Christian Presuppositionalist vs. Atheist Debate: The Problem of Evil

[@ajhieb]

10:22 _"And there's three laws of logic. So they must exist in a trifold, or a triune mind."_ Wha? What? Whaaaaaaaaaat? Did you forget to edit that out, or do you genuinely believe that? What's the actual inference you're trying to use there? Both have three, so one must require the other? A mind can't comprehend three things, unless it's a triune mind? What you said is preposterously silly.

[@TheThinkInstitute]

It's a proposition that can be hard to understand, but don't be so quick to mock it before you try. Logic as an entity has the attribute of threeness, which necessitates that the mind grounding logic (since logic is propositional in nature) also has that same attribute.

[@ajhieb]

@@TheThinkInstitute _"Logic as an entity has the attribute of threeness, which necessitates that the mind grounding logic (since logic is propositional in nature) also has that same attribute."_ Yeah, that's just a composition/division fallacy. A pretty obvious one at that. Since God is the ground for the Ten Commandments, does that mean that the must come from a mind possessing the property of "ten-ness?" No, of course not.

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

@@ajhieb I'm not sure if I agree with Think Institute, however he is bringing up the strongest defense for the trinity (the problem of the one and the many) He's saying that for reality to be intelligible you have to have some faculty of oneness in one sense and more than oneness in another, in simple terms if you reject the trinity you make reality incomprehensible

[@ajhieb]

@@keitumetsemodipa3012 _"He's saying that for reality to be intelligible you have to have some faculty of oneness in one sense and more than oneness in another"_ I get that he's making that claim. I also get that he nor any other apologist has actually offered a meaningful explanation as to how/why their deity solves the problem. The problem, in a nutshell, is we observe what seems to be a single reality, that is made up of separate constituent parts. Apologists, including Joel, reject the explanation that this phenomena is simply a brute necessity. Okay fine. So Joel proposes a triune God that has the property of one-ness and many-ness. Okay. All this accomplishes is providing another _example_ of something suffering from the problem of the one and the many. It's not solution, unless you arbitrarily ignore that the triune God has these attributes because of a brute necessity (because Seth has already rejected such a solution) _and_ also make the claim (and substantiate it) that because of some other property the triune God possesses, _that property_ allows for reality to be both one and many. But no sch explanation is ever provided. Instead apologists simply treat "God" as a magic panacea that is just _defined_ as a solution to the problem, but never _demonstrate_ how or why God solves any of the problems in philosophy. To put it another way, claiming that God is a solution to the one and the many is like claiming a guy with cancer is the cure for cancer. It's not a solution in any way. It's just an example of the problem.

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

@@ajhieb Never said it is a solution, I don't believe in reducing logic and philosophy to a pragmatic lense, because I think again it makes philosophy either useless or impossible

[@TheoSkeptomai]

Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are morally appropriate (ought to occur in a certain dilemma) from those inappropriate (ought not to occur in a certain dilemma). Like all cognitive assessments, moral assessments always and necessarily involve the subject's own biases, experience, attitude, and other personal considerations. Therefore, morality is _always and necessarily_ SUBJECTIVE. Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his or her own morality. I, and I alone, determine which human behaviors are moral, amoral, or immoral, just as everyone else does.

[@TheThinkInstitute]

In your view, is there any difference between morality and personal preference?

[@TheoSkeptomai]

@@TheThinkInstitute Yes. Of course. Do you agree that morality is a cognitive process of determining which human behaviors ought or ought not occur for any moral dilemma?

[@The_Alchemist_007]

If God is max-powerful and all-loving, he should be able to plan a world without evil. It's that simple. If God can't plan a world without evil, either he isn't max-powerful or he isn't all-loving or evil is his goal. I see no other option. i'm not all powerful yet i can still create a computer simulation of a perfect world without any evil where everyone's happy.

[@TheGardenshark]

@@joshuabrown7289 God may know what good and evil is, but since He can't commit evil, he is not a moral agent. Which raises the question why He should get to judge moral agents, when He has no idea what it is to experience temptation, or make mistakes.

