Would a Good God Allow the Coronavirus? (Bishop Barron vs CosmicSkeptic)

[@endeuinable]

This clip makes me want to go and watch the whole thing. Alex is world class at front running his counterarguments by brilliantly summarising the opponents arguments with fairness but also in very few words which makes his replies much more powerful. Also, he is constantly laser focused on the specific of the arguments so he doesn't let the opponent "walk away with murder" when their arguments are flimsy. Alex you are on your way to become a prominent public philosopher, please keep up the good work.

[@Rave.-]

This was a fairly good debate. Definitely more healthy back and forth than some of Alex's previous appearances on the show. I have no hesitation recommending a full watch.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

it's basically hours of listening to a catholic tell you how great god is.

[@andrewfairborn6762]

I agree with everything you said. Alex very much undercut the Bishop of “Its ok to suffer but we can’t tell you the reason why?”

[@lloydchristmas4547]

Your summary is well said yourself. Alex was laser here.

[@ChillAssTurtle]

What would a catholic know about good or evil XD

[@chrissesock4245]

How convenient that the bishop gets to invoke a divine perspective when he doesn't have an answer, but when you bring up a single example that logically follows his thinking but is absolutely bonkers (a child dying) he allows himself to decide what is good or bad. I also hate this argument that we don't see the big picture of things. God gave us the limited perspective that we have, and then punishes us eternally for not using that perspective to find a conclusion. If I can't see the bigger picture, that's god's doing, yet he still expects me to use my limited perspective to believe in him. It would be like blinding a child and then being angry when they can't find their way through a maze.

[@Ebu26]

Yes, it’s similar to the problem of calling life a “test” God supposedly gave us “free will” and is testing us. You either go to eternal heaven or eternal hell. But the problem with that is that it’s illogical. Especially knowing free will doesn’t exist. Plus if god is all knowing, that means he knows that some of the fallible people he will create will err, make mistakes and go to hell if he creates them, and decides to create them anyway. That’s like creating a robot you know can and will malfunction, and when it does you punish it…. with eternal hellfire Basically creating some people just to fill hell.

[@VeganCossack]

infinite punishment is indeed a notoriously stupid concept since there's no true free will available to humans, and they are highly susceptible to external influence... Some christian camps like Jehova's witnesses don't believe in hell/punishment though, so I guess their views are more reasonable in that regard

[@cartesiancircle]

Absolutely .the supernatural sop.the biggest cop out and scam in sentient history. Theodicy: the christian admission that their god is not love.

[@philipgardner5171]

If you’re a god and your ultimate plan requires infant cancer, your plan is stupid and your powers are either too weak or are being mismanaged. Apparently I’m violating the Bible by contending with god over their invocation of childhood mortalities but I’m just nicer than they are

[@frankwhelan1715]

And when they bring up Job,(who was there, writing down these 'convesations' between him 'God ' and the 'devil'?) clearly (another) mythologicle tale'

[@prehistoricworld_]

Bishop Barron is the only person I’ve ever heard to be on a first-name-basis with Thomas Aquinas lmao

[@teckyify]

At the uni many say Thomas. His name is just too long

[@niek024]

'Aquinas' is probably not his last name, but just a specification. Just like Leonardo da Vinci should be called 'Leonardo' or 'Leonardo da Vinci', but not just the geopgraphical last part.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

he probably has tea with god once a week too, he seems to know just what god is thinking.

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

@@HarryNicNicholas I don't think he would ever dare to claim such a thing. He, like Thomas, only argue rationally for necessary conclusions about a necessary being. It's like somebody reading The Lord of the Rings, even if he knows nothing about Tolkien, can conclude a myriad necessary affirmations about him just by reasoning. For example, knowing nothing about Tolkien, I can draw two fairly certain conclusions: 1. He was not a character in the novel or, if he was, he must have been something else OUTSIDE of it as well 2. Unlike me, he knew how to write English. 😁

[@SylviusTheMad]

My professors usually called him "Saint Thomas."

[@TheIndianJesusOfficial]

"I think it's arrogant on either side in a way, to claim that knowledge" -the guy claiming to know the unknowable

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

Indeed

[@vishwakumar2864]

Exactly ! he keeps using "how could you possibly know" card, whenever its convenient for him in the whole debate. Then how could he possibly know that the creator wasnt a cruel devil ?

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

@@vishwakumar2864 “I just know”

[@frankwhelan1715]

@@vishwakumar2864 Or that he even exists.

[@bourbonyoung6237]

How is that a problem for both sides?

