Suffering & God's Existence | Dr Brown Vs Dr Malpass

[@ModernDayDebate]

A quick note on the topic of the debate. There was a bit of confusion regarding wither the debate was on whether evil should reduce our probability of theism more broadly (even if there is evidence for theism as Dr Brown argued) or whether there is an theistic explanation for a specific argument (Alex's argument in this case). Thus, if it seemed as if the speakers were talking past each other, this was my (James') fault and something I should have discerned and communicated prior to the debate with the speakers. I'm sorry for that.

[@notatheist]

James, I’m so mesmerized by your beauty that I’m just glad to see your face. You can do no wrong...

[@notatheist]

Institutional Psychopathy - Only intoxicated by James’s smile. I love this channel.

[@ModernDayDebate]

Start of show: 1:21 Start of opening statements: 3:57 Thanks for hanging here, friends! Hopefully we'll see you at our debate featuring Bart Ehrman next week!

[@ShouVertica]

31:35 "We know for a fact that advertising campaigns don't work." This is the sort of stuff that makes me doubt theology credentials having any value outside of getting a job teaching theology. Dr. Brown, in his arrogance, asserted that a multi billion dollar industry exist only because people throw money at it and it has no discernable effect on a company's profit. I'd love to see a debate with him and a business or psychology professor. LOVE to see that.

[@mattsmith1440]

I haven't got that far yet, and presumably since you timestamped that he obviously actually said it, but I still somehow can't believe someone would. What a strange claim to make.

[@ShouVertica]

@@mattsmith1440 It wasn't even relevant.

[@noturnleftunstoned72]

Malpass is the model debater in terms of coherent evidence, patience & courtesy.

[@tex959]

Yes. Also, Alex O'Connor is on that list. O'Connor is so well read at such a young age that I won't be surprised if he became the top debater in the coming years.

[@anzu3439]

My cancer miraculously went away.Child in hospital bed In next room dies. Magic 👌🏻

[@ZambeziKid]

Ecactly. 2,000,000 ppl ecperience muracles, yet continue suffering, and the other 6 million just suffer. Nice work god!

[@mariokempes2695]

Not so much magic, but God! Magic is at least morally neutral...it takes God to perform cruel acts of so called divine intervention

[@ZambeziKid]

@menervah bcos of us? I had nothing to do w it.

[@ZambeziKid]

@menervah if god is ominopotent, why cant he destroy satan?

[@ZambeziKid]

@Arminius haha. And which part of the bible tells u that? Or perhaps u just made it up? 😅

[@rgonzalez100]

Dr. Malpass deserves a better opponent.

[@New_Essay_6416]

THIS

[@ThomasJDavis]

He really does. This Dr. Brown guy in his first five minutes of speaking basically throws Alex's argument out the window, sets down a new argument for his opponent and proceeds to preach against it. Utter disgrace to Alex.

[@illithidhunter6177]

45:28 _"The point I was making "Once I can get your mind open to the ideas of divine intervention, the bible explains the rest"_ Translation: I want you to believe in my position first so the explanation makes sense. Dr. Brown is a joke and delusional.

[@SpeakersCornerUK]

Dr Brown claimed it’s “irrational” to argue against claims of miracles by mass numbers of people??? Really? Even Drs can make absurd statements in the defence of their favourite deity... prayer is documented and isn’t disputed according to Brown??? Listening to Brown, the question I would ask, what state of affairs would falsify his claims???

[@goldenalt3166]

Alex didn't push very hard but Brown basically admitted that miracles don't prove God- any number of supernatural things can do miracles and those can be for evil.

[@jesuscorona3562]

I'M A CHRISTIAN, NOT A FAN OF DR BROWN, BUT I KINDA LIKE THIS MALPASS GUY, AS A DEBATER, HE'S SUPER GENEROUS, PATIENT, AND OPEN MINDED, IT SEEMS TO ME. HE'S THE KNIDA ATHEIST THAT YOU'D LOVE TO TALK TO.

[@jace4545]

Doctor Brown: You can't choose who you love because if they break your heart you'll revenge-kill them. Wtf? Lmaooo

[@danglingondivineladders3994]

too soon?

[@davidwatson8118]

"Rational, credible, evidence" Still waiting for any evidence.

[@goldenalt3166]

What you weren't convinced by "I don't remember what they said but some atheists were convinced and it was powerful specific feeling" ?

[@davidwatson8118]

@Phillip [Christian] KZbin Full colour spectrum originates from the refraction of light. No god required. "Objects exist" therefore physics. "The universe is finite" how do you know? "god created the universe" NO, man created god. What is "nothing"?

[@davidwatson8118]

@Phillip [Christian] KZbin As for the bible quotes, bugger off with the magic spells and incantations.

[@davidwatson8118]

@Phillip [Christian] KZbin Do you think posting that wibble twice makes it more true?

[@davidwatson8118]

@Phillip [Christian] KZbin "I'm a Christian" You are an idiot troll dumping you cut and paste rubbish.

[@rafaelallenblock]

Want to see the point where "Dr" Brown steps in the shit and loses the argument entirely on his own? Skip ahead to 51:30

[@rabbitpirate]

I feel like Dr Brown is purposefully misunderstanding the argument about limiting free will. No one is saying in this scenario that individual humans would limit free will as per their requirements, the argument is why doesn’t God limit free will in ways that stop many of the worst things humans do from being possible? He never once addressed this.

[@BeachBumZero]

Let me take a crack at answering this from a Christian perspective. If I am understanding your scenario correctly, it would be a world in which a human could make "evil" choices, however it would be impossible for them to act on those evil choices. For example, a person could desire to kill someone and even try but physics or some barrier would prevent the murder from happening. So, in this type of world, I would say there would be a couple of issues. First, I am not sure people would feel the same intensity of evil thoughts when there are no examples of murder seen in reality. The fact of knowing something is possible increases the seduction of the act. I am not sure it would be a true test of character with these types of limitations. Also, you are assuming in your model that this reality we are living in is in fact the entire picture. I would present to you an alternative model in which this reality is a perceived closed system and to us from inside the closed system all acts have permanent consequences. I think in order to develop an independent thinking being in a true essential way, the testing ground needs to feel this way and be extremely convincing. Every decision needs to hold a significant amount of weight. Life spans limited, death possible, tragedy possible. If there was any way for us to feel that our decisions did not matter or carry weight, than most humans would just check out of the process. That would defeat the entire purpose of the project. What if the world we live in has a true weight to decisions and those decisions do carry true consequences, however at the same time there is a way to transcend this through a positive development of our character that would hold a much greater positive benefit than any of the terrible consequences of evil, because when given access to the larger picture and perspective from outside the closed system, we are able to see that those consequences are not as permanent as what was thought while in the closed system? I hope this helps.

[@rabbitpirate]

@@BeachBumZero Thank you for your reply, I must say I can see where you are coming from, you did a good job of explaining it, but I'm afraid I don't find your answers at all satisfying. There are a number of reasons for this so let me go through them in turn. 1) There are already limits on what we can and cannot do with our free will. This was pointed out in the debate but, for example, I cannot kill someone with my mind. I could have the strongest desire in the world to kill someone, but unless I can actually get close enough to them to do so (hitmen don't exist in this example) then I cannot follow through on this desire. This is a physical limitation on our free will. The fact that it is one that we are completely used to because it has always existed does not make it any less arbitrary than say a physical limitation that made people feel physically sick whenever they tried to commit a violent act. It makes perfect sense in a purely natural universe, but in one set up by a being that wants us to experience a "true test of character" as you put it, and where there is supposedly a nonphysical part of our nature, this inability to physically harm people with just our minds does seem entirely arbitrary. So if this clear limitation on our free will exists then why not others? What makes the current limitations so special, other than the fact they seem to be the ones a natural universe would put in place? 2) You said "I am not sure people would feel the same intensity of evil thoughts when there are no examples of murder seen in reality". Umm ok, but how is that a bad thing? Seriously, can the all knowing, all powerful, all loving God of the universe not come up with a way to accomplish his goals without people being able to feel "the same intensity of evil thoughts" that we currently experience? And again the level at which this "intensity of evil thoughts" resides appears entirely arbitrary. If we could kill people with our minds then surely this would mean we could experience a greater level of "intensity of evil thoughts". And, to quote you again, surely "The fact of knowing something is possible (to kill people with our minds) increases the seduction of the act"? If the goal is to make evil as seductive as possible so that it is "true test of character" to avoid it then surely having the ability to kill people with just your thoughts would be an even greater test, even more seductive. As it is the very specific level of "intensity of evil thoughts" and acts that are possible that God has decided upon once more seems entirely arbitrary. Being able to stab someone to death is not a great enough level of evil, and so God allows us to also flay the skin off of someone and have them die a slow, agonizing death. But killing people with our minds is clearly a level too far, so this is not allowed. Why? 3) You talk about this being the testing ground, but why would an all knowing God need to test people? Does he not know who will pass the test? Is he unable to create people in the form he wants them without making them struggle through a life of pain and suffering? You also seem to argue that without all this terrible pain and suffering it would somehow "defeat the entire purpose of the project". Well then maybe the project needs to be changed. If you are unable to accomplish your goals without inflicting untold suffering on people then maybe you should have a long hard thing about whether your goals are worth achieving, or if maybe you should get yourself some new goals. The God you describe with this argument is either not all knowing (or he would know a way to accomplish his goals without suffering) not all powerful (or he would just be able to actualize his goals directly) or not all loving (or he wouldn't try to achieve goals that require people to suffer in the first place). I get that you think there is a great reward at the end of all this, but I still don't understand why suffering is required to reach that goal. Christianity teaches that no one is beyond redemption, so a murderer on death row can receive salvation just as readily as a person who spends their live doing good work for others. It is supposedly the sacrifice of Jesus that matters here. So whether people live a life of constant suffering or one in which they have everything ease from birth to death doesn't matter, as long as they accept Jesus before they die they will go to the same place. As such a system that allow such high levels of suffering, when it seems that the same goal could be accomplished with even slightly less suffering, seems both arbitrary and just plain evil to me.

