There is nothing new under the sun.

Gnostics posited an imperfect creator but a perfect God, so not exactly the same

Much of the social media arguments have been hatched out for a thousand to thousands of years. People on social media are all acting like these are new and they are all so proud of their supposed “new discoveries.”

​@@den8863 Ecclesiastes is simply based beyond the ages

@@Xeper616you’re right but you’re presenting this incorrectly. They believe the God we interact with - our creator (the demiurge) is evil. It creates out of ignorance, deceit, and hatred. We don’t interact with the Monad, we have the escape the physical world and reach the Pleroma. So, essentially, they described the most proximal God as being the evil God.

@@partydean17 what an evil is? Sounds like you are putting all your hopes on a technicality and not the substance.

@@hamobu Wrong. How can you speak about EVIL without any idea of what it means?

@hamobu I'd hope not. Evil is non-being. There is no action that is absolute evil. It would be no action at all. It is simply unthinkable to be lead toward absolute evil. But pure goodness we can think of. To bring all things to completion into more being. More and more good. Something would still need to be some amount of good to create good even if it wanted things to disintegrate later, there would still be an initial good act that had to have a source somewhere that was also good. It's sort of like saying there is perfect light and perfect shadow and treating them as ontolgically equal. The second thing is literally non being. Non-existent. It would at least need an outline of light, which needs a source. If you mean the substance is that the argument is merely saying "the existence of good things doesn't prove there is a good god anymore than evil things proves there is an evil god" again there are not actually evil things. Something is good in so much as it "is". We may say this being is so incomplete, so disordered to the end it should be that I can call it an evil thing. But it's still based on goodness.

@@davemoore7808 evil in this case means deliberately causing suffering in others

@@partydean17 no evil not merely an absence of good. You have to go out of your way to be evil. By your logic, there's also no absolute good. If you feed a hungry baby, something had to die in order to make that food. Everything good is based on something evil therefore God has to be evil.

G in FREEMASONRY stands for Gnosticism! the unitarian eretic sectarians!

​@@davido3026 It actually stands for God. It always has

​@Pixelism553 yeah not the triune God

Evil creator, not evil God.

@@zacharydurocher4085 delusional

Neither does good, so back at u.

​@@Daniel2374 evil is not something that exists but rather the absence of goodness, just like darkness is the absence of light

​@@Daniel2374 no. Good can exist on its own. To assume otherwise is to assume dualism is true.

@@Daniel2374 There can be cleanliness in a world without filth. There can be life in a world without death. There can be a place without criminality. But you can't have the reverse. You can't call a thing evil without the knowledge of good. But you can have a world of good without evil.

@@jonbolton491 what does It mean to be clean? I need no further discussion until this is resolved.

But It is. A child wanders around a forest without interactions (neutral). A child wanders around a forest and gets kidnapped (evil). Absence of good or evil is also a variable.

@@Daniel2374 In that analogy, that interaction depends on the person the child meets. If that person has some (very) basic decency, they have a pleasant interaction. Or maybe the person really is depraved, but they have a reputation they worked for, so they still refrain the evil act. To go through with it, they need to be lacking a number of good attributes. And the abduction is only possible if the child, who has innate value, is present. Abduction isn't physically possible if there's nobody to abduct; evil is only possible when there's good to harm. But goodness doesn't require evil; nobody had to be harmed for the child to be born. A person's decency doesn't require any evil sacrifice, nor would a person's reputation require that they harmed others.

@@nisonatic u cant have one without the other. There is no relief without anxiousness, there is no hope without lacking, there is no riches without poverty, no congratulations without a fight. Boredom is a lack of struggle and everything would feel slate without good or evil.

​@Daniel2374 Yeah, so an all evil God would not be considered morally evil but just God as I already believe. And by virtue would be good anyways. Is it truly evil then?

@@joshmcgill4639 special pleading. I can say Zeus's nature is to exist therefore Zeus must exist. Holy thunder! Saying God is good because the meaning of God is good is stupid. Might aswell say "good is good because good".

That's valid

Meh. Many things religions label as evil do not seem to be against the natural order at all though. Not if you take lessons from the history of life as a whole (aka evolutionary biology) or our own history.

“The natural order” includes different rules for different species. I don’t think that conflating all life forms will provide any sort of understanding about morality. Very many species thrive by doing things that almost all humans would agree are unacceptable for our species

@@kaizer4506Why not be consistent and impose this objective moral law from the start? To invoke a special rule for humans is anthropocentric special pleading. If anything, the evil god wanted constant death and pain, and we are defying that desire. We must resist the desires of society. Oh wait, where have I heard that before?