[@matthewsocoollike]

Yeah this whole “there’s a reason I just don’t know what it is” is such a cop out ad hoc answer

[@xensonar9652]

When an apologist says we can't know the reason God allowed an atrocity, they are basically writing themselves a get out of criticism free card.

[@killerboba]

also get out of jail card, that the catholic priests has been cashing in for years and years!

[@Teal_Moon]

Well… certainly a god beyond comprehension created everything including good and evil… it is our decision which of the following we want to pursue. Trying to be good and living a sinless life is very difficult, it’s a very narrow path full of suffering. Sin on the other hand is very easy, very fun but it always brings about destruction. God the creator of this world let’s everything that is happening, happen. It is a part of divine order, things have always been happening like this - in different scenarios. History and prophesy repeats itself endlessly because energy is infinite. Just like the energy that fuels our bodies, call it spirit. It’s unseen just like the air that we breathe, just like the god that we will never fully comprehend because that knowledge will forever be out of reach even after we die.

[@xensonar9652]

@@Teal_Moon Yeah, you want it both ways. Spooky and mysterious when under scrutiny, but detailed and strict when moralising at people.

[@killerboba]

@@Teal_Moon so if we do bad, its us doing it? And if we do good, its because god (witch one ? ) tells us to do ?

[@terminusadquem6981]

Just a quick youtube search and you'd find priests who seemed to know this reason and that they said it's free will. I guess these priests have access to god's mind.. 💁

[@TheSilverGate]

The bishop conditions his arguments using the assumption that there IS a god. Bishop, you are not fooling anyone.

[@user-ny7sg9mz1v]

A bigger fool is someone arguing against something he knows doesn't exist.

[@timbohp]

The Bishop's deep use of the "god of the gaps" keeps me in great knowing that being an atheist is a much better stance.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

actually when they use these terms they do themselves no favours, "god of the gaps" has been cited so many times no one is interested either way anymore. religion will be it's own undoing. apologists are great in that respect, if religion were true, why would you need a whole swathe of people to figure out ways to defend it?

[@jimlamanna7564]

@@HarryNicNicholas Really dumb response. If we're right then we don't need apologists? Absolutely stupid and arrogant. That is a horrible way to defend atheism.

[@jimlamanna7564]

@@HarryNicNicholas Like, Atheism requires no apologetics because it is right. You also have apologetics. Have you not thought about how stupid your argument is?

[@tomasrocha6139]

@@HarryNicNicholas Every idea or theory needs defenders.

[@deldarel]

And as always, the problem of evil has no solution. An omnipotent being can per definition make a world that doesn't require suffering. It makes no sense that the suffering we endure is a local minimum in wellbeing on the journey to a universal maximum.

[@frankwhelan1715]

Yes, he would have to say it's impossible for god to bring about the same (or better)results without the suffering,which limits his ( unlimited powerful) god.

[@Vld45]

@@frankwhelan1715 That's impossible too since Heaven is literally only good.

[@Jake-xe1wu]

@@frankwhelan1715 the classic "can God microwave a burrito so hot even he can't eat it," argument. Gotta love it

[@samo4003]

While listening to the bishop's argument, I kept thinking, how does that justify my being condemned to an eternal hell because the limitation of my mind that does not permit me to see the way God sees? In the end, I am being condemned solely on a lack of belief or faith, a lack that follows from the limitation of my mind, a limitation put there by God himself.

[@jbell7400]

In the Catholic perspective, anyone who truly seeks and grasps at truth with an open heart and, through no fault of their own, does not come to find the gospel is not said to be condemned. The standard of natural law and conscience still apply, however, as a person must keep striving to live a moral life led with genuine (not simply self serving or flippant) love. But again, no one goes to Hell who genuinely tried their best to seek after goodness and truth and God but were, for some reason outside of themselves, incapable of attaining Christ.

[@samo4003]

@@jbell7400 The key words are "in the Catholic perspective". Should I assume that to be the correct interpretation? You know it could very well be wrong, don't you?

[@jbell7400]

@@samo4003 well I said it considering this is a Catholic bishop, so I was speaking under the premise of the Catholic view of God lol. I do think Catholicism is the most historic and full view of Christianity after wrestling with that question for a good while, and as a faith in general, especially wary of suggestions such as the famous “why not the 300 other gods out there?”

[@samo4003]

Well, the Muslims will disagree with you and so would the Jews, let alone the Protestants. Hinduism is pretty inclusive and I would not be surprised if it can create a place for Catholicism. And as far as the Buddhists are concerned, a creator God does not exist.