[@lyncolnfernando4107]

@@rabbitpirate Agreed 100%.

[@kingdomkid7225]

This is such an underrated channel. Thank you for the content 🙏🏼

[@ModernDayDebate]

Thanks Kingdom Kid, that's really encouraging!

[@mariokempes2695]

This debate should be named: "Does having the tag Doctor in front of your name guarantee reason or even common sense?"

[@timo5601]

Dr. Brown; "God fills all gaps." Turn in your doctorate.

[@Daz19]

When making the evidential argument I find referencing all the natural evils more compelling (diseases, natural disasters, the frailty of biology etc).

[@Daz19]

@@parametalhead Yes the term evil is a little loaded. Non-human caused suffering is probably more precise, but it's somewhat cumbersome.

[@wdsbhb]

This is ludicrous. Why does someone else’s free choice to kill outweigh my free choice to live? If god were real, he’s solidly on the side of the murderer and simply saying well your life in eternity will be worth it falls flat as well because my life in eternity may be one of torture!

[@ZambeziKid]

And we already chosen a life w god in heaven.wtf??? I cerainly never did.

[@wdsbhb]

@@ZambeziKid Yeah, for me it's a no-win situation. Eternal life with YHVH would be hell, or actual hell. Nice choice, huh?

[@XarXXon]

If an all-powerful god allows or uses evil, then he's not all-loving. Not worthy of worship.

[@racheldavidson9973]

God does not use evil like a writing utensil. He doesn't produce evil, but he does create good out of evil. But he allows evil out of freewill. If we lived in a world without freewill, then there would be no capability of love. Without love, there would be no worship. God is worthy of our worship because he still loved us despite our sin. Without freewill, none of this is possible.

[@XarXXon]

@@racheldavidson9973 //God does not use evil like a writing utensil. He doesn't produce evil, but he does create good out of evil.// Isaiah 45:7 King James Version I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and *create* *evil*: I the Lord do all these things. People losing their faith or never having it, because of the suffering in the world, causing them to burn for eternity, isn't "creating good out of evil". //But he allows evil out of freewill.// Would you allow a child to run around with a knife? Would you allow said child to stab people to maintain their freewill? In Europe we chemically castrate rapists. They still have the will to rape, but are no longer able. Your god can't come up with something similar or better? //If we lived in a world without freewill, then there would be no capability of love.// Don't other animals have free will, don't they have love? Is there free will in heaven? Is there sin/suffering in heaven? If there's free will yet no suffering/sin in heaven, why not on earth? //Without love, there would be no worship.// Love and worship have nothing to do with each other. I love my wife, but I'll never worship her. //God is worthy of our worship because he still loved us despite our sin.// Kicking Adam and Eve out of paradise isn't love, nor is sending people to eternal damnation. If the "perfect" omni god wasn't able to make us sinless or at least sin resistant, what right does he have to judge his creation for not being sinless?! //Without freewill, none of this is possible.// If the creator or the universe already knew everything you'd think and do before you were born, free will is an illusion. Peace

[@racheldavidson9973]

@@XarXXon In regards to the verse in Isaiah 45: There are two forms of the word "evil." One is the evil of man's rebellion, the other refers to catastrophe by God. These catastrophes are God's way to bring earthly judgement, which is holy. It is a righteous judgement, and not the wickedness that we think of. Your question about the child with a knife isn't very valid. A parent's role is not the same as God's role. Parents cannot force their children to love them. They don't have the ability to force their children to make the right or wrong decision. A child has freewill, whether the parents like it or not. While they can use parenthood to influence a child, they cannot control the mind and actions of a child. We are human beings not robots. Actually there has been sin in heaven. Satan used to be an angel, high in leadership of the heavenly host, but he sinned with jealousy. He wanted God's worship, so he was thrown out of heaven along with the host of angels who chose to worship him instead of God. The people in heaven are different though. We do have freewill on earth, but the people in heaven are there because they used their freewill to choose to be there. After they get to heaven, they are completely new in Christ and without sin. Yes, you can definitely love your wife and not worship her, but you could not worship your wife if you didn't love her. Worship is not necessary for love, but love is necessary for true worship. Kicking Adam and Eve out of paradise actually was love; it was love with consequences. God said that if they disobeyed Him, they would surely die. When they did disobey him, He did not kill them instantly (although they did die eventually). Adam and Eve were thrown out of paradise because that was the consequences of their sin. Discipline is no case to show an absence of love. In 1 Corinthians 10:13, God actually does promise that we always have a way to escape temptation. God is all knowing, but we still have freewill. This is a very complex topic, but God is not bound by time. For Him, our decisions are not in the past or the future. They are just in existence. He is all knowing because He has been there. I personally believe that this is an idea without tons of explanation and it definitely requires faith to believe.

[@Arena1999]

​@@racheldavidson9973 _"A parent's role is not the same as God's role."_ And why isn't it? Aren't we all "His Children"? Why would the role be different because it's sanctioned to a deity? _"Parents cannot force their children to love them. They don't have the ability to force their children to make the right or wrong decision."_ But God does, yet does *nothing* to directly stop people from making proper decisions? _"A child has freewill, whether the parents like it or not."_ No, they don't. Children are co-dependent and don't have the autocracy to have it, either. Children *need* to be guided, especially at a young age - that's how they develop and survive. _"...they cannot control the mind and actions of a child."_ Parents *CAN* and *do* control the actions of the child through _direct_ punishments and rewards (e.g. + and - reinforcement). It reinforces how their children will develop in the future, so your argument is flat out wrong. Period. _"We are human beings not robots."_ This false dichotomy is so overused and meaningless that it doesn't warrant a serious rebuttal. _"Worship is not necessary for love, but love is necessary for true worship."_ Why would anyone worship their spouse? Better yet, why does an all-powerful god need to be worshipped, since that's what the argument leads up to? _"Kicking Adam and Eve out of paradise actually was love; it was love with consequences. God said that if they disobeyed Him, they would surely die. When they did disobey him, He did not kill them instantly (although they did die eventually). Adam and Eve were thrown out of paradise because that was the consequences of their sin. Discipline is no case to show an absence of love. "_ This paragraph is problematic in many different ways. _Firstly,_ no, it isn't love because God _knew_ this would happen, and _watched_ it play out like a script. _Secondly,_ Adam and Eve had no knowledge of what the "right" decision is. A being told them not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and a talking serpent said otherwise. How could they have known if it was wrong when they *didn't have* the know-how to perceive what is or isn't moral? It makes God look like an incompetent villain who didn't realize how stupid his creation was. _Thirdly,_ why did God allow the snake to be in garden in the first place? _Lastly,_ why didn't God just... y'know, _intervene,_ so we wouldn't inherit a "sin" two people (who didn't know any better) committed? Oh, and about the consequence of death: depending on which English translation you hail from, God *lied* about them dying on the day of eating the fruit. Make of that as you will. _"God is all knowing, but we still have freewill. This is a very complex topic..."_ This is paradoxical and not at all, a "complex" topic. And stop spelling out *"free will"* as if it's a compound word. It's not. _"I personally believe that this is an idea without tons of explanation and it definitely requires faith to believe."_ This is exactly why atheism and skepticism are often synonymous with each other. Faith just isn't a reliable path to what is true.

