The SURPRISING Reason Bart Ehrman Deconverted: Reaction video

[@efstratiosfilis2290]

In the famine example I would say why do no those of us who do have food, feed & help those who are starving to survive & to set themselves up to confront famines in the future? Why do not we help those who are suffering instead of ignoring them?

[@simonlealbarria6550]

This was terrible. When I saw you had a PhD I really hoped for more, but your reasoning was so poor... I just find these kinds of arguments exhausting. When you postulate an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect deity, there is absolutely nothing one can say to refute that idea (e.g., from 10:42 to 12:30 was a clear example). Like many philosophers and theologians, you are just waffling. Spanish is my native language and I am terribly sorry that the English-speaking world is not familiar with the term "cantinflear". It just fits perfect with what you did...

[@TravDickinson]

Not waffling at all. I genuinely think the evidence for the claim that 'God's exists and has justifying reasons for evil, pain and suffering' is far outweighs the evidence that 'pointless evil exists.'

[@srenkongstad2992]

​@TravDickinson that's good. But since there is no solid case to be made either way, your beliefs sound just like Ehrmans. He's not convinced that there's justification for the suffering in the world. You are. It's kinda a he said she said situation.

[@SpectatorAlius]

But at least when Cantinflas did his famous 'canfinflear', he was funny!

[@christianenglert1299]

Love this video! I can empathize with Ehrman's reservations, as I have asked the "why" questions my whole life. And after coming to the point of doubting God's existence, I encountered suffering myself. It was in the form of a very rare form of brain cancer, and it rocked my world. It led me to believe that my faith would be completely destroyed. But then God! (This is where your reference to experience is relatable) He revealed himself in ways I could not deny. And before knowing what would ultimately happen to me, I had an unparalleled encounter with God that I will never forget. It motivated me to run into his arms and trust his reasoning for allowing such daunting suffering to occur. Additionally, I discovered assertions in Scripture (Gen. 50:20; Rom. 5:1-8, 8:18, 29; James 1:1-4; 1 Pet. 1-6-7; Rev. 21:4, etc.) that point to one of the reasons God is able to remain just and loving amidst the reality of suffering: He is able to redeem it for good and do so in such a way that its ultimate outcome glorifies Him. I am not able to point to each occurrence of suffering in our history and provide God's specific reasoning for allowing it to occur. But I trust that He is just and can redeem in ways that we cannot comprehend. The ultimate instance of redemption taking place through Christ's work on the cross and provision of eternity for all who believe in Him.

[@halgivens7113]

Great analysis, Travis! I recently heard a quote from a soldier who had seen and experienced much suffering in his life. I don't recall the exact quote, but it went something like this, "If it isn't good, God isn't finished." While on the surface this may seem simplistic, I believe this quote helps us, in our limited perspective, to trust all all-knowing, all-wise, and all-loving God.

[@kdroach474]

I am excited about this channel! This is fantastic! These are tough subjects and relavent topics. Thanks, Travis.

[@TheBlackDogChronicles]

"As if it refutes the free-will defence"? It *does* refute the free-will defence. It makes an argument from the position of free-will meaningless. If I have "free-will" to "reject god" in this life, and there is free will in heaven (even though heaven means "the sky" and more than likely didn't mean what people have shifted it to mean today) so, apparently I will have just as much freedom to reject god in heaven as well, then why the necessity for the greatest sin of all time being rejecting the god or gods? It is an absolute mess of meaninglessness, in which the only way to reconcile it is to add on preclusions that are not mentioned in the Bible and are essentially (in my experience) invented by the apologist ad hoc. In all my life of asking this question i have never encountered a response that isn't 1) bluster 2) an ad hominem 3) shifting the goalposts and 4) my favourite of them all; the respondent crying, "That isn't a *fair* question" .

[@FireFlanker1]

As one of your former students from SWBTS, I'm super excited to get more of these videos!

[@GeoffreyBRIDGLAND]

Well, this comfortable, pious, pompous, and somewhat odious armchair preacher adds utterly nothing to the debate at all. Easy to pick holes and leave them for someone else to stitch up. Why don't you actually debate Bart?

[@ApologiaCenter]

excited for this channel, we need more scholars on KZbin

[@pauljohnston3884]

I see. God is all good but has his own reasons for permitting evil. What a great parent.