[@The_Alchemist_007]

@@joshuabrown7289 "Our worship wouldn't be genuine." Then a powerful God could make humans genuinely worship him. It's that simple. "Choose good through we know what evil is." The problem is that he created not only conceptual evil, but also actual evil. To choose to do good, only conceptual evil is needed. "We wouldn't be able to..." Why? Isn't God powerful enough to make us truly love him without pain and evil?

[@jkm9332]

Defend your first premise.

[@The_Alchemist_007]

@jkm9332 Defence is necessary only there's an attack.

[@TheGardenshark]

Pity the caller doesn't know how to dismantle claptrap. For example, if God pre-determines everything, then He is responsible for evil and evil can't possibly be against his nature.

[@TheThinkInstitute]

@@TheGardenshark interesting perspective. Join our next debate live stream and hash it out.

[@susanmm66]

I am often asked about the issue of evil, not because I'm a teacher of any kind but because I'm usually the one in whatever chat room or that tries to make a comment that comes from my Biblical worldview. People latch on to that and always want me to explain why a loving God allows for evil in the world. I wish this video had come out yesterday, because I tried my best to answer the question for someone yesterday morning! I don't do a lot of chatting, but sometimes you can't help but do so on some of the more bizarre questions. My answer wasn't nearly as polished as yours, but next time I'll try to remember the words "morally sufficient," as you used them. I'd love to see you do more Q&As like this. I'm very new to your channel, and I try to be very careful who I listen to when it comes to Christian apologetics. I can't get enough of the Word lately. Thank you.

[@TheThinkInstitute]

Thanks for your comment. I'll be rolling out more Q&A and debate-style videos like this over the coming weeks, Lord willing. I'm actually going to do another debate livestream later this week. You can subscribe to make sure you don't miss it, and you can catch it here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYmQdaFop8mXqM0 Thanks for watching and commenting. I'm glad you found our content helpful.

[@ajhieb]

_"My answer wasn't nearly as polished as yours, but next time I'll try to remember the words "morally sufficient," as you used them. "_ I'd advise _against_ using the "morally sufficient" language as it entails many things that get you onto pretty sketchy theological ground. You're effectively trying to address the Problem of Evil by suggesting that there is no evil in the world. Let's take some awful thing from history like the atrocities committed by Germany in WWII. According to -Seth,- _Joel,_ God had a "morally sufficient reason" to allow that to happen. That is to say, it was God's will that it _did_ happen, otherwise he wouldn't have allowed it to happen. This is inescapable. Just like a parent might not want their child to get hurt, but might subject their child to a painful surgery in order to save their life. Did the parent _want_ the child to be hurt? Not necessarily, but the parent _did_ necessarily prefer the outcome where the child lived, which means the parent _preferred_ to subject the child to the painful surgery. Likewise, God _preferred_ the atrocities of WWII happen. That's the inescapable entailment of "morally sufficient" reasons. The second problem with this is it leaves you absent any meaningful framework with which to evaluate any act, intent, or outcomes as moral or immoral. _Everything_ that happens is _by your definition_ a good, moral act, as it was _necessarily_ God's preferred outcome. No hypothetical act, outcome or motivation is moral or immoral, until it does or doesn't happen. If it happened, it was good and moral, if it didn't happen, then it wasn't. IT effectively strips everyone of any moral accountability. (That or God is condemning people to an eternity of conscious torment for simply doing what he preferred they do, which seems to be even worse in terms of positions to affirm)

[@susanmm66]

@ajhieb Thanks for your comment. I understand the point you're trying to make. I think where we disagree is HOW you use those words to explain an evil act that occurs. I think what Seth is trying to say is that, because we know that our thoughts are not God's thoughts and that our ways are not his ways, we need to try to absorb the fact that we can't possibly understand and evaluate an occurrence in the same context that God does. Christians believe the Bible is absolute truth, and the picture that the scriptures paint in our minds show us God's plan for redemption and God's personality. We know with certainty that God is loving, merciful, and patient. His highest call to us says that he wants a personal relationship with each one of us, and the journey you take as you develop that relationship with Him becomes the most wonderful part of your life. But we also know that, even though we despise evil, we must trust God completely when we encounter it. So, saying that in spite of the fact that we cannot understand why God wills or allows things to happen that we see as overwhelmingly cruel and hurtful, our faith remains intact because we trust in God's plan. It's not always an easy thing to do, but if we love and trust the Lord, our confidence in him has to stay bold and true. We aren't going to understand it all until glory, so we accept difficulty and trial in this life knowing that the Master will work everything for good in his time, not ours. It's a difficult subject, plain and simple. "The nearness of the Lord is my good."