[@XarXXon]

@@racheldavidson9973 //In regards to the verse in Isaiah 45: There are two forms of the word "evil." One is the evil of man's rebellion, the other refers to catastrophe by God. // These catastrophes are God's way to bring earthly judgement, which is holy. It is a righteous judgement, and not the wickedness that we think of. Disease and natural disasters are righteous holy judgement? Babies being born with life threatening conditions or stillborn are not wickedness? //Your question about the child with a knife isn't very valid. A parent's role is not the same as God's role. Parents cannot force their children to love them.// Isn't your god all-loving, doesn't that entail taking care of his "children"? //They don't have the ability to force their children to make the right or wrong decision. A child has freewill, whether the parents like it or not. While they can use parenthood to influence a child, they cannot control the mind and actions of a child. We are human beings not robots.// We're not robots, but god has no qualms about influencing free will, as with the pharaoh in the exodus story and as you just admitted? Or as in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:? //After they get to heaven, they are completely new in Christ and without sin. // And your all-powerful god cannot accomplish this before death? He cannot create us perfect in heaven? //Yes, you can definitely love your wife and not worship her, but you could not worship your wife if you didn't love her. Worship is not necessary for love, but love is necessary for true worship.// Wrong, visit North Korea, then tell me that again. Or study Stockholm syndrome. Worship as you've shown here is born from fear not love. //Kicking Adam and Eve out of paradise actually was love; it was love with consequences. God said that if they disobeyed Him, they would surely die.// So if my child disobeys me, I'm entitled to kick them out of my house? Let them live on the streets, knowing he/she would suffer and possibly die? //Adam and Eve were thrown out of paradise because that was the consequences of their sin.// Not knowing or understanding why it's a sin or even what sin is. Should I punish you because your great great great great grandfather insulted mine? //Discipline is no case to show an absence of love. In 1 Corinthians 10:13, God actually does promise that we always have a way to escape temptation.// Spare the rod, spoil the child eh? How very christian and barbaric. //God is all knowing, but we still have freewill.// Again, as pharaoh did? If I know what you'll do and think before you're even born, free will is an illusion. //I personally believe that this is an idea without tons of explanation and it definitely requires faith to believe.// I hold no stock in faith. Apparently faith makes people justify atrocities and defend despots, as you've done in your reply. Reading what you posted only demonstrates that you worship an eternal dictator. Unwilling to accept this you rationalise to the extreme, contradicting yourself and defying common morality. Peace

[@eugenecoleman8525]

So Dr. Brown's belief in God is based purely on God of the gaps apparently... Everything I've heard so far that he's brought forward is basically I can't explain X, there for God

[@jackwilmoresongs]

I disagree. He explained some things about his belief in God not based on what he doesn't know but on what he does know. Ie. Things like a DNA molecule require intelligent design. That's belief in God founded upon what we know. Things like that don't happen without a mind involved. Maybe your hope is that gaps in knowledge are filled in with an assurance of atheism.

[@jackwilmoresongs]

​@Game in a JarI think the Creator has made certain things ascertainable to mankind in a common way. The basics of superior intelligence is seen in nature even though we may have many happy years trying to figure out how things work. Suppose we were not able to breath the air unless we had Nobel prizes in chemistry. Suppose we were not able to drink water unless we had a Phd. in fluid mechanics. The third grader can probably understand a designer is responsible for many things in nature. That is before the arrogance of modernists get to persuade them it is fashionable to consider God as obsolete. Do you think the information conveyance of a DNA molecule came about with no plan, no purpose, randomly, accidently, luckily, with no intelligence involved ? Yes or No would do it.

[@jackwilmoresongs]

@Game in a Jar It is noted that you dodged the Yes or No question as to which you believe. I didn't ask for proof. I asked for your personal sense of the likely better explanation. You evaded. You'll wait? No, I'll wait first, for you to give us a Yes or a No. DNA more likely involved NO intelligent design or more likely involved some. Afraid to have a hunch about it? Proof is not requested. An inference to the better explanation overall is asked of you.

[@jackwilmoresongs]

@Game in a Jar Turning into a potty mouth so soon? Little gutter talk to make an unpleasant atmosphere? This is poisoning the well of discussion. Now, no one I know has received a Nobel prize for proving either there has to be ID behind the DNA molecule. That question need not be asked of me again. Now I take YOUR reply to indicate your belief or hunch that your that NO intelligent design is behind the DNA molecule. You go ahead and believe that if you want to. Why you didn't simply make it plain is puzzling to me. You have so soon in agitation resorted to ad homs, insults, filthy street talk to pad your "argument by bordom" reply. As you wish, we can end conversing here.

[@jackwilmoresongs]

@Game in a JarDNA and RNA, etc. resulting from natural processes because of intelligence, not natural processes undesigned. A computer runs on natural laws too. Behind their functions is human intelligence.

[@2014saints]

TIL documented medical miracles are synonymous with the argument from ignorance fallacy.

[@deliveryman]

Hey, I’m glad you learned something new today. We should all strive to learn new things everyday. Concluding “miracles from God” because you cannot explain something is an argument from ignorance fallacy by definition.

[@denisfreel1440]

It is pretty simple. As soon as you discover that there is no non contradictory theistic epistemology, and therefore by definition there is not only zero evidence for a deity, but CANNOT be evidence for a deity, debate is moot.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

Hmm I don't know, maybe you've just been talking to too many presuppositional apologists haha! A theist could conceivably use a completely secular epistemology, and have just misunderstood evidence to arrive at belief in a deity.

[@r390gt1lm]

you need to do something about that music, screeching like nails on a blackboard

[@ZambeziKid]

I love that music. Its the music of mdd. 🙂

[@r390gt1lm]

@@ZambeziKid it's the screeching at the end, I listen to the debate with volume turned up, then suddenly that awful sound

[@Elrog3]

I always mute before clicking and skip past the intro.

[@r390gt1lm]

@@Elrog3 me too, it's the end that gets me all the time

[@joshuabrecka6012]

I honestly can't listen to the rest of this. Brown is so out of his league he doesn't even know it and it's embarrassing.

[@samael5782]

Dr. Brown tries to make an analogy with children, then Dr. Malpass points out that this analogy fails, then Dr. Brown say "nono, I meant children of God!". LOL

[@Jaris84R]

Anyone knows the name of the opening song?

[@HumblyQuestioning]

15:50 is the moment when Malpass realizes he's debating the equivalent of a youth group pastor. Oh well…

[@psilosydetrusenses4125]

I wanna debate someone on the existence of the soul. How can I get in?

[@dariusnoname12]

Are theist side comments being deleted? It seems weird how they are so passionate in live chat while I can't find any theist positive comment here.

[@logikylearguments6852]

No, they can't afford to super chat, us atheists are using our profits from selling our souls to satan. We get a commission for everybody we bring into the plan, so these superchats work out for us. It also helps that theists don't have positive evidence for their position, making it difficult to have theist positive comments.

[@RetrogradeBeats]

Theists always want to be persecuted 😂

[@dariusnoname12]

@@logikylearguments6852 I didn't meant super chats. I meant regular live chat. And comment section. In live chat, they were numerous while in here, I didn't see any positive comment ever.

[@TONyjustRoCks]

As a Christian who loves Dr Brown, I am very surprised he took this debate. Debating a professional philosopher without philosophical training will leave something to be desired. Despite that I still say Dr Brown did well by giving a grand case even though he did not go sword-to-sword with a direct philosophical counter-argument. He showed that beyond the bare argument there are other factors that give him confidence that suffering is not the end-all-be-all even if it might seem powerful by itself. So yes, Dr Brown didnt approach this philosophically(hes not a philosopher), but he approached it reasonably. Dr Malpass' argument alone therefore went unmatched logically, but undermined of its potency by a greater context. And I'll just say this as well, that Dr. Malpass is easily my favorite public atheist debater I've seen and an example for others to follow. His prodding for Brown to engage philosophically was gentle and sincere. Well done. That said, both debaters won in their own way, and lost in another way. Although it's obvious Brown didnt engage directly philosophically, we can't overlook the fact Malpass didnt dismantle the greater context either. So I think this debate may have been rushed with an unclear topic as Dr Brown said in the start. All in all, good debate and interesting to see two different perspectives and epistemologies clash.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

From basically his intro, Alex was up front that he's open to there being a greater context which makes a much stronger case for God, than this evidence makes against God. That this is a fine response to give. So, it doesn't look to me like he was aiming to "dismantle the greater context" at all. I think his goal was much more modest, like getting Dr Brown to recognize that there is some evidence against the God hypothesis. Even if it's not strong enough to make any significant difference to one's belief state, when considering the greater context. I see it as a mirroring of something Matt Dillahunty does sometimes. Have you seen Dillahunty correcting himself and being clearer about what he's meant when he says "there is no evidence for God"? He says that what he actually means is there's no _good_ evidence for God, because in the broadest sense testimony counts as evidence. So it's not that there's _none,_ there's technically some, it's just too weak to be compelling to him. Similarly, here Malpass seems to be just trying to steer theists away from overstating their case in exactly that way: saying there's _no_ evidence against the existence of God. To be more accurate they should say there's no _good_ evidence, there's technically some, but it's too weak to be compelling given the overriding stronger evidence from the greater context. At least, that's my impression :)

[@vivahernando1]

Great discussion. Can we perhaps get a donation goal set before the debate so we can skip the superchat portions? Say if a goal is met no superchat questions

[@78endriago]

did anyone even bother to contact God and tell him about the debate?