[@GospelEd]

I understand how that perspective might feel frustrating or even sarcastic when grappling with the problem of evil and suffering. It's a deeply emotional and difficult question: if God is good, why does He permit evil? Why does He allow suffering, especially the kind that feels so personal and devastating? God's role as a parent-both all-powerful and all-loving-might not always align with how we, as humans, imagine an ideal parent should act. We tend to think of good parenting as preventing every harm or ensuring no pain ever reaches our loved ones. But if God were only a shield from pain, we’d miss the larger story He’s telling-a story not just of avoiding hurt, but of redeeming and restoring what’s broken. In the Scriptures, God does not deny the reality of evil or suffering. He enters into it. He grieves over it (Genesis 6:6). He carries it (Isaiah 53:4). And He ultimately provides a path through it-through the cross and resurrection of Jesus. As a parent, God doesn’t just permit suffering from afar; He experiences it intimately, allowing His own Son to bear the worst of it. He didn’t spare Himself from the reality of pain, but He used it to bring about redemption for all. A good parent doesn’t eliminate every hardship but equips their children to grow, endure, and ultimately thrive despite it. Similarly, God’s allowance of evil and suffering, while deeply challenging for us to understand, is within a bigger plan-a story that ends in restoration, where pain and evil are completely undone (Revelation 21:4). It’s not the avoidance of hardship that defines His goodness but His unwavering commitment to redeem it for ultimate good (Romans 8:28). It’s okay to wrestle with these questions; they’re part of being human. God invites that wrestling because it’s often in our deepest struggles that we come to know Him most profoundly-not just as a parent who protects, but as a Savior who redeems and restores.

[@DavidRad-z3v]

BTW just subscribed, we need more of these kinds of videos pointing out the obvious. Pointing out the main issues with arguments is where new apologetics is sometimes missing.

[@jcui5007]

Amazing!!

[@richardowen2087]

So.., You "don't KNOW why god allows evil, but you THINK we can say god has a reason". Either you are stupid, or you think I am. Where is the proof? There is ample proof of what you call 'evil'.

[@TravDickinson]

Well I guess I don't think either of us are stupid necessarily. Yes, there are many good reasons to believe in God. Stay tuned.

[@TheBlackDogChronicles]

​@@TravDickinson Dear Mr. Dickinson, Thank you for sharing your perspective. I’d like to offer a critique of your reasoning in a way that encourages dialogue and reflection rather than conflict. One definition of unreasoned thinking is when conclusions are reached without sufficient evidence to support them. This sometimes happens when individuals hold beliefs with certainty but cannot provide conclusive evidence for that certainty. For instance, if someone were to claim, "red cars are magical and talk to me," and justify it by pointing out the existence of red cars and talking as separate phenomena, it wouldn’t logically follow that red cars are magical or capable of speech. In the same way, arguments for the existence of a specific deity often rely on connecting observable realities-such as the universe, morality, or human consciousness-with an unverifiable conclusion: that a particular god must be the cause. Without bridging this gap with evidence, the claim remains unproven, even if it holds deep personal significance. A crucial perspective often overlooked is that of individuals who have transitioned from belief to non-belief. For those who have deconverted, a unique clarity often emerges-a recognition of the self-deceptions or rationalizations once used to sustain their faith. These are not necessarily intentional lies but rather unconscious justifications that become evident only when viewed from the outside. It can be a humbling yet enlightening process to reflect on how deeply held beliefs were maintained through arguments that, in retrospect, lacked critical scrutiny. This is not to say that believers are unintelligent or irrational; humans often hold onto beliefs for emotional, cultural, or community reasons. However, deconversion often brings with it an ability to see how these factors influence belief, and how challenging it is to reconcile them with a commitment to intellectual honesty. It’s also worth noting that similar claims are made for other deities, spirits, or supernatural entities throughout history, yet they are often rejected by those outside the belief system. For instance, just as Christians might dismiss the gods of ancient Greece or the deities of other religions, adherents of those faiths might reject the Christian conception of God. This highlights how cultural and historical contexts shape belief, often more than evidence or reasoning. Letting go of a cherished belief is never easy, and acknowledging its inconsistencies doesn’t have to mean rejecting its value entirely. It can be an opportunity for growth, allowing one to pursue meaning and understanding in ways that are grounded in reason and evidence. I do not know if you have had the experience of becoming a non-Christian, after spending more than two decades as one. If you have, I will be interested to hear about it. But my claim is that if you haven't, then you don't know what it is like to wake up and become aware of all of the falsehoods you have willingly conceded to, the conscious hyperbole and the acknowledgement of the fact that you never began the journey from a position of scepticism, and the original nucleaus of your belief was rooted in "a bunch of other people say so, and I don't presently know enough to refute their claims." Many peope who have ceased being theists will now recognise the next part. When the creeping voice of scepticism, the same scepticism that you alreasy apply to politicans, and used-car salespeople, and dubious medical professionals begins to penetrate your belief and, when you mention it to the people who share your belief you receive - claims that you have "gone wrong" and/or outward rejection and hostility. People who claim that they love with the spirit of their loving god in their heart suddenly begin to realise that they don't love their friend as much as they love their beliefs not being questioned. If you do not know the deconversion experience personally, then you do not know what it feels like to become aware of the way your mind begins to see all the little self-deceptions you willingly engage in to remain in the Folie à deux (I) that, even though you know the danger of group-based psychology, you actively build defensive walls around. As has been said many times, physicist don't feel the need to go to a special building every week to convince themselves that electrons exist. They have proofs and systems that are built off those proofs. There is not one single aspect of the Christian belief system which isn't swimming in problems, falsehoods, historical inaccuracies and ludicrous claims. If you acknowledged that in ANYTHING ELSE, you would immediately recognise that that thing was false. I encourage you to consider these points, not as an attack on your faith, but as an invitation to reflect critically on the reasoning behind it. If a belief system requires constant reinforcement or insulation from scrutiny, it’s worth asking why that might be. True understanding often emerges when we challenge ourselves and confront difficult questions, even if the answers are uncomfortable. Kind regards, Huw Carr of The Black Dog Chronicles. (I) By using Folie à deux , you will respect that I am being facetious. I don't know the French phrase for the "the folly of the hundreds".

