Atheist-Turned-Agnostic Talks with Christian (Gavin Ortlund + Matthew Adelstein)

[@captain12211]

Beautifully, the answer to the problem of evil is found in the cross. God shows His great love towards us in saving us while we were yet sinners.

[@TheHuxleyAgnostic]

Saved us ... from himself ... because he genocided the world, before, with his "great love"?

[@kingcimtv4351]

@@TheHuxleyAgnosticsaved us from the penalty of our sin**

[@TheHuxleyAgnostic]

@@kingcimtv4351 If he actually wanted to do that, why wouldn't he make himself known to everyone, instead of one person at a time, for centuries, and then suddenly stopping?

[@kingcimtv4351]

@@TheHuxleyAgnostic one could argue we have all the revelation we need to come to God

[@TheHuxleyAgnostic]

@@kingcimtv4351 No. Clearly there's not enough, or everyone would be a believer.

[@RealAtheology]

Good interview. I just want to say that I really appreciate Gavin taking the time to interview thoughtful Atheists and Agnostics. After spending decades on the New Atheism, it's good to see apologists finally take on more formidable forms of Atheism and Agnosticism.

[@endygonewild2899]

To be fair, The New Athiests where the most vocal, which is why we spent so long on them.

[@benjaminwatt2436]

I would be completely in your boat Matthew, If God had not made himself known to me. Once he gets through, there's no going back. hope to see that happen in your life. It has made mine deeply meaningful. True Hope, peace and purpose are the effects of Chritianity being true.

[@JW_______]

Amen

[@TheTransfiguredLife]

Love how you engage people from different walks of life! ☦ #Respect

[@TaterTheBeloved]

i don't know if you'll see this but man, i definitely had an Elijah scenario, thinking i was the only protestant left who stands firm against orthodoxy and roman Catholicism, but coming across your channel has been such a huge sigh of relief and i am so incredibly encouraged to see you rightly defending protestant beliefs. too many of us choke up and cant defend ourselves when we get overwhelmed by cherry picked church history so we look bad. thank you for being a light.

[@daman7387]

Please have this guy on again this is such a fun and educational video

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

That's very nice to hear, thanks!

[@ricardopreciado5239]

I think that this conversation is the most important conversation on 2024, thanks Gavin for this talks God bless you

[@theepitomeministry]

It's always nice to see someone who was an atheist REALLY wrestle with the arguments for theism and see how strong they really are. Hopefully he will be a theist soon enough.

[@tjflash60]

Thank you both for a thoughtful discussion.

[@Jeremy73950]

Love how the background looks here, Gavin! Looking forward to listening to this.

[@AlexHawker761]

This was really interesting Gavin. I learned a lot. Can you do more like this? Also, I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks about life and the universe as I’m walking the trash to the street.

[@TheRoark]

I think Matthew’s argument for why the moral argument isn’t satisfying makes the mistake of jumping on either horn of the euthyphro dilemma; either we say God loves what is good because it is Good, or what God loves is Good because He is good, thus we need to posit at least two things (God and Goodness). In truth, things are called good because things coincide with God’s nature. We don’t need to posit a second idea “God is good” because that is part of the definition of goodness, relation to God. Also, excellent William lane Craig impersonation. 😂

[@psalm2764]

God is the Law, and is merciful. If God only went by the Law, which He is, He could never have created mankind, of which only a remnant will be saved due to the gross darkness of unbelief and disobedience.

[@WaterCat5]

I'm super curious how you define nature in this context. Just doesn't make sense to me. Never heard a good explanation as to why it escapes the dilemma, and I've listened to tons of apologists talk about it.

[@carolm753]

Isn’t this still relying on a brute truth of what God is like? That’s the problem.

[@psalm2764]

@@carolm753 Why is God "a brute"?

[@carolm753]

@@psalm2764 “brute truth” is a phrase Gavin and Matthew continually returned to. Meaning these “obvious” truths we rely on in our perspective.

[@TrevorJamesMusic]

Very thoughtful and respectful discussion! Definitely enjoyed this

[@JohnnyHofmann]

Matthew’s awesome

[@benjaminwatt2436]

Matthew was great. Its refreshing to see an agnostic who is searching, instead of one of the abnoxious constant skeptic types. I will say I think his problem with Thiesm comes down to an incorrect image of man. Athiest/agnostics tend to spend a lot of time on how the arguments for God could be wrong and less on how they themselves are likely wrong. None of this is meant to be negative toward Matthew. However if there is a God, all powerful, all knowing, eternal...etc, than if I come to some disagreement with him. Doesn't it seem more likely i'm just wrong? Ultimately I think the thing that converts people is when put raise God in his rightful place and lower themselves to our rightful place. its a harsh truth.

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

I appreciate it!

[@JW_______]

I think that part of the struggle for many agnostics, who would like to believe in God but struggle with the good arguments on both sides, is at root a committment to a kind of epistemological purity - one that is in part commendable, but ultimately, truly unrealistic in that it is arbitrarily divorced from our human situatedness as finite, organic, limited beings in community and tradition. Perfect certitude is not truly attainable, and most of what makes life worth living (love, goodness, wisdom, the true value of our values, connectedness with those around us, community identities, etc) cannot be "known" if we set a bar for "knowledge" of such things at the same level that we set the bar for scientific study of the material world. There is difference in kind between the material and the immaterial, and to expect to be able to know immaterial reality in the same way that we can know material reality is to make a giant, unacknowledged presupposition or assumption right out the gate without justification.

[@psalm2764]

"Education" in baal-earth, spinning and outer space is a hindrance to faith.

[@WaterCat5]

First off, a naturalist rejects the idea of the immaterial. All those lovely things are composed of lovely brain activity and chemicals which interact with the environment. Secondly, your last point is exactly why people don't believe in the immaterial. God and the spiritual realm are different, but no one can seem to provide a way to know they are there. This is quite damning evidence against Christianity, as it claims in many places that God is observable in the material world. So yeah, I don't see how not being able to examine the immaterial world would make me or anyone else a theist. If anything, the inability to examine it despite many attempts to do so, suggests it's probably not real.

[@JW_______]

@@WaterCat5 Why do you presuppose that to know something you must be able to "examine" it? Some things by their very nature are not examinable. Such is reality and our place in it.