[@ajhieb]

@@susanmm66 _" I think where we disagree is HOW you use those words to explain an evil act that occurs."_ Well, by -Seth's- _Joel's_ definitions and explanations, there are no evil actions that occur. The atrocities perpetrated by the Germans in WWII weren't evil. They were part of God's plan and justified by his "morally sufficient" reasons. That's the entailment of what -Seth- _Joel_ is arguing for. And that's fine. He's free to take that position and it's a strong position if his priority is to solve the problem of evil and defend God's ultimate sovereignty over his creation. It's just that it totally undermines some of his previously stated positions regarding morality and his moral framework. He's tacitly admitting that morality is a big mystery, only known by God, and it's anybody's guess what is or isn't moral in any given circumstance. And if that's your position too, so be it (it sounds like it is) but I think it's a pretty untenable position for a self professed Christian to hold.

[@susanmm66]

@TheThinkInstitute I'll be notified when the debate airs. Thx for letting me know.

[@LookOutForNumberOne]

god has "sufficient reason" this is the pure definition of especial pleading.

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

This is an internal critique so there is no special pleading

[@russellsteapot8779]

@@keitumetsemodipa3012 //"This is an internal critique so there is no special pleading"// You're mistaken. The idea of an internal critique is to see if a view is in accord with reason, based on its own claims, commitments and their entailments. If a fallacy (a FLAW in reasoning) is exposed, then the view would be fallacious and UNreasonable, and would need to be repaired to avoid the fallacy (or abandonned). Having a "worldview" that makes use of a fallacy as *part* of that "worldview" means you have to *abandon reason* to accept such a view in the first place, and just makes the "worldview" fallacious. I'm not sure that ["God has a morally sufficient reason, and we don't know what it is"] is necessarily 'special pleading', though. The issue with it is that Christians subscribing to this theodicy are unable to make ANY moral judgements at all within THEIR view, as only God knows what is and isn't "moral". It means that they have no "standard" for morality whatsoever, because they are clueless as to what it would be. 'Skeptical theism' is one of the worst theodicies, and - depending on how it's argued - can entail *global skepticism* , which wouldn't be a position a Christian would normally be keen to adopt. Asking "BY WHAT STANDARD?" when a non-believer makes a moral or value judgement is an embarrassing and empty demand when your OWN view doesn't possess such a thing! 🙂

[@TheThinkInstitute]

@@russellsteapot8779 I invite you to join tonight's livestream debate and defend your position.

[@russellsteapot8779]

@@TheThinkInstitute Lol. It's YOUR position and YOUR claims I'm critiquing, Joel. I'm not presenting a position to defend! Or do you not understand that in your "worldview"?? I've laid out the case for you on several issues *within* YOUR "worldview", so if you want to present them *honestly* , then you can give your response. But given time-zone differences, I'm not getting out of bed at 3.45am just to say out loud what I've already written down for you!

[@TheThinkInstitute]

@@russellsteapot8779 If you haven't noticed, I try to avoid long text debates in the comments. You'll have to jump on another time, if and when we do one that better suits your schedule. Or not; it's okay with me either way. We have no shortage of angry, snarky atheists around here. (We also have a few thoughtful ones, who participate in good faith.)

[@LookOutForNumberOne]

This guy is talking nonsense, he is shaping the word "good" around an imaginary concept and then labelling as objective.

[@TheThinkInstitute]

Prove it.