[@lifepointfam]

Well done, Travis.

[@craiglittle7367]

It’s different because the wicked will be no more.

[@RileyRampant]

The problem of evil isn't just the heart-string pulling examples usually given. Its the tree of life, the brutal predation which, in no small part, drove evolution in general, including ours. Any creator we can reasonably imagine has created a brutal world, with much essential, necessary pain - we understand the necessity, we're NOT children, bereft of the deeper understanding - its making a living. The problem is that the mechanism seems self-sufficient, but not very kind. And so, your deity must accordingly also be pretty cold-blooded, remote, non-mitigating.

[@eznosnopes5276]

My problem with the idea free will producing suffering is that peoples actions cause the suffering of others. Sometimes those actions can be unintentional or due to a lack of knowledge but produce great suffering. Bad government policy, lack of agricultural knowledge or anything else can result in famines where millions of people that did not make those decisions suffer and die. This is fundamentally unjust. Sometimes no choice made by anyone results in great suffering. Bad weather, a failed crop etc can cause famines. If my actions alone cause my own suffering that would be compatible with the idea of free will described but that’s just not the world we live in. Genetics, economics, disease, calamity etc can all create great suffering when nobody made a choice.

[@alphanumericskeptic]

H-mm, @ 8:00 I have to say freewill in heaven v/s freewill on earth seems to be a very interesting thought. I mean certainly heaven would fail to be a tidy perfect place to exist if everyone had free will there. It could possibly become a great big hell with freewill running amok.

[@johnferrer42]

People who don't know their philosophy aren't equipped to defend themselves when hostile philosophical ideas ravage their worldview. Bart Ehrman is no exception. He's smart. He's well-educated. But he's not a philosopher. He doesn't seem to have engaged in depth with the literature on the philosophical problem(s) of evil. In response to him, I'd commend Clay Jone's "Why Does God Allow Evil?". He has the best account, I think, of the problem of evil (broadly conceived). Specifically, he takes the Free Will defense to a whole different level. He explains the whole of human history as an exhaustive lesson for mankind to fully and finally learn that "Sin is stupid." With that lesson resting in our perfected memory in heaven, when no sin nature remains in our hearts to bend in our will, distort our perception, or filter our memory; then we'll be able to have genuine free will in heaven without ever sinning. It's for the same reason we won't want to jab a pencil in our eye. Sure, a toddler might not know better. But as adults, we'll know better. We will have learned that lesson. See, Clay Jones, "Why Does God Allow Evil?" www.amazon.com/Why-Does-God-Allow-Evil/dp/0736970444

