Reviewing the

In this livestream, Michael Jones (‪@InspiringPhilosophy‬), Jon McCray (‪@whaddoyoumeme‬), Justin Mooney, and Cameron Bertuzzi review the recent debate between Michael and Alex (‪@CosmicSkeptic‬) on whether God would allow evil.
Link to original debate: • DEBATE: Would God Allo...
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on KZbin: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/c...
Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
--------------------------------- LINKS ---------------------------------
Website: capturingchrist...
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchris...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchris...
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchrist...
#InpsiringPhilosophy #CosmicSkeptic #Debate

[@jamesbroderick689]

Hey Cameron, atheist fan here. While you and I have philosophical differences, I greatly appreciate the way you approach and deal with these complex issues. I always feel like I've learned something new, even if I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion. Awesome work man. Keep it up!

[@Wilkins325]

I wish more atheists were like you. Have a good one man.

[@ASRCFTAtheist]

Nothing bless! Nope, that doesn't work. lol God bless!

[@martinecheverria5968]

This is a great atheist

[@andrej1659]

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” Romans 3:23-24

[@withoutlimits16]

Even though I am biased toward IP, I don't think I've ever seen him "lose" a debate either on video or in writing. Dude is a machine.

[@brixan...]

Yup, definitely biased

[@celticwinter]

@@brixan... He's usually quite thorough in his videos and seems to make an effort implementing what he talks about, which makes him interesting to listen to. So if you give him that, you have to specify what bias is of concern here.

[@brixan...]

@@celticwinter Idk what you're talking about, but the person I replied to said they were "biased toward IP," and I agreed with them

[@humesspoon3176]

Anything with the Bible and metaethics he trash

[@webslinger527]

@@humesspoon3176 what are u crazy I understand if you disagree with him that’s a bit far.

[@z3r0mus]

He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” Revelation 21:4 ESV

[@Jockito]

Apparently what is being described here is a dystopian horror

[@sally9352]

@@Jockito why if we have already been through it ? Why go through it again in heaven?

[@Daz19]

All of which he enabled. God created death and the conditions for pain.

[@Daz19]

@Martin Really, so with what powers did they create death? Who decided death should be a consequence and then created said consequence?

[@Daz19]

@Martin Yea God decided and subsequently created death.

[@bencausey]

I felt like Cosmic’s big opening statement was one of the most devastating challenges I’ve ever heard. It was SOOOOO well worded and had so much bite to it. It did NOT seem to me that IP addressed enough of his criticisms, and when he did, wasn’t as effective as I thought he’d be.

[@TheWorldsStage]

IP did good but I do admit that Alex had a very interesting, thought out opening statement. Definitely better than the "old" new atheists like Dawkins and Harris. Check out when Alex interviewed Dawkins, you can see Alex begin to regret watching one of his heroes not even bother to address Christianity and the claims.

[@christopherlin4706]

I believe IP has a deeper philosophical base but CS is much better at thinking critically.

[@CapturingChristianity]

What did you think of our responses to it?

[@Iamwrongbut]

Capturing Christianity I still think you all did not answer the free will defense objection fully. If God can create people that have free-will and yet cannot sin in heaven, I don’t see why God couldn’t have done that at the initial creation of man. In a perfect heaven, people wouldn’t need to “struggle” to mature, because there would be no suffering to need maturity to deal with. Instead, those people could enjoy the glory of God’s presence, grow more and more deeply in a perfect relationship with him, and glorify him for eternity (which is the main goal according to many Christian theologians).

[@christopherlin4706]

metallica4169 You can definitely sin in heaven, but that is unlikely since material temptations, which is what most sins are, will not be available. You can still sin by outright conspiring against God. That would be the only way and only the ignorant and evil would do so.

[@akajefe]

I think going back through a debate is really interesting and valuable content. I dont take issue with the analysis having sympathy to one side, but inviting one of the debaters back seems to reduce the integrity of the first video. Even without intending, I cant help but see this video as a continuation of the debate, except one person gets extra time and hindsight to make their case.

[@celticwinter]

I think the good thing about it is that both sides seem to value the exchange high enough to talk about it after the debate itself. I'm thinking this might lead to another debate sooner or later. Very much looking forward to that. There's not an infinite amount of time available during the debate - to detail some statements further. Discussing them later isn't a bad thing. Or at least I don't see the bad in honest dialogue. Cameron did a good job in balanced moderation. The debate has ended. This is further discussion for those interested.

[@restnxist]

Let's talk about the hippopotamus into the room!

[@Wilkins325]

Even as a theist, I admire the amount of respect CS speaks with when discussing deep philosophical subjects. I wish more atheists were like him.

[@Jockito]

Why single out atheists? I think it would be better if all people were more like this.

[@spacedoohicky]

Per capita atheists are probably more philosophically deep because they tend to seek out ways to verify their beliefs. Theists just tend to accept whatever their doctrine says as interpreted by their pastor. I don't think this is all that important though. Most atheists no matter how philosophically deep are just going by the evidence which is not unique among the religions. The claims between religions are of course unique, but the evidence unique to a given religion is just not there.

[@Wilkins325]

@@spacedoohicky What a way to generalize all the professional philosophers who also happen to be theists. I guess they all just accept the doctrines of their pastors right?

[@spacedoohicky]

@@Wilkins325 Most theists are not philosophers. You know that right? We're talking averages. Though I like how you used the word "all" even though I did not use that word. Which sort of proves another point I like to bring up which is theists are often dishonest even though they're so preachy.

[@moderndaydreammm]

@@spacedoohicky It would probably be fairer to assume that Kaleb's on the defense because of previous bad experiences with atheists online? Many can be quite inflammatory without provocation. Though it doesn't justify the unjust conclusion they drew from your comment, it would serve everyone better to not use the word dishonest so lightly? Idk, I get where you're coming from, had similar things happen just days ago under another video.

[@fiftycalguru]

Love this channel and content

[@pguetan]

19:30 The way it makes sense to me is that the actual knowledge and experience of the world, where evil and good exist, is necessary for heaven, where free will exists but no evil exists, to be possible. There will still be free will in heaven but humans there will have a much greater desire to do good with zero resistance and no desire for doing evil though they still have a choice to do so. Psychologically, a person only does evil because there's an emotional need that's desired to be met. If that emotional need can easily be met by just eating popcorn, there would be zero chance that a person would resort to evil. Choosing to do evil in heaven would equally be like picking dirt to eat at the buffet where you can have the best meals for free. Although the person has free will to pick dirt to eat over healthy delicious food, it will be zero chance for the person in the right mind to do so.

[@fauziajasia2548]

Are you a Christian or a Muslim ? cause many of these concepts or beliefs match with the concepts in Islam!

[@avivastudios2311]

That's a great argument. 😄

[@treasuringthetruth1371]

Really enjoyed the debate. CosmicSkeptic asks some really tough questions, but they're so good for making us really think deeply about our faith. Haha that dude is gonna be a brother of ours one day, just wait for it 👍🏻

[@georgedoyle7971]

You could be right! However, I’m not sure if Cosmic Skeptic will embrace Christianity but it wouldn’t surprise me if he rejects atheism. Interestingly, the eminent atheist philosopher Anthony Flew who actually debated C.S. Lewis and wrote the famous essay Theology and Falsification spent 50 years developing some of the most sophisticated arguments against a supreme consciousness/ground of all being/God you could find but then controversially completely rejected atheism for Deism, that is the belief in a non personal supreme consciousness but a belief in God nonetheless. Fascinating subject!

[@mannytps9986]

I pray that he does

[@AO-ib3qp]

Really helpful insights. I was a philosophy major in college and it’s been a while since I’ve gotten back into this type of argument. Thanks so much for all of this

[@johnglaze7483]

Camron, I have to say that the intro music to your live videos sounds really good in the car or headphones 😂keep up the good work brother.

[@cooltube2000]

What's the point of the intro music?

[@johnglaze7483]

🤷‍♂️ but I like it..

[@crimsonalpha4578]

@@johnglaze7483 What is the name of that song again?

[@johnglaze7483]

crimson alpha 🤷‍♂️ 🤷‍♂️ do you know it?

[@crimsonalpha4578]

@@johnglaze7483 I was asking you cause I don't know lol

[@42percenthealth]

I think you guys missed Alex's point on instrumental virtue. As an example, he said that it would be better to live in a world with nothing to fear, and no bravery. Your discourse in this video mostly follows the lines of "That would be horrible because humans need to struggle in order to learn how to get by." As examples, you mention that young adults need to live on their own, and that raising your kids in a paradise bubble does nothing to help them develop. But develop for what? Struggles and threats? Alex's question proposes a world where these don't exist (like heaven, or the Garden of Eden). Your answer assumes that a person raised in his proposed world will eventually need to face the difficulties of our real world. In this case, I think he would agree that they would be completely unprepared for the challenge, and that their upbringing would have done them a disservice. But that wasn't the question. Would it not be better to have nothing to fear (ever, at all), and no need for bravery?

