Richard Swinburne on Evidence Against God: The Problem of Evil | Closer To Truth Chats

Make a tax-deductible donation of any amount to help us continue exploring the world's deepest questions: closertotruth....
Robert Lawrence Kuhn sits down with esteemed philosophy Richard Swinburne to discuss how the problem of evil may provide a strong argument against theism, the theory of the Trinity, animals in evolution, and more.
Richard Granville Swinburne FBA is an English philosopher. He is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford. Over the last 50 years, Swinburne has been a proponent of philosophical arguments for the existence of God. His philosophical contributions are primarily in the philosophy of religion and philosophy of science. He aroused much discussion with his early work in the philosophy of religion, a trilogy of books consisting of "The Coherence of Theism", "The Existence of God", and "Faith and Reason". He has been influential in reviving substance dualism as an option in philosophy of mind.
Watch more CTT Chats here: t.ly/jJI7e

[@zelmoziggy]

Why is free will a great gift? If we didn't have it, we'd never know the difference. And it seems especially cruel to give us the gift of free will and then punish us for exercising it in a way that you don't like.

[@James-ll3jb]

😅

[@dansal3799]

When people decide to leave comments like this, free will is not a great gift.

[@winstonoboogie2424]

Evil is a type of knowledge. Once we learn, with practice, to benefit from it we become reprobate.

[@James-ll3jb]

😅

[@Spiritual777Warfare]

The physical world / universe exists, in large part, due to duality and the interaction and balance of these opposing / complementary forces. Light - Dark; North - South, Positive - Negative; Right - Wrong, On - Off, Yin - Yang, 1 - 0, Day - Night, Order - Disorder, Good - Evil, Up - Down, True - False, Male - Female, Hot - Cold, Wave - Particle, etc. is observed to be interwoven within the fabric of the "physical world/universe". Thus, the existence of Good would of necessity require the existence of Evil in the physical world / universe, and vice versa. Moreover, the scientifically confirmed property of duality in the physical world / universe would seem to indicate, through the inherent laws that govern it, the existence of a Prime Observer / Cause.

[@seraphiusNoctis]

3:56 So it is curious that the mature choice on the part of the sufferer is to deny the free will of those doing harm. He didn’t say that directly but he might as well have.

[@bvor-b9p]

you can be in a state of flux regarding your own volition, sometimes we choose wrong. That's not to say you can't decide wilfully and with full faculty to attack someone verbally or otherwise. Swinburne was arguing I think that there can never be just cause to act unjustifiably. And in so doing the offender can be forgiven so to speak for doing so.

[@seraphiusNoctis]

@@bvor-b9p I think you have a good point there. There is also a dimension of limited observability as well. One can know that others might have acted in unwillful ignorance as well- i.e., I guess it is mature to acknowledge that the will of others (and ones self) is constrained by knowledge. It's just that when the term "free will" is used with talk of constraints, it seems that the definitions for both free and will are defined to allow it to fit.

[@bvor-b9p]

@@seraphiusNoctis As Socrates once said, 'the only free willed act is a wise one', meaning if you were aware of all relevant information pertaining to a choice only then could you act freely. Because people are a work in progress and don't seem to be doing that most of the time, it can be argued they are not acting in a manner in accordance with free will. But their potential for free will remains as they bumble along life's learning curves.

[@magicmjk09]

This reasoning is obviously flawed as parents and state are nothing even closely resembling god. For instance, not parents nor the state, have the ability to "create" us in a way that essentially no suffering, either limited or otherwise, be needed to make us better, more benevolent, righteous etc. But god as the omnipotent almighty and ultimately benevolent creator, by definition "must" have the power and will to do it. Therefore no suffering of any kind should be necessary for the conscious beings in order to make them better. (I don't know whether the timestamp works or not, so this comment is related to the reasoning done on around 7:00 to 9:00 minutes of the video).

[@evaadam3635]

..our suffering is a consequence of our choice to leave our Original Home for greed..

[@magicmjk09]

@evaadam3635 Thank you for throwing the flaw even further back.