[@sirquentincrispy1071]

Yes. But he was out with the wife, Asherah.

[@frankwhelan1715]

God is very shy.

[@thesheffinator7124]

Brown uses Lee Strobel as an example of justifying miracles? He's the worst apology for an apologist if ever I heard one.

[@jennifer97363]

Strange thing about suffering...you’d think God would be a bit more even-handed -when you realize the suffering of those in the developing world is far, far, FAR beyond that faced in our relatively luxurious existence in the west. Yes we have poverty, sickness, crime,etc but we’re(generally) not dying for lack of food, clean drinking water, medicine. People live out their entire existence in unending suffering, owning nothing. We’ve all heard the extremely offensive Christian apologist argument ad nauseum: suffering occurs for those people, to give us the opportunity to be better people. It’s as pretentious as it is inhuman. ANYTHING goes, obviously, to rationalize belief. There is no god.

[@purgatoriprytania5382]

Brown: "It's not up to us to question [why god allows suffering]" --- So why have the debate? Brown's presupposition is that suffering/evil can *not* be a problem for his Christian god.

[@purgatoriprytania5382]

@Trolltician Logic precludes interrogating your own beliefs to see if they're logical? That's new to me, you fucking idiot.

[@purgatoriprytania5382]

@Trolltician Go back and read my original comment, dummy, it was a jab at Brown's assertion that, ultimately, it wasn't for him or anyone else to question the problems that seem to arise when one asserts that a world in which a great deal of suffering exists is the product of a being who is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Again, he simply *presupposes* that this cannot be a problem, and hand waves away any description of precisely how this might be a problem with what amounts to 'god works in mysterious ways-eh, maybe the holocaust could have been worse?' It'd be like some comic fan asserting that in Issue #900 of Superman, there was actually a very good reason that Superman didn't just use his super speed to intercept Lex Luthor before he could abduct Lois Lane, but it's not a reason we can divine as mere readers. The most logical inference, on the other hand, would be that the writers either a) fucked up and forgot that Superman could have saved the day right there and then if he had used this power they had already established he had, or b) the writer's main priority was to move the plot forward, reason be damned; after all, the fans either won't notice, won't care, or will invent ad hoc reasons for why it had to be this way. The god of the Christians (specifically the Christian god, because the god of the Jews doesn't have this problem: he's unapologetically a dick, and the furthest thing away from omnibenevolent) and the world he supposedly created possess attributes that do not logically comport with one another: just like Superman's actions in the example I made up do not comport with what is known about his powers and motivations. This remains a problem that needs to be worked through regardless of whether the 'opposing side' presents it to you or not-if you simply hand wave it away, as Brown did during this debate, then you're no better than a credulous comic nerd who simply presumes that any contradiction is ultimately resolved even when said resolution is unknown to him. (Also, for a guy trumpeting his grasp of logic, you'd think that he'd recognise the implication of a statement like "nothing in that statement precludes a preclusion of interrogation" as being one that actually agrees with my statement-fucking L. O. L)

[@purgatoriprytania5382]

@Trolltician Incoherent gibberish followed by a response to my addendum wherein you misquote yourself, even after I supplied you with a verbatim quote. What you wrote was a double negative, which thereby affirms the very proposition you were attempting to dispute. I'm not going to waste any more time on someone as neutron-star dense as yourself. Come back when you can formulate an intelligible sentence.

[@purgatoriprytania5382]

@Trolltician Dipshit, I'm not going to charitably interpret your malformed sentence as being a deliberate play on words: "nothing in that statement precludes a preclusion of interrogation" NOT "nothing that in that statement precludes interrogation" - i-fucking-e: Nothing in that statement precludes interrogation from being precluded - i-fucking-e: you unwittingly, because you can't English, affirmed my charge that you were asserting that logic precludes the interrogation of your beliefs. (By the way, what you were looking for was a truth table, and your "Jim ate pie" would be 'p,' "Jim did not eat pie" would be 'not p,' but your 'q,' "Not Jim ate pie," and 'not q,' "Not Jim did not eat pie" have no relationship to either 'p' or 'not p' so I have no idea what you're trying to demonstrate there. Nice job on yet another faceplant in your desperate attempt to appear clever.). The refutation of your 'content' was notably absent because the content was incoherent, and I don't care enough about your whimsical metaphysical imaginings to attempt to make sense out of your nonsense, or to induce you to undertake what would most likely be a fruitless endeavour on your own behalf given your limited mental faculties. This is also why, in addition my just not liking you, I'm not extending you the charitable interpretation of 'playing 4D chess with negative concordance because you're an idiot, bro.' But, if you'd like to try to produce a meaningful sentence out of "God allows free will, a privation against the will potential of individuals to do good, i.e. what God wants of them," then by all means-not being omnipotent, it's certainly outside the limits of my powers.

[@movieklump]

I know this story about a man in outer Mumbo Jumbo. He had his arms and legs and head cut off. A black priest call Magoomba Goomba said a pray and he got up and ran the hundred meters in 9.5 with fire coming out of his ass. I have met people who verified this. It was a miracle.

[@rgonzalez100]

We need to see Malpass vs Rauser.......

[@notatheist]

So, 200 million people have experienced miraculous miracles. Were any of these things recorded? We’re they impossible without the magic element? If we were to assume that no god exists, would we experience a world where rare and fortunate things happen sometimes and horrific and crappy things to happen to others? Indifferent, one could say.

[@ethanhanna2616]

Well, the reality of it is, miracles happen BECAUSE God exists and is still working in people's lives. Miracles happen because there is a separation between man and God and the Lord is gracious enough to extend His divine hand into some situations. Since there was a barrier placed between man and God through Adam and Eve's disobedience (often referred to as sin), bad things happen. But through the Lord's grace, there is redemption from that sin.

[@notatheist]

Ethan Hanna - Eve didn’t sin. Eve didn’t exist. You’re speaking about a demonstrably false myth as if it is reality. Test your beliefs before stating them as reality.

[@ethanhanna2616]

@@notatheist Well, I would love to hear what your theory is of human creation. As you can see, I believe that we were created by God, in reference to Genesis 1, and are descendants of Adam and Eve. What is your theory?

[@anzov1n]

Brown never engages with the actual argument and some of his anecdotes actually seem to inadvertently hurt his case. Citing miracles only reinforces the fact that god does intervene in some cases to reduce mortal suffering, potentially at some expense to free will, but presumably chooses not to in others. Giving a sick old woman a few more healthy years of life makes it even more challenging to explain why thousands of children may die painfully without being afforded nearly the same charity. If suffering is some lesson that we go through to become better, why magically alleviate it for some? Did those people somehow learn what they need to learn already and are off the hook? I think one way to weasel out of the original argument is to claim that the earthly life is such an insignificant portion of all potential experience that some suffering during life is nothing compared to the eternal suffering prevented (if indeed material suffering is this tidy little lesson for everyone to endure and learn from). But to have a petitionable deity intervening when it's just a bit too much suffering for some only adds more problems for you to explain.

[@nastyHarry]

Question for Dr Brown. If you were presented with evidence, from a rational perspective, that pointed to pixie magic in this world, then would that give any credence to the idea that the pixie believers explanation of the problem of missing household items should be considered?

[@nickmorris2250]

I think the best point that Mr Brown made was that perhaps the world we have basically maximises our positive experiences and minimises the negative ones. He doesn't offer anything to support it but it is possible and it would explain the amount of evil/suffering that we see in the world. However, that hypothesis seems highly implausible with indifference being a much better and more plausible explanation.

[@weirdwilliam8500]

This is like a masterclass in ad hoc rationalization and special pleading. So sad that we still have this kind of primitive thinking in the 21st century, where coincidences and mysteries are evidence of magic and spirits.

[@KC-py5vq]

Primitive thinking from a “dr” no less

[@bradchervel5202]

Turned it off at the mention of Lee Stroble as an authority.

[@fabianpadilla7381]

Brown kept saying that miracles can be traced back to prayers. Well as we all know, correlation doesn't mean causation and I'd love to see the double blind tests that prove the efficacy of prayer but we all also know they don't exist 🤷🏽‍♂️

[@mikeholt8479]

How did this debate come about? It should be painfully obvious that Malpass is on a different level than Brown...brown (perhaps) unknowingly even acknowledged this with his comment about how all of the questions were directed to him. It would be great to see Malpass engage with an interlocutor more on his level.

[@joegillian314]

He's just repeating the same tired arguments we've heard for years. It was a horrific display and I expected better (lol, not really). Best part was when he got trolled by the DBZ reference question.

[@tanner955]

This is an odd matchup. Probably should have gotten a philosopher for Malpass to debate.

[@LouigiVerona]

Dr. Brown's case was to essentially say "the problem of evil is not a problem, because miracles".