[@lane3574]

I was thinking this as well, and of course we must ask the question about Alex's natural evils... how does getting crushed to death by a runaway boulder build character? Also, if god is all powerful, then can't he build character without these natural evils that hurt people? If not, then surely god is not all powerful?

[@RichSFS]

@@lane3574 Agreed, these are smart people but they are discussing the wrong things, in other words not actually tackling the issues.

[@nickmorris2250]

They did mention character building which I took to mean something like building character for the afterlife or the 'correct' development of the soul which are going to be independent of the world that does or does not include certain evils. However, IP also says something along the lines of 'no one would watch that movie, no one would read that book' which sounds more like the fact that life wouldn't be very interesting if there was no suffering as the goods in life really only have meaning when contrasted with the bads. I'm inclined to agree with that assessment. Although I do wonder if its possible to have a world that only allows for positive and neutral states but not bad states. So we'd still have the contrast between neutral and good to allow us to enjoy the good and there wouldn't be anything worse than that. The question is; would the neutrals basically just become equivalent to our world's 'bads' since they are the worst states in our experience that only consists of goods and neutrals.

[@lane3574]

Nick Morris Interesting point about a world with neutral and positive states. We might ask, if god is omnipotent, then surely it is within his power to make the world with only positive and neutral states? I think IP's position is that god has a preference for virtue over pleasure. Virtue I assume, in the more Aristotelian sense of the word, like in virtue ethics. Courage, temperance, honesty and all that. He's saying without evil we wouldn't be able to exercise the full extent of our virtue. Just like how if there's no evildoer in the movie there doesn't get to be a courageous hero. So god creates a world with evils that overall produce more virtue, at the cost of less pleasure abut God doesn't value that as much. But Alex counters this (successfully in my opinion) by saying that IP is actually just talking about instrumental virtues. Courageously standing up for your village that's about get looted and burned down is only good because there's an evil force that's about to burn down your village. The virtue of courage is just the proper manner in which one should deal with these matters. Saying god created evil in order to give you the opportunity to exercise virtue is like saying " I sent these bloodthirsty marauders to burn down your village so you could have the opportunity to face bloodthirsty marauders that want to burn down your village courageously ". Put in that light, the view becomes absurd. Those virtues that require evil just wouldn't be missed if those evils which inspire them never existed. By taking this position, IP would also have to explain why some people don't become more virtuous due to evils inflicted upon them, but are debilitated; he must explain how a boulder crushing someone on their morning jog creates virtue as well. I find this position on virtue IP has pretty interesting, I'm thinking of making a video that explores it in more depth.

[@lane3574]

Martin If god is all powerful than surely he can create happiness without sadness? Surely he can at least create a world where despotic events like the holocaust or the rapes of innocent children don't happen. Do you think those events are necessary to realize happiness in the world?

[@escuddy3244]

IPs final thoughts were fascinating. God could have made a world with less suffering, but that’s not as interesting. It’s like God looked at his creation and said, “It is good”. Then Eve ate the fruit and God said, “Finally you guys did something interesting.”

[@Jockito]

LOL

[@richardgamrat1944]

:DDD

[@krzyszwojciech]

"Interesting" seems to me like a cop out. Although I can imagine a psychopath going for this kind of argument while inflicting pain.

[@krzyszwojciech]

@Martin No matter where your moral standard comes from, this kind of outlook is psychopathic by description. You can say such cosmic psychopathy is the ultimate good if you want, but that's another matter.

[@Wraithknight2]

@Martin - wow...what? so much here to unpack...are you calling all atheists psychopaths? does this mean christians, catholics, etc...can't be psychopaths? Is god really that perfect in his moral standards...all we have to do is look at the old testament to prove he doesn't since he gave rules for slavery (the bible is still gods word and not mans word right?) Atheists don't have a set moral standard, not all atheists believe the same things outside of not having enough evidence to prove god.

[@Alex-bz7re]

As long you are trying to explain suffering and evil without the theory of the fall you will get nowhere.

[@angelvelez463]

I agree. Science and reason are all good and well and play a role in better understanding. But scripture is the king and that is the foundation to all Christian truth.

[@fiftycalguru]

I’m very surprised the fall didn’t come up...unless I missed it.

[@Alex-bz7re]

@Glenn Richardson not even in the original debate

[@ivanuribe]

Cameron never mentions scripture in his videos. All philosophical rationale.

[@fiftycalguru]

Ivan Uribe wow, is that the case? I will have to pay more attention to that if so.

[@riru363]

Such a good discussion you guys had, thanks!!🙏🙏👏

[@someonethatisachristian]

my input: I've suffered from depression, pains and very bad thoughts. heaven for me is being liberated from thoughts like that. if you don't think about death or pain, it's not an issue, if you don't hate someone hate is not an issue. when we fell because of disobedience, it became a part of reality. some of this is spiritual warfare and some our fallen nature. in heaven our souls will heal and we have no enemy to put these thoughts in our minds. we're in the presence of God where only love and what's good exists. I've had the spirit strengthen me when I brought people to church when I suffered BAD right before, it went from one of my worst feeling days to one of if not my best ever. I think we all have small things bothering us, worries, negative thoughts, pains, itches, headache, tired, hunger, thirst etc etc and you might not even think about it because you are used to it. Imagine everything bothering you GONE. An eternal state of being satisfied and feeling well and thinking well in every way.

[@sectcpaipm]

Pain is good, because without it we would have no warning that what we are doing is damaging. Suffering is the emotional response to evil foreseen, which non-rational animals don't have.

[@angelvelez463]

Wow... That was really impressive The hippo didnt blink the whole time.

[@GrrMania]

hahaha your comment actually did make me chuckle!

[@tedgreen8576]

The question no one is asking...what if we actually used our free will to enter this world of suffering; as in WE chose this, specifically to build our character and then be reunited into the ONE MIND CONSCIOUSNESS (God) as a stronger individual\united being. There are certain traits you cannot get in the state of perfection that you can only get down here.

[@AWalkOnDirt]

Alex made an outstanding point about the removal of suffering giving MLK as an example. This line of attack was never efficiently countered.

[@ahaan-thakker9142]

Larry Cloyes mlk?

[@pseudohuman2645]

Ahaan -thakker Martin Luther King

[@AWalkOnDirt]

Ahaan -thakker there is a strong theme in Christianity that suffering brings virtue thus in some sense suffering is needed to bring good. Alex pointed out that he’d rather have no suffering. We rather live in a world where people didn’t suffer from racism than a world where Martin Luther King (MLK) has to overcome racism. In this video the ode to suffering is repeated many times. They are actually praising things like suffering from racism because it brings the battle against racism.

[@henkkoopmans9982]

@@AWalkOnDirt I agree with this. I have the feeling, that they misunderstood Alex. As they keep talking about the "experience machine" and "basement", as i understand it they suggest that being sheltered from all suffering is the point Alex makes and thus avoiding reality is bad. The point Alex makes is that reality should be different, reality being without suffering. Do you think I am right on this?

[@AWalkOnDirt]

henk koopmans I fully agree. Alex help highlighted the basic, fundamental differences in perspective on suffering.

[@MrSiloterio]

The real question is: Why should God NOT allow suffering?

[@Jockito]

Don't just stop there. Why should God create anything at all? there was literally nothing that God lacked sans creation, and therefore nothing to desire.

[@MrSiloterio]

@@Jockito yeah that one too. Why should God NOT create anything?

[@escuddy3244]

Suppose I see a kid beating the crap out of a frail old woman. I am a very able-bodied grown man and could handle the kid with no danger to myself. Should I intervene? Why should I not allow the woman to suffer?

[@Jockito]

@@MrSiloterio Well I just gave a reason for that. If God has no need or desire to create something, then there is no good reason to create anything at all.

[@MrSiloterio]

@@Jockito Where is the statement "God has no desire to create something" based on?

[@DTTOME]

I apreciate Whaddo you meme's explanation on "Wouldn't it be better to have no suffering and no character related values?" He explained it in so simple words. Guys, keep in mind that not all of us are familiar with philosophical and specific language.

[@VagueHandWaving]

IP's counterexamples of Alex's point that he Alex prefer a life without both instrumental goods and the evils that cause them all employ false dichotomies, as does the "experience machine" thought experiment proposed be Justin. The daughter in a dream world without any pain or suffering, raising kids without teaching them there are things to fear, and not moving out of the mom's basement and experiencing a harsh reality are all examples of a world in which suffering still exists but is being ignored. Alex was not proposing a world in which the lack of evils is brought about by ignorance of their existence but a world in which those evils never existed. This is more similar to Justin's first example of a choice between a world in which you can overcome evil and help others overcome evil vs a world in which you cannot help others because there is no evil. Choosing the first option seems to me to be a selfish choice. I would be letting others suffer just so I can feel satisfied living a life where I can be "morally heroic" and eventually end their suffering.