[@AlanRobson_]

Precarious support! I don't see it as even remotely an appropriate approach. It considers free will a good without justifying why it would be a good. It does not explain how this good is a factor in the corruption of the action (which obviously cannot be). Free will never explains bad decision-making, it is a mere function of the subject. What explains the bad choice is not arbitrary but the constitution of this free subject. If mere freedom alone explains evil - that is, we are morally evil because we are free - then God would also have to incur evil, since he is free. So obviously there is another factor there that is being neglected. Perhaps our imperfection, to stay here in a theological category. In any case, this would be a consequence of the subject's psychophysical constitution and not an attribute of one of its functions - free will. Swinburne uses a completely unqualified (even unreasonable) analogy between the justifications of parents or the State inflicting suffering and God, disregarding the brutal difference in the ontological status of one and the other. God is not bound by the same kinds of restrictions that we are, by definition (>omnipotence

[@SPSP-tk7sh]

Your critique of Swinburne doesn't hold up when he uses the parents or the state as abratiry as you claim. The Bible uses the parent-child relationship concept and even says governments are in place by God at times. Sin would be anything that contrasts God's goodwill. In his book, Swinburne explains why people sin and what sin is. Sin was passed down through the genes and culture of people; putting oneself first over others created temptation in human beings. Swinburne clearly refers to the Christian God in his providence and the problem of evil. You seem to use God here in another sense. Swinburne aimed to account for Human beings in the book. You make a good point about animal suffering, but I am not so sure about the conclusions you are claiming. Further area study is needed, as the video discussion does not answer the question, nor does it just ascertain that it does undermine God. You seem to be a bit hasty in your conclusion

[@AlanRobson_]

@@SPSP-tk7sh You didn't address any of the relevant points in my comment, that's a bit frustrating! It did not justify why free will is a good, it did not explain why, if free will is a good, how a good corrupts, it did not justify why this (supposed) good is so much better that a world with evil in its place of the opposite, did not deal with the issue of the difference in ontological status between humans and god - which undermines Swinburne's analogy with parents and State, did not address the claim that Good does not imply evil as its vehicle, otherwise God himself could not be free from evil, etc. Anyway, a lot of negligence on your part to claim that my conclusions are "hasty" Bringing the Bible and the concept of sin into discussion only makes the theist's situation worse, as you must now necessarily commit to the notion of Paradise, that is, a possible world (allegedly by the theist) superior to this real world. Which compromises his model of divinity with a worse choice among those available to him. And as I tried to demonstrate, this would be impossible if this deity really existed, considering its attributes. You can try harder intellectually and adjective less, don't you think?

[@SPSP-tk7sh]

@@AlanRobson_ 1.People given free will can choose the good because they want to and form a good character. Swinburne aruges for this. Or they can choose otherwise. Sin is a choice to separate themselves from God. 2. Anology can apply to God. I see no reason to think it cannot. We use analogy in physics. God can still be like something without being identical to it. You need to give an argument, not just assert it cannot do so. Why could God not have a parental relationship with God's creatures? The Bible uses such notions. 3 God wanted a world where people make a free choice between right and wrong, meaning they choose for good or bad and the consequences on the world and others. If God exists, he can create a world with people who freely choose God. God wants to be with them. What is wrong with such an idea? How do you know how much pain animals feel? hasty conclusion. Read his book

[@AlanRobson_]

@ Point 1: Freedom is a function of the subject, a power that he has to use! The mere ability to choose between A or B DOES NOT EXPLAIN why A was chosen instead of B. I don't kill someone because I have the freedom to do so, I kill for a reason that moves me before that makes me CHOOSE that. Therefore, freedom cannot simply be the cause of this, we must look at the CONSTITUTION OF THE SUBJECT. I pointed this out in my first comment. 2. "You need to give an argument, not just assert it cannot do so" You state this even after reading this in my first comment: "God is not bound by the same kinds of restrictions that we are, by definition (>omnipotence

[@SPSP-tk7sh]