[@HAL_NOVEMILA]

There are babies that die as soon as they're born, where's the free will in that? ...If there is a God (which I don't think so) how could it possible for an absolute good and powerful entity to let an existence, created in his image, die in pain without having even a chance to express this supposed free will, while it is in his powers to save him?

[@Fastlan3]

Dr. Brown is making layers of assumptions to hold his views... It is so troubling to watch perfectly intelligent people make these mistakes.

[@ThomasJDavis]

In law, for someone to stand by and watch someone drown when they could have done something, _and knew they could have,_ we call this criminal negligence.

[@bengreen171]

If Brown is going to simply dismiss the argument from suffering by claiming he has unconnected arguments that he hasn't actually proved show any justification for belief in God, then Malpass is wasting his time, honorably trying to stick to the debate topic. Brown is either knowingly or unknowingly dishonest - naybe a bit of both. Still - nice to see that no-one has died in a drink related car accident in the last 50 years since we all learned from accidents that happened in the past.......

[@ZambeziKid]

nice to hear from u at the end james

[@jeromesavary7033]

How can a perfect being create imperfection ???

[@racheldavidson9973]

God created human beings in his perfect image. He made us to glorify him. He gave us free will, so we can choose if we glorify God, or not. He wants us to glorify him, and originally, Adam and Eve did, until they sinned. When they sinned they were separated from God and his perfect image. He then sent Jesus, our redeemer, to restore that fellowship so that we can be renewed and perfect when we see Jesus again.

[@jeromesavary7033]

@@racheldavidson9973 BULLSHIT.

[@adammooney3158]

Because he choose to. When dealing with the divine ultimately the question is not about ability but choice. If theism is correct the only question that matters is "why"? If atheism is right the only question that matters is "how?"

[@guiagaston7273]

You know somebody went to a christian university when he says "evidences".

[@ZambeziKid]

superb performance by Dr M, in a completely different league to DB. DB could hardly stay on track.

[@oliverm.9045]

The level of obtuse density shown by some poor-faith actors on this channel is, simply, astonishing.

[@Iverath]

This must be a doctor of theology, because these arguments are utterly divorced from reality and critical examination. One of his arguments basically was "lots of people believe this stuff and I have had experiences that I attribute to a god". You don't need a doctorate to see what's wrong with that kind of thinking. But if you're a theologian, you're required to be blind to the arguments against.

[@Justas399]

Give a better argument from atheism then.

[@Iverath]

@@Justas399 Okay: a majority of people do *not* believe in Jesus. If you thought that kind of lame argument was okay for "doctor" Brown, then surely this will convince you now as well.

[@Justas399]

@@Iverath Billions of people believe Jesus existed and many are smarter than you. Does that mean they are wrong?

[@Iverath]

@@Justas399 Did you even read my first reply? Just because lots of people believe something does not mean they are right. In fact, given how most Christians believe because they were merely brought up Christian mean they probably are wrong, yes.

[@Justas399]

@@Iverath True. Majority of opinion or belief doesn't make it true. What it shows is that many are convinced by the evidence. Many brilliant people are.

[@MegaTattoo69]

Between 100 and 250,000 children under 17 suffer and die from cancer every year! Praise the Lord...!!!

[@New_Essay_6416]

So unfortunate that Brown would rather preach than debate. Well done, as usual, Alex!

[@ykn7018]

Atheists challenge: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?” “Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” Epicurus, 3rd century BCE (so that's before Christianity even existed). So, how would you respond to that, though do note, anything that resembles "you are merely a mortal being how can you ask such a question?!?!" I will interpret as "I don't know the answer.". Take that as you will. Answer: Of course God is capable, if He wills, to eradicate /prevent Evil/Suffering. However, it is up to Him as the Omnipotent Creator to let evil/suffering to exist or not. It is His prerogative. That He wills that suffering exists, does not mean that He is” malevolent”, “indifferent to suffering” or “un-loving” as you accused. He gave you life and existence in the first place, didn’t He? He gave you eyes to see, ears to hear and numerous (in fact uncountable) other facilities and favours for your existence, didn’t He? That’s an all-loving attribute, isn’t it ? However, The One who gives you life, has also the right to take it (or take some parts of it) from you. That’s fair and square. Yes, you will suffer, but He also gives the guidance on how to deal with it and will even recompense your suffering in the afterlife if you follow His guidance on how to respond to it (ie. thru patience). Prophet Muhammad said ,”Never a believer is stricken with a discomfort, an illness, an anxiety, a grief or mental worry or even the pricking of a thorn but Allah will expiate his sins on account of his patience.” Your claim and assumption that the existence of suffering is in direct conflict with the All Loving attribute of God, is wrong and mistaken. On the contrary, it is through the existence of pains and suffering that He teaches us true love and true compassion. Haven’t you heard the expression “A friend in need is a friend indeed”? How could you become a loving and compassion friend if no body around you is in need and in pain ? For the believers, God the Most Merciful is the ultimate friend in need; He said in Hadith Qudsi (non Quranic God’s revelation to prophet Muhammad) :”I am with those who are brokenhearted”. In another Hadith Qudsi it is reported that prophet Muhammad said: Allah (mighty and sublime be He) will say on the Day of Resurrection: O son of Adam, I fell ill and you visited Me not. He will say: O Lord, and how should I visit You when You are the Lord of the worlds? He will say: Did you not know that My servant So-and-so had fallen ill and you visited him not? Did you not know that had you visited him you would have found Me with him? O son of Adam, I asked you for food and you fed Me not. He will say: O Lord, and how should I feed You when You are the Lord of the worlds? He will say: Did you not know that My servant So-and-so asked you for food and you fed him not? Did you not know that had you fed him you would surely have found that (the reward for doing so) with Me? O son of Adam, I asked you to give Me to drink and you gave Me not to drink. He will say: O Lord, how should I give You to drink when You are the Lord of the worlds? He will say: My servant So-and-so asked you to give him to drink and you gave him not to drink. Had you given him to drink you would have surely found that with Me.” A saying of the Sufis (Muslim mystics) states:”If you never feel pain or experience problems, how would you know that God is the Healer ? If you never sin or make a mistake, how would you know that God is the Forgiver? If you were never hurt, how would you know that God is the Comforter ? If your life were perfect, then why should there be God, The Most Merciful and Most Compassionate ?”. In short, how could we know and show love and compassion, if there is no pain and suffering ? How could we know and appreciate good, if there is no evil ? How could we know and appreciate prosperity and happiness if we do not know adversity and sadness ? How could we know and appreciate about being healthy if we do not know about being ill? In many cases sufferings are the result/consequence of our own negligent conducts/ abuse of our free will; so that we have to take lesson and amend our behaviours. “Destructions had appeared throughout the land and sea due to what the hands of people have wrought so He may let them taste the consequences of what they have done in order that they will return to the right conducts” (Qur’an @) In some other cases, seemingly “evil/suffering events” occur, but actually it happens for a bigger good. Example: When we reintroduce wolves to the wild at Yellowstone national park, it was an “evil event that cause sufferings” for the elks and other herbivores. Yet, it is actually a blessing for the whole Yellowstone environment as excessive foraging by the herbivores are checked, and more balanced ecosystem arises. The same with the natural disasters that we experience from time to time. Sometimes they happen due to our reckless behaviours (Flooding or drought due to global warming), which of course we have to take lessons from and amend our behaviour. Sometimes they happen naturally not due to human’s fault: volcano eruption, earthquakes, etc. We may question why those are happening to us, but actually those disasters are mother nature stabilising itself in accordance to the laws of nature as created by Him. What is more important is how we deal, manage , react to and grow ourselves in the face of such “evil/suffering”, not the existence of the suffering/evil themselves. Just as diamonds are the product of extreme pressure underground, humans can also excel and grow in the face of such calamities. “So verily, with hardship, there is relief. Verily, with hardship, there is relief. “(Quran 94:5-6). “Blessed are the believers, those who are grateful in times of prosperity and are patient in times of adversity,” said prophet Muhammad. By asking for a world without suffering you actually are demanding a constant, immortal and eternal life - life without change; life without the cycle of birth, growing, aging and dying - since all of these processes involves pains and suffering. A mother experiences suffering (but also joy) when she gives birth to a baby; when the baby grows to adulthood s/he also experience pain and suffering for each change brings pains (hence the expression “growing pains”); dying of course is the ultimate form of pain and suffering. Can God create such a world as demanded by you? Of course He can IF HE WILLS, as he is the Omnipotent. And He will indeed grant just that in Paradise in the Afterlife for those who are grateful to whatever is given by Him and who are patient in times of adversity in this earthly life. But too bad for you, for the current earthly life, no such immortality is granted to any living being. “Every living being shall taste death and We shall subject you O people with good and bad by way of trial, then to Us you shall all be returned” (Quran 21:35) And again, if that is unpalatable to you, that’s your problem. You are not the one who decide what He has to do or how He should show His Omnipotent and All Loving attributes. “He cannot be questioned for His acts, but they are the ones who will be questioned for theirs” (Quran 21:23) By demanding an eternal life and insisting that suffering should never exist in this earthly life as an argument to deny God, you are behaving like an ungrateful spoiled brat who throws a tantrum to his parents because he did not get the toy he wants by calling his parents un loving and worse, considering them dead and do not exist. The Creator of the billions upon billions of galaxies is and will always be The Omnipotent, regardless of the negative thinking harboured by an ungrateful creature whose demands for eternal and suffering-free earthly life is not fulfilled.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

*"He gave you life and existence in the first place, didn’t He? He gave you eyes to see, ears to hear and numerous (in fact uncountable) other facilities and favours for your existence, didn’t He? That’s an all-loving attribute, isn’t it ?"* --- No, because a God that is not all-loving could still do that. *"actually those disasters are mother nature stabilising itself in accordance to the laws of nature as created by Him."* --- You cannot call God omnipotent if he cannot make nature stable without natural disasters occurring.