[@WaterCat5]

@@JW_______ If something is not able to be examined, then we shouldn't claim it exists. This is the whole point of agnosticism. I would technically be defined as agnostic towards generic god claims, but the reason I don't believe in them is primarily because no one can seem to provide a way to ascertain if such a being exists. Examination includes not only physical interactions but also mental apprehension by the way. So, I think people are theists because they think they've viewed physical evidence (miracles, etc) or mental evidence (spiritual events/feelings, etc). The issue is that they cannot show the physical evidence to be real to someone using even a little skepticism, and the mental evidence is largely feelings based. Hell, Gavin's support for the difference between moral and nonmoral bads is literally just his feeling that moral bads are more severe, which makes them somehow special in an external sense (which they are, but not because there's a magical being making it so). Basically, I would need to either experience god (hasn't happened) or someone needs to provide evidence for their experiences (hasn't happened sufficiently). In a nutshell, if something cannot be determined, we are not justified in believing it. In the case of god, there is no compelling reason for me to dedicate my life to a being that I have no compelling evidence of it existing.

[@psalm2764]

@@WaterCat5 God is Judge and He will do the damning. God is the Law and the Order is observable in nature. What is made consists in the unseen. You are unable, because you are blind, in more ways than one.

[@jamesbarksdale978]

This discussion is way above my head, but loved his imitation of Craig. 😊

[@Joao_Pelinca]

This is amazing.

[@dankiusmemeiusmaximustheth1648]

A loving God would make provision for all to be saved while still being consistent with His perfectly just nature. (Spoiler: He did)

[@susanburrows810]

Well...excellently...said. SO glad He did, in such a marvelous & simple BUT COSTLY way. Yet it's FREE!😂❤🔩

[@dankiusmemeiusmaximustheth1648]

@@susanburrows810 amen, susan!!

[@WaterCat5]

You would have to show that every single non-believer who died had sufficient rationale for belief. It's the argument from divine hiddenness all over again. If you seriously think that every single person who didn't believe (people who never heard the gospel or about the judeo-christian god, early humans in the fossil record, infants who died before they could understand, etc), in my opinion, you are being far too sure in your view. You cannot argue from the attributes of god until you can show that such a being exists. Now, you can argue that certain attributes would yield certain outcomes, but this line of argumentation does nothing against the hiddenness argument because it is an argument of personal knowledge.

[@dankiusmemeiusmaximustheth1648]

@@WaterCat5 what if God, omnipotent and existing outside of time, able to see all of time unfolded, knew that those people you mention would have never accepted the gospel message, even if given a sufficient amount of information to accept it? Would God have an obligation to get the message to them in a way where they had sufficient rationale for belief? Would I have to show that every single non-believer had this sufficient rationale for belief to prove God is loving? I disagree with your second statement. People do this all the time, including atheists and agnostics. Gavin and this gentlemen have argued from the attributes of God here in this video.

[@WaterCat5]

@dankiusmemeiusmaximustheth1648 Regarding the second paragraph, you can only argue that an attribute exists if ypu can show the state of the world entails it. This does not work against divine hiddenness (at least not without additional support) because divine hiddenness involves personal knowledge that cannot be truly ascertained by an outside observer. Simply put, you cannot argue God gives sufficient info to people because you have no idea if that's true. Even if God knew there were people who would never believe (a frankly idiotic idea because do you seriously think no non-Christians would convert if God made his presence absolutely clear), God has foreknowledge and could simply not create those people. This does not run afoul of free will; the others can still freely choose to believe in God. The whole point of the divine hiddenness argument is to force Christians to secede the fact that God is all-loving. If God did do as you hypothesize, he certainly doesn't seem all-loving.

[@ora_et_labora1095]

Loved this!!!

[@KM-zn3lx]

I just wished you guys discussed these ideas using more layman's definitions and less academic terms many ppl don't know. Thanks!

[@carolm753]

This is a problem to me. A reason I am not concerned to be agnostic. The theistic or atheistic discourse is completely inaccessible to most people. Yet seemingly has to be discussed on this level to be dealt with “properly.” While I enjoy the convo myself, I think, if it takes such expertise, how can beliefs (aka opinions/perspectives) carry the existential/eternal weight religion/Christianity says they do? That’s *my* philosophical argument. 😂 …and why I think universalism is the ONLY Christian perspective with a chance.

[@hopefultheism]

Great conversation!

[@SouthLakeYouth]

It's fascinating to me that the two things Matthew listed as having the greatest potential of moving the theistic needle are probably the two MOST fundamental concerns of the whole of Scripture: The problem of evil and experiential knowledge of God. To set the stage for the entire Scriptural narrative, we begin with humanity's fractured relationship with good and bad at the tree in the midst of the garden. The Bible hits the climactic moment in the incarnational wrestling of God with the problem of evil on the Cross, then pours out His Spirit to give others the "religious experience" of that particular event. The future in Revelation is a promise that God has the problem of evil sorted out because of that work. Hopefully that was coherent. Praying for Matthew's journey and had several moments of joy watching this conversation!

[@anglicanaesthetics]

I'll take a stab at Matt's argument from the 15 minute mark or so. So what if God's character were different? Matt says that the claim "God is necessary" seems to demand an explanation for why God is the kind of being who is necessary. I'd argue two things. First, the claim on theism is that goodness just *is* the emanation of God's character--like rays from the sun. So the same thing that makes goodness necessary is the same thing that makes God necessary. But what exactly is it that makes either necessary? Namely, the claim of the existence of "God" is the claim that there exists an ultimate foundation of all other reality which is personal. This Ultimate Foundation is that from which all other being derives, and thus is the determinative foundation for reality itself. This Ultimate Foundation, as the One who embodies all necessary truths (like goodness), is therefore itself necessary. That is, because there's no external determinate to an ultimate foundation, it could not be other than what it is.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Yeah, so if a supernatural being's character was other than what it is, it wouldn't be God--precisely because the word "God" identifies a personal foundation of all reality, from which all other reality flows and thus all reality outside of the Ultimate Foundation of reality has an external determinate. So we're also claiming something about the nature of goodness: that it is, like rays of the sun, the light of God on conscience in the world. And just as it doesn't really make sense to say that there needs to be an explanation why the sun conforms to its rays, so the same explanatory structure obtains with God. So why is God in favor of love? Because his nature is triune, and thus that's who he is. Why is God in favor of goodness? Because that's a reflection of his trinitarian life, and so forth.

[@TheRoark]

My thoughts exactly! It seems like Matthew is jumping between the horns of the Euthephro dilemma.

[@LukeBowman08]

He's now a theist! hopefully his next step is to know the Triune God!

[@captain12211]

“the great philosopher, Olaf” 🤣

[@onepingonlyplease]

From around minute 39 to 44…specifically “consciousness”…I was kind of hoping he would have said “conscience” which might have led to recognition of the “soul”. But it led to a description of the neuromuscular system including voluntary and involuntary muscles as well as cognitive status (such as orientation and comprehension). I was recently floated to the neuroscience unit at my hospital where many patients were not oriented to time, place or situation. There are babies in utero (or most recently in embryonic frozen states) and people in comas and people with dementia whose “consciousness” is questionable or nonexistent. But they have souls. I always considered the morality argument one that revealed souls…I really liked the super smart conversation! I love people with gigantic brains like these two!!