@ 1.Free will is the choice to act. One can still choose to oppose one subject. It is the ability to choose from options. Outside or in the subject may influence a person, but they do not make choices for the person. 2. You changed the subject again and did not address it. What exactly is your point here? What does this even mean? "The question here is not about God's paternal relationship (with this you have just opened up the argument for divine concealment), it is about the difference in God's ontological status in relation to parents and the State - which follow restrictions that God is not submitted, ignoring this distorts the accuracy of the analogy." It is not coherent spell it out more. Swinburne is arguing for the Christian God and his ontological nature, which includes the idea that God is personal and relational. 3. You are going off-topic into other areas not involving the Swinburne argument about theodicy here. I am happy to address them more coherently on the topic another time. Contact me on KZbin. I will say one thing here about Hell: If God gives people a free choice to choose him or not, then hell is their own choice. Over a lifetime of saying no to him, God will give them what they want. That is consistent with God's nature. 4. That does not show your conclusion is correct. All you said is that there is research out there, but that does not prove your conclusion. It does not show how much the subject experiences pain. Pain is experienced by the subject, but we cannot know the subject of the animal.

[@kallianpublico7517]

The difference between god’s will and our will is the difference between myth and historical materialism. Between fate and free will/ sin. Is what happens to Job a myth or the model of a myth? When dealing with God evil did not exist in the Garden. As soon as the fall happened evil was allowed. Fortunately god’s will allows, through fate/faith a certain path back to the Garden. A path that overcomes evil through suffering or the hero’s path. For the hero’s path involves both suffering and victory over suffering. Evil is the evidence of free will, and it is through fate/faith that evil is overcome. That the existence of God’s provenance can still be accepted. Evil is not evidence of God’s non-existence, just as birds are not evidence of gravity’s non-existence. Are birds a “problem”? Man has found reason claims to explain birds’ flight consistent with the theory of gravity. They call it science. Are there reason claims to explain evil consistent with the theory of God? Yes, it’s called Religion. Unlike science religion requires faith. Why? Because the ways of God are far beyond the ways of Nature, though they include Nature’s ways. The problem of understanding evil isn’t the acceptance of God. It is the acceptance of faith, in a world full of freedom. Including the freedom to conduct science. Which, as is known, is no guarantee against evil either.

[@James-ll3jb]

Well said.

[@mtshasta4195]

God doesn't know it all, or he wouldn't have placed it everything in motion to see how we choose which way to go. Evil exists, therefore, due to the free will of individuals and also how we manage society as a whole, which is a reflection of the collective governance of Man. It is up to us to enforce individual morality through personal choices and through laws that govern the general direction of society as a whole. Because we have these freedoms from God, the results of which way we decide to go, good or bad, are what and how God observes and judges us by. It it was all pre-determined, then none of the universe or the existence of Man would be necessary to begin with. We are in the middle of a huge test as individuals and as a society. How we handle it all is up to us, not God. In the end, God will be left the faithful and the most moral and wisest. It all began with a massive struggle in heaven with Satan and his acolytes rebelling. God decided to have it all shake out based upon free will here in our current world. As for those who are damaged by evil in this process, they will have Gods mercy, which is the ultimate reward--unfortunately, as humans, we only see the now, instead of the eternal, therefore we can't see past current evil.. Evil exists because we are all inherently bad and capable of the worst--it's up to us to transcend evil tendencies and be good, and God like.

[@ejazrasool7443]

Everything follows laws... in the human world evil exists thru the hands of evil men... of there are good men around evil will disappear! God has given us free evil ... choice is ours. What we sow ....

[@andreasplosky8516]

Free will has nothing to do with evil. Otherwise, evil would also be a problem in heaven, where we will have free will, according to christian theology. Also according to Swinburn's nonsensical theology, his god cares more about the free will of murderers and r*pists than about the free will of their victims. What a great gift, indeed. Swinburn always talks rubbish.

[@leonreynolds77]

He was making some good explanations up until he said animals don't feel pain in his belief. Talk about double talking. If a dog gets run over and not killed it will holler and squall. I don't care what books and articles he's read. Those are just pieces of paper, that don't mean sh**. He has everything worked out to protect his argument, pathetic.

[@2kt2000]

That was to short...still great

[@umzaum]

Несчастные теисты! Как же трудно им обосновать существование Бога на фоне селенского Зла, которое творится в этом мире! Как они мучаются и извиваются чтобы доказать несуществующее. Как же глупы они в своих ложных и банальных умствованиях. Как мне жаль их.