[@AaAaAdeGiaAaAa]

Why you give to a children a steak knife with can harm someone and not a butter knife? This is the Question ! With Butter knife the children will have the same volume of freedom and he will never know the difference, if you never present to him with any other knifes!

[@skolldog]

James you run the show so very well keep up the great work.

[@SebiSthlm]

Dr Brown didnt come to debate, he just came to preach.

[@wireless849]

Alex, to actually address the argument you put forward - I’m not clear on how the conclusion follows, or at least how it was presented was a bit vague. The argument seems to be that because each instance of suffering S is more likely on the indifference hypothesis than the theist hypothesis, then each S counts FOR indifference and AGAINST theism. I’m not convinced that follows... you need to do more to show that the two hypotheses are logically exhaustive and mutually incompatible, I think, better spelling out how a piece of evidence could count against a hypothesis when there is some likelihood (undefined, could be 0.49 from the argument) that the hypothesis is true given the evidence. Or if it is the weaker claim that if S is more likely on indifference than on theism, we should favour the indifference hypothesis, that seems a bit trivial.

[@wireless849]

@Game in a Jar No the argument is not that S is logically incompatible with theism (thus has a probability of 0) but that it has a lower probability than indifference, thus leaving the theist with the option of disagreeing with the probability assignements. Work needs to go into closing this option off more.

[@wireless849]

@Game in a Jar come to think of it, if the argument is directed at the rational Theist (if you’ve got someone like Brown a discussion like this is pretty much pointless as he all but admits his belief is non-rational) it shouldn’t be too hard. You can grant free will and just limit S to non-human causes. I think we can fairly rule out appeal to bible stories. So, we ask, what rational reason do you have for thinking that non-human caused suffering is more likely on the theist account than the indifference account? To me, on the face of it, it looks like the theist will have difficulty here. There is the appeal to “maybe this is the best of all possible worlds” or “maybe this will teach us all a lesson” or “maybe this is all for some greater good and it is justified”, but these are pure speculation and do not help us when trying to assign probabilities (other than showing that S given T is non-zero). It would have been really good to have a competent theist to reply.

[@zhugh9556]

This was just a mismatched debate. Dr Brown is a smart guy but would have been better served debating either another Christian on theology or someone else on say an historical aspect of the Bible like he did with Dr Josh on the subject of slavery in the bible. He just didn't actually directly interact with Dr Malpass' argument.

[@russell6011]

Its arrogant for people to hold their deity to moral actions or else explain its lack of intervention if it is to be expected to be considered "good" by us? What bullshit is this? We use the evidence of people's actions and their explanation, or lack there of their explanation for why they did or did not do as the evidence that concludes for us our moral assessment of the person as good or evil or neutral or some combination of these. If anything, it is arrogant for a deity and its followers' to believe that who the hell are we to demand an accounting for this entity's actions and judgements that affect us. Its like a parent allowing their child to stab their sibling and then the public being arrogant enough to demand that parent explain their lack of action. We give them the opportunity to explain themselves before we take the action of removing every child this parent is responsible for from their house. To not remove these children from that parent would be evil. To not have a justified explanation from your deity for it allowing evils, it could have prevented, is needed. If it is not forth coming then the moral thing to do is to remove its influence and power over these people it is treating as play things for its psychotic break. The abrahamic deity is the worst literary character to look to as a moral guide for humanity that we've ever invented. Anyone that claims to follow this deity is just showing they would be willing to follow the biggest bully in the room just so that it wouldn't beat them up too much and so that they could direct its power to their enemies. Religion is just an excuse where you can openly practice bigotry and teach bigotry about others under the excuse of culture.

[@nessz885]

God created mankind in His image. Although the heavens and the earth belongs to God, He gave mankind the dominion of the earth. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:28 NKJV For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, All sheep and oxen- Even the beasts of the field, The birds of the air, And the fish of the sea That pass through the paths of the seas. Psalms 8:5‭-‬8 NKJV The Bible says, everything that is good is FROM God and that God is love. In order to love you have to have free will, so humans are given their will to be able to express, show and accept love. God gave a command to mankind to chose to obey or disobey His will. Mankind's fall came when they ate of the fruit of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and EVIL. Evil is anything that is against the nature of God. Note the 10 commandments of God, those are things God himself does not do. When mankind fell, they had knowledge of evil, it's become part of their nature. Mankind knows evil and can act upon it. That fruit was only for God because God does not change. He doesn't act against His own nature, but humans aren't God who can resist the tempation. This is when sin entered into the world. Every evil thing that has come upon this world is the works of man and other fallen spiritual entities, who decided to have dominion over each other, when God commanded otherwise. Murder, stealing, lying and all these things are all part of human's sinful nature. God neither forced anyone to do these evil acts, any thing He told the Israelites to do against different tribes were because of His judgment against these tribes who were given hundreds of years to change their evil ways. Everything we do has consequences. One aspect of Christian worldview people don't know about is the spiritual realm. And there are spiritual entities that has fallen before mankind and essentially seduced man to fall and sin. God recognize this and is merciful. Life comes from God, mankind basically became battery powered instead of being completely plugged in to God. Meaning, life became temporary because sin caused a separation between God and man. God is light, and sin is darkness, anything that has sin/darkness cannot abide in the light to live. The bibles says, the wages of sin is death. The more we sin the more death approaches us, however there are also elemental and spiritual aspects of this. One of God's nature is that He is Just and He the Judge. Everything we do is weighed, and judged. God's standard is perfection as He is infinite. So He will judge in perfect justice, meaning everything done will be weighed. But not only is God a just God, He also is Merciful and judges with Righteousness. Scripture says God desires mercy more than judgement. He is righteous that He seeks to make things right, since mankind did not fall on their own completely but was deceived. So in order to give mercy and also be just to mankind God came down as a man, and lived the sinless life He desired to see in man. Jesus walked the example of living in the image of God. Jesus is God, but He humbled himself to live the human life to serve mankind. Although, He did not sin, He offered His own life as a sacrifice to satisfy the judgement and wrath of God, abiding on mankind. Jesus took on the punishment of everyone's sins on the cross. This is the gift of God, for us to receive what He has given, we have to have faith and believe in what God did for us. All other religion talks about one's own work to get to ascend or transition to the next life, it's always about our own goodness. But for God, it's not about what we can do, it's about what He did for us. That we all have sinned, and fallen short, our own goodness will not save us. Just like any criminal in a court, the judge will not look at all the good things the person has done, but will look at the crime that has been done. It's not completely about being sorry for what you've done, because that won't get you out either. What Jesus did was pay for Our sins with His own life so that we don't have to suffer of being eternally cast out of God's presence. Hell is just a place where God's presence will not be in. Everything good comes from God. All we have to do is accept that Jesus payed the fine for our sins against God.

[@nessz885]

Just like any parent, you would try to bring up your child in discipline to avoid all the chaos. But if you're a parent, you know you can't force your will on them, they will act out whether you like it or not. They will act against or follow to how you brought them up. God doesn't force people to do anything, everyone is given a choice. God also gave guidance to Israel to bring up their children to know His ways and follow, but people are a obstinate and forgetful and will do what they want. The Children of Israel didnt teach their children, and fell into idolatry, completely against the covenant they entered with God. Despite that, God gave forgiveness and kept His end of the agreement, while Israel continuously disobeyed Him and worshipped graven idols. The consequences of their actions would bite them and would go back to God and ask for help in earnest repentance. God who always upholds His promises, gives them guidance and delivers them from their troubles, but ultimately mankind always falls for to seek their own will. God always extends His hand to help, when your heart is earnest.

[@cmpc724]

Drinking game: take a shot every time Dr Brown asserts something without evidence

[@ChristerAnd]

I swear I've seen Dr Brown in some old Western movie, coming down the wagon stairs asking for more beans.