[@jbell7400]

@@samo4003 yes that’s what I meant about the idea of “why not the other religions” it’s a valid question for sure

[@nickrondinelli1402]

Ok but if you need a god-like understanding to make sense of unavoidable suffering, then who are you to say that its for good/ "it's worth it"? That argument applies just as easily if not better to an argument for an evil god, that this is "necessary to bring about further evil, youre just too small minded to know what the greater evil is."

[@davidevans3223]

Islam it's not hard

[@benediktk.8228]

Yeah, the only reason the healthcare system has seemingly made things better by extending life expectancy and making population growth possible was in order to create more people which can then ultimately suffer more :D

[@HarryNicNicholas]

basically religion is "shut up and accept everything a guy with a dog collar says as gospel" bollocks will i.

[@davidevans3223]

@@HarryNicNicholas nobody's ever said that there's many religons and interpretations God religons a culture of shared beliefs clearly why we have a few world and have progressed so far could be worst like China and North Korea a slave nation both atheist USSR before they went back to Christianity. Or even in the west veganisum and infinite gender theory both have strong beliefs they assume they are morally right and can force other's to believe both nonsense and proven wrong by science biology and basic maths for veganisum clearly it's not the least amount of animals killed

[@tonydarcy1606]

The Bishop uses flowery language to state that "God works in mysterious ways" ! Typical priest. God gets the credit for the good stuff, but never the blame for the bad stuff, because the "bad stuff" is for the greater good ! Oh that delicious pie in the sky !

[@iainrae6159]

As Stephen Fry commented when asked what question he would ask God at the 'Pearly Gates' he said, " Bone cancer in children, what's all that about?"

[@juliewake4585]

It’s as simple as that isn’t it?

[@cattheveganartist]

So we now have “The God of Hindsight”. 🙄 Just as convenient as “The God of the Gaps”. I guess they do say that “Hindsight is 20-20”. 😅

[@davonuk1]

Barron's argument is 'Good can come from evil, you don't know everything, so trust God knows what he is doing, and that all will be good'. This is an appeal to faith, and also a dismissal of the argument. He also asserts that we can't know what is good or bad as we don't know everything/don't know the mind of God, then at the end he states that he has no problem calling something good or bad; he back-flips on his own argument.

[@francishooper9548]

@Smokey Mcb John? what Arab was named John 2000 years ago. We have no idea who wrote any part of the bible, why they wrote it and when they wrote.

[@jaypeedelarosa4867]

11:22 you got him there alex,brilliant counter shot.the moment he said "yes" you got him trapped.

[@spreet65]

You have to give the bishop credit... readily being able to produce bullshit to support bullshit is a god given talent.

[@Richard_Nickerson]

The Bishop doesn't like to give examples for things, does he? He says that there are lots of examples of evil that is for the greater good, but he doesn't give a single example.

[@janpersson9818]

I was also waiting for an example as I couldn't think of one.

[@Richard_Nickerson]

@@blakegilliam8223 When? He states things multiple times, including the very end, but gives no real examples. Even if he did say Hitler and I missed it, that's ONE example when he said there were many. Surely he can list more than just Hitler if he has an actual point. And jumping straight to Hitler is basically always a bad look.

[@matthewschmidt5069]

The Passion of Christ is evil for the greater good.

[@Richard_Nickerson]

@@matthewschmidt5069 🤨

[@PatriotForThePlanet]

@@Richard_Nickerson Agreed. He does say that "god" didn't interfere in Hitler's activity and then asks "did god allow that evil to bring about some greater good?" Like, WTF, using the Holocaust as an example of evil with some "greater good"? So wrong and problematic on so many fronts. Then again, Hitler took his playbook from the Christian-informed eugenics movement in the US, so maybe it all makes sense why he'd jump there.

[@mikelombard21]

Alex, you are beyond a doubt unique and individual, but thank you for carrying the torch of Christopher Hitchens. The world needs people like you who are young and intelligent and ask questions and pursue where the logic leads. Thank you for all you do. Please know you make a big difference for a lot of people. Much love.

[@AzimuthTao]

Why am I not surprised that the Bishop's answer to the problem of evil is - "who are you to question God ?...he works in mysterious ways".

[@mikeuk2000]

The bishop makes an active claim that there is a greater good so the onus is on him to prove it, not on Alex to disprove it. The best argument I can see the bishop can make is 'i don't know', not the word salad with literary seasoning.

[@teckyify]

It's interesting how casually the Christ dude speaks of a God who murders living creatures in the entire universe since the beginning of time, just for being worshipped for what a good guy he is. Can't image a worse asshole villain.