[@AmauriFontes]

Richard should retire, he´s having a hard time to articulate his thoughts, it looks like elder abuse to push such old man on these deep phylosophical issues

[@aosidh]

Per the argument at 30:00 - if it is the case that god prefers people who do good for its own sake, wouldn't it be better if he punished people for doing good?

[@allauddin732]

Burden is Burden. Burden can't be favor.

[@tamayaytam]

What, is there a problem with evil? He yes he is the best of those created ever. Most humane. More than any clergy.

[@anonymoushawk962]

So the way it happens to be explain something we cannot ever truly know? Y’all act like that God is the ONLY possible explanation for reality. What is the explanation for God? Or does God just exist? Then why can’t reality just exist the way it is without some conscious entity?

[@waynehilbornTSS]

Wishing memory is in your brain is exactly why you're an atheist..smarter people know brains are not related to memory

[@anteodedi8937]

Any attempt to justify the suffering this world contains points to either desperation or profound immorality. It shows contempt for the reality of human suffering, or indeed any intense suffering.

[@James-ll3jb]

Theists do not need to justify the suffering in the world. God does. And He will.

[@anteodedi8937]

@James-ll3jb Suffering is not to be rendered intelligible or to be justified. The less suffering the better the world is. Theists should stop going around and talking nonsense.

[@newtonfinn164]

Evil is a problem that arises only when one postulates the existence of a loving god with the power to intervene in creation. If god is indifferent to suffering or has set up creation to operate on its own, without his direct control, then evil unproblematically simply is. How could a loving god create a world in which evil exists? Does not the very concept of creation, god creating not-god, imply that a world brought into being by a perfect god would have to be an imperfect world? All this is pure speculation and intuition, of course.

[@James-ll3jb]

This world, our lives, are miniscule compared to Eternity.

[@newtonfinn164]

@@James-ll3jb Agreed. But would we tell that to a mother who backed out of her driveway in a rush and ran over her child, killing it or paralyzing it for life? Evil is terrifyingly real, eternity or not. And God created this kind of world. It's childish to blame it on a lying snake and a gullible woman.

[@joelharris4399]

It doesn't occur to me that free will was ever a given for all the extinct life forms that once existed but were subsequently wiped out as a consequence of five mass extinction events. They lived out their short lives (relative to the earth's staggering geological time scale) in accordance to the logic of Darwinian natural selection without the factor of choice in the picture. Seems rather deterministic in the final analysis.

[@evaadam3635]

....before free lost souls were introduced to earth for a chance of salvation through faith using human vessels, it was necessary to minimize predators for humans to survive with minimal risks....

[@dermotmeuchner2416]

No free will.

[@experiencemystique4982]

Child...what did you understand when said " Hé knew what's inside man"...

[@tkthomas3489]

Evil ? EVE of LA . SMArt Psyche faces the challenge of the present moment and have the options of RATIONALITY or FAITH. RATIONALITY is the SMArt choice. RATIONALITY is the hypothesis of the Psyche that the perfection at the EVE of LA (the TRUTH of the past) is true in Future too. The conflict between SMAs is to sustain or snatch MA, the perfection at the Eve of LA (sound “LA” is used to create words about natural limits of various things in different languages / of observation the natural limit is the present moment) / eve of the present moment. Sound “MA” represents whatever the SMArt Psyche (SMA) considers as mine (my money, my knowledge, my inheritance, my interactive pattern,….). SMAs conflict with each other for sustaining or snatching “MA”, the perfection arrived at the “eve of la”. The idea of EVIL comes into existence in the interpersonal relationship because of this conflict between SMAs. Eve and Adam abandoned FAITH in God and chose RATIONALITY (fruit of the tree of knowledge) at the centre of the garden and bred children Caine and Abel in the ways of RATIONALITY

[@100percentSNAFU]