[@chipan9191]

I don't think it was their point to say that evil would exist in those worlds but we would be ignorant of it... I think they were saying we would be ignorant in the respect that evil is still possible but we are sheltered in a way that we don't experience it. It's sort of like imagining raising a child in a bubble versus the real world. Concerning your assessment, I don't think you listened that carefully. The thought experiment the only one suffering would be you and no one else would have to suffer. Would it be selfish for you to prefer the important role of suffering for everyone's sake to a world where such a role wouldn't exist because suffering one exist?

[@MrTimotheousWard]

I really like Justin's rainforest analogy the more I think about it.

[@Callum679]

Had a thought about the ripple effect - to be clear this is me thinking out loud and posing questions rather than making an assertion/argument. It seems to me that the idea of ripple effects (e.g. God allowing a thing to happen or causing a thing to happen to have a positive effect elsewhere or furhter down the line) leads you to a place where free will comes under threat, because you can trace the 'ripple' back? Is ripple/butterfly effect something in favour of determinism? Interested to hear thoughts. I appreciate the term ripple effect didn't come up specifically but I think at least some ideas assumed it a little?

[@Sheepish-Shepherd]

I think free will is causing ripples all the time. I am an open theist, so I don't think our thoughts or actions are determined by previous ripples or that God controls all the ripples. I would grant that the previous ripples still factor into our thoughts in actions. Ripples coming back can be analogous to "reaping what you sow." However, I don't think of it in a karmic sense. There can be negative ripples from a good action.

[@jabeavers]

Re. Animal Pain: Doesn't the Fall speak to this, as in Rom. 8:20-22, where all creation groans with labor pains waiting for the reconciliation of all things (Col. 1:19-20)?

[@jabeavers]

@@piage84 to answer your question, Christians care.

[@famousace4652]

id love to see bill craig and cosmic skeptic have a debate on this channel!

[@Jockito]

What about babies who grow up in heaven? Do they need to develop by making mistakes and sinning in order to be free and not commit evil as adults?

[@Jockito]

@Dutchman Are you suggesting babies won't ever sin in heaven? If so, the argument that people needed Earth to learn not to sin when they get to heaven is bankrupt.

[@Jockito]

@Dutchman I shouldn't say babies in heaven, let me say all babies that died on Earth

[@BrutalCross]

When your in heaven your not in your flesh, your flesh loves sin and wants to sin, but the flesh is dead. While on earth the soul decides who to serve, the flesh or the spirit (if you're born again)

[@Jockito]

@@BrutalCross So at the moment of conception, a soul chooses who to serve?

[@Jockito]

@Dutchman Yes, my apologies. See my second comment. Forget about the phrase babies in heaven. I'm talking about those souls who died as infants.

[@chipan9191]

I thought I had concerning the Goldilocks problem brought up is that Michael's law of triumph can actually be quite an adequate response to this. In order for good to triumph over the evil there needs to be naturally more good than evil. The good has to be greater than the evil in order to triumph, thus it actually poses no problem at all for there to be gratuitous evil if it's ultimately overcome. The reason is no matter how gratuitous or abundant the evil may be the good that overcomes it is necessarily greater. So in the respect the amount of evil possess no problem. This may not justify why it's there at all, but I think this point is well addressed by the free will defense and the soul building theodicy. Alex seems to think even with these points withstanding the amount of evil is unjustified, but this point I think addresses fairly well the amount of evil is no problem. It also plays into the common theodicy that Jesus's death on the cross is the greatest act of good possible.

[@chipan9191]

Another insight I found with this debate was concerning Alex's response to the greater goods theodicy, that these great are goods are only instrumentally good and so far as they respond to evil and he proceeds to give an example where we don't thank someone for throwing a grenade just because it produced a result of heroism. One big problem with this is that it very much assumes that we only assess moral actions based on their consequences. But it seems obvious that we do consider intentions in our moral assessments. So you can't take the human who has an intention of evil and consider that comparable to God's good intentions just because both play a part in bringing about the outcome. It seems quite obvious that we can't consider someone's actions moral if their intentions are malicious.

[@catholicdisciple3232]

At around the 31 min mark, they talk about how a life with suffering and the ability to overcome that suffering is better than a world where you are always comfortable but unable to do anything morally significant ... but then what is heaven like? Is heaven therefore a worse existence?

[@webslinger527]

Know what they’re showing is due to your experience you’ll be able to experience paradise but instantly experiencing it may sound like torture to some people

[@nickmorris2250]

~45:00 - I'm not sure that I can make sense of a 'non-consequentialist restriction.' No matter what reason you give for having a restriction, it always seems to come back to being about the consequences (apart from perhaps there being no reason ie. it was randomly selected). Even if it the reason is that its a divine command we have to ask 'why should a divine command equal a moral restriction' and all the reasons relate to consequences ie. we want to make God happy, we want to get into heaven, we don't want to make God angry, we want to create a better world etc.

[@GergelyNagy_1987]

Cameron is wrong @ 18:34 about Felix Culpa and “superlapsarianism”. It is “supralapsarianism” not “superlapsarianism” and it’s not equal to Felix Culpa. According to supralapsarianism God decreed both election and reprobation prior to creation and then allowed the fall of man as a means of carrying out his divine purposes. The opposite of this is infralapsarianism which sais that God foresaw and permitted the fall of man and that after the fall he then decreed election as a means of saving some of the human race. Felix Culpa is a theodicy and it is a way of understanding the Fall as having positive outcomes, such as the redemption of humankind through the Resurrection. Btw thank you for the content and God bless you all!

[@spacedoohicky]

Super is an English synonym of Latin supra. Supra is just the ultra high, and mighty academic version of super. latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1667/difference-between-super-and-supra

[@spacedoohicky]

It depends. Many scientists translate their speech into something more easily consumed by the masses. It's sort of a courtesy to people who are not necessarily stupid, but are nonetheless not privy to jargon. So if "those in philosophy" are not doing that translation then maybe they are just not courteous. Gergely Nagy said: "it's true, but in theology and philosophy we do not use the term "superlapsarianism".

[@benjaminisales5386]

You'd be surprised how many people would pick the experience machine not for nothing. Life's hard man

[@bencausey]

It will always come down to “why doesn’t God just begin heaven now, and give everyone their new sinless existence?”. I think at the end of the day we Christians are forced to rely on mystery here...and there ideally would be nothing wrong with that, but, it sounds like a convenient copout.

[@Jockito]

@@qazrockz So all that angel and Satan stuff was just a nice story?

[@christopherlin4706]

Well if we say that God is not completely omnipotent, then it will be very hard to argue against

[@christopherlin4706]

Well heaven and hell is a mindset, not really a place. You can have all the wealth in the world and still end up feeling depressed. Pleasure does not guarantee joy.

[@sally9352]

@@christopherlin4706 heaven and hell are not a mind set, they are places we go after this materialistic world, that's why we have souls.

[@samuelstephens6904]

Nicholas Wheeler That doesn’t really address the question. Why is desiring sin in our nature and why does this not become a problem in the next life?

[@sinqobilengubo2667]

James 1:13 on the issue of God, mankind and evil. 🙌🏾🙏🏾

[@jchronicles2297]

I think it would be better to do both formal and informal, formal is good for each person to get there point across, but when someone speaks for so long they can manipulate there argument as if it makes sense, the informal debate allows the other person to question there train of thought which is really good as we are breaking down the conversation.

[@nickmorris2250]

~39:00 - I'm not convinced that they really would prefer the real world over the "experience machine" (essentially the Matrix, dream world, VR world). I'm sure they would prefer to watch a movie than stare out the window for two hours which would suggest they're fine with fictionalised worlds and prefer them in some cases. If you take that to the next level and you really can't tell the difference and 'forget' that you're in the dream world as IP said then you'd have no reason to prefer the real world other than an arbitrary preference... then if the dream world was actually better than the real world then I think most people would start to realise that that arbitrary preference can easily be switched over.

[@zihaowu4637]

I have issue with the experience machine... Justin can you come and clarify? I don’t see why your intuition tells you that you won’t want to be in the machine.. Once you are in the machine, the experience from the machine becomes the reality. You are trying to say the machine is illusional and detached from reality when you are setting up the scenario. This is dishonest. If you are genuinely in the machine and it is really the reality, I don’t see why it’s a worse choice. To make it even clearer to you, how do you know you have not signed up for the experience machine and everything you claim to be reality at this very moment is actually an illusion and you are pathetically trying to say you won’t want to go into a deeper layer of illusion by getting into another time machine when you are already inside a machine? Your analogy doesn’t show any substance at all or any relevance to Alex’s point.. It’s a flawed analogy cos you won’t know you are not in reality so there’s literary 0 reason to think it’s bad to be in the machine. Who knows, we might all be in the machine while claiming how stupid it is to be in the machine.