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

I believe in the soul but don't think it gives a super good argument for theism

[@onepingonlyplease]

@@deliberationunderidealcond5105 I kept looking for something in nursing school that would even barely touch on existence of the soul. Those groups of people I mentioned above blew away the closest I could come to it being a mental construct. Psychology. But that would be impossible for those groups. So a soul isn’t biological. It is…..what?

[@psalm2764]

@@deliberationunderidealcond5105 how about the law and order of Creation?

[@psalm2764]

As long as the breath of life is in them, babies are alive and conscious. They would not cry upon arrival in this dimension if they did not somehow perceive the evil of it.

[@brando3342]

I like Matt, he seems like he is genuinely searching. Hopefully he will come to the conclusion that truth is not necessarily dependent on what one mere human might intuitively perceive should be the case. Emotional appeal isn't always the best way to discover truth.

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

Thanks!

[@brando3342]

@@deliberationunderidealcond5105 No worries, keep at it, bro. Also, reading my comment back, it sounds like it might come off insulting. I don’t mean it to be, and to be clear, the emotional problem is not nothing, we are humans with emotions after all, and they are very important. Last thing, you sound a lot smarter than me, so if I have mistaken your position against God for mostly an appeal to emotion, and it’s not that or more than that, than I apologize for mischaracterizing your position 👍

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

@@brando3342 No worries, I didn't interpret it as insulting. My view involves appealing to intuition but I don't think emotion. And I don't know how we come to know anything if we don't rely on what's intuitive.

[@brando3342]

@@deliberationunderidealcond5105 Fair enough, intuition and emotional appeal isn't the same thing, and I agree intuition does hold some weight. How much weight, I think depends on the available information.

[@VickersJon]

The Bill Craig impression was pretty good.

[@keeganmet257]

We need more conversations like this one in the world!

[@nicklausbrain]

David Bentley Hart is the one you must bring here.

[@aplatypusguy27]

Agreed, I would absolutely love to hear a discussion between Gavin and him!

[@aplatypusguy27]

This is slightly unrelated-- but I would love it if you could have a discussion with Philip Cary on your channel! I feel like you would both have some interesting things to talk about with Augustine, heaven and hell, philosophy, Protestantism, and a lot more!

[@melodysledgister2468]

Yes, please, do one on the problem of evil.

[@thomasc9036]

I asked a secular Jew who cannot accept a God who will allow some to go to hell "You are fine with meeting Hitler and calling him "brother" in heaven?" His universalism ended pretty quick. Universalism is all about self-righteousness.

[@joshuadonahue5871]

I don't know, there are many so-called Christian universalists who are very sincere about their beliefs, it's hasty to say it's all self-righteousness. Presumably you believe that you deserve hell, yet God forgave you. Is there any sin that is too great to forgive? Is there any evil that the cross does not redeem? I should hope not. So the question has to turn on whether or not repentance is impossible in the next life. I do not believe it is, but those who do aren't necessarily motivated by self-righteousness.

[@thomasc9036]

@@joshuadonahue5871 Consider this. God incarnate, Jesus, himself talked about heaven and hell, but somehow there are those who "feel, that's not loving". For the 2,000-year history of the Church, the universalism have been a heresy, but somehow you know better? That's arrogance and self-righteousness hidden behind the facade of "compassion".

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

I think a world where Hitler was reformed, came to regret his sins, and then had eternal life is better than one in which he's tortured forever.

[@heather602]

​@@deliberationunderidealcond5105 Take heart. It doesn't appear that Hitler repented but we have evidence that Dahmer did . God can reach anyone but repentance is still needed

[@benjaminwatt2436]

I think the hardest part of the problem of evil, is accepting you and I are the cause. I know many athiest-turned Christians who said there conversion happened when they came to grip with their own imperfactions.

[@thomasrutledge5941]

The self-deprecating acceptance of yourself as the ultimate or proximal cause of evil is not valid &/or sound. The Master sees things as they are, without trying to control them. She lets them go their own way, and resides at the center of the circle. She rests serenely in herself. Why should the Lord of the country flit about like a fool? kzbin.info5jkD8KXDBJc?si=XpwUz1NQfODpT7yC

[@toddthacker8258]

I'm a bit confused by Matthew's response to the moral argument. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding that argument, but my understanding of it has always been that it makes the fundamental point that any moral claims we make without the benefit of God (or some higher authority) are basically just our opinions. I think Matthew kind of makes a nod to this when he talks about what various philosophical camps (utilitarians, etc.) would consider "necessary." These camps disagree, how can they possibly argue that any of them are right or wrong without foundational moral principles to which they can compare their philosophies? Matthew seems to focus more on "how do we know what is good" or "how can we know God is good" without acknowledging or addressing the argument that, without God, there is no way to even define good in a universal way that applies to everyone. It's simply a popularity contest--no one's definition of "good" can be privileged over anyone else's.

[@NomosCharis]

I like your line of thinking. However, it seems to me that Matthew is a moral Realist (in fact, I think he said that in the video). In that case, he believes that moral truths objectively and necessarily exist in a Platonic way, as ideals. Far as I can tell, he thinks this would still be true even if God exists-that moral truths would need to exist independently of him, otherwise we would have no way of telling whether God is good. I would have liked to see Gavin press him a little bit on this. How does Matthew conclude that these moral ideals exist independently of God? Get him to defend his assertion. Seems to me, morality is intrinsically subjective, ie, it cannot exist without a subject, someone to determine evil from good. If there is an objective morality, then, there must be an objective subject. If that objective morality is eternal and unchangeable, the subject must also be eternal and unchangeable. Morality by its very nature proves God. When deciding if a behavior is good, we must always ask “good for what?” Good and bad imply a goal, a telos, a desire, a plan. Moral good in particular implies an order, law, command, authority. The good is always what aligns well with that, and the bad is against it. But outside of a mind, which can plan goals and command laws, good and bad don’t make sense. Objective morals don’t make sense apart from God. That’s where I’d like to press Matthew.