[@cecilebaboo7328]

It's interesting to see how completly absent the creator is from this world. Dont accuse in a silly way.

[@teresaamanfu7408]

@@cecilebaboo7328 ???

[@teresaamanfu7408]

@@rohan7224 why can’t you just call bad things bad?

[@janpersson9818]

@@rohan7224 The standard by which we judge good or bad in that case is how it affects the person/s involved. If someone is hurt physically, financially or otherwise we call it bad. If, for example, they were going to demolish the house anyway and nobody got hurt we don't call it bad. I don't see how that would be effected by the existence/non-existence of a God.

[@Teal_Moon]

This existence is so absolutely insane to me. The fact that we are even here, breathing this unseen air with this heavy flesh that burdens us, fueled by our brains that are powered by an unseen energy. The fact that a terrifying God created everything. It is not some old white beaded man up in the sky singing Kumbaya playing a harp. God gave this realm to Satan, and he rules this world. That’s why there is so much evil here. This is his domain. As terrifying as it may seem, God can still reach us here but there is a realm in which it is the kingdom of darkness and so far from gods light that he is completely absent from that place. Our world is getting more and more evil it seems but trust me in truth it has always been extremely evil. This is a cycle, god plays this game, wipes out life, let’s all of this happen because it is his creation. We are the energy that it created, it knows our heart or motives and it punishes us greatly if we choose evil. Evil is great, it feels amazing and it’s fun but it brings about all sorts of ugliness - death of flesh and death of soul. Goodness on the other hand is very difficult work. I keep it in my mind to try to appease this God head because it is so strong and undefinable and quite horrifying. I do believe in the potential of there being a place that is so perfect in every single way, like it is told prophetically.. Just like God gave us love and hate, and light and darkness, good and evil. Our own free will to choose which path we want. Just like God, energy is not destroyed - it is and will always be infinite. It has always been and it always will be forevermore.

[@Gabriel-iu5je]

Alex you are too good at this, never stop please.

[@jorgerisk4708]

Got to appreciate how Alex was very direct in his stance. No chance to go around the bushes after Alex first statement.

[@michaeltellurian825]

After Alex answers the question, the response is laughter from the other two. How telling is that?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

justin is as two faced as thet come, watch any of his videos that don't include atheists and it's like being in the playground at school, he, and a lot of his guests, are really dishonest.

[@marcusaurelius49]

The mental gymnastics required to justify the existence of a “good” god in an evil world is admirable in its attempts, but ultimately hollow and based on spurious arguments

[@naturalisted1714]

"Yea but who are you to say?" Is premised on acceptance of God being real. Before you can ask "but who are you?" Bishop, you must first prove your God exists. Alex, another great response/follow up question would have been: Why didn't God simply start creation and all humans with whatever we are supposed to gain from all of this suffering, already encoded in us, and simply make all the suffering obsolete? Couldn't God have made us the way he's causing us to be without actually putting us through all these things? Also: Clearly God is deciding what we go through and what we don't: as he has intervened many times in the Bible, and so those interventions have led to the way the world is now. And so God is responsible for who goes to Hell and who doesn't. Which in turn removes our free will and also makes God evil. By merely "permitting" suffering or *anything* makes God responsible for EVERYTHING. In the same way if a parent permits his underage kid to drink or play with a gun. And so, once again, God becomes responsible for everyone in Hell, because he could have intervened (as he has in parts of the Bible), but he didn't. Clearly he is in the driver's seat.

[@skylarsoup]

Well said. I hate when Christians say that god will magically reveal himself to you as a nonbeliever. So far I have yet to see any proof of his existence. And yet, if such a god does exist, it would essentially be his direct fault for not revealing his/her power clearly enough to convert me. It’s only easy to find god in things when you are already convinced one exists.

[@drawn2myattention641]

Would no amount of evil count against (or falsify) this God? I guess not. Imagine a universe created by this God in which all creatures suffered as much as possible for an eternity. We don’t know why, but God must’ve had a good reason to create it. Sam Harris says this is how theists play tennis without the net.

[@ITelefonmanI]

I wonder if the Bishop will ever realize just how dehumanizing and infantilizing his "arguments" and explanations in this entire discussion really are.

[@asagoldsmith3328]

They are trained to talk down to people for a living, it's not surprising

[@metroidmayhem8463]

Alex destroyed this pastor with such an amazing level of craftsmanship.

[@czerskip]

The ramblings of Mr Barron are insufferable. If mental gymnastics was an olympic game, he'd be winning medals!