[@maxmax9050]

29:30 The thought experiments asks us to remove any and all instances of negativity, including the long term consoquences you mention. Some of us (not me anyways) cringe when we consider a world without pain because we are addicted, so to speak, to the drama of the current one. If you were a being that wasn't addicted, you wouldn't worry about having no pain or the threat of pain.

[@someonethatisachristian]

if you're the one in the drama that addicts get their fix from, you would want out of it. I've suffered from depression and other things and I want to be free from it. And I want others to be free from it too.

[@maxmax9050]

Oh wait I misunderstood you Im sorry. I'll delete my last comment. So I would argue that your desire for life even when depressed is a manifestation of the "addiction." You are irrationally craving something that is bad for you and others. There is literally nothing bad in non-existence. There is no need for any of this dangerous drama God has created.

[@euanthompson]

Cameron during the debate: absolutely non-partisan, middle of the road moderator. Cameron immediately after the debate: absolutely partisan because, by the way, Christianity is true!

[@MYMINDism]

Cameron is capturing Christianity, his bias is in his name, in the debate he is a moderator

[@euanthompson]

@@MYMINDism I was kind of just being silly while praising him as a moderator.

[@olhristov]

Indeed, he was surprisingly neutral and good moderator.

[@ultraplusmusic6101]

God made man upright but he went his own way, and God is able to deliver the godly man out of temptation.

[@Jockito]

I'm struggling to understand how God wouldn't want to bring about the best possible world, as is being suggested. If the best possible world is a "dystopian horror" - then that's obviously not the best possible world. IP says maybe God prefers to maximise virtue, not pleasure. Well then *that* would be the best possible world. Why would God not want to bring about the best possible world?

[@j-r-m7775]

It has to do with how virture comes to be. A requirement for virtue is freewill. If a creature is not endowed with freedom to do evil then it can’t do good and be virtuous in any meaningful sense. Additionally there are virtues that cannot exist without things that are we view as negative. The virtue of charity, helping a stranger in need could Not exist. Bravery and self-sacrifice could not exist. Many more but I think you get what I’m saying. Now if this were the only life then Alex would be right. Things like bravery and charity wouldn’t justify danger and poverty. But if this life were a sort preparation or test for an another eternal life and virtues created here would last forever and increase the pleasure there, then they would be justified from God’s perspective and ours if/when we got there.

[@Jockito]

@@j-r-m7775 "If a creature is not endowed with freedom to do evil then it can’t do good and be virtuous in any meaningful sense" Why not? Is Jesus both free and good? "But if this life were a sort preparation or test for an another eternal life and virtues created here would last forever and increase the pleasure there" So bravery and charity gained now, will come in handy in heaven? There will be threats, danger, pain, poverty in heaven so that we'll need to exercise bravery and charity and thus be better off? Also, if the whole point of becoming virtuous is to ultimately "increase pleasure there", then this is precisely the definition of utilitarianism, which is the same position Alex held. The only thing that's changed is that virtue+suffering is the method by which to achieve the most pleasure. " then they would be justified from God’s perspective" So God is a moral consequentialist? It sounds like He's concerned about the outcome (apparently an increase in pleasure for his humans) and is willing to put up with the means to achieve that end?

[@j-r-m7775]

Windows 95 Windows 95 The part about Jesus is the point that Jesus is “begotten not created”. Jesus is free and good in the same way God is. There is a distinction between created endowed with freewill and Jesus who is “God amongst us” It’s not that it will “come in handy” in heaven.(I think you intentionally phrased that to cheapen what I was saying). It is that your character is built and the quality of person you are is forged by going through situations which require bravery or showing charity to those in need. And I don’t mean increase pleasure in heaven in the sense of an eternal supply of perfect heroin with no come down or side effects. I mean by having our characters molded in this life through trying experiences we develop qualities that make us more like God and allow us to have a deeper more meaningful relationship with him in heaven. If you want to reduce that to just increasing pleasure and say that’s utilitarianism that is your view. I’m an agnostic it’s just something I don’t think it’s that hard to reconcile. I don’t necessarily think it’s true.

[@williammcenaney9393]

Here on earth, we sometimes choose evil because it seems good in some way. In heaven, where everyone sees God face to face, sinning will be unthinkable because he'll prefer God to everyone else and to everything else. You'll still have free will in heaven. But anything you might choose there will be obviously good.

[@nickgust4232]

roughly minute 33, I always think about video games when thinking about challenges and sufferings. Though it may be crude and juvenile, if challenge and suffereing wasn't necessary, then why do video games that challenge us become the most engaging and tend to have more attention and attempts at playing? Do we not crave challenges? Does this tend to support that we prefer the challenge and to some degree adversity of life?

[@Adnilas]

I really liked the formal format for the debate

[@bencausey]

To Cameron: so Jesus preferred that Adam and Eve sin? He wouldn’t have rather they not sin, and therefore not needed atonement? This is to Alex’s point about “wouldn’t it be better to have no sin and curse, than to have Jesus’ great example of love at the cost of His suffering and death, and billions of others suffering as well?”.

[@CapturingChristianity]

I think it comes down to what the greatest goods are. If what Jesus did on the cross is the greatest good and that requires sin, then that’s the kind of world we’d expect God to bring about. It’s not a world we’d expect on atheism.

[@trybunt]

Is what Jesus did on the cross really the greatest good imaginable though? Because I can imagine a greater good, which would be god actually sacrificing himself, without going back to being god, he could of sacrificed his power and eternal existence in a way that let us go on without him.

[@stiletteleray1326]

I just don't understand how his first two goods were to submit to a all powerful deity who doesn't help us and that Jesus, Yahweh in human form, sacrificed himself just to come back to life therefore not even being a martyr... Curing cancer, solving world hunger, or world peace sound like far greater goods! 😢🤦🏼‍♀️

[@itsmyname767]

possible take on the second take you and your wife living full prosper life together with no stress. in their last day they ask themselves how much did my significant other really loved me? it was never tested.because we only live life of comfort without test. which is essentially abraham test. god test how much he loved him without actually sacrificing his son. but the willingness to sacrifice was there.

[@Iamwrongbut]

You’d rather your wife have a chance to cheat on you than have a stress-free life? Are you crazy?

[@zephyr-117sdropzone8]

@@Iamwrongbut That isn't the argument. It's if the love was actually there. A stress-free life is a life intrinsically independent of opportunities to see that love demonstrated. Love is active not passive. You have a good name, really reflects your logic.

[@Iamwrongbut]

@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 so then there would be no love in heaven, right? Because there’s no chance to commit the sin of adultery there.

[@zephyr-117sdropzone8]

@@Iamwrongbut First off, adultery isn't love, it's lust. Big difference. Second, nobody has a body so that makes no sense to begin with. Third, nobody sins in Heaven because there's no reason to, there's nothing worthy of temptation, especially considering how life on Earth is.

[@Iamwrongbut]

@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 exactly. But if sin can’t happen in heaven, then how can love happen based on your initial comment? It seems like you implied that there must be a chance to choose otherwise in order to choose to love. But in heaven that choice isn’t there because there’s no temptation

[@Dht1kna]

What proof do we have that Animals have Qualia or other comparable forms of consciousness?

[@nickmorris2250]

Interesting video. Here's my (layman's) summary thoughts: obviously the Christian can come up with endless possibilities that could explain why there's evil in the world but surely that's not what the problem of evil challenge is really asking about. The challenge is to explain why God gave us the intuition that there's needless suffering in the world and a clear logical path to use that as evidence against his existence, especially with the knowledge that naturalism provides a much simpler explanation.

[@nickmorris2250]

To answer my own question and continue the thought: the Christian could come back with; maybe the only/best way to maximise good was to create a world with exactly the amount and distribution of evil we see AND give us the intuition it contains and unnecessary level of suffering AND that naturalism provides a better explanation. Ok, that's possible but surely this god shouldn't be surprised when we take the thinking tools that he gave us, apply them to the world and draw the exact conclusions that I'm drawing here. If he expects us to NOT use the tools he's given us in this case how do we know whether we should be using them in any other particular case?

[@celticwinter]

@@nickmorris2250 just responding to one of your points: How do you determine what part of suffering is unnecessary? If you can't see the result of individual decision through to the end, how do you know if it was ultimately "bad"? If you have free will, there will also be secondary evil, since people can choose to follow other moral standards than yours - or even none. I think the purpose of these channels is precisely to use our rational tools and determine good from bad, moral from immoral etc. No Christian (I think) will say that you can't use your senses to find truth. I mean look at Thomas Aquinas.

[@nickmorris2250]

@@celticwinter "How do you determine what part of suffering is unnecessary?" < I can't prove that any suffering was unnecessary if by 'proof' I need to have perfect knowledge of the past present and future. But if that's what we mean by 'unnecessary' then nothing can ever be said to be unnecessary and therefore the word has no meaning. My question is why would a god choose to give me the intuition that cancer or flesh eating bacteria are unnecessary evils if they were in fact necessary? The free will argument also doesn't help here as much of the seemingly unnecessary suffering in the world is not related to people's choices but to things outside out control like natural disasters. The Christians don't have any proof that these evils are necessary, all they can offer are what ifs and maybes. So my second question is that if you're willing to introduce what ifs and maybes without proof in the case of seemingly unnecessary suffering, why don't you do it in other cases? Why not start your day by walking in front of a bus because 'what if' or 'maybe' it's the right thing to do. I'm sure we can come up with just as many convoluted explanations for that as we can for why seemingly unnecessary suffering is actually necessary.