[@JW_______]

​@@NomosCharisI agree with you in part and disagree with you in part (or perhaps merely want to qualify your statement). Saying that morality is inherently subjective takes one side of the Euphaphro dilemma, whereas the key os to reject the Euthyphro dilemma as a false dichatomy. (Euthyphro dilemma being "is something good because God commands it (in which case morality is arbitrary), or does God command it because it's good? (in whoch case God is Himself subject to a higher principal)." The key to breaking free of this dichatomy, following the school of classical theism (adhered to by most Christian philosophers throughout history) is to recognize that (1) God is transcendent from time and matter, (2) goodness or "the Good" is a description of and inseperable from the very nature or essence of God, (3) just as God cannot do a logical contradiction or "nonsense" like makimg a square circle, God cannot contradict His own nature, (4) in creating the cosmos (all reality) God necessarily endowed and embedded it with the principals of his own nature. Thus we can say that morality is neither arbitrary nor divine despotism, as God designed our human nature such that doing Good is our highest fulfillment and to be truly Good is to be truly, fully alive as a human being, living into our deepest, truest selves. Necessarily this discussion leads to the mystery of the Fall (in theological terms) and why it comes "naturally" to us also to do evil.

[@NomosCharis]

@@JW_______ yes, I would agree with all of that. But subjective ≠ arbitrary in the way I am using it. Yes, morality is not arbitrary, not even for God-not because he is beholden to a standard higher than himself, but because he is beholden to himself! He cannot deny himself, and he is goodness itself. This is indeed how Euthyphro’s false dilemma breaks down. However, that does not mean that God’s determination of what is good and evil has no subjective aspect to it. It certainly does! The good is good “to him.” The evil is evil “in his eyes,” that is, in his opinion. He considers the good to be good. He determines the evil to be evil. All of this is happening in God’s mind. Without these divine opinions, we could not properly use the terms “good” or “evil” at all. Indeed, good and evil cannot even exist apart from a mind delighting in the former and disapproving of the latter. Without that, nothing can be said to be better or worse than anything else, just different. Moral values dissolve into brute facts without any higher meaning.

[@eazyelof4283]

If we include God, ones understanding of good is still up to interpretation though. Hence various denominations having disagreements about what is good or sinful and what isnt. So then we're back to just opinion

[@JW_______]

@@eazyelof4283 You're mixing up the question of what conditions are necessary for moral truth to exist with the question of how fallible, finite human beings can know moral truth. The first is an ontological question and the second is an epistemological question.

[@MontoyaBrandy]

One thing I like to use to demonstrate how God is true is by talking about what scripture refers to as sin. If you can get the person to think about a specific sin and how it hurts you and others. That’s where your evil creeps in. That’s where it stems from. Sin is the driver of evil, every time! The root of evil is sin! Also I’ll mention people want a self serving god not the true God that serves all.

[@prime_time_youtube]

Adelstein mentioned that a compelling response to the Problem of Evil could sway him towards a 60/40 belief in favor of the existence of God. Could Plantinga's theodicy, specifically the Felix Culpa argument, serve as a strong supporting point?

[@EnglishMike]

While it makes for a pithy soundbite in the pulpit or in an apologist video, Lewis's "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" is a false trilemma, designed to create a choice between three stark alternatives, while leaving out a big chunk of the most likely explanation -- Legend. There are millions of practicing Christian and Muslim religious leaders in the world, most of whom have dedicated their lives to study and teaching their faith. Around half of them are teaching the wrong religion. Does that make them liars? No. Does that make them lunatics? No. They simply believe in and teach the faith what they were taught to believe in as children. They are sincere. They just happen to be sincerely mistaken. And as with those millions of religious teachers today who are sincerely mistaken, Jesus too could easily have been sincerely mistaken about his faith too, even if his teachings struck such a chord with his loyal following that they continued to spread his teachings and embellish their tales of him until Jesus the Rabbi became Jesus the Son of God. As the foreword to another good book says "This tale grew in the telling." Legends need very little time to get started. George Washington died in 1799, and such was the thirst for information about the life of the first president, a biography written by the evangelical minister Mason Locke Weems published in 1800 became a runaway success, resulting in multiple editions and reprints. In the 1806 edition, Weems included a completely made up story of young George and the Cherry Tree which had been doing the rounds for a couple of decades, and because of the enduring popularity of his biography, the legend grew until within a couple of decades of Washington's death, millions of Americans believed it to be a historical illustration of his virtuous character. I don't doubt that Jesus's early followers believed he was, at the very least, blessed, if not the actual Son of God, and it really isn't that hard to believe that in their sincerity, they embellished and cherry picked details from the oral record as the writings that would eventually become the New Testament took shape.

[@austincrockett]

While I truly appreciate how charitable Matthew is and him avoiding the typical "you can't prove it on a piece of paper so I won't believe it" atheistic arguments, it's conversations like these that make me even more convinced that Christianity is true. I hope this isn't a result of me being blinded by my own presuppositions, but some of the reasonings he gave against the moral argument just did not logically follow IMO. Great conversation though, thanks Gavin!

[@raphaelfeneje486]

The problem of evil is not an argument against God, though it's an emotional argument. But The Atheist or skeptic is assuming there's such a thing as evil, and that's against the worldview of Atheism and Agnosticism. It's self refuting. But I sympathize with the people bringing up this argument

[@JW_______]

I agree. The existence of evil is one of the greatest arguments for God, in that in order to call something good or evil (which we most assuredly must do) we must ground that claim in a knowledge of an ontological reality that transcends matter and motion.

[@raphaelfeneje486]

@@JW_______ Exactly!! It's an argument for God. If the one bringing up that argument says there's such a thing as evil or Good, they'll have to ground that claim. Most atheist don't use that argument anymore

[@psalm2764]

The a-theist is the biggest hypocrite there is. Abortion is an ineluctable "right", which God, who is the Law, and the a-theist denies, says is murder and evil. Woe to them who call evil good and good evil.

[@SuperSaiyanKrillin]

I feel like you misunderstand the arguement. The athiest doesn't have to affirm that he believes 'there is such a thing as evil' in order to argue the problem of evil to Christians. It's an internal critique - "If you as a Christian believe that God is all-good while simultaneously believing that there is so much evil in the world, how do you make sense of that ?" Notice that the athiest isn't affirming that he believes evil has to exist by positing this question

[@JW_______]

@@SuperSaiyanKrillin I agree that the problem of evil can be employed as an argument that Christianity and other theistic frameworks are logically inconsistent. I don't don't think the argument works, but it can be used to that end without contradiction. However, evil itself, if it exists, (and bear in mind that the vast majority of human kind has always carried the deep intuition that it does exist), is evidence for God, because evil would not be evil and good would not be good without God.

[@benjaminledford6111]

I wanted to jump through the screen during the discussion of the moral argument. Authority! When we are talking about "moral facts" we are talking about authority. How does an impersonal moral fact have authority to tell me what I ought to do or to love? Authority is an irreducibly personal category. And an infinite personal God as a moral authority explains all moral facts, whereas the brute moral facts of atheism do each require their own explanation. Also, Matthew doesn't seem to grasp the significance of God as a necessary being and the source of all being. This is revealed when he contrasts being able to imagine that God's character were different (i.e., approving of torture), whereas he can't imagine that torture could be good. What he's saying there, in Christian terms, is that he can't in fact imagine God's character being different. The sort of bedrock necessity that he ascribes to torture being bad is the necessity we're talking about in the nature of God. If it were different (which is impossible), then indeed things that seem impossible would be true, because you're talking about a change in the fundamental nature of being itself.