[@chrisboe2192]

He's the Simone biles of mental gymnastics

[@oscargr_]

He has his silver medal around his neck.

[@michaelmagdy6647]

What kind of good would ever come from an animal being eaten alive?

[@BenYork-UBY]

"There had to have been some ultimate good intention behind all of this but we just can't perceive it because we can't comprehend godly motives, who are we to say?" sounds very naive.

[@BenYork-UBY]

@Smokey Mcb 1 corinthians 1 just talks about the confusion that early Christians had wether they were meant to be following Paul, Apollo or christ (even they didn't know what was going on back then) followed by an anti-intellectual rant that shows how nothing has changed when it comes to theocratic aversion to knowledge. Perhaps you meant 2 Corinthians 1 which is more relevant to the topic of naive trust in the unknown

[@HaganeNoGijutsushi]

This seems such a weird question tbh. Not to disrespect the victims of this pandemic but... the "Good God" would have allowed the Black Death, smallpox, syphilis, polio, Ebola, HIV. If all of that is okay, the coronavirus would be a footnote by comparison.

[@DanielBoonelight]

it's just used as particular example because emotions and demonstrable consequences are wrapped up into it *right now* ..and that makes it a poignant example.

[@pkats9093]

Lots of spot on comments. All I will add is to call bulls!#* on the good bishop.

[@terryschofield1922]

Bishop Barron waffling on. Never heard a good case for 'God' allowing evil and here is another example.

[@philipgardner5171]

Huh? The good that came out of the Holocaust? And you’re the one who steered the conversation there! Holy heck

[@mikelombard21]

Amazing video Alex! Thank you for carrying on the tradition of skepticism and freedom of speech and thought. It makes me so elated to see other young thinkers, far more eloquent and intelligent then I, defend my point of view with such gusto and grace.

[@BookLoop4]

Alex keep up your works.. You are definitely a good speaker and thinker.. World needs more people like you..👍🏻😃

[@juliewake4585]

And not so many priests yes?

[@AnthonyDibiaseIdeas]

The word "bishop" is defined as "he who can contort into a pretzel to explain complete bullshit".

[@landis9767]

i actually kinda agree on the notion that an infinitely powerful god watching over the whole universe would consider human life as utterly disposable. but then why would he listen to prayers, or care whether we obey his supposed rules or not? if he doesn't care about as, why should we care about him? pick one. you can't have your cake and eat it too

[@rodbrewster4629]

If God willingly withholds information about the reasons for suffering that should in the least be a compelling reason to not worship him.

[@immobileaf9762]

Theists ultimately believe that the exact amount of suffering is happening is justified through bringing about the greatest good, so why does their god hate clarity, god should somehow show that it leads to the greatest good. But also I agree with the bishop that you can use moral language to describe moral actions without having gods perspective

[@d.o.m.494]

A friend of the family's mother died of a painful cancer but would only say while rejecting medical care that god was testing her. What a sick god she believed in.

[@hendraprasetya2999]

Over time, argument and explanation from religion getting weaker and weaker... and thats good,

[@itzyourbwoytchybooxuur6475]

Alex was fcukin genius here! The bishop's arguments could be tweaked and used to justify god-claims by other religions.

[@markh1011]

If we are to assume that all bad things happen for good reasons then we shouldn't stop bad things happening.

[@FleyDragon]

He acknowledged that he doesn't know the details of his god's plan but he assumes it's a good god that permits bad things for the greater good. How does he know his god isn't an evil god that permits good with a plan for the greater evil?

[@Renato40044]

"It's worth it" is just another claim that theists do that they cannot support. Oh well... So they clumsily delegate the onus of proof in such an obvious manner: "well, how can you claim it's not worth it?... look at all of space and all of time and all the things you don't know..." Alex is right: you can't have a moral compass with this kind of reasoning. The best option is to forgets all this and go back and forward according to the situation. Nicely done mr. bishop👍

[@WUWHere]

I had previously watched the entire video fascinated by the courage of an actual Catholic Bishop to confront a genuinely formidable thinker such as Alex. The best I can say in support of the Bishop is that he is sincere. But after rewatching a few clips, I’m not so sure he is truly sincere. Try as he does to adduce reason in the effort to prove God’s existence, his primary arguments are anecdotal stories or rhetorical flourishes that never answer the question. Perhaps I’m missing something in the logic of the ontological question, but it just seems like an impossibility to go, a priori, from the statement “If God exists” to “Therefore, God exists” and have it sound rational.

[@Evidence1]

O'Connor made such a great counter argument to Barron's assertions it was humiliating. You can actually see Robert's stunned face for a second before he pulls himself together and tries to come up with a response.

