pointless as you are conversing a point that it doesn’t matter whether or not I believe it’s true and I’m doing the same.
Alex, that wall of text at 3:30 is an appeal to emotion. The soul-making theodicy, affirms that we're to work our way back to God through hardships, no?
One thing I'll note is that I don't think that any Christian I've ever talked to thought that natural disasters were evil. Evil I think fundamentally has to do with the ability to freely choose between two very distinguishable actions and choosing the one that brings you pleasure through the suffering of someone, or something else. That pleasure that can be emotional gratification, power, money, whatever it is doesn't really matter. "Some men just want to watch the world burn" is a pretty apt description of this kind of evil. I read Mere Christianity a couple of times and noticed that C.S. Lewis missed the point of emotional gratification when he was attempting to explain objective morality. I do believe everyone chooses "evil" because of some underlying motivation and when you can't see the direct result of that motivation, it was probably mental or emotional gratification for themselves. Now a good question is indifference "evil"? If a person does something that brings about the suffering of others, but without malice in their heart, just simply because they were indifferent - are they evil? Uneducated or misinformed? One question I did like from C.S. Lewis had to do with burning women at the stake for believing they were witches. He said something to the affect of "if you really did believe that they were evil women going around, capturing and skinning children, bring famine and pestilence on the land.." so on and so forth. Basically he was saying that being uneducated or severely influenced by your upbringing is different than evil. Since we know human psychology is very complicated and that many of us do the things we do as a result of our environmental upbringing, is a person who gets hammered and drives home drunk because he was shown this example his entire life evil? If he gets home safely without striking anyone is he less evil than if he struck and killed someone? Are there lesser and greater evils? By the way I'm a recent deconvert from Christianity but the question of good and evil has really stuck with me. I'm not sure I'm ready to give up on objective morality, however I do feel defining evil is extremely difficult. Since primarily I think only intelligent creatures like ourselves are capable of committing evil, but even we are subjected to our environments, biology, chemistry - a lot being out of our control. Can anyone really be evil? Or are people simply unproductive towards a harmonious, thriving humanity and need to be done away with because they make life worse for others. The issue with that is that then we can start asking questions about drug addiction - is that evil? Should those people be done away with just like murders because they're a burden on society? Or are there enough drug addicts that turn it around to merit us not giving up on rehabilitation, whereas a murder by and large has no hope of ever changing? It's all very confusing and my religious upbringing does not make it any simpler in my mind.
So I thought you did a video about this guy! I gotta tell you man, my boss at work is making me read this book, and I can't help but just get giddy when I remembered this video. From what I've read so far, (chapter 1 because it makes me cringe) I keep finding logical fallacies. I'm worried to keep these thoughts to myself. Thanks for the video anyway!
How believers obtain complete clarity when describing the mysterious non-clarity about God and His motivations has, in turn, always been a mystery to me.
Frank Turek's entire set piece tells you what his operation is about; making money. It is a nod to prosperity, and an avenue to peddle his literature/propaganda. There's no humility just spectacle.
Vedanta can clarify many of these points, taking the quest further deeper. For instance, it is not trivializing people's sufferings when we talk about sufferings as a reaction of past misdeeds etc because the actual people are not their bodies but the souls resident in them but the misdeeds were performed by the souls in their bodies and the sufferings are also inflicted upon the bodies as the reactions. So, there is no harm done to the actual people.
7:40 Yeah, it actually kinda does work like that. Evil is the lacking of good, similarly to how dark is not a physical substance, but is rather the lack of light, and how cold is not a concrete thing, but is rather the lack of heat.
@@incanusolorin2607 Light is a wavelength of energy fluctuations in the electromagnetic force. Heat is the intensity of molecular vibration within a given chemical medium. All these things are indeed "things", unlike their opposites which are the lack of something. To propose that every "thing" is the lack of its opposite is simply ludicrous.
@@incanusolorin2607 Radiation is the transfer of energy between two systems. Heat and radiation are connected, a substance of any temperature is emitting and transferring that heat energy in the form of radiation. But they most certainly are not the same.
God alone is good. Evil is not an entity, it's the lack of good. In the natural world, deafness is an evil because it's a lack of the ability to hear. Evil exists ONLY because free will exists.
Adam Lee talks about atheistic morality very well in his essay “The Ineffable Carrot and the Infinite Stick”, available on Patheos Nonreligious. In a nutshell, morality is a set of rules created and enforced by mutual agreement, designed to prevent needless suffering by stopping people from acting greedy in prisoner’s dilemma situations; if everyone is allowed to rob and murder freely, everyone suffers, so we outlaw robbery and murder. His essay on the problem of evil, “All Possible Worlds”, references back to this, in response to statements that evil cannot be defined without God.
I love this response to the argument and his way of putting it clearly as well as his ability to be concise. However, the one thing I would say is that you don’t need good to know evil or vice versa. That would be akin to saying that the absence of good is evil and the absence of evil is good, which it is not. To know of good or evil you just need to know of the absence of both. A way of looking at it is with temperature. You don’t know cold by knowing hot, you know cold because it is lower than room temperature and you know hot because it is higher than room temperature. You only need the middle to compare with the ends.