[@sobs291]

“You don’t look at something wrong a baby does and claim it as immoral” My friend, yes I 100% do. Evidence of the corrupted heart is even in infants.

[@oyisakatshaza7580]

I can't but help cringing when arguments rely on some in-depth understanding of either quantum mechanics, cosmology or non-physical attributes of consciousness. These seem to be academic disciplines or phenomena about which there is little understanding or at least a diversity of conflicting views on them, and so it seems suspect when they are used as vehicles to advance major claims such as the existence or non-existence of God. Why would God reveal himself exclusively through things about which there is a marked lack of unanimity? The moral argument that Gavin posits I think is a much better argument than what Matt gives credit to. It even attempts to obey Occam's razor.

[@benjaminwatt2436]

Arguments seem to be highly personal. you never know which one will hit hard. I think all of us assume we look at arguments logically, but in reality, our reaction to arguments speaks volumes to our personality

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

I don't think any of the arguments I gave rely on any in-depth understanding of those things. Can you point to the ones you think do?

[@thomasrutledge5941]

"You hear a lot of talk about how quantum mechanics says that everything is all interconnected. Well, that's not quite right. It's more than that; it's deeper. It's that those connections, your connections to all the things around you, literally define who you are, and that's the profound weirdness of quantum mechanics." - Dr. Aaron D. O'Connell, American experimental quantum physicist In 2023, Martin Ringbauer and his team demonstrated that quantum entanglement can occur across time, not just space. kzbin.infoFcXphNGCxzk?si=Ay_FOMPyrPqYvIFR For the map is not the land, then was a mapmaker who wanted to make a perfect paper map, tatters of it can be found all over the countryside.

[@EnglishMike]

Those are just assumptions about the nature of God. If God wanted us to easily understand his nature, then why did he make the Universe so darned complex and impossibly counter-intuitive. And it's not as though the Trinity is exactly straightforward to understand. Sometimes Christians appeal to simplicity, other times they talk about the ineffable ways of God. There seems to be very little rhyme or reason to it.

[@psalm2764]

@@EnglishMike Read the Book of Job. And, there is only the earth and the fulness thereof. What is counter-intuitive, is education of ancient hindu cosmology: the earth is round and spinning, both around itself and around the sun, mankind is actually a primate (human), the "universe" is endless and expanding.etc.

[@daisyspencer3906]

My face watching this 🤨

[@techguy6241]

That scene from Good Burger when Ed says "i know some of these words" would describe my reaction lol

[@tonygoodkind7858]

7:04 presumably with a channel named "Truth Unites" your own answer to this question would be "no role at all, I'm focused on what's true". A belief is either based on facts about reality (truth) or what we wish were true (hope), and very often hopes aren't truth. The reason "only truth matters" _should_ be the answer is of course that it's the strategy which genuinely has the best chance of helping us survive and thrive. In that sense it's a bit ironic since it's the most hopeful strategy: to form beliefs _without regard to hope at all, only based on what's true._

[@ScottKlaudt]

We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer to redeem, to rescue, to discipline in his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life. -Clement of Alexandria Do not suppose that the soul is punished for endless eons (apeirou aionas) in Tartarus. Very properly, the soul is not punished to gratify the revenge of the divinity, but for the sake of healing. But we say that the soul is punished for an aionion period (aionios) calling its life and its allotted period of punishment, its aeon. --Olnmpiodorus (AD 550)

[@garyh2100]

I believe that God is true because God claims to be “love” and the reality we live in is exactly what would be expected if He were love.

[@joshuapizarro3231]

If we are talking about the Christian God. Which it seems we are, in the bible we get descriptions by His word of who He is and why He is. But if we are just going and saying the bible is off limits the convo makes more sense. Maybe im missing something.

[@swimmerfish34]

It seems to me that what Matthew might be missing is what we mean when we say "God is good." We don't mean that God conforms to a good standard, as if you could have either a good God or an evil God. What we mean is that what we understand as good is rooted in his nature. The very nature of being the supreme being means you are the subject around which 'good' orientates itself. Good is what conforms to God. So, hypothetically, if God's nature were different, than good would also be different. That is the entire nature of the moral argument. We know there is a universal understanding of what good is, and we argue that it has its source in God, not that God conforms to that standard of good. If that were what we argued, we would then be pushing the problem off again because it would mean there is a universal law of good and evil that does not have its source in God.

[@jonathanguerrero5617]

I love conversations like this. I have so many books making a positive case for Christianity, but where are the books arguing against? I don’t want to spend time on Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” if there are far superior works out there. What books do you recommend I can read that give robust and thoughtful objections to Christian theism that have the kind of content and spirit as this conversation?

[@trevorwongsam8178]

I think Gavin hit the nail on the head regarding morality. It seems that for an act to be immoral then it must involve intentionality. This seems to be the difference between a natural disaster and a holocaust type geneocide. This being said one can only wonder if such a think as morality exiists at all without conscious beings with free will. Therefore it seems to me to extend this concept to the entire universe governed by physics, or even to the animal kingdom governed by instinct is appropriate. Does morality exist without humans? Can animals be immoral? I think its just a category error that both Theists and Atheists are addressing.

[@ExpositingReality]

"It could be necessarily so many other ways" makes no sense. If it's necessary, then it couldn't be any other way. To say something is necessary is to say that it's the same in all possible worlds because it can't fail to be the way it is.

[@theproceedings4050]

The only way for God to save everyone is to destroy the nature of what he has created. How can he be a good God if he were to do such a thing? If free will is universal and unbreakable (God is perfect), consent and assent are required for salvation. It is not God that witholds his grace, it is we who refuse to or cannot accept it.

[@EnglishMike]

Is there free will in Heaven? Can you choose to sin there? How can you consent and assent to be saved if you do even know the offer exists? (e.g. you were raised in a faithful Muslim family and community and you never have cause to question the truth of what you were taught as a child...)

[@psalm2764]

@@EnglishMike Yes, there is free will in heaven. Satan did sin and those who follow him are his (John 8.44) and will rule and reign for eternity with him in hell. Why did God make the way narrow and the gate strait? Why are there few who fill find it? Heaven is the pearl of great price and only a remnant will be saved of their own free will. These will "lose their life, to find it". Amen.