[@f5743]

Naturalism may offer a simpler explanation, but the consequences are devastating: life with no meaning. I think the conclusion is inescapable. Naturalism makes words like truth, beauty, and justice mere evolutionary illusions, the product of random electronic impulses in the brain; to borrow from Shakespeare "full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing." With naturalism, we can't even talk about bad luck, because there is no "bad," just metaphorical random, mindless rolls of the dice. Self-created meaning is no meaning at all, just more illusion, just rationalizations. Perhaps C. S. Lewis is on to something here when he argues that our very yearning for more, for something higher, something transcendent points to the existence of just such a reality and that we were made for more than material life. Suffering and death are such enemies to us because they thwart and challenge that yearning. I don't understand why the naturalist, atheist even cares about the God or evil debate. For the atheist, it would seem that all rationalizations are illusions, adaptive mechanisms. If one illusion gives someone more comfort than another, so be it. What's to argue about?

[@nickmorris2250]

@@f5743 In summary... you really want it to be true and therefore it is true. Don't see how I can't have a word like 'bad' though? Bad just mean contrary to my desires. Even if those desires are randomly assigned by evolution it doesn't change the fact that they exist and that there's states of the world that stand in opposition to them. To answer your question: I 'care' because I find the discussions interesting and stimulating. Although, there's some instances where religious morality might directly affect my life so the stakes are a bit higher then.

[@Smayor75]

Still wandering (I commented on this on the original debate video) how can all these specific kind of "good" exist prior to creation and simultaneously being able to define God as the personification of perfect "good" if he lacks them. Or these are not necessary, higher degree "goods" or God is not the maximal perfection regarding "good".

[@jehovahoney814]

As Alex given the 'murder of best friend analogy' to show that we don't simply say that it's possible that the best friend is a bad guy and murderer is a good guy even if it's possible logically, we don't consider that at that time . I don't think theists actually do that.. They don't simply say it's logically possible that your friend is a bad guy. No they say it considering the other evidences showing that his best friend is a bad guy. Similarly as theists have other arguments pointing to God's existence... They say that we need to consider "it's logically possible that God has morally sufficient reasons to allow this suffering". We don't simply say that without any evidence.

[@escuddy3244]

Alex is making an inductive argument against an all-good God, so most arguments for God’s existence are irrelevant to the conversation. So if we grant that a God exists, then he could be good, evil, amoral, or a combination (as we are). The amount of suffering we observe suggests that he is not all-good. What evidence do you have that shows otherwise?

[@jehovahoney814]

@@escuddy3244 this is not about the arguments he made after that analogy... I agree those are challenging but this is just a reply to the analogy he's given to show that logical problem is irrelevant at that time.

[@escuddy3244]

Jehova Honey His point, and you seem to agree, is that you can’t just assert that it is possible that an all-good God may allow the suffering we observe for unknown “morally sufficient reasons” without providing additional evidence that the God is all-good. I do not recall IP providing that additional evidence in the debate. So I’m asking you, what evidence do we have that indicates an all-good God over an evil or amoral God?

[@jehovahoney814]

@@escuddy3244not exactly.. He didn't say "without providing additional evidence he's all good" he didn't ask for it.. I think personally Alex should've mentioned it.. And I'm not arguing there are other evidences.. I'm just saying people who think there are other evidences can give the logical case that there are "morally sufficient reasons" by showing the other evidences.. I can't show you now.. I'm just saying but Alex didn't ask like that.. He just simply ruled out the logical case (without asking for other evidences). He didn't even mention that.. He simply said logical case is irrelevant at that time seeing his friend in that blood...

[@redeemedone8553]

IP - I watch this up to the part where you talked about putting your daughter in her own world. If what you said was true, then she would not mature in a world with no evil God in his original design would have been wrong. It would have left the world filled with the mind of children if they would not have eatin the fruit. I don't think the introduction of evil makes people mature. I am a little disappointed with this conversation it is purely humanistic God and his word have no place in it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This scripture came to mind as I listened. Colossians 2:8 New American Standard Bible 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

[@Archangel657]

Why is there a joe biden campaign ad on this?

[@spacedoohicky]

I see them everywhere no matter what type of video I'm watching. It's just a simple matter of someone paid for ads then ads show up. I also get that men's soap commercial everywhere too.

[@cooltube2000]

So what kind of weapons did they use in the war in heaven?

[@vaskaventi6840]

Cool Tube 2000 heaven as I understand it is purely spiritual and has no matter, that kind of conflict is very hard to imagine since we have never seen anything like it. Not sure anybody could say for sure how exactly it would go down.

[@hewhositsuponfroggychair5722]

I'm not so sure about IP's literal description of a war in heaven. I mean, a war against a God doesn't last long, and you can't really kill anyone in heaven.

[@cooltube2000]

@@vaskaventi6840 Oh so like fairytales?

[@cooltube2000]

@@hewhositsuponfroggychair5722 Hmm why would the devil go to war with God (and expect to win)? Oops, he must of forgot he was the most powerful being in the universe...

[@cooltube2000]

@Martin Cool story bro. So are the devil and his minions stupid or something?

[@1_Storyteller]

Just to write it down. I was thinking first clip, experience, second experience manifesting good and evil.

[@dynamicloveministries334]

I think our problem is that we use Greek thought on the immortality of the soul to defend a God that values eternal life as defined in an empty grave.

[@henkkoopmans9982]

Around 16 minutes you argue that it is good that you have the choice of entering heaven, similar as not forcing someone to fall in love with you. The love would be better if it wouldn't be forced, just as removing free will will make entering heaven not good. Two problems with this, first a person does not actively choose to fall in love with someone I think this is similar to taste, you don't really have influence on things that you like. Similar what color you like. This at least my intution about this. The concept i have from heaven is that is also an hell and at least kind off limbo state. For the limbo state it could be a place where the soul matures more and then you go either to hell or heaven, this would give a similar problem. The problem is that if there is an hell then what does that hell look like, if it complies with Revelation 21:8. Then if you are there it seems like you would have a lot of pain. If this is the case then the choice between heaven and immense suffering not is between entering heaven and not entering heaven. This seems like forcing someone to love you (entering heaven) and threatening with torture(hell). Because of the above I don't think this example holds, you could argue that hell/limbo is completely different and you wouldn't suffer.

[@jacen7911]

Im a christian but I really dont understand the basis of either side of this argument. Didnt adam and eve eat the apple that brought sin and evils into the world? This being the fault of man and nothing to do with god himself.

[@susand3668]

One thing I think should be tossed into the mix -- that Heaven is not merely a wonderful Paradise. Paradise, in a sense, is within the reach of our imagination... we take all that is Good in this life and make it infinitely greater. No. God is calling us, through our life, death, and resurrection in Jesus, so that when Christ returns, "we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is!" (1 John 3:2) Suffering does not make our human souls better at being souls. It is part of "deification". It makes sense that created beings, in their transformation into true images of the Uncreated Creator, will suffer growing pains!

[@andrej1659]

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” Romans 3:23-24

[@dynamicloveministries334]

If we can reason that suffering is on account of mortality and God is busy with the answer in raising Jesus from the dead, I think we can deal with the "evil" in the world concept.

[@TheBrunarr]

I've grown to dislike theodicies in general. There are two types of objections to God; 1. His existence, 2. His actions. All a theodicy is is a response to the 2nd type of objection, but any objection to the actions of God must presuppose that God exists, and if the atheist is presupposing that God exists then from my perspective as a theist my job is done. If you are assuming God exists in order to object to His actions, you are assuming that an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful being exists, by definition. If He is all-powerful, then He has the capacity to act in a good way; if He is all-knowing, then He knows exactly what actions to take in order to act in a good way; if He is all-good, then He _will_ act in a good way. People usually make the distinction between believing _that_ God exists and believing or trusting _in_ God, but from my perspective, once the former is established it would be irrational to reject the latter.

[@joshuaphilip7601]

Interesting, though I think the idea is that it's possible God is not moral.

[@TheBrunarr]

@@joshuaphilip7601 I getcha, and I knew someone would say that. The problem is that it isn't possible, because then that wouldn't be God, it would be something else. It would be like saying that its possible that a cat isn't a feline. You can't argue against God's goodness based off of the 2nd type of objections. It must be done with the 1st type of objection. All the theist really needs to do is overcome 1st type objections. 2nd type objections are more emotionally related.