[@jasons8479]

So basically: 1. There's some all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving guy nobody's ever met that created everything perfectly. 2. While he takes credit for creating everything, and any and all other gods are fake, somebody else must've made the bad stuff. 3. Being all-knowing, he is well aware that this bad stuff causes incredible suffering to his creation. 4. This supposedly all-loving being won't lift a finger to stop it, even though he's all-powerful and could if he wanted to. 5. We've somehow managed to figure out that the reason this powerful but invisible guy doesn't do anything is not because he can't, or that he doesn't exist, but because he must know in some convoluted way nobody can figure out that it'll somehow make things better, and it'll be worth it. 6. This genius plan is all the more reason to believe in and worship him. Why doesn't he just cut the games and make things better without incredible suffering?

[@veganworldorder9394]

Yeah the skeptical theist response... "because we don't see reasons for why God allows evil doesn't mean there aren't" To a certain degree I agree with this answer but what happens when the quantity of evils becomes to big ? If the world was nothing but suffering, would it be evidence against God or would you still be saying "God might have a reason for that ?" I think there would be a threshold but I am not sure why theists think that this threshold hasn't been met yet in our world which contained and contains a tremendous amount of suffering

[@skylarsoup]

Interesting point. Will be telling to see the state of the world in a decade or two in regards to the climate, displacement, disasters, etc. It seems to me that if theists are willing to believe in a god for all this time through so much hardship and disaster in the past that their preaching will eventually adapt to the vastness or suffering so as to excuse it and continue to leave it up to “god’s ultimate good.” It will continue to becomes increasingly difficult for these people to grapple with the tragedy of mass suffering if they are told to just excuse it as just another act in their unknowable but seemingly still-benevolent creator’s play.

[@Jake-xe1wu]

@@skylarsoup sadly the true believers all double down. They will embrace the horror as they do now and have before. It is God's will and thus they will accept it rather than fight it and blame others for being the cause of his wrath and look forward to more horror to prove them even more correct.

[@jonfromtheuk467]

Alex is on fire here......so articulate

[@michaelrch]

Personally, I don't think the problem of evil is a killer argument for concluding there is no good god, but it is very good at getting theists to ask better questions about their faith, especially when something bad happens to them. There is nothing like an extended experience of visceral suffering to make you sceptical that the world is ruled over by an omnipotent omnibenevolent god.

[@mtersch]

9:30 Alex, "why why why why why why". Well, to give you the same treatment "why not why not why not why not" is a valid answer. I started to grow up when I also considered "why not". Be Well.

[@kdee8166]

God is so obviously a human construct; a fictional character borne of scientific ignorance. The Bishop talks of arrogance yet has faith in God answering his prayers. Meanwhile that same God ignores the fate of children with cancer. Incredible.

[@jorgerisk4708]

I would've asked the bishop if he rejects giving sermons interpreting current events as the will of God then (since no one can actually know). And if he has done it, will he renounce that practice.

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

The bishop was totally unable to deal with the arguments put forward. He relied on general, skim the surface assertions and relied on thoughts of bloody Aquinas. To which the bishop simply says “who are you or to make a judgment”. Except the bishop just made a judgment when he said suffering brings about a greater good. Alex nailed the response and it was good to see the bishop was embarrassed as he couldn’t engage with the details.

[@artmoss6889]

I'm surprised the bishop went to the Book of Job as a way to explain suffering, since that text makes several unsettling claims. One, Job's suffering is the result of a wager between a figure called "the Satan" and God, in which God allows the Satan to destroy all that Job loves in order to test Job's fidelity to God. Two, Job's suffering is entirely undeserved. Three, God never reveals to Job the real reason behind his suffering. Four, Gods defence for his actions is that might makes right, I.e. I created the universe and everything in it, so puny humans have no right to question my choices or actions. Ultimately, God is depicted as an immoral thug.

[@stenthesnake98]

People always ask “what is the atheist perspective or position on X” Unless the question is regarding god or religion, the answer is always “nothing”

[@peaceskid]

“Well you don’t have God’s perspective”, what’s the point of having these conversations with these theists if there are just going to hide behind, “Daddy”, every other time when they can’t produce solid arguements?

[@86645ut]

We know that there’s suffering and we don’t see the need for such. We don’t know about any being behind it. EVERYTHING in defense of a god under these circumstances is unsupported speculation.

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

I’d like to hear the same debate about the Holocaust. Babies being thrown into fires alive by SS guards.