The old "God cannot exist if there is evil" argument can be deconstructed in so many ways, and you don't even have to be religious to do so (I am not). Here are just s few : 1. Evil exists for a greater purpose. Potentially as a lesson or a learning experience in a quest towards a higher existence (afterlife, nirvana, etc). A "tough love" God, if you will. 2. Evil doesn't exist at all. It is a human construct. 3. Evil is a byproduct and the invention of an imperfect species (humans), whom were created imperfectly for a reason or purpose. 4. Or even the old classic Adam and Eve story...we were supposed to be perfect and and good, but Gods creation ran amok and couldn't resist temptation. Think : Skynet nuking its creators, except we didn't nuke our creator, we nuked ourselves 😂

[@realitycheck1231]

ACIM states that God, being pure love and spirit, cannot create anything that is not of the same nature, which means that the physical world with it's limitations and suffering cannot be directly created by God. ACIM emphasizes that the perceived world is a projection of our minds, and our perception of separation from God is what creates an illusion of a physical universe. The course often refers to the physical world as a "dream" or "illusion" where we experience separation from God. ACIM states that you should not deny that the body physically exists in the sense of completely rejecting its presence, but rather understand that it's reality is an illusion and that your true identity lies beyond the physical form, meaning you should not identify with the body as your whole self; the focus is on recognizing the body as a temporary perception within the dream of separation from God. Most people believe that the non-physical is an illusion and cannot conceive of the non-physical. The non-physical cannot conceive of the physical. Fear cannot conceive perfect love and perfect love cannot conceive fear.....

[@FairnessIsTheAnswer]

How would it be scientifically proven what the ultimate intent of God was/is? If determining intent is a critical factor in determining evil, and unless the intent of God can be determined beyond any reasonable doubt, then it cannot be determined whether God's intent was good or evil. Then we are stuck trying to guess and possibly assuming. It may be better to try to be neutral until there is enough evidence to establish proof. Even the horrific suffering that happens in this world does not tell us what the ultimate outcome will be.

[@evaadam3635]

...as you may well know, being a Free Loader is one common trait of a sociopath... so, having faith in a loving God, whom to thank to for all the free blessings we benefit and enjoy, is just being a moral human being....

[@James-ll3jb]

Science is too stupid to realize unfalsifiable truths are true!!!😅

[@nobodynobody4389]

Problem of evil isn't evidence against God but it's strong evidence against loving and caring one

[@internationalpolkaband8472]

What he is saying that children perceived their parents as such because in the end being disciplined is for their own good and that what a loving and caring parents do

[@nobodynobody4389]

@internationalpolkaband8472 this is assuming that there is a point to the suffering which they are going through despite there being huge amounts of unnecessary suffering

[@internationalpolkaband8472]

@nobodynobody4389 there is no such thing as unnecessary unless you eliminate God as the creator of all things for his purpose

[@ronhudson3730]

On the contrary, it’s evidence of a God who trusts us to make good decisions. God gives us free will. Completely. Evil is not on God it is on us. An existence in which we did not have it would not be worth living.

[@100percentSNAFU]

Well, evil does actually serve a purpose, that being that we can learn from it. And furthermore, not only evil alone can cause suffering. Suffering can come from nature, from disease to natural disasters, and those things aren't evil, they are hardships, but they don't exist with the sole intent of pleasuring a sadistic entity. The freewill question answers the question of the existence of evil. There CAN be a good God IF freewill exists among humans. Then things such as evil become a human construct. There is also the argument in theology that this existence isn't supposed to be perfect by design, so hardship must exist, and evil is a human emotionally developed hardship. Some believe this existence is a test for overcoming evil to prove themselves worthy of a perfect existence elsewhere (such as an afterlife). I am not a theologian, but I also don't think that's a terrible argument.

[@sunyata4974]

Everything comes from one self-evident consciousness. All dualities are meaningless, including good and evil.

[@evaadam3635]

Awareness is the precise word because Consciousness is a misconception.... and you can only be aware of an object if you are separate and independent from it, so, dual existence consisting the Subject and the Object is a must for awareness of an object to occur..... both can not be one and the same for observation to occur...

[@2010sunshine]

Swimburne tries to make the story logical. But, still, it is a story, fictional.

[@mulen-x8u]

Thank you! We can understand the problem of evil only in the context of opposition between body and soul. Ultimately there is no evil for body but only pain and suffering that are in turn help save our soul from the evilness. The death of the body means the separation soul from body whereas the death of soul means the separation soul from God. Evil is a killer of soul, it try to steal soul's immortality and its natural divinity.