[@joshuaphilip7601]

@@TheBrunarr the problem is none of the theistic arguments imply a being that logically has to be morally good. So it's a fair question to ask. I personally believe in subjective morality, it seems even with God, his Morality is not objective unless he is appealing to an even higher standard. So I've been calling God's morality "supreme morality", it's not about right or wrong it's about degree of being if that makes sense. In other words if right and wrong truly are subjective, the best possible moral system would be that of the being that created everything

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

@@TheBrunarr Yeah I agree with you. I have never seen an atheist correctly partake in an internal critique. They ALWAYS overlook something. And I don't mean little things like a missed verse. I mean things like overlooking God's justice and abhorrence of evil. Considering this, I think the "problem of evil" is really nothing more than emotional pleading. As per the 1st objection you mention, this one the theist has won. Atheists have, by and large, retreated into nebulous agnosticism, with phrases like "I dunno", and "I'm not convinced", and "I'm not saying 'no god', I'm just saying I lack a belief in your claims." To me, this just means "yeah God is possible (not convinced) and yeah, God is currently the best explanation (I dunno), but, ya know, I got some emotional hangups on the whole endeavor..."

[@TheBrunarr]

@@joshuaphilip7601 if morality is subjective then your last line is a trivial statement. If morality is subjective then moral propositions are just descriptions of attitudes. Under your system, all "the best possible moral system..." means is "the moral system that I have the most positive attitude toward..." I think the ontological argument is a good one for showing that. If an all good necessary being is possible then that is the same as saying an all good necessary being exists.

[@RighteousPaladin]

That hippo must have eaten the background bookcase that tells me that he is well-read.

[@takebackconstantinople82]

Regarding CosmicSkeptic's arguments that if people in Heaven can't sin (which spoiler, they cannot) then it implies that they don't actually have free will... Well, that's not true. I think that the discussion would've been better and more complete (arguing in favour of the Christian position) if at least one of them was familiar with Saint's Maximus the Confessor theology of free will. Contrary to what many people believe, free will isn't defined dialectically. The only reason free will is in a dialectical condition in the present world is because of the Fall. The Fall dialectically conditions every choice in this world but it is not the natural state of choice. For St. Maximus all that is needed for free choice are many possible alternatives from which to choose, but they are not necessarily evil. This is also why in the Eschaton for St. Maximus and Orthodox Christianity there are many good things to choose, which are all equally good. There exists no gradation of good(ness) among the multiple options which one may choose. Since the saints in Heaven cannot sin, people in Hell also can't change for the better. This is why there is no repentance after death. This is also why the devils can't repent. Why? Because of the nature of time that they're experiencing. When Satan and his angels rebelled, they chose evil in Eternity (angels are already living in eternity). This means that the first time they chose evil established in them a perpetual mode of willing. One that is evil. Same goes for Angels who took God's part. The time that they experience is that type of time that does not make possible the changing of their character in the opposite. However, since they are still creatures, they are subject to movement (to change/becoming). This is what the Confessor calls the ever-moving repose. It is the type of time that doesn't allow the changing of the character, but it allows a change in an already established character, by that I mean that you can't change your character, you can only deepen the one that you (already) have. So the Angels become gooder/goodder and gooder/goodder every second while the devils become more evil and more evil with every second. The same goes for the Saints. Once you die and step into eternity, you enter a new form of temporality which does not let you change your character. You remain with the one you formed in this life. So the Saints in the Heaven become more and more like Christ their God every second that passes.

[@takebackconstantinople82]

@Evenson Alps I have resources on the Confessor if you want.

[@takebackconstantinople82]

@Evenson Alps I can post links here if you want.

[@takebackconstantinople82]

@Evenson Alps First of all read this essay "Maximus the Confessor's 'Aeon' as a Distinct Mode of Temporality " and then after you finished message me and I'll post the other links and names here in the comment section.: www.academia.edu/21527248/Maximus_the_Confessors_Aeon_as_a_Distinct_Mode_of_Temporality

[@tellmelullabies5552]

Lets see how many back flips that theists need to do to justify they’re benevolent all loving god actions (or lack of them)

[@webslinger527]

They don’t have to do any backflips and least not in this video

[@FinneyRaju]

I’m not sure that’s supralapsarianism... that term refers to God’s decree of the fall as prior to his decree of the creaTion or something

[@dynamicloveministries334]

As a Christian, I have a problem with the concept of "going to heaven". The bible defines salvation as a bodily resurrection from the dead. The recreation of the human body that has no lack of life can explain free will and no sin. God looked at the problem of man and thought the only solution to be bodily immortality. This makes sense of incarnation, utter death and resurrection as the answer to the problems of mankind. Jesus was TEMPTED in the desert, where he was starving and the need for life on account of his mortality. Should bodily immortality be made available free will without sin would be possible. You will not be tempted to take life since you have enough. Just think of this: If I say my SOUL, or my BODY or my SPIRIT. What am I? I cannot make sense of saying MY human being. Thus I cannot but conclude that I am a human being. Salvation is only defined in the full salvation of a HUMAN and not the modern definition of the soul.

[@armand2716]

Justin is so well spoken. Good discussion.

[@CapturingChristianity]

He’s the best!

[@armand2716]

@@CapturingChristianity Senpai noticed me!

[@josephtattum6365]

I mean, it is very simple. In order to be critical of the design, one must know the intentions of the designer. How do we know that we "shouldn't" have bad things happen to us? I really dont find the objections Alex made at all compelling. We simply aren't in a position to know these things, given God's transcendent nature. I really don't understand why Alex is taken as seriously as he is, that is not meant as a jab, and I respect his truth seeking, but I find his objections very lacking.

[@UncensoredChristian]

Would Alex’s idea of a world with no Instrumental Goods or Evils even be logically possible? For example he would prefer a world with no need for Bravery because there is no Fear, but extending that logic I assume he would prefer a world with no evil/negative occurrences which would cause the non-existence of all Instrumental Goods. If this possible world had no suffering there would be no perseverance. If it had no despair then joy would be unnecessary. If it had no lack then provision would be pointless. If it had no lying then truth is a waste of time. It seems to follow that the value of all goods would disappear in the absence of these evils that lead to the goods intrinsic value. This type of world would be devoid of emotion rendering this world meaningless.

[@leoskyi]

Isn't this what heaven is ?

[@Iamwrongbut]

Supralapsarianism is quite a controversial view among Christians. I only know hardcore Calvinists that subscribe to that view. Is Cameron a Calvinist?

[@Backwardsman95]

What verses other than the creation narrative imply animals have souls or the potential to have souls? I'm aware animals are mentioned in heaven but that doesn't imply they are the same creatures. Perhaps it is overly semantic to say God would recreate animals in heaven and that is different than animals going "directly" there. It seems to really undermine the imago dei to me. Whether God used evolution or not, Christianity teaches humans are the pinnacle of creation. I think infants have a soul from conception. A soul is not dependent on human action.

[@hewhositsuponfroggychair5722]

A few observations I've made about arguments from evil Most people tend to forget that, while God is loving, he is also just. Most objections I hear appeal more emotionally then logically. You never hear someone say: "Why does God allow cancer?", but rather, "Why does God allow babies to have cancer." One must remember that, to God, there are no "babies". He is not limited by linear passage through time. Strangely, I've noticed that a lot of people will point to the many children who live in poverty, and hate God for it, but will not give him thanks for the billions more that live comfortable lives. People tend to ask for miracles too often. People want cancer to disappear overnight. Yet, repeatedly in the Bible, God uses completely natural means to accomplish his goals. For all we know, every single time a person survives cancer via chemo, it could easily be God working through the doctors.

[@mockupguy3577]

Free will in heaven? I’m surprised that Alex brought this up because I think the reply that evil is possible but the inhabitants won’t do evil because only profoundly good beings go to heaven is a perfectly valid explanation. The only problem I see, which no one mentioned, is that humans change. I find it perfectly plausible that someone could be a Christian role model for 700 years and then suddenly snap, have a really bad day, and wear mixed fabrics.

[@viravirakti]

1:10:00 Jesu's sacrifice did not excluded or ignored the animals. Firstly, it ended the animal sacrifice. Jesus was the lamb and the dove who saved the lives of the lambs and of the doves and of all clean animals from the ritual sacrifice. Secondly, after Jesu's sacrifice all animals became clean, according to the new law of the Christian Church. Not anymore for sacrifice, but for food. So, a more including way to look at the animals was brought by Jesu's mission. Jesus sanctified all creation. It only remained the restriction not to consume blood, which further shows the spiritual importance of the animal life ( also present in the former ritual sacrifice and blood offerings, the spiritual value and power of their blood); their blood contains their soul, their life, so, all blooded creatures, if not all living creatures, are souled creatures.