[@briandiehl9257]

The channel "the analytic christian" has an hour long video explaining how God could bring everyone to repentance without violating their free will or forcing anyone

[@psalm2764]

@@briandiehl9257 God will separate the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the goats. He will use the man of sin to do it. Rev 13.3

[@KalvinistasX]

hey thats the guy who debated Matt Slick, i wonder how he still thinks about that debate. I think Matt Slick was briliant answering Mathews objections

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

I think I was basically right in that debate.

[@Rogue1099]

I think its possible for God to be different and then for good to be different but its very difficult for us to imagine while living in an existing objective morality. If torture was good then we wouldn’t be having this conversation because we’d agree that it was good and it would objectively be so. Its like could God have created space, matter and time to function differently - of course, its just very difficult for us to imagine

[@dissatisfiedphilosophy]

Universalism is obviously such a great argument for Christianity. Anyone who isn’t a universalist is caught in a logical contradiction. Glory to our Lord and His hosts that Matthew is becoming closer to accepting Christ.

[@psalm2764]

Universal salvation makes a mockery of the cross of Christ. It is a travesty born out of a heart of darkness.

[@heather602]

It is God's will that none perish. That doesn't mean everyone will obey God's command to repent and believe on the name of Jesus for salvation. It wasn't God's will that Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But they disobeyed God's will and followed their own.

[@psalm2764]

@@heather602 That's true. Eve ate the fruit of her Tree which is the abomination that causes desolation. God let his own Creation shed His blood - he let the Edomites kill him in this act of propitiation and justification of the Law, who God is. Life for life. Deuteronomy 19.21

[@brotherunaligned8564]

​@@psalm2764 On the contrary, christian universalists believe that the cross of Christ actually worked. Christ was capable of saving everyone.

[@psalm2764]

@@brotherunaligned8564 Your name does you justice, you are unaligned with scripture and the truth. The Great White Throne Judgement is impending.

[@EnglishMike]

I have to question whether it is necessary for the existence of the Universe to make sense. Regardless of whether you believe human beings evolved, our brains (or minds if you prefer) are equipped to cope with the types of situations we are likely to encounter. Understanding Newton's Laws of Motion only require a high school level education because they explain things that we see every day and thus they intuitively make sense. Contrast that with Einstein's Theory of Relativity and his General Theory of Relativity. While some of the illustrations and explanations can be grasped by the layperson, many of the implications of these theories are truly mind-bending and impossible to intuit from our everyday experiences. For example, two trains are heading toward each other, each traveling at 50mph, their closing speed is 100mph. Easy. But if the two trains are traveling at the speed of light instead, their closing speed isn't twice the speed of light, it's still the speed of light. -- i.e. not intuitive at all, and that's just a simple example. And once you get into Quantum Theory, even the greatest minds of the last 100 years have a hard time grasping the full scope of what is often call the most validated theory in physics. So there would seem to be very little basis for assuming that philosophical inferences based on intuitions about what should or must be true about the Universe will lead us to the right conclusions. While that might be deeply unsatisfying, the truth about reality could be, and I suspect is likely to be, far more counter-intuitive than we could ever imagine, and may well be completely impenetrable -- not that we should give up trying to understand it.

[@user-ko3xh5zj1x]

It might be right that the atheist can say that moral facts are necessary, but if atheism is true, is that the most plausible scenario? Or is it more plausible to think that evolution has left us with the illusion that morality is necessary in a way that it isn't. I think, arguably, theist makes it more plausible that our intuitions on the matter are veridcal.

[@gracembc]

@ around 25:00, Matthew is suggesting that the quality of the goodness of God being the way it is because it is rooted in His character, is sort of circular. Let me attempt to respond: There is a missing component here with regard to what it means to be 'good.' It is not merely understood to be something rooted in God's nature, and that God's nature could be otherwise. Goodness, like not torturing a child, is synonymous with being itself. All of these 'evils' are also destructive to 'being.' Because God's nature is consistent with 'being,' if His nature were 'otherwise', it be more than just arbitrarily moving the needle of what 'good' is. It would also correspond to self-destruction. In other words, if God's nature were 'otherwise', it would mean that God would not 'be.' So here, we have an independent connection to why goodness is the way that it is and avoid objections of circularity.

[@carolm753]

In this case, we could make the same argument about our “beingness” without God. Any “being” can substantiate this claim for moral good, if “being” is synonymous with “goodness”. And we are back to the brute facts.

[@gracembc]

@carolm753 I'm sorry , could you please explain what you are talking about? What I am suggesting is that 'goodness' is another way of saying 'well-beingness.' Of course any being is 'being' in some sense. However, let's take an easy example: a being chooses to cause harm to their being by fentanyl use. This choice would be self-destructive. The action would lead to the being becoming less 'being.' Matthew seems to think that whatever moral goodness is, is arbitrary in some fundamental sense, because it is rooted in God. He suggests that God's nature could be 'otherwise.' I am saying that if God's nature were 'otherwise', it would lead to the destruction of His Being, and, thus, He would not 'be.' Therefore, moral goodness is fixed in a non-arbitrary way. You could object: "Wait, what if something like fentanyl use was good for our being? What if something like rape was good for our being? Doesn't that make goodness then arbitrary?" and the answer is no for the following reason: Rape is wrong BEACUSE it goes against our well-being. If 'rape' was good for our well-being, it would not be rape as such. Any resemblance of that to what we call 'rape' would be superficial. So, in the alternative reality where 'rape' was somehow good for our wellbeing (if God's nature were different), 'rape' would not be rape. So, the point I made is preserved. Matthew imagines in this alternative reality that something like torturing a child would be 'morally good' but it still seems wrong to him. He is missing the point that in that reality, 'torturing a child' would not be torturing a child. We understand that torturing a child is wrong. why is it wrong? It is wrong because it goes against the well-being of the child (and the predator). It is destructive. @@carolm753

[@carolm753]

@@gracembc I think we may be on the same page in a way! I like your idea of well-beingness, rather than saying “goodness.” Goodness is what we attribute to the things that add to or nurture our well-being. To me there are levels/degrees of nuance with how straightforwardly something enhances “well-being”: rape or fentanyl use can, almost without any nuance, be said to detract from one’s well-being. But what about when torture is used on a perpetrator to free an innocent person? A layer of nuance is added to how we classify the idea of “torture” as enhancing or or detracting from well-being. How authoritative should a parent be? We all know some parents go overboard and detract well-being from their kids. But authority is very “good” in that it enhances well-being by providing stability and structure. A parent daily has to make unclear moral decisions in this way. I won’t give endless examples but the base idea is that hard and sometimes painful actions can have the goal of enhancing well-being which adds a tricky layer of discernment and nuance to the personal perspective of “good” that isn’t always clear and objective to everyone. While I agree *some* moral goodness has little to no nuance and can be objectively “fixed” as enhancing well-being, there are some cases in which layers of nuance and complexities make the path to “enhancing well-being” far more unclear. And if it was so clear, I don’t think we’d have as much needed discourse on these topics as we do! But I do appreciate the reframe of “goodness” to be about enhancing well-being. I think that is a much more clear way to see it. However, goodness=God remains a foggy concept as we cannot clearly know what goodness is even if clarified as whatever supports well-being, given these layers of nuance described above.