[@LookOutForNumberOne]

@@TheThinkInstitute You DECEPTIVE S0B, "prove it"..... You can't prove what does not exist, or in other words, proving a negative. You calvinists are the worst of all christian cultic denominations. Not only that, but you just make assertions after assertions and can't back it up. You use Circular Arguments. You are the soft version of Darth Dawkins, and he is a real nutcase. Am I clear enough???

[@melbied6215]

I have to ask why it’s so important that we have to “account” for morality. It seems to be akin to a “sense” like any other. And subject to fault or error like any other sense. Let me give the analogy of sight, since humans are incredibly visual creatures: Most people don’t know that our eyes view everything upside down and our brains flip it around. Most people don’t know that we have a blind spot and our brains fill it in with what it thinks “should” be there. (Both aspects seemingly odd if designed by an intelligent creator, but I digress). Most people don’t know these things because they’ve never studied the science of sight. Most people don’t know the basics of ethics/morality because they haven’t studied philosophy. That’s not a fault, and it doesn’t mean “God” is the default explanation for morality any more than God is the default explanation for sight. We can additionally draw analogies with the minority of those that have no sight or are color blind with the minority of those who have zero or abnormal moral compasses. No apologist seems to demand an accounting of sight and the subsequent variations. Why does morality demand an explanation when the same is not required for our other senses?

[@TheThinkInstitute]

Mel, that's a good point. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that you can account for sight without God, either. But the conscience is not quite like sight, anyway. It accesses invisible, immaterial, unchanging, universally applicable, objective moral obligations that are propositional in nature and deal with interpersonal relationships. One's worldview needs to be able to account for the conscience *as well as eyesight,* and the realities both are experiencing. Can atheism do either one?

[@ajhieb]

@@TheThinkInstitute _"Mel, that's a good point."_ Really? That's an odd response considering you completely failed to address the point. _"One's worldview needs to be able to account for the conscience as well as eyesight..."_ The question posed to you was "why it’s so important that we have to “account” for morality. " All you did was repeat the claim. The question still stands, why does one need to be able to account for morality within their worldview?

[@melbied6215]

@ I thought you might say that. 😉 That said, the evolution of the eye is quite well understood. We have current, living species with all manner of eyes, from light-sensitive slits, all the way to raptors (who have MUCH better eyesight than we do) and Mantis Shrimp (who can see colors we can’t). I know morals are not quite like sight, no analogy is perfect or else it wouldn’t be an analogy, it would be a description. My point was, I think the trust we have in our eyesight is about the same as we have in our moral intuitions, with the same caveat that we *could* be wrong in any given situation. It’s just generally correct for most people in most situations. Again, unless something went wrong like in socio/psychopaths.

[@TheThinkInstitute]

@@ajhieb I actually explained why. You are just argumentative. I'm being patient, but you need to start demonstrating that you can participate in good faith around here, AJ.

[@TheThinkInstitute]

@@melbied6215 Respectfully, without presupposing the truth of the Christian worldview you have no reason to assume that your eyes are functioning properly, or that there is actually anything there to see. But even if you could, you still need to account for the invisible, invariant laws of logic. You believe you can know morality. I agree, you can. But your worldview flies in the face of that reality. Your metaphysics and epistemology contradict what you know to be true. Something's got to give, and eventually you're going to have to repent and trust in Jesus Christ. Then it will all make sense, literally.

[@coul]

We don't have free will to choose what we believe. We're either convinced of something or we're not. If you don't believe me, then just choose to believe that I'm correct.

[@TheThinkInstitute]

I'm glad you mentioned this. Did you know that the Bible actually addresses it? Romans 8: For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

[@coul]

@@TheThinkInstitute So, how does this address my point about freewill? Try to think and respond yourself instead of copy/pasting someone else's words.

[@aperson252]

Are you a stupid idiot sho doesn't know how to read? Do you need someone to translate it into 3rd grade English so you can understand it? I didn't know it was so hard to look at your screen and comprehend the concepts communicated to you without it being spoonfed. Is your attention span really that short? Do you need a subway surfers video in the background to be able to sit still long enough to read some actual intelligent sentences?

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My situation is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god. 2. I personally have never observed a god. 3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.