[@blueglassdave]

So, and I ask this with all due respect, what makes Mr. Jones theory regarding to the presence of evil any more valid than simply attributing the presence of evil to God's ineffable plan as God insists Job must do, even though we, the readers, have been given a literary behind the scenes look and know from Job 2:2 that it was simply because God was "incited" by the Satan's challenge.? Does Jones conjecture have more demonstrable explanatory power or is it simply more palatable, and again, I'm not asking simply to be flippant. I've listened to a fair amount from Dr. Ehrman, as you may have also, enough to understand that he's a very dogged scholar and, though don't know, I'd be surprised if, over the years, he hadn't considered Mr. Jones line of thinking as I know heard it before but I'm sorry to admit I don't remember which early Christian thinker to relate it to. Obviously asking Dr Ehrman or one of hosts who's shows he frequents would be the easiest way to be exposed to his views on the subject though I do know that his denial of Christianity's claims entails far more than the problem of evil.

[@johnferrer42]

@blueglassdave yes, the explanatory value is higher on Jones's thesis since the brand of theism in view here isn't a generic/non-specific theism, where God has mysterious knowledge that we don't have, and mysterious purposes that we don't understand. Instead, Jones flexes the explanatory power of Christian theism wherein God is training up people who will (1) be able to rule and reign at his side, (2) for all eternity, (3) in heaven, (4) as free beings, (5) without ever sinning. That explanation makes a lot more sense of the chaos and craziness we see and experience across the history of human sinfulness. Natural evil, moral evil, and disorder make a lot more sense as lessons on the stupidity of rejecting God's good order. That sort of "lesson" is another dimension compared to the typical "soup building/character building defense." And it incorporates the free will defense into the soul-building defense while also explaining how people could be genuinely free in heaven without sinning (whereas, in earth, we tend to recognize free will by our ability to sin). Jones's thesis therefore answers the problem of evil, the problem of free will in heaven, and explores a richer Christian theodicy - showing how philosophical theology has more resources available to answer the question compared to the typically streamlined models of skepticism theism and minimalist argumentation. No, if the Christian God is in view here - and the PoE is perhaps the most powerful attack leveraged against Christian theism - then a Christian theodicy is fair game.

[@blueglassdave]

@@johnferrer42 Again with respect, I don't think that the Problem of Evil is the most powerful argument as it's easily accounted for within Christian Theodicy, whether Mr. Jones theory, God's ineffable will or any other explanations people have come up with over the millennia. For me personally the absence in either the Tanach or the words ascribed to Jesus of humanity being permanently separated from God by inherent sinfulness, among is far more potent. I'd be interested in hearing Ehrman talk about his current views on the subject and what he now considers to be the most potent arguments against Christian theism since the PoE argument presented what he believed was in insurmountable hurdle many years ago while he was a believer a proceeded most of his career as a New Testament scholar. What I struggle with here though is just how Mr. Jones conjecture can be considered explanatory if it's premise and conclusions can't be demonstrated to be true. Yes, disastrous things occur, some of which are attributable to intent which people often refer to as evil, but there's no way to demonstrate that these occurrences are a deviation from a God's will or that the world hasn't always been as it is. Mr. Jones theory incorporates various components of Christian thought but if it only presents as being explanatory to those who accept it's conditions, I don't see how it can ever be considered as more than a theory, including by believers as there is no explanation presented in the Bible beyond Yahwe's answer to Job of, "I don't have to explain myself to you!", which is interesting in relation to the presence of evil as we, the readers, know that despite God's obfuscation and eloquence, the cause of Job's suffering was nothing more than God's having been goaded by Satan into taking up his challenge.

[@davidoswald5293]

Do not conflate "evil" with suffering. Additionally, if you want to know. what destroyed his faith is the fact that natural disasters are god's province and not explained by free will

[@olivia362436]

God created us in his image and gave us critical thinking and wisdom but we don't deserve to know the why of suffering but we show understand that God is there and in control and ultimately that He is good ... A huge non sequitur for me ... We should trust that an ALL GOOD God exists ? ... Check your brains in at the door please

[@KRGruner]

Problem of suffering (NOT evil) is the OBVIOUS one! Not that complicated. Do not confuse the two. But essentially Ehrman is entirely correct.