[@New_Essay_6416]

1:05:13 a summary of the whole debate

[@Fastlan3]

Dr. Malpass points are spot on, even when working with Brown's arguments, and it seems to me that Brown's brain was actively in denial and attempts to reroute his arguments. Apologetics is so disgusting. Christianity seems to inherently make most believers more dishonest then they otherwise would be... They are almost guaranteed to lie to about their religion and deny very well established facts, even within their own religion itself.

[@ethanhanna2616]

Wow, that's an interesting statement. Would you mind elaborating on that?

[@Fastlan3]

@@ethanhanna2616 can you please point to one substantial demonstration of the existence god(s)? Then maybe we can go further with this conversation. Anyone can say things about god(s), how can I determine who's claim are more true?

[@ethanhanna2616]

@@Fastlan3 well that is a tough question to answer. I would say that I can provide you with some evidence of the proof of God, starting with the Bible. The Bible covers thousands of years of historical text and is written by over 30 authors, but still conveys one message. Another example of the proof of God is creation. Christians believe that mankind and this world are a prime example of the artwork of our creator and to say that it is something that happened by accident or happenstance would show that there was a lack of intentionality. Would you look at a beautiful painting and think, "Wow, I love how the paint fell from the shelf over there and somehow splashed on to this canvas to create this gorgeous painting!" No, you wouldn't. It's discrediting the creator! We should apply the same concept to the world and mankind. And because we are created with intentionality, we have a purpose. the God of the universe loves you enough to create you with a purpose. As Christians, we believe that is true and choose to follow that purpose with faith. We have to use faith because although we can't see God physically, we know He is there calling and equipping us for our purpose.

[@Fastlan3]

@@ethanhanna2616 The majority of New Testament scholars agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts; instead, the four were written in and for various Christian communities for the purpose of proclamation, and as a result they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses. The bible is not cohesive and contains verified mistranslations, and contradictory accounts. There are zero contemporary reports and those typically cited are: --misreported (person spoke of a Jesus, but they clearly spoke of many different and did not specify the risen christ, but their report is still dishonestly used). --not eyewitness, but reporting what others are claiming. -- fraudulent, forgeries used in biblical arguments. Claiming people said something, but the earliest versions of their text do not mention what is claimed. Your beliefs influence you to be dishonest about knowable information, it influence you to make erroneous claims such as the bible was written by eyewitnesses. When you recognize Christianity is a lie, don't get too mad with religion, be nice to others who still believe, but be honest. Take care. P.S. ask yourself the question: what is the difference between something not designed and something designed? If you find a wrist-watch on the beach, and you believe the beach, rocks, plants, (everything) is "designed", what contrast do you draw to recognize the wrist-watch was "designed" and isn't part of nature? --- We know there are "painters", we do not know there is a "creator(s)" not to mention one with intensions with the characteristics given to them by religions, and to hold such a view is dishonest.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

@@ethanhanna2616 *"Would you look at a beautiful painting and think, "Wow, I love how the paint fell from the shelf over there and somehow splashed on to this canvas to create this gorgeous painting!""* -- If there's abundant evidence that it came about like that, _I sure would._ It wouldn't be the Mona Lisa of course, it would be splashed onto the canvas, the way paint falling of a shelf can splash things. That's what people are seeing in nature, finding beautiful, and calling designed. Nothing like the Mona Lisa which would actually require design. It's rocks rolling down hills, water flowing down hills. The results of erosion and deposition. Matter flowing around as the Sun heats the Earth differentially, in an energy gradient. Natural processes. The natural scenery one person looks at and finds beautiful (which others might find ugly!), wasn't crafted to look that way. Go back a hundred million years and it looked very different. It's been weathered and churned around by natural processes, not carefully placed into its current arrangement by an artist. Your painting analogy is much more appropriate for explainging your own fallacious thinking here, with a little reversing. When all the evidence points to a canvas being splashed by paint tins that fell from a shelf, you come along and say that _merely because you find those splashes beautiful,_ that proves it was made by a painter. _Even though_ we have evidence like video showing nobody in the room, while an earthquake shakes the cans off the shelf onto the canvas, forming the very splashes in question. (Scientists _really do_ know a lot about geological history, and how the natural scenes people find beautiful formed.)

[@illithidhunter6177]

I have zero respect for a Dr. that rely on anecdote to reach conclusion about reality. The only thing he proves is his own gullible, naive, and lack of critical thinking that makes him believe in those anecdotes.

[@masterthnag105]

Dr. Browns very first statement defeated his whole point from the outset.... fail.

[@anzu3439]

There’s evidence for divine intervention?? What??😳I guess I’m a theist now🤦🏻

[@mariokempes2695]

My 8 year old son is a paraplegic with no cure in sight, but right as I was about to lose hope, my church prayed for one of our members Susan and her cold only lasted 3 days...the doctors said she will be sick for at least a week...explain that, atheists!!!

[@yunus1947]

Well maybe the symptoms went away after 3 days but you can still be sick for a week Or maybe a misdiagnosis Or perhaps what doctors like to do is give the bad possibility in order to not give false hope?

[@rmz4504]

Why wouldn't he just eliminate bad choices. If he's almighty just create people that can only do good.

[@verysimple77]

May I ask.... Would you want this powerful God to prevent you from sinning as well? Just wondering where you want his power to stop! Not judging you and no disrespect intended! Thanks

[@racheldavidson9973]

He doesn't eliminate bad choices because a world without freewill is a world that is incapable of love. We cannot love God and glorify God if we are robots.

[@samuelstephens6904]

@@racheldavidson9973 The problem is that a world without categorically bad choices is not the same thing as a world without free will. The problem still remains: why are there such things as categorically bad choices? The idea that there _has_ to be evil in a world of freedom, that there is no conceivable or possible way to have meaningful choice without it, actually implies that evil is equal to God, eternal and necessary.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

@@verysimple77 I might, depending on what counts as sinful. The doctrines that currently exist are tangled in ancient bigotry, hating gays and stuff. I couldn't believe any of that junk really comes from a God, that's obviously man's work. I'm sure a caring, intelligent _real_ god's sin list would rather be just prohibitions against cruelty and harming others. I would welcome being prevented from doing anything cruel or harmful to other conscious beings. Isn't that what heaven is meant to be like? Or can you hurt people in heaven?

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

@@racheldavidson9973 Can God make bad choices? If not, aren't you saying he is a robot and incapable of love?

[@AOPrinciple]

I know this isn't a substantive comment, but I mean it seriously that the sloppiness and relative ineptitude of Dr. Brown causes me quasi-physical pain.

[@TaylorWalston]

So if I make up a religion.. I am going to have to deal with skeptics and times I can't claim something is proof of my religion. To say you have excuses packaged into the system to handle that is NOT impressive.

[@howlong1248]

"Evil will always prevail, because good is dumb" Dark Helmet

[@Stramontin1]

@The Maverick water also destroys life.

[@equalizingrespectator9658]

@The Maverick water really slippy aswell becareful. Specially when frozen not a bad drink tho.

[@mpmh3]

Human choice...God says what we must do...We choose to obey or not

[@equalizingrespectator9658]

@@mpmh3 Which God and when did he say it? If i listen to the wrong one it will have a terrible effect on my eternal afterlife i dont want to mess this up now.

[@mpmh3]

​@@equalizingrespectator9658 Jesus Christ is the creator..Listen to Him

[@mestefanofontana]

Seems like god's intent is to find a loophole in his own nature to allow evil. Since he (according to theists) is all good and therefore cannot "chose" to do evil, he creates an imperfect being and gives him he supposed gift of being able to chose to do evil, known the imperfect being will do just that. Let's face it, god just wanted to find a way to do evil.

[@apocalypsed8]

Religious confirmation bias: If someone has an accident, almost dies, has to recover for months, barely makes it, some believers will call this a miracle. I bet if you asked before crossing the road if he would feel lucky to almost die he would say no. And if God watches you and wants to help you, coudnt he do it 1 minute earlier before you had the accident? Works the same with things like cancer, if God was the one curing you wasnt he also the one who gave it to you? Or could he at least have prevented it instead of waiting till your doctors give up on you and your body is half destroyed?

[@juanoceguera3166]

If god is so powerful why took him too 1492 years to his myth to come to the American continent???

[@HiVisl]

It was great having Dr Brown on. Kudos to you. He is a great fella. In a libertarian free-will universe why is suffering a "problem"? It should be expected when man freely chooses against the God of peace, joy, love etc. We get exactly the opposite of God. Suffering is a consequence (judgement) of our choice to run from God.

[@kwahujakquai6726]

So it's impossible for an all powerful all know god to create a world where his creation has freedom without suffering? If so then this god isn't so all powerful, this god has limitations!!!!!

[@crystalchristell2267]

I wouldn't expect Dr Brown to a good job here cuz he's area of specialty is different. Desert, Craig, Bentley, would be a worthy representative. Just for you to know what I mean, let this two debate hermeneutics.