[@sanjeevjain5519]

God presents his presence as a life-giving force to us. However, we are not able to see it in our microscopes. Therefore, we say that God is hidden. Then God presents His presence in the world of colors and sounds in our brain. We are yet to understand that. God is not hidden but is all present. We should have faith in Him.

[@nobodynobody4389]

@@sanjeevjain5519 you cannot have faith in something never met

[@ronhudson3730]

@nobodynobody4389Of course one can. I have faith the pilot of my airliner knows what she’s doing. I have faith the food I buy is good to eat. I have faith that my apartment building will not collapse. Faith is undermined by assumptions based upon certain knowledge.

[@tamayaytam]

Here comes the teapot

[@James-ll3jb]

Grumpy fence sitter Robert is still muddling his way through all this?😊

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Of the folks considering their fallacious sentiments about God and somehow oblivious to what predicates are and for concerning the Primordial Cause, those who state God is evil or not omnipotent therefore, just ask yourself and others: how many children in Yemen have you assisted? How many nights have you stayed up researching and not for your own benefit or reward but for others' sake? I stand with the Platonists' view on this question. Matter is evil; but evil is like a shadow: it's not a thing in itself but a lack of light, as evil is a lack of good. And to think the materialists today are trying to push this 'information is fundamental' dogma is not fun. Studying some of veda a revelation is this: God sacrificed so drawing forth life and the laws, and man as reciprocal sacrifices for God. Now sacrifice or yajna in veda means exerting ones energy. To study scripture, metaphysics, theology, to seek God even, is a most worthy sacrifice. To provide for your family as the Sun(Christ) does for all of us, is a most worthy sacrifice or yajna. Deep within all of us is there the potential of a Brahmin, for the age of Satyuga all are spiritual beings. I spent and sacrificed much of my own time concerning the question of evil, of which, the giving up of ones own time as act in charity before another is a most precious and wonderful thing, most worthy as a yajna. It's a tough question, i stand with Platonists view, but: What is forgiveness if had it not hurt? What is the charge of Knowledge if not in mercy - knowledge is power; to exercise forbearence apon one who errors, and unwittingly however, is a true sign of Will. The charge of Wisdom is understanding and lending a hand or shoulder to cry on. Because of nature and lack of goodness(evil), men have a common goal, therefore a uniting factor here in this life there is. We are interdependent just like the eco system and cosmos. A chain is as strong as its weakest link. If one looks at logistics and ponders in thought, one realizes what man kind is truly capable of. All the aspect and areas that make this whole, most efficient and proficient, thus getting beneficial products to the people at a most decreased cost. Without this computers would be $50,000 each. This is a great Good amidst all of this here and now. The Good in Plato's republic is God that reaches and extends to all things down to a blade of grass giving nutriment. The ONE in Plato's Parmenides is the ONE that is Good but without attributes, indifferent, impervious, does not participate in anything, the primordial one, at rest, not agitation, peace, true balance. You can't have true rest, peace and bliss long as one is embodied or in material realm. Regardless, if the detractos who use evil to deny God seek not true knowledge and wisdom, precluding theology and metaphysics as woowoo, who care not about the children in Yemen, and yet, such a persons continues to denigrate, tis a most demerited and ignoble thing and to be shunned. We don't have time for ^ those games.

[@asyetundetermined]

Pride is a sin. I’m not entirely sure why you’re proud of this incessant spamming, but it’s clear that you are very self-satisfied.

[@anteodedi8937]

“...as evil is a lack of good” Which is an absolutely moronic thesis. It's no different from saying that good is the absence/lack of evil. Both are logically absurd because both good and evil consist of state of affairs. They exist, they come with content. To portray X as absence of Y is to deny X. Absence of something = not anything (no content).

[@dermotmeuchner2416]

Evil is lack of empathy.