[@olivia362436]

I agree evil is a separate issue to suffering and this idea that we will have free will in heaven but won't be able to sin is a concept that no one understands fully and this idea of perfected memory is pure conjecture and if we cannot recall memories of our past then we would not be ourselves.

[@KRGruner]

@@olivia362436 Indeed. Agree 100%.

[@ricardocima]

To me it's perfectly clear , by comparison, that we western moderns aren't able to believe in God anymore. Pre-modern people ACTED like they believed in the sacred scriptures. The fear of hell, the belief in a next life, all of that mattered in practical terms (like spending a LOT of money to secure a place in heaven, or destroying invaluable art because it's sinful) . Not only religion mattered , but also magic and astrology. They walked the walk. We, including you, don't have any faith left and are attached to religion only because of cultural traits, tradition, etc. It's all empty. We are the hollow men, the stuffed men. Alas!

[@IosifStalin2]

Still , you have to explain why god is more enraged against homosexuality than hunger. It seems you can tolerate all the suffering and injustices in the world, so long as you have your comfort Theology.

[@PaulByrom-n8q]

"Thank you! I’m eager to hear your thoughts on these pressing topics-they will be a great encouragement

[@doctorpretender]

Interesting video. A couple things I disagree about is that you say that Bart doesn’t specifically state who he’s read and so his knowledge can’t be fully trusted. To me this seems more like a video about his personal beliefs and experiences and not an objective, scholarly work where he’s trying to backup every belief he has. Then with the free will question, you say his refutation of the free will defense seems silly but you offer no reason why you find it silly or explanation of why you think he’s wrong. Finally, with the question of suffering, you say that you don’t always know your parents’ reasons for doing things as a child but that you still trust them. The thing is, if God is the father in this situation then not just the people asking about suffering are the children but so are the suffering people themselves, and it sounds like you are telling the suffering people that they don’t necessarily have a right to know why they are suffering and they should just have trust. You say not to have blind faith but then you say to have faith that God has reasons even without knowing the reasons and that we often don’t need to know, which sounds to me like blind faith. You say your kids don’t need to know everything but that you provide everything they need and they trust you, which is good, but they are not starving and asking you why they’re starving and then you’re saying they don’t need to know. You’re taking care of them and so that trust is earned. Anyway, that’s my two cents.

[@TravDickinson]

Thanks for the pushback. You say "...you say that Bart doesn’t specifically state who he’s read and so his knowledge can’t be fully trusted." I didn't say this. I just said it would've been nice to know who he was reading. The point is that we can trust, on the basis of good evidence (i.e., evidence for God's existence and goodness), that God has his reasons for allowing our suffering even when we don't know what those reasons are. So a better example with my kids is when one of them had to get a shot. They are suffering as a result of the pain. Even though they might not understand the good and justified reasons for their pain, they still have reasons to trust me as their dad. I hope that helps!!

[@tommac5411]

What hasn’t Bart read. He’s dedicated his life to the study of the Bible.

[@kennethogorman5436]

BART is an absolute master of biblical history clown. Christian’s don’t like him because he easily destroys Christian apologists

[@PLASKETT7]

There is Only One explanation I can think of to account for how a just and loving God could allow suffering. Reincarnation and Karma. That does NOT mean there IS a just and loving God. That does NOT mean Reincarnation and Karma is true.

[@CJMac71]

Glad you showed this video. Bart exposed a real problem and you utterly failed to rebut the argument. Clearly you have no answer for evil or valid argument for god.

[@SpectatorAlius]

Did ou reallly think that you and those who agree with you really have better answers? Try reading, for example, St. Basil the Great "That God is not the Cause of any evil" (quod deus non est auctor malorum). Do a Google search to find a least a stuffy English translation. Or, if mere causistry is no enough, read the Lives of the Saints and see how they sufferd much without ever blaming God for it.

[@philthompson-g1q]

Evil events - the suffering of innocents, we just have to assume that God has reasons and those reasons are good? What? Well this isn't an argument, it's just blind faith. At least Ehrman puts an argument.