[@youwaisef]

I thought Bishop Barron brought up a good point with the God perspective comment. Alex gave a mostly emotional response. Then Bishop Barron called him out on it and repeated how Alex assumed he can have God's perspective on things. At that point I was like hmm. But then Alex starts spitting straight fire at 11:22 and now I'm jolly. This was pretty good.

[@proyo4525]

Ah yes, a good quality of debate. I love both of their arguments and counter arguments.

[@Telcontarnz]

The bishop takes the only view he can, about God having an infinite perspective, and that’s fine. Alex’s point about the specific examples is fair and the better immediate response is , ‘yes it is good...but I dont know why’. It would also be good if God game some hints as to why in language we can understand, rather than say ‘don’t question me’. As an all powerful being there should be an analogy somewhere we could understand.

[@happymaskedguy1943]

Unrelated, but what happened to the video concerning the sensitivity of Islam? Why was it removed?

[@lloydchristmas4547]

Alex's laser cut through the "time and space" word salad

[@juliamay8580]

I loved listening to both of them. Really got me thinking. The posture of Bishop Barron fundamentally seems to be: "if you can't know whether this brings a greater good or not, then you believe it does". Which makes sense if you take into consideration that religions are based on faith. However, logically speaking, this means the Evil God option tends to be out of the table right off the bat for Christians, eventhough logically is just as valid as a response to the Problem Of Evil. I think all arguments Bishop Barron made can be reversed to support the Evil God hypothesis. For an atheist you have to (or should have to) logically discard the option, a dilemma that for the other person has an "obvious" answer, probably due to a subjective feeling of connection to this God (?)

[@thesuitablecommand]

Alex you said exactly what I was about to comment towards the end lol

[@brennuvargr4638]

Bishop Barron: "'god' causes bad things to happen for the greater good. I don't know what that purpose is, but that's what he does. If you say he doesn't, you are assuming you know how 'god' works, and that is arrogant." Yeah... Weak argument. :P

[@stevedunn3113]

The Bishop is waffling. I am no more convinced of the presence of God than I was before.

[@possumm1702]

Answer the phucking question Bishop!!!!! God gets the credit for all that is good but the bad is not his/hers/it's responsibility.

[@TakoIbarra]

That was an impressive tap dance from the bishop to justify his "god's actions"

[@naturalisted1714]

Something to consider in regards to all of the suffering of other consciousnesses: You didn't exist. Then that non-existence was followed by (your) subjective experience. So: non-existence is followed by subjective experience. And: Death= non-existence. So: Death will be followed by yet another subjective experience.

[@konradallan]

It's convenient that Bishop Barron's agnosticism kicks in at that point, why doesn't it kick in earlier. Since we can't know that, how can we know anything at all concerning existential matters.

[@anthonynorman7545]

Did he reference Job? The story of God torturing a man for a bet that ends with God going on a power trip accusing Job being disrespectful!

[@abispanner3957]

Actually, the story is about God using Job to show what steadfast faith looks like and for Job to understand God's omnipotence and trust in him. At the end, Job is rewarded for his faith

[@anthonynorman7545]

@@abispanner3957 rewarded...losing children is a very weird reward and thinking that having more children to replace them like monetary reimbursement is even more weird.

[@pomodorino1766]

Nice, he proceeds to steel-man your position, then... nothing, just "Who the hell are we (you) to question god".

[@MahmoodAFarag]

I think the question here is why should an omnipotent / omnibenevolent god feel the need to permit evil to bring about a greater good at any given moment. If he's omnipotent, he should be able to bring about that greater good without the need for evil to necessitate it; if he's omnipotent, he shouldn't need anything to necessitate anything in the first place, unless his view of evil is fundamentally different from ours which keeps him at a much greater distance from us than we think.. assuming he exists to begin with.

[@drpancake4103]

Rex Banner: You're out there somewhere Bishop Barron and I'll find you ...

[@TheCrimsonPope]

Don't those designated messengers of God on Earth know their own Magisterium? The Bible and the Catechism and Church teachings say directly that God is responsible for all misery and suffering there is, he speaks so himself (in the Bible). So this shouldn't be disputable for Christians and Catholics whether Coronavirus is not even so much as allowed but directly ordered by God...

[@Theaibasics]

Alex i really wanna know how you keep your calm while debating people who are not even on your level. I hear religious people speak and feel like banging my head on the wall when i can’t get the simplest point through to them

[@brokenrecord903]

So Bishop Barron was saying that there are something called morally justified evils. He doesn't know what justify these evils but he somehow can recognize what is evil and what is good. Am I right? But shouldn't evils by definition be something that is morally unjustified?