[@100percentSNAFU]

​@@anteodedi8937It's not moronic by any means. Is it moronic to say that cold doesn't exist? Because cold actually doesn't exist. Only heat (through energy) exists, cold is simply an absence of heat. Nothing "creates" cold, not even a freezer. A freezer simply compresses hot air and drives it away to make a space less hot to the point that water freezes. Personally, I do believe evil is a "thing", it is a conscious decision by an emotional being to inflict suffering upon another for its own pleasure. Therefore a thing. However I don't find the OP's argument to be moronic by any means as it has basis in other concepts, even if I don't totally agree with him.

[@ameralbadry6825]

If there is a heaven! Then this guy should be the first to enter it, unfortunately there isn’t

[@evaadam3635]

..our lost souls were not sent here to know there is God or there is Heaven.... we were sent here to regain our faith in a loving God because it was losing faith in God's LOVE that we fell from Heaven, ended in emptiness (hell), and now on earth for a chance to return Home through faith in a loving God... if we fail, our lost souls will return to emptiness (hell)..

[@aosidh]

How is this guy so credulous when it comes to fairy tales but so skeptical when it comes to animal experience?

[@nobodynobody4389]

@@aosidh because animals are lower life forms and we shouldn't be concerned with their suffering in natural state

[@anteodedi8937]

Excellent question! Just be skeptical about anything that contradicts your narrative even if that means denying what's obvious.

[@Arunava_Gupta]

God has actually saved us by endowing us with a body. Otherwise fallen into the world of matter , we would either remain forever in coma in a dead and unconscious state or suffer unlimited continual pain in a state of hyperesthesia. The homeostatic body provides the souls with a congenial environment for proper exercise of their sensory, motor and mental powers, and paves the way for their salvation through the obtaining of knowledge and sublimation of one's consciousness. So we must actually be thankful to God for his grace.

[@evaadam3635]

...our lost souls' complete salvation still relies on our free will to choose to have faith in a loving God...

[@dermotmeuchner2416]

No free will.

[@supernaturalabilities]

The problem of evil and suffering disproves only the concept of the Christian God, not God itself. The true God-or the true concept of God-does not intervene in the world. This is why Buddhism focuses entirely on suffering and how to overcome it. God does not intervene; rather, everything unfolds according to the law of cause and effect. However, god-men do intervene to some extent, but that is a separate concept.

[@evaadam3635]

....it is the Christians' faith in the existence of a loving God that can save their souls that matters to the True GOD and not imperfect men's concept of GOD ....

[@supernaturalabilities]

@@evaadam3635 You cannot have faith in the existence of a loving God if you have never experienced God and therefore have no real understanding of what God is. Moreover, Christianity does not facilitate a direct connection with God-it does the opposite. It discourages individuals from seeking that connection and instead teaches them to passively wait for a Jewish man who was supposed to return to Israel 2,000 years ago.

[@supernaturalabilities]

@@evaadam3635 You cannot have faith in the existence of a loving God if you have never experienced God and therefore have no real understanding of what God is. Moreover, Christianity does not facilitate a direct connection with God-it does the opposite.

[@supernaturalabilities]

@@evaadam3635 You cannot have faith in the existence of a loving God if you have never experienced God and therefore have no real understanding of what God is.

[@evaadam3635]

​@@supernaturalabilities..."not knowing" does not incapacitate any one to have faith in a LOVING God to have a sensible explanation to our unknown origin.... I did...

[@JohnBarr-r5b]

A loving, omnipotent God could have created us with free will but without evil. Either he didn't want to (not loving) or could not (not omnipotent).

[@waynehilbornTSS]

Or you assume brain memory due to your learning disorder and are also too dim to know you need bad to have good

[@NataliaCh93]

How many books 😍 heaven for me😍 and I would add good tea and few snacks and I would be happy 😊

[@neilhart5775]

Richard Swinburne has always seemed to me to be the very best evidence against the existence of a loving God

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

God existence are approaching true though morality is nil evidence . What is true? What is evidence about God ? Are God figure about though moral? He are talking about God but keep out proposition proof. Senseless.