[@gracembc]

@@carolm753 you bring up some really good points! I agree that there are many cases where knowing what the 'good' is, can be very difficult for us to determine. However, this difficulty is not directly connected to the issue at hand. We would first recognize that there is something called 'good' or 'wellbeing,' whether or not we could ever know all of the nuances of a specific situation. In the case of torturing a criminal to discover where he is hiding the hostages, you could argue that torturing him is 'good' if it leads to the well-being of the hostages. But this doesn't, in any way, take away the fact that torturing (assuming we agree on the definition) a criminal is still harmful to his well-being and, thus, evil. So, you would just be, in that case arguing that the ends justify the means. But the fact that this argument even exists is only because we live in a world that is already corrupted from evil. In a perfect world, these hard cases would vanish. On the other example that you mentioned about going to far with discipline on a child, the fact is that there is a line. It would just perhaps, be really hard to always know (maybe impossible) where the line is. Still, this mystery would not take away from the simple premise, and it is also another case that would evaporate in a perfect world.

[@user-ee2vt7yi3m]

god functions, god is loving to create entities free and unforced to abide by his desires or against them, while gently (mostly) encouraging abiding by his own character in doing this and therefore questions of morality arise, god is a subsidiary british monarchy (where the king has technical powers but his good reputation and love towards him derives from his reluctance to use them except when of purest necessity), where his most common interaction with society is as an exemplar to follow if god were evil, we would not even be made to be able to function independently and wouldn't have the discussion, morality wouldn't even be a topic, god would be totalitarian a god that is good sacrifices his power relative to the creation by gifting the creation extra aspects that reflect in nature his own divine aspects, a god that is evil couldn't possibly raise up his creation from automata such an evil god would be made of selfishness, a good god is centered on himself, but extends his own divinity to his creation at least somewhat automata also cannot worship a god that created them, only free choice enables that, so a selfish god would be lesser in this world compared to a good god's outcome, a good god is more, an evil god is less, from a pure potency and complexity standpoint

[@glstka5710]

14:00 Would it be possible for morality to be different? Maybe but does that prove that prove that it isn't real? We see "oughtness" nagging up that there is a Law therefore a Law Giver. He says could it be different than you suppose? Maybe but The Law is showing us that it is there regardless of what It is.

[@bnjmnwst]

Is it a truism that pain is bad, though? He claims it as a truism on several occasions. I view pain as necessary. It is unclear to me what other mechanism would be sufficient to inform us of problems AND properly motivate us to solve those problems with proper haste. Is an ancillary that problems are bad? Problems, as well as "evil," are necessities, in order for free will to exist. This is a truism.

[@joshuaharvey1054]

The only rational form of Christianity is one in which God both Can and Will Save All. Change my mind.

[@carterwoodrow4805]

God is powerful enough to save everyone, however he chooses not to. There is nothing wrong with God giving people the rightful justice they deserve

[@joshuaharvey1054]

@@carterwoodrow4805 “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Please think long and hard about the claim you’re making: that a loving God could save all(bring about the best possible ending), yet chooses not to…

[@carterwoodrow4805]

@@joshuaharvey1054 God is also a wrathful God. Yet chooses not to demonstrate his wrath on all people. You cannot just say that God is more loving then he is wrathful. God is perfectly wrathful as well as perfectly loving. I ask you why a wrathful God, which God is, would not have wrath on all. The answer is it glorifies God more to save some people. God wants all of his attributes to be put on display in his creation. God''s wrath is a good thing becuase it is part of God. God's wrath is just as good as his love. Read romans 9. Paul writes, "what if GOd desiring to show his wrath and make known his power has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction in order to make the riches of his glory on vessells of mercy prepared beforehand for glory".

[@EnglishMike]

@@carterwoodrow4805A God that is wrathful enough to condemn every non-Christian to Hell for eternity? Not much room left for love there. A loving parent doesn't lash out at children who don't understand. They teach and nurture. Where is the teaching and nurturing of the billions of people who were raised to believe in Islam or Hinduism?

[@psalm2764]

Get in touch with reality and change your own mind while there is still time.

[@glstka5710]

22:50 If those people who think that the Law of Noncontradiction has exceptions are right then they are wrong. They can be wrong and right but they can't be right or wrong.

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

They don't think that all statements are true and false, just that there are a few like the liars sentence that are.

[@gigahorse1475]

My thoughts on imagining a scenario where God’s morality is different (good is switched for evil): It doesn’t seem logically possible to even imagine a world where God would say something like râpe is good. It sounds like asking if God could create a square circle. Obviously He can’t, because that is impossible. Plus, if morality was inversed (ie : râpe is now good), then we would also have a knowledge in our hearts (supposedly put there by God) that it is good, just as we now know that it is bad. And if we would all consider râpe good… then there would be no such thing as râpe since everyone would be a consenting participant in it. This makes it impossible to conceive of a world where evil is good, according to God.

[@gigahorse1475]

These are just my initial thoughts… I haven’t heard Dr. Ortlund’s response yet!

[@benjaminwatt2436]

I'd say Matt's problem here is that he hasn't realized the problem with our ability to imagine things that don't exist. He is stuck on the idea that there could be a reality where God accepts torture, but can't bring himself to understand that, that is just a figment of his imagination. It doesn't exist, so it poses no objection to God's existance.

[@psalm2764]

its striking how often the term "imagine" and "imagination" are used in these debates on whether or not God exists. Re-imagining the New World Order is the motto of satan and his minions going about their father´s business. When we begin to reshape God in the image of man, hastiness and the pride of life begins to swell and evil knows no bounds. (Genesis 6.5, Psalm 10.2-4, Proverbs 6.18, Romans 1.21 and many more). The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, “There is no God.”

[@his_grace_is_sufficient]

I am still trying to figure out how the statement, “the universe doesn’t come from anything” is different from “the universe does come from nothing” 🤔 1:02:06

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

Nothing is brighter than the brightest object in one sense, which means that there isn't anything brighter than the brightest object. But nothing isn't brighter than the brightest object--nothing has no light. Similarly, my view is that the universe didn't come from anything not that it did come from nothing.

[@his_grace_is_sufficient]

Is saying “the universe didn’t come from anything” the same thing as saying the universe is eternal? And if not, then that still doesn’t answer the question of where the universe DID come from.