[@tylerpedersen9836]

So many of these "problems" posed by Cosmic could be answered if you all adopted a Reformed/Compatiblist understanding of human agency. I'd suggest reading John Murray's "Free Agency", in his Collected Works vol.2, here's an online version www.the-highway.com/free-agency_Murray.html ... so many apologists seem allergic to Calvinism for some reason though lol

[@AFJDP]

My problem with all your analysis is that there seems to be too much effort to reason things out from a human perspective and that seems to be playing into the atheists hand. Why are you not acknowledging the fact of God's ways being beyond our ways and his ability beyond our comprehension? Therefore in heaven the "change" that will take place in our nature will contribute to the ability to never yeild to sin. The Bible says that sin will no more enter in and we must know that God has the ability to make this so. Why He did not start out like that is clear and was addressed, God is allowing sin to run its course to prove to all the living the consequence of going against God's will. there will be no more reason to doubt God's will after all is done. We must be careful to not go to far in giving atheist too much latitude in our dealing with them. our job and goal should be to wake them up, win them to truth, not pet their ego or allow them to control the narrative or conversation.

[@51elephantchang]

1:07:50 Bacteria and other microscopic animals have souls in the making?

[@spectre8533]

no

[@51elephantchang]

@@spectre8533 IP doesn't seem so sure he certainly didn't exclude tiny animals.Where is the cut off point?

[@spectre8533]

@@51elephantchang idk

[@sinqobilengubo2667]

The ability to do evil only comes after Eve and Adam eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so it seems logical to me that when we are in Heaven with the Everlasting Father we will be back in a state of not knowing evil.

[@landimhlakane9141]

Man...i need to find some fellowship

[@KISStheSON...]

Evil won't exist in the new heaven and new earth because the TEMPTER and those who follow the tempter will be cast from the face of the earth. The spirit inside us is willing to please God but our flesh is weak and falls into temptations. It's simple math. Eliminate the tempter who tempts man to do evil and problem solved.

[@Jockito]

Who tempted Satan? He was in heaven right?

[@KISStheSON...]

@@Jockito Satan was Lucifer. When God created Lucifer he was perfect in every way. Lucifer then exalted himself because of his beauty. Do you you see it? GOD MADE him beautiful and Lucifer took credit for his beauty and exalted himself rather than giving glory to God. Luke 14:11 “For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”

[@Jockito]

@@KISStheSON... exactly. No prior tempter and yet Lucifer and a third of the angels fell. Why think that the same sort of thing can't happen again?

[@lawnmower5197]

@@Jockito imagine creating Lucifer knowing what he would do.

[@KISStheSON...]

@@Jockito Because those that would fall already fell. Lucifer is a cheribum created differently than man as well as angels. Sin lives in the flesh of man and man will be given a new glorified body. That is our HOPE. We can't wait to strip off this filthy flesh that lusts after sin so that we won't sin against God. No man will exalt himself in the new heaven and new earth because all will give all the glory to God. The falls were examples for us to learn by.

[@bertramjulius]

It’s really simple to me. Evil exists due to the rejection of the ultimate Good (God) . This plunged the earth and everything in it (fauna, flora incl) into evil free fall, because we humans cannot manage without the goodness and knowledge of God. We all then have a moral responsibility to turn back to God so He can heal our world. In heaven no one would reject the ultimate Good cause they all chose Him and their choice would be validated.

[@bertramjulius]

Roberto Piagentini So are you saying that if God started with more than 2 people things would’ve turned out differently? If God started the with 1000 people can you with absolute certainty say none of them would have rejected the ultimate Good (God)? One other thing, their choice does not diminish yours.

[@edenlifeonearth]

Let the Christians not forget one of the narratives is God the Father getting a peoples for Himself, a Bride for His Son Jesus, and how the Holy Spirit is a deposit or guarantee by the Groom that He’s coming back to get her ( the Church), so in order for the Bride to be complete and without wrinkles (sin), holy and spotless, her love for the Groom will have to be tested such that only those who willingly love the Groom will be in heaven with Him for the wedding feast. This is a big love story, so tribulations (suffering, darkness) is a way for the REAL BRIDE to appear because if she would endure EVEN in suffering, then her love would be genuine. Remember Jesus said not those who call Him Lord will be in heaven only those who do Gods will, also the virgins who are ready can go with the Groom, those who have no oil in their lamps won’t. Earthly experiences is a way for the real Bride of Jesus to come out shining. The goats and the sheep will be separated in the end, only those who endure till the end will partake (Revelation) Call it ‘harsh’ or ‘we don’t like it this way’, but God somehow in His wisdom thought this was a good way. If there was no evil, no fear, all peace, good, happy then it would be easy to love God : everybody can ! in order for the ability to choose love there must be ability to not to choose love, or possibility of evil. In order for the Bride to develop trust there must be not so good scenarios whereby they are opportunities to fear, or doubt. God gave us free will to exactly do this : choose. In order to choose there must be more than one choice - and they must be opposites. Atheists will never understand : only those who have ears will hear. Regarding natural disasters/ suffering : I think the aim is not towards the sufferer, for there is no time duration for character to develop : he/she is suddenly swept by death. In this case, the sufferer is promoted to glory and be with His Groom in heaven, if they are a real Christian who loves God. My thinking is that the evil incident acts as a spiritual wakening for those who know this person who’s been promoted, who are still on earth, so they think about their own mortality and how death can seize upon them any moment - they ought to repent and trust in Jesus straight away. Example : In Luke 13: 4-5 the disciples asked Jesus why a tower fell and killed 18 people, if it was because they we’re punished on account of their sins. Jesus said no but unless they repent, they too would all perish. The emphasis was moved from the reason why to a spiritual one - now watch that you repent.

[@humblethinker8493]

At 16:30, he gets supralapsarianism so wrong... smh it is instead: “Definition of supralapsarianism. : the doctrine that God decreed both election and reprobation prior to creation and then allowed the fall of man as a means of carrying out his divine purposes”

[@christiangadfly24]

I don't think having free choice or no free choice in heaven really gets to the heart of the truth of the matter asserted. There could just be subjective decisions that seem silly to us "A universe that grows from a singularity to present size instead of starting out complete" "A set of souls that has to be born over time after evolving instead of all at once at a specific time". "A million sperm but only one going to an egg". Why doesn't God just zap everything to perfect completion. There must be something of subjective value to God. He wants his creation learning, growing, making mistakes, etc. Why he wants this, I can't tell you. But he could just put us in heaven with the memories of having learned over time and through making mistakes etc. If you're ever trying to answer a question about why an all-powerful being did something in a certain way, you ultimately have to say "I don't know". But we can get a clue from an analogy to nature. Why is the speed of light 186,000 m/s? Why is it this seemingly arbitrary number. If you take it alone you don't have a clue. If you start comparing it to the rate of expansion of the universe, the weak and strong nuclear forces, the force of gravity, you start seeing that it is interrelated to a much more vast much more complicated system. The problem of evil, or wondering why things aren't "already x" might be able to be put into focus more through this analogy.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

heaven has believers during the milennium. During that time the saved see why and how the lost are such. The books are opened, even angels are judged. And after that return to earth when the lost are raised, judged, and destroyed when Satan rallies them against the saints in the city. Proving their nature. Then Jesus restores the earth for the saved who have now learned the wages of sin in full witnessing the destruction of the damned Earth is then their eternal dwelling place with King Jesus. Heaven is not the eternal state, per say. No one will do the deeds which were learned caused people to be lost. For a 1000 years. No questions left unanswered.

[@christopherlin4706]

No I believe the millennium will save most people. Maybe even Satan will be saved. This is because during the millennium, love and understanding will be the cultural norms, and society will be structured in a way in which everyone helps cultivate each other. It will not exactly be heaven, because suffering will still exist or there can be no growth. Eventually sinful trends will die out since everyone will understand that they are harmful.

[@federicoaguilar7610]

16:07 you should have said "e.g.", not "i.e.". Also ignoring Justin's reasoning just because you were distracted by the hippo which was there in the first place... bro, you can be more serious than that.

[@jehovahoney814]

Alex comparing the 'guy throwing a grenade' with God is not the right comparison. Because the motivation or the reason behind the thoughts of throwing that grenades is clearly different. That soldier is not throwing the grenade with good intentions or good purpose.. So of course if God's intentions are same then it clearly shows that God is evil as that soldier. But I would compare God with the guy like who throws grenade in captain america 1st movie... Not exactly but I mean he has the good intention to throw it. So now if I compare with the 2nd soldier who throws grenade with good intentions... Then I would actually want that grenade to be thrown and getting courage instead of not thrown at all.