[@FairnessIsTheAnswer]

In the determination of good and evil, fair and unfair, we must try to determine the balanced amount of suffering and/or happiness that an action ultimately causes. If the dentist repairs my rotten tooth, did the dentist do good or evil? What was the ultimate outcome? Did the tooth get repaired well? What was the cost versus the benefit? Was any short-term discomfort inevitable and acceptable compared to the long-term better situation? This example illustrates that the ultimate balance of suffering and happiness caused by any action are some factors related to the determination of good and evil. There are other factors, for example, the intent of the person who did the action. A person may intend to cause suffering to an innocent person for no good reason, but fail to be able to achieve their goal, and therefore no suffering happened. But the thought and the intent were nevertheless evil.

[@evaadam3635]

...this physical world was created to represent Heaven and Hell in the spiritual realm to give mankind hints that there is better or worse place hereafter for us to hopefully find faith in a loving God for our lost souls' salvation...

[@LuuLuong-bn8iy]

Rob chat not interview 😅😅😅😂😂😂😂

[@quirk3]

“How do we know mammals feel pain if they can’t speak?” That sounds like a question a 6 year old would ask

[@evaadam3635]

...unlike humans, animals have no free aware souls to make a choice, incapable of progress..

[@phuzbrain]

“If it turns out that there is a God...the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.” ― Woody Allen

[@barry.anderberg]

Woody Allen is dumb.

[@DawntoduskNetAuTas]

Three cheers. Best interview I have heard in a long time. Many thanks for inviting him on the show. Interesting concept: God did not create a toy world or a moral kindergarten. He is engaged in the serious business of creating an eternal "family" of morally perfect saints. This view is in opposition to the view of folk like Alex O'Connor who seem to think that a good God would have created a "big rock candy mountain" world where nobody ever gets a splinter.

[@ivanbeshkov1718]

How can anyone enjoy himself in heaven knowing people are burning in hell?

[@tamayaytam]

Because main bounty is not heaven for believers. People in hell is their relieving ideology that make them happy. Listen to what they say when they hear something deemed heretic to them.

[@paullotz3242]

Why do you only interview white scientists and not other scientists of color and culture?

[@Archimedes_1]

Most of the individuals he interviews seem to me, to be philosophers, physicists, and Christian theologians. I suspect that he is NOT discriminating against people of colour, but instead, I _suspect_ that a large fraction of the prominent philosophers, physicists, and Christian theologians _happen_ to be of European ancestry. The pertinent question, it would seem, is _why_ do prominent physicists, philosphers, and Christian theologians happen to be of _European_ ancestry? I would imagine the answer to that question is quite complicated, and to answer it one would need to consider many historical and cultural factors-but I _highly_ doubt one could simply say that it is significantly driven by discrimination against people of colour.

[@jamesconner8275]

Swinburne is well past his shelf date. He is the master of convoluted reasoning and word salad.

[@evaadam3635]

...soon your lost envious soul full of regret would be staring at Swinburne happy in Heaven, unless you make a big U-Turn to avoid falling over the cliff to damnation....

[@LuuLuong-bn8iy]

😅😂😂😂😂😂

[@Que-Lindo]

Who is this bozo?

[@rajeshrajgaya287]

Complete nonsense

[@James-ll3jb]

You wish....😊

[@Roshan-q6n]

"None shall spill the thoughts of life's turmoil, and all that is known shall be your soil. For you shall not be with nor shall you be without. For I am your comforter, I am your mysterious I am. I am the knower of all, I am the transmitter, I am the call. I am the essence, I am the all. To whom I seek, I shall not speak, but I am so that you shall eat, for each I am, for everyone I am not." Can you guess who I am?

[@evaadam3635]

...let me guess... is it Roshan ? 😊

[@Roshan-q6n]

@evaadam3635 No, it isn't.

[@evaadam3635]

​@@Roshan-q6n.... that means you do not believe that your soul is a free split of the Holy Spirit that makes you also a God but in a little part ?...

[@Roshan-q6n]

@evaadam3635 I'm still trying to understand these words, and I thought I should share them.

[@evaadam3635]

​@@Roshan-q6n... only our human vessels were created by GOD but not our free aware immortal souls who are free splits of the Holy Spirit... God split Himself into free souls just to have a free family to love and to be freely loved... this is why we are accountable for our free choices.... if our whole being was created by GOD, then God would be all responsible for all evils that men do..