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

@@his_grace_is_sufficient No, it's saying the universe didn't come from anything. It doesn't go infinitely far back into the past--it's just that time began with the universe and it didn't come from anywhere else.

[@thecatalysm5658]

This is just me, but if I thought there was a 1% chance that God existed and created our majestic universe, it would seem worth it to me to give our Creator what is due. With pride and a devotion to sin in the way, not even a 100% assurance of God's existence will bring someone to faith. As far as universalism versus annihilationism vs eternal torment goes, I vastly prefer the annihilationist view, but I can in no way rule out eternal torment. Universalism does sound like the most alluring view, especially when you have loved ones that don't believe, but it's nearly impossible to justify from the whole of Scripture. We absolutely cannot insist that God do as we please on these matters (especially insomuch as we take 'offense' or 'suffer' for others). We choose God with everything in our soul and then we are able to see things His way. It's just the way it works.

[@Matty-Boy]

It's Greek to me but others seem to find it beneficial

[@oreemmanuel2466]

Someone can push back on this but in the hypothetical situation where God's character were different I believe our very sense of morality would be geared towards the purpose and perspective of the Creator of the Universe. i.e. in a world where God desired evil and atrocities our moral sense would be geared towards that. Is euthythro's dilemma really a dilemma when there is only one ultimate reality (i.e. One God and One Universe)?

[@carterwoodrow4805]

as christians since we claim that God's character is the way it is due to metaphysical necesity. the "hypothetical situation where God's character were different" is logically impossible

[@oreemmanuel2466]

​@@carterwoodrow4805I definitely agree it's impossible but as Matthew highlights we discuss impossibilities all the time for the sake of illustrating a point. I just think if we discuss this one consistently, even with this impossibility, the apparent dilemma is no longer one. The makeup of any Universe that God elects to create will reflect His nature and character, hence we'd never be in a position where a definition of morality exists outside of His nature.

[@psalm2764]

@@carterwoodrow4805 What is "metaphysics"? God is the Law and Reality. All else is subordinated unto Him. Not vice versa. Colossians 1.17, Romans 11.36

[@WaterCat5]

The issue is that accepting morality stems from god's choices means that morality can change as he desires it. To be fair, I think this makes total sense based on the atrocities committed by god in the bible, but most christians like to pretend god is some nice dude instead of a celestial tyrant.

[@oreemmanuel2466]

@@WaterCat5 The idea I'm discussing does not relate to God changing. It relates to God's nature being different from the before time began. In the Christian view God does not change and the morality that stems from his nature is consistent from eternity past to eternity future. In the same way there are certain unchangeable things intrinsic to our being humans, God's character and nature is thus. We could discuss the 'atrocities' committed by God in the OT, bearing in mind the warnings He will give people before inflicting warranted punishment, but maybe you could look up 'Is God a Moral Monster?' by Paul Copan. Ultimately I believe the God of the Old and New Testament has always and will always be good. Our very being yearns for that goodness

[@sandrabarrette3454]

Gavin, I can’t even understand what your guest is saying because he talks too fast! You should ask him to slow down his speech

[@littleboots9800]

Slow it down to 1.75 speed. Although tbh it's more the poor audio. He doesn't have a nice mic like Gavin.

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

Sorry about that!

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

@@littleboots9800 I just bought a mic, so hopefully future videos will be better.

[@littleboots9800]

@@deliberationunderidealcond5105 Oh that's good! Your content is worth it. It really makes a difference to the listening experience. Very interesting discussion this was btw, I enjoyed it, though several times I had to go back and relisten a few times to really grasp what was being said. If I am prepared to do that rather than just watch something else less challenging then I know it's good stuff!

[@deliberationunderidealcond5105]

​@@littleboots9800That's very kind, thank you!

[@Racingbro1986]

Not sure if this guy really understands the Gospel.

[@thomasrutledge5941]

If you insist that your ❤ outweighs the feather of Maat? Why not invoke the name of Jesus Christ? Song: Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin Performers: Raj Prakash Paul & Michael Paul [biological brothers & Christians] Language: Telugu kzbin.info/www/bejne/rWeplX-qicSErZY

[@catholicguy1073]

God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance” (CCC 1037) So depends on what he means by Universalism. Man can die without repenting and in a state of mortal sin where by their own choices they have turned from God. In other words they in a way send themselves to hell. So if you mean that hell is just temporary and at some point all souls go to heaven regardless of the choices they made in life that is irreconcilable with Christianity.

[@EnglishMike]

Universalism is a far more compatible with a loving and just God than billions of people being cast into Hell for the "sin" of being raised in the wrong faith as a child. Around 99% of all Christians were raised in a Christian family and/or community, and the same is true for all other the major religious faiths encompassing billions of people around the world -- almost 100% of religious people simply believe what they were raised to believe. If your version of Christianity is true, then for 99% of everyone here on Earth, their fate is sealed the moment their parent or teacher teaches them their first prayer or reads them their first passage from whichever Holy Scripture is taught in their family. Choice has virtually nothing to do with it, and I remain flabbergasted that so many Christians continue to argue that it does. You are a Christian because you were lucky enough to be born into a Christian family and/or community. Period.

[@jncon8013]

@@EnglishMike I’m curious what your response would be to a Christian who did not grow up in a Christian family or community. Like a Christian in communist China. Or an Arab who came to faith during the rule of the Taliban. Etc.

[@aussierob7177]

Why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it ? With infinite power God could always create something better.. But, with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely created a world "in a state of "journeying toward its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others. The existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect. Both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection. Angels and humans, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love.. They can therefore go astray. Indeed they have sinned.This is how moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it , however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

Jesus Christ died for all humanity! Yet, the Son of Man shall give to each according to one's works or lack of works, and only those who HAVE SHOWN MERCY, MERCY SHALL BE SHOWN THEM! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@psalm2764]

God is the Law and incredibly, He is merciful.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@psalm2764 Yes, True, and "it is the DOERS OF THE LAW that are JUSTIFIED BEFORE God ", and "if you wish to enter into life, then keep the commandments ", for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@psalm2764]

@@matthewbroderick6287 Messiah is not in the bread and wine.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@psalm2764 Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ", for "My Flesh is True food and Blood true drink ", as Jesus Christ is the new passover Lamb to be consumed for our salvation!

[@psalm2764]

@@matthewbroderick6287 The Messiah is the Bread before, the bread is not the Messiah. Messiah said He was the true Bread and His Blood the true Blood because He was speaking to canibaals who are anti-Christ.

[@marteld2108]

Calvinism is evil. It teaches that God has predestined some people to Hell from all eternity. That is not the Gospel.