[@twodogs91]

Sure, our lack of knowledge does not confirm nonexistence of god. But how does one necessarily conclude, therefore, that god (or gods) od exists; that is absurd, and even stupid. At 15:10, we can know a god is (or gods are) there? We can know a god is (or gods are) good? We can we know a god is (or gods are) in control? These are just vacuous opinons, unsubstantiated by reason. And "experiential evidence"...is that the easter bunny?

[@umbomb]

The lack of evidence for the existence of a god is sufficient reason to lack belief in a god. Ehrman is a Biblical scholar, not a philosopher. He doesn't try to convince anyone to believe in or to abandon their belief in a god.

[@TravDickinson]

@@umbomb I agree with you if there were a lack of evidence. But, in my search, I've found the evidence to be overwhelming.

[@umbomb]

Lots of people feel that way- about various "gods." Some rely on others, some believe one god or another communicates directly with them. Dr. Ehrman doesn't find any of their arguments convincing and this video is supposedly about him and his reasoning.

[@NUHERITAGE-THE-DALAI-RASTA]

You are all over the place: First and foremost: Why should you or anyone else have to come up with "arguments" for the existence god? I don't have to come up with arguments for the existence of my parents. A god could simply walk amongst us the way Genesis says it did in Eden. And if arguments and philosophers, i.e. humans, should be relied on to determine the existence of god, "for every argument there's an equally persuasive counter argument." So god's existence should not be determined by rhetorical prowess. Second: Why would a god need love, since that's the reason humans have free will according to you? Third, you can't explain suffering butt you want BE to explain why he disavows the existence of god. And your proof of god's existence is you "think we can know god is there." His positions seem sound to me while yours seem a lot silly...

[@TravDickinson]

I don't think you need arguments to reasonably believe that God exists. You do need reasons though, of course. And you need arguments to show the reasons you have. It's just how it works. Rhetorical prowess has literally nothing to do with it. Second, God doesn't need love, on the Christian view. I don't *need* my daughter's love but I do desire it, but she wouldn't be able to love without freewill. Third, I don't understand your third point...seems to be some grammar/wording issues. Yes, there are lots of good reasons to believe in God.

[@NUHERITAGE-THE-DALAI-RASTA]

My 3rd point parses and there are no grammatical issues within it. You simply don't understand it, evidently. Yet, not being able to understand the correct grammar of a mere mortal, you "think," your word of choice, that you understand the mind of a god. Scripture says "god ways and thoughts are higher than ours." Arguments for or against god are just that: arguments. Humans determine the existence of gods through arguments and the sword. Any competent god would not leave knowledge of its existence up to the might of weapons, armies and minds. And your desire to be loved by your progeny is human. By definition gods are not human. Academia requires arguments. Determining the truth of the divine is not an academic exercise.

[@rogersacco4624]

Read Blaming Jesus Fir Jehova by Robert M Price.

[@20xochi]

Was my comment deleted? I can’t find it. 😊

[@20xochi]

??? Just want to know if I said something you didn’t like. I didn’t think I was saying anything offensive…or too offensive. Sorry if I did.

[@johnmarkharris]

Maybe Leibniz? Maybe Swinburne?

[@williamzoom9200]

I like the parent/child analogy, but as another commenter mentioned, that breaks down if some children are being taken care of, while others are not. I think another way to consider why God doesn’t prevent suffering has to do with human nature, in that, God knows that if he created a world where suffering never happened, then we would become accustomed to that, and would never feel the need to help anyone else, resulting in us becoming entirely self focused.

[@TravDickinson]

Well, the analogy is only meant to illustrate that a person can rationally trust God (or the child can rationally trust the parent) even if one doesn't understand why God (or the parent) allows us to go through something difficult. It's not meant to illustrate anything more than that. Yes, there are lots of reasons why God may allow us to suffer. But explaining it fully is not necessary for rational trust. That's the main point. Thanks for the comment!

[@garyhundsrucker7771]

I can’t go with his argument about sin being the problem since kids getting brain cancer wasn’t due to their or their parents sinning. I’ve been in pain a bunch of times being 64 yrs old and I’ve had to take steps to alleviate it along the way . To me specific religious dogma and canonical assertions are the problem falling far short of what is actually going on here and were p poor attempts to explain it all. Just think of the Council of Nicea having to throw out the bad bits and keep the good ones by committee!! They were sent on a fool’s errand and I like the way the universe as a whole had a good laugh at just chugging along and do what it do regardless of what men have scribbled down in book form!