[@luizcarlosrviana3724]

So here is a problem with the problem of evil. Cosmic skeptic makes the reasonable argument at the beginning that Leibnizian like "best of all possible world approach" doesn't work because of vagueness considerations about the optimal number of people that should have died in WW2. However vagueness considerations based on sorites-like paradoxes also hamper any argument from evil that could be made that is based on the magnitude of evil in the world. For instance, consider the influential argument of evil from William Rowe: There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. (Rowe 1979: 336) The critical word there is "intense". The reasonability of the premisses depends on the suffering involved being entirely non-trivial and profound, rather than something which people could simply "shrug off" easily, like the "suffering" incurred from never haven eaten ice cream made of edible gold (which some rich people have). It seems plausible that God would permit a person to feel the ridiculously small amount of suffering accrued from longing to eat golden ice cream even without needing to justify Himself by providing some "morally sufficient reason" as to why we don't live in a world in which there is no scarcity of this ice cream. The sorites paradox here is then that if you remove an extremely small amount of suffering, say, that equal to the longing for ice cream, from an intense suffering it would look like the suffering is still intense, regardless of how many times you do it. Hence by induction you would have to concluded that the longing for ice cream was intense suffering, just as no suffering at all would be intense suffering. This is actually an argument to the extent that the concept of "intense" is probably vague, and no cogent argument can use vague terms. But if any argument from evil that can be presented depends on vague terms which fall victim to sorities paradoxes, no argument from evil can be cogent. If you accept that some such argument works for "intense" evil, whatever this means, but does not work for "ridiculously small" evil, then there exists some amount of evil x such that God could allow any suffering with intensities less than x, but no sufferings with intensities greater than x. You then need to provide a definition for what x is, but if you cant the argument fails. Why should we accept that there is even a fact of the matter about what such x is? If there isn't, or if we cannot decide the question, we might rather just assume that the usage of vague words is simply non scientific and remove it from any serious argument that is proposed. If atheists have no problem accepting a vague concept like what sufferings qualify as intense, they should have no problem accepting a vague concept like "the optimal amount of people to die in WW2", just because it would be vague and we couldn't define it.

[@jacerockman1031]

I don't see how "intense" is really a critical word in Rowe's argument. The logic of the argument is preserved if you simply remove "intense" from the premises. Maybe you could criticize its inclusion as an appeal to emotion since we can more easily empathize with "intense suffering" as opposed to just regular old suffering, but I don't think it has any philosophical implications. That's a good catch though, vague terms never mix well with syllogisms.

[@luizcarlosrviana3724]

@@jacerockman1031 well, if we remove the word we would have to grant that if the argument is cogent at all it has to be cogent for just any (finite) amount of evil that you can possibly imagine, even if you imagine a world in which there is a "ridiculously small" amount of it. I think this consideration actually makes it much easier to just bite the bullet in this argument and defend that an omni benevolent God need not have any morally justified reasons for allowing evil, at least in some cases. I actually could provide additional arguments for this. For instance suppose I see a cockroach lying on it's back, and suppose that I know that if the cockroach remains like this it will die, and it will suffer for a bit before that. If I don't have a morally sufficient reason for not helping a cockroach, am I some moral monster if I just ignore it? It seems to me that for some amounts of evil we have no problem just "shrugging them off" because they are just too irrelevant. Should we hold a different stance for God? Once we admit that if an argument of evil were cogent it would have to be cogent for just any amount of evil, we can admit that for some amounts of evil the situation between God and us is very similar to the situation of the cockroach. In a world in which the only source of distress is the absence of gold flavored ice cream, it seems to me God could just be indifferent to that suffering with no loss to His benevolence.

[@paradisecityX0]

The Problem of Evil is only a problem if there is no higher power. Because all this suffering and death is for nothing

[@jacerockman1031]

@@paradisecityX0 I mean, I think pretty much everyone agrees that it would be preferable if the suffering and death weren't for nothing whether there is a higher power or not, but our preferences have very little bearing on what is true.

[@jacerockman1031]

@@luizcarlosrviana3724 I guess I don't see it as being problematic that a "ridiculously small" amount of suffering could be a determining factor in what we consider to be the best possible world. For example, I would consider it morally superior not to ignore the cockroach on its back. Saving its life might be morally inferior depending on the consequences of suffering it may cause to the human who's home the cockroach is inhabiting, but at the very least, it would be better to kill the cockroach and spare it from suffering needlessly. So, yes, I would hold the same standard for the moral actions of God as I would for the moral actions of humans and I would argue that it can be as specific as we imagine it to be. With God being omniscient, he would have no trouble discerning which possible worlds have minusculely greater amounts of suffering and so he can be held accountable for those discrepancies. Granted, I don't think this is the most interesting aspect of the Problem of Evil, so I'm happy to simply have diverging intuitions on this topic. I appreciate the thoughtful critique though. Cheers!

[@mockupguy3577]

Free will in heaven? Cameron seems to be talking about something completely different. 😂

[@uchihadsanchez6473]

Ultimately these guys are arguing against both the garden of eden and heaven. Was it not the case that had Adam and Eve not eaten that fruit, there would not be suffering?

[@fiftycalguru]

I’m not sure all suffering would’ve been avoided but I am very certain eden would be the best possible world free beings can exist in.

[@rodneygardner1503]

Do you think the war in heaven was the second or third heaven???

[@monamuller8969]

Genesis 1,1 In the beginning God created the *heaven* and the earth. Genesis 1,8 And God called the firmament *Heaven* So the first heaven is space. The second heaven is the "sky". The third heaven is the afterworld.

[@rodneygardner1503]

@@monamuller8969 ok so wear did the war take place thanks for answering.

[@monamuller8969]

@@rodneygardner1503 Probably not in first and second heaven. But I haven´t studied this topic. What do you think?

[@rodneygardner1503]

@@monamuller8969 I think it is was the third because according to job1.6 satan had access to Heaven so why not think he coudnt start a war there.

[@fiftycalguru]

Not sure why we are attempting to defend the suffering that is necessary because of God. Evil and suffering is our fault the initial creation would be that best of all possible worlds everyone is dancing around. The serpent and our deception brought about all gratuitous. We need to remain consistent and not follow cosmic skeptic down his line of thinking.

[@lane3574]

If god wants to maximize virtue and not pleasure, like IP says, then why can't god create a world with maximal virtue without the natural evils like tsunamis and hurricanes and cancer that Alex talked about? God is omnipotent so surely it is within his power to create that world? If you define virtue as an active part of the soul like Aristotle than I understand this wouldn't make sense, because someone has to have troubles in order to use their soul to be virtuous (like with bravery for example), but then we are right back to Alex's argument of instrumental virtues. Those virtues are valuable and praise worthy precisely because there are troubles in the first place! If there is no army coming to rape and pillage your village, there is no need for bravery! And also, if somehow (this is speculative) we were to find out that humanity would prefer a world with no evils to a world with evils that inspires virtue, than why does god's preference for a world riddled with evils in order to inspire virtue in us overrule our preference? Why does God's preference receive more legitimacy than ours? Yes, he is the architect of things, but that doesn't explain why his preference would overrule ours. Just because he is more powerful doesn't justify his preference, that would be might makes right.

[@saintphilis]

Jesus is tempted by satan, but it's just words, because Jesus is not "really " tempted, Jesus is not interested in Sin. So it will be for Heaven. Who will want to leave heaven, who will prefer bad still? anyone probably can, satan and demons rebelled and got kicked out. So if you don't want to be in heaven, Jesus will not make you ever to stay.

[@johnglaze7483]

If Jesus wasn’t “really tempted” then what was the point? Being truly man and truly God, I believe that he was severely tempted by what He was presented with.. His divine nature wasn’t tempted, but in His humiliated state before His ascension, I think that He felt a real temptation and that He had some hard choices to make... His divine nature didn’t impose itself on His free will and thereby making the temptations like bullets bouncing off of Superman.. I think that is also key to His atoning work on the cross.. because if he wasn’t really tempted to sin, then did he really live a sinless life? And then is his sacrifice worth anything? I think that is the point.. hope that all makes sense.

[@saintphilis]

@@johnglaze7483 Good reply. Appreciate that view. My view is not set in stone, but curious *how* Jesus remained sinless.

[@johnglaze7483]

Philis look into William Lane Craig’s work on the atonement.. his defenders class on ReasonableFaithOrg.org. Also, Camron has an interview with him about it that is good if you don’t want to

[@johnglaze7483]

Philis not saying that I agree with everything he says but a lot makes sense

[@saintphilis]

@Martin Good answer. Appreciate this. Amen.

[@jabeavers]

Re: Freewill in Heaven. The idea of purgatory speaks to this, where we are purged of our sinfulness. PS. I'm not Catholic.

[@dorgonreborn4108]

Oddly enough purgatory isn’t scriptural it’s just a construct of the human mind that shows they truly don’t want even our enemies to perish... so I get the idea but God is just by appointing it’s once a man to die and then the judgment.

[@jabeavers]

@@dorgonreborn4108 although I don't believe in purgatory, Dr. Jerry Walls (protestant) has written a book in support of purgatory from the Bible. May be an interesting read (which I have not done, yet)!

[@dorgonreborn4108]

John Beavers yea maybe I’ll check it out mind you I’m in the middle of Mathew atm ... every time I read the bible there’s something new haha such an amazing book... thanks tho and God bless

[@christopherlin4706]

If this world is so good for soul building, wouldn’t using it to soul build a single soul repeatedly a very good idea?