[@mausperson5854]

If it is to 'bring about some greater good or principle' then God does not allow evil, He orchestrates it for this outcome - of which we are not worthy to share knowledge of - to occur.

[@Robyn.the.Human.x]

Using the priest's example, what was the ultimate good that came from the Holocaust? We have the ability to use hindsight so what was the good that came from that?

[@freescratch645]

I thought the Bishop spoke very well here in my opinion. I am an Atheist, but I believe even though he invoked the suffering as bad at the end nothing more than a bit of a philisophical error on his end but doesnt touch his overarching point. Ive obviously heard these views before, but I believe Bishop Barron had shed a new light in his further articulation. There is surely no way we can know in this small of a picture IF a god does exist.

[@noxot13]

people who think death is evil don't have hope that there is an afterlife that is more desirable and better than this life. you could rejoice when someone dies, if you thought that means they would find clarity and more joy. immortal beings who are curious as to what it feels like to be a mortal come to earth for such an experience. there are countless reasons that justify this kind of reality, difficult as it is for us to understand once we have thrown ourselves into the game of blindness and mortality.

[@ImStayGold42]

Bishop Darren just can't see or admit to his own double standards in logic even when they are explained to him in the simplest terms. Is it ignorance or dishonesty? It's hard to tell. 🤦‍♂️🤷‍♂️

[@thomasdoubting]

A long winded way to say: "If you're not god, shut up!" 😖

[@user-ny7sg9mz1v]

As a atheist, what's the good that you are aiming at? How is it derived from an atheistic worldview?

[@kaodi6993]

Very respectful debate.😊😊 He doesn't exit. believing is meaningless. People need to start helping themselves and stop praying.

[@davidevans3223]

You mean you believe the universe was created by a none conveyor power religous people belief it's conscious still a belief

[@davidevans3223]

@@Neil.C57510 he's an idiot tho how many people have said they have been saved by Jesus you can call them liers or stupid that's fine clearly God wants to remain anonymous I'm sure that would make sence if you believe in free will. Saying the universe seems simple so we know God doesnt exist seems odd all that can or ever will be and apes figured it out sounds dumb to me maybe it's made so we can progress

[@SimeonRadivoev]

So if everything bad allowed by god is for a good purpose, a good thing, later on, doesn't that just mean every bad thing is a good thing 🤔

[@philkilgallon3852]

More contemporary philosophers such as George Michael (God Rest his soul) said "you gotta have faith"

[@joelhall5124]

Was this part of a longer debate?

[@jonfromtheuk467]

yes kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3ScpX6bf6h9qq8

[@TristandKatz]

Alex went straight to the point!

[@godlessparticle]

The end though! 🔥🔥🔥

[@thescoobymike]

If the Bishop followed in the tradition of the Saints then he would’ve said this was divine punishment for the world becoming more godless

[@omrigivon3725]

When god created adam, the first thing he said to him was a lie ("if you eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge you will die")

[@omrigivon3725]

Now let's imagine that spiritual or non physical beings (some are "evil"), with supernatural powers, other than god exists. (every religion believes in lesser spiritual being) this being tells a human he is the creator of all things... How would the human be able prove him wrong? if he is lying? Why would he not lie? I would imagine if such a being lied, it would say something like: "you must believe whatever i say and you must not try to understand my motives or doubt me, because you cannot truly understand me and my motives... Just have faith and do what you're told" Also, why would a creator of the universe want specific groups of humans to worship him? Isn't he infinitely powerful? Why would he care if we worshiped falls idols, if they are falls? And why would he be male if there is only one of them ever existed? This all powerful creator god sure seems like a jealous, paranoid narcissist. And he also doesn't seem all powerful... Why did he need to station guards around the tree of life so that adam and eve wouldn't eat from it? Can't he put like an invisible barrier around it? Can't he just magically convince them not to try to eat from it? And why was he so surprised when adam disobeyed him? I thought he knew the future...

[@omrigivon3725]

Plus god likes it when we say we are he's slaves... I think the Problem of evil isn't much of a problem for him

[@fpcoleman57]

Wow! That was great. Thanks. I'm going to have another look at Thomas Aquinas. Bishop Barron is very persuasive. I still think that even though some argument can be made for a deistic or theistic god, a specific denominational Christian God still comes with too much baggage.

[@jonfromtheuk467]

you find him persuasive? His argument is basically babies get cancer, Hitler sure killed millions, good things happen to very bad people.......... but there must be some reason god allows it , but we dont know it ........