[@DavidRad-z3v]

Great video and I find it amazing that he makes huge philosophical blunders, with so much material available out there and his claim that he had read widely he is extremely superficial with his understanding. Just look at his explanation of free will, suffering and existence of God. He seems to really struggling to grasp even basic concepts that are out there that have been written about extensively.

[@James-k8w3g]

Bart Ehrman is the reductio ad absurdum of sola scriptura and sola fide. Reading the Church Fathers with more humility may have saved him from unbelief.

[@nikibankov1218]

Why does God allow suffering? You say we don't know. Ok, so following the same line of logic, when religious people ask: Who created the universe, we can say, we don't know. Because claiming that there must be a God since there already is a Universe, it is the same as saying God must be malevolent since he allowed famine and suffering of innocent young children

[@trabob4438]

Take out the word evil and replace it with suffering, if God was real and all powerful and all loving then why all the suffering.

[@TravDickinson]

But then there is not the same contradiction with God's goodness. Heart surgery causes suffering but it is not evil.

[@maxsotelo6622]

This host added nothing. What is the host point. This is exactly why I don’t go to church is guys like this😊

[@BGTuyau]

"Not a lot of specifics." Oh. I see. So can't be serious. But the presenter patronizingly assures viewers that he "doesn't question [Ehrman]'s sincerity." Ergo more confirmation to true believers that there must be a "God" as variously cited in "scripture." It is written! Moreover, Ehrman doesn't address the nuances or engage with the philosophers, the "heavy hitters," no less. That settles it. It is written! We are like children who don't understand. We don't need to know, just trust.

[@alflyle9955]

Thanks for pointing out that the reason I struggle with believing in an all-loving god who permits so much evil in his world and struggle with understanging the need for evil is because I'm childish is my understanding. You have really sold me, and convinced me that i shouldn't feel insulted at all by being called a child! /s

[@TravDickinson]

Does it help that I'm calling myself a child as well?

[@alflyle9955]

@@TravDickinson Since it appears that you have deleted all my previous negative comments, I would say that clearly you are childish without having to accept such a label for myself.

[@gmac6503]

So this "PhD" just found out one of the reasons Ehrman deconverted lol. Hilarious. Shows you how much christian apologists actually read critical scholars and are lacking in the reasons why any of us (=all) who believed deconvert. Amazing! So he finally LEARNED something. Congrats. Now start studying critical scholarship and join the rest of us who left after decades in the faith. Do some deep studying on what critical scholars are saying and STOP being an apologist.

[@tgrogan6049]

Typical skeptical theist approach where things that are horrible- aren’t really horrible but actually good ALL THINGS CONSIDERED!🤪🤪🤪🤪

[@TravDickinson]

No, that's not the skeptical theistic response at all. It doesn't comment on whether things are horrible. It says that you can't reasonably conclude that God, if he exists, doesn't have good reasons for allowing horrible things.

[@tgrogan6049]

@ under Christian theism unjustified evil cannot exist in any possible world. Stop dodging and weaving. In your world view there is no real evil because God has a good reason for it. So it’s not really evil all things considered.

[@TravDickinson]

@@tgrogan6049no, that's wrong. God allows genuinely evil acts, but the claim is that he does so for good and justifying reasons... Namely among them, human free will. It's similar to the way I allow my kids to make genuine mistakes, at times, but I do that for good reason. Just because I have good reason doesn't make them not mistakes.

[@tgrogan6049]

@@TravDickinson Of course your position is unscriptural and a total cope. "Free Will" is not found in the Bible Yahweh's will is preeminent. "Forming light, and preparing darkness, making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.' Isaiah 45:7 God is the creator of all things in Christian theology. "Allowing" and "permitting" for an omni-God is a meaningless dodge.

[@TravDickinson]

@ Thanks for letting me know. Blessings to you!

[@startraveler3157]

So if God doesn't exist that means suffering is not good or bad. So how and why does sufferging get our attention if it is neither?

[@TravDickinson]

I guess it doesn't if God doesn't exist. You just suffer and that's it.

[@CJMac71]

Why do you need god to know that suffering is bad?

[@brianstavert5678]

It’s all fables and mythology and totally unnecessary. Just be good and be done with it.

[@dcbonner756]

Total hit piece and garbage.

[@pipedreams57]

Ahhhh, another apologetic.

[@jcui5007]

You are sick!