[@carmenrivera8151]

The problem with atheists is that, they only want to listen to their own words and, therefore, they dig their own grave...God didn't create robots but, human beings capable of exercising free will. And free will implys knowledge of good and evil and undoubtedly consequences of every decision we chose. Sufferance, in case you don't know it, we live in a world of chaos, the result from our separation from God...✍️

[@samuelstephens6904]

It seems Dr. Brown was the one who was more interested in listening to his own words here as he did not really stick to the debate topic or any topic for that matter.

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

So the entire argument of the theist is that we have no answer for the origins of the universe and life, so god did it. That's a fallacy.

[@Justas399]

Then give a better explanation for the origin of the universe and life than God did it.

[@Apanblod]

@@Justas399 That response is the very definition of the fallacy in question.

[@Justas399]

@@Apanblod how so?

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

@@Justas399 I don't claim to know the ultimate origins of reality and life. To claim that if because we do not know how the cosmos came to be, than it must be god is called the fallacy of an argument from ignorance, a god of the gaps and an argument from personal incredulity. This is pretty basic logic. You literally just restated exactly the same argument i pointed out as being deeply flawed and fallacious. Do you not understand the argument?

[@Justas399]

@@jasonbladzinski5336 the claim that God did it is not a fallacy of any kind. Rather it is the best explanation for reality.

[@balla2172]

The Theos completely lost me when he said advertising does not work. If advertising did not work why for the Super Bowl for instance do companies pay millions of dollars for a 32nd ad do they spend all of that money when they can go and regular TV and spent 12 hundreds of that because it doesn't work or do they spend that much money on it because they know they are millions of people watching they also know there message from that add will get to millions of people therefore those people will go out and purchase their product a portion of them I'm not great at math but say advertisements are 5% effective 5% of a 100000 people is vastly different from 5% of 14 million people

[@timo5601]

I checked out at "Lee Strobel"

[@Homeoftheclan]

Where would christians be without stories...

[@Justas399]

Where would atheists be if they had facts that proves atheism is true?

[@Justas399]

@L M You didn't answer the question. Again- What are the facts that proves atheism is true?

[@Justas399]

@L M wrong. Atheism is a knowledge claim about reality that asserts that no gods exist. For this claim to be true, you must have facts that shows it to be true. Has nothing to do with your state of mind.

[@Justas399]

@L M Atheism is a knowledge claim about reality that asserts that no god exist. Now what facts do you have that proves that? If you don't have any, then all you have is a preference. You prefer God not to exist because you have no facts, no logic that proves He cannot exist. Right?

[@Justas399]

@L M how is it that I know what atheism means and implies and you don’t?

[@M15TRR3CT4NGL]

Mr. Brown is as credulous a person as I've seen. It baffles me that full grown men believe in the type of miracles he describes. And to call them scientifically proven and peer reviewed to boot! And all without a single shred of evidence!

[@Justas399]

The resurrection of Christ is one of the best attested events of the ancient world. No other event in the ancient is as well documented as the resurrection of Christ.

[@M15TRR3CT4NGL]

@@Justas399 hahaha ouch! stop! Oh my stomach! You can't just make me laugh like that. I need a warm up. Sorry dude. Dead people stay dead. Every. Time. For. Always.

[@Justas399]

@@M15TRR3CT4NGL that is true in most cases but not true with the resurrection of Christ. To much evidence to ignore.

[@M15TRR3CT4NGL]

@@Justas399 if you consider spoken word stories passed down for a few generations until they started to be written in Greek and then one of those stories was copied into 4 different incongruous and contradictory legends as evidence then I don't think we have the same standards for what we call evidence...

[@M15TRR3CT4NGL]

@J w not a chance. I'd just know whose hell I'm going to and who to flip off on my way there.

[@AOPrinciple]

James, I wish you'd stop saying that inept conversations are good.

[@juliebarks3195]

There is no such thing as sin. There are good acts and bad acts. Sin is a word religious people made up to guilt-trip the sheep.

[@paradisecityX0]

Sin means "to miss the mark". You think people made that up? Wow

[@xFriendlyNapalm]

@S Gloobal Outcome. When you were a kid, you probably did something at some point to make another kid cry - and then you learned not to do that thing, because you didn't want to make that kid cry again. Just like pretty much every child, you were able to work out right from wrong without some divine guidance from an omniscient eternal being.

[@xFriendlyNapalm]

​@S Gloobal You assert God as an explanation to something we actually know about and understand. Guilt on the individual level was powerfully selected for in humans because social groups that work together outperform those that can't work together. So even though it can be a detriment to an individual to not be able to be selfish and do whatever is best for them, there are far more powerful benefits for mutual cooperation in humans. We can even use science to explain why some people feel less guilt or even no guilt at all. Other animals have different selection pressure, and commonly benefit more from selfish behaviour - but that doesn't mean that we don't see things like shame and altruism in other animal species. Why would God condemn one human by not giving them his divine guidance, and cripple another one with overwhelmingly powerful guilt that means that they can't function in society?

[@juliebarks3195]

@@paradisecityX0 Of course. An evolving ape made that up. Just like your Wow. That's what apes do when there agitated. Wow, Wow, Wow. Have you not seen Tarzan, king of the apes.

[@juliebarks3195]

@S Gloobal Well, certainly not from a book of bronze age wholesale genocide. The Harry Potter books had better life lessons.

[@truckcompany]

Dr Brown rolling out the stock arguments and hoping one will stick. I don't know how people can sit their listening to him go on and on. A lot of what he says is completely irrelevant to his own argument.

[@balla2172]

God is all good excess 21 he'd specifically lays out how to own another person what you can and can't do to them as your property

[@bortgov8624]

Exodus 21.

[@rekunta]

Aron Ra vs Nathan Thompson next month? ‘Dis gun be good!

[@Arena1999]

Next *week,* to be exact.

[@constructivecritique5191]

Atheist Dr Malpas uses suffering to judge God. Saying if God is good there wouldn't be suffering. Except people love to suffer. People think when they suffer they have power over God as seen here in this episode.

[@samuelstephens6904]

That’s not what Malpass was getting at. He was saying instances of suffering (usually “gratuitous” ones) are more likely in a universe of indifference than one where a God exists who cares deeply about that suffering and can intervene on our behalf. It’s more likely that seemingly pointless and absurd suffering really is just that: pointless and absurd. You can tell yourself an _ad hoc_ story that makes sense of why God would allow that kind of suffering, but Malpass wasn’t arguing against the mere logical compatibility of God and suffering.

[@constructivecritique5191]

@@samuelstephens6904 hypothetically, but we'll never know.

[@samuelstephens6904]

@@constructivecritique5191 Never know what?

[@constructivecritique5191]

@@samuelstephens6904 never know if God will intervene or allow us to realize how pointless and absurd certain suffering is. Only then will we realize how misguided our thoughts are. For the last four years our media has been asserting that POTUS was colluding with Russia. Millions spent investigating and no evidence! Yet Hunter Biden's laptop shows up with all the evidence in it of Biden's accepting millions from foreign countries and they say it's fake news from Russia and refuse to investigate. The media will cause pointless suffering by pushing a false narrative over direct evidence. The media are in full control and are deliberately trying to deceive! They claim they rely on evidence and then deny evidence. All because they want to control our perception so they will be seen as powerful. Suffering pointlessly to gain power was not pointless to them, it was just a failed attempt. Only when they totally lose, will they realize it was pointless and even then they will continue because they refuse to accept truth over their power. Is pushing a fiction over truth pointless or the whole point of our existence? So should God intervene? Or should they be left to stew in their own fictional world? We don't know? It's God's preference not to force truth on people but he may according to the master plan. We'll never know!

[@constructivecritique5191]

It's one thing to use fiction as motivation and another to mitigate truth.

[@andrewcarlson9085]

It seems that Dr Brown does not question gods motives or actions because of a presupposition of goodness. It sounds like there is NO situation in which evil is NOT justified to Dr Brown, there is no room to question god therefore everything HAS to make sense and if not, it's just because god is mysterious.

[@triggerme2818]

If you bring a human being into this world you commit the ultimate crime.

[@ZambeziKid]

Looking for a debate? 😅

[@triggerme2818]

​@@ZambeziKid so what's to debate? It's obvious that you can't do worse to a human being than bring him into this world just so that he can die after having lived a life that was filled with problems from the beginning to the end.

[@triggerme2818]

@@parametalhead I'm supposed to be the one that's triggered.

[@ZambeziKid]

@@triggerme2818 didnt u watch this video? He said he was looking at a antinatalism debate.

[@triggerme2818]

@@ZambeziKid oh, so it's not you that you were referencing. Hahaaha okay. Well then I'm glad for your sake.

[@FRANKS92]

Dr. Brown was not on topic.

[@frankwhelan1715]

Nothing these theist say ever makes any sense,or logic, would it be all right to beat a child and afterwards 'reward' him with a nice present seems to be browns logic of suffering and heaven.

[@New_Essay_6416]

Philosophy > Apologetics