@@kaizer4506 They might agree on that publicly but without fail humans thrive on these same 'unaccaptable acts' when the chips are down. I could think of several areas in crisis right now where humans loot and murder and rape. Not to the detriment of their group but probably to the advantage of it as long as they win the conflict. Brutal competition does not seem to be against the natural order, quite the opposite it seems to be woven into it. But fine, we do no have to go into these icky thought experiments to see that the claim does not hold water. Religion does not in general take an anthropological approach to decide what's right or wrong. The consumption of pork has been an important food staple of human populations for millenia. It's a grave sin in some semitic religions. Why? Probably because of some circumstantial factors limited to a specific area in a specific time. Polytheism has been the norm for most of human history and still is for billions of people. Yet in some religions it is a mortal sin. Theravada Buddhism states that having preferences is inherently evil, even though the 'natural order' very clearly rewards beings for having competitive preferences. The demands of religions worldwide are conflicting with each other and they often go against human biology and human nature, if we take into account what we know from anthropology, genetics and psychology.

yes

Great point our very definition of good and evil comes from God. By what standards can we judge Him?

​@@shawnboahene5231The only standard is then subjective but we all know that if it's subjective then it doesn't matter.

Internal critique. One must not concede a viewpoint to be true to critique it. Consider EAAN

By normal people who don't trade their morality for divine command theory or the concept of might makes right. --------------------------------------------‐------------ "In his famous dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, a philosophical quandary is posed thusly: *“Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” Known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, the problem boils down to this:* ***If something is morally good simply because it is commanded by God, then morality is arbitrary. God could decide tomorrow that murder and rape are morally acceptable, and voilà, it would be.*** *On the other hand, if God commands what is already morally good, then morality exists independently of God. He is not the source or creator of morality, not the one who determines right from wrong, but merely one who dispenses a system of ethics that transcends his own authority.* In response, theists attempt to wiggle their way out of the dilemma by suggesting that God’s very nature, or character, is good, so that he would never condone such wicked acts as rape or murder. But then all one has to do is reformulate the question, à la philosopher Michael Martin: “Is God’s character the way it is because it is good, or is God’s character good simply because it is God’s character?” The dilemma stands, as God’s character remains subject to an external definition of what is moral or good. *Why is this? It’s because morality is an abstraction, or social contract, produced collectively by sentient beings, and to which all sentient beings are subject. And it’s something that naturally arises on a pragmatic basis for the sake of order and harmony within any civilized society. God, therefore, is neither the source of morality, nor a necessary explanation for its existence.* *But imagine for a moment the sheer absurdity of suggesting that the biblical God is the supreme author of morality.* A God who demands the extermination of men, women, and children (1 Sam. 15:1-3), who delights in the retaliatory act of seizing infants and dashing them against rocks (Ps. 137:8-9), of raping the wives of Israel’s enemies (Is. 13:16), even orchestrating the brutal death of dozens of children by savage bears, merely for having mocked one of his prophets (2 Kgs. 2:23-24). *This is a ferociously partisan, bloodthirsty, and vengeful deity, not one bound by any high-minded or all-encompassing moral code.* Theists will typically defend such verses in one of three ways: 1) by suggesting that “those were different times,” thus invoking moral relativism and destroying their own case for an objective morality stemming from God; 2) by appealing to context, of which there simply isn’t any to justify the depravity above; and 3) by pleading, “that was the Old Testament,” or, “Jesus changed all that,” tacitly admitting that the God they ostensibly worship was once horrible and in need of change, which further contradicts any claims to the immutable and unchanging character of God (e.g., Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8; Jm. 1:17). *Suffice it to say, neither God nor the Bible serve as the basis for morality."* *"Is God Necessary for Morality? | atheologica"* --------------------------------------------------------- Also look up: *"God is the Source of Morality. (Not.) | atheologica"* *"Morals Don't Come From God: For This I Know Because the Bible Tells Me So"* - Dr Steven DiMattei. *"Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies | Psychology Today"*

They basically think that life sucks and want everyone else to accept this opinion. And yeah I’m sure that life would appear to suck if you’ve internalized a nihilistic view of existence. But ultimately it’s an opinion, they have no ontological justification for life sucking.

What is the answer to the question "Why not heaven now" ?

@@rahulpaul147 there are multiple answers. To be created directly in heaven is a strange expectation - don't you think? Can you think up any reasons yourself as to why having us go through the separation of earth / time - space / life FIRST might be preferable to being directly in heaven?

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue I can't think of any reason afterall the angels were created in heaven and they seem to be doing fine.

@@rahulpaul147 Are they doing "just fine?" and what does "just fine" mean? Do you think they're are made in the image of God and have the same relationship with Him that we might be expecting? Do you think there is no benefit to us being in time-space... experiencing temporarily a separation from God.... but with the full free will to seek him and get redeemed... and opt into heaven in reconciliation? It seems the fallen angels are separated permanently, in eternity, and cannot be redeemed. I don't think you're thinking fully enough. 1 easy example is free will. We can choose our rebellion or choose to reconcile. But that is just 1. In heaven there is no pain, no suffering. Which means there is no need for empathy, no need for mercy, no need for compassion, no need for assisting one another, no need to forgive, no need to sacrifice. In a world separated from God, we are given the benefit of experience compassion, forgiveness, service, and sacrifice. But that's just 1 more reason. There are more. God himself need no show mercy or sacrifice if all things are perfect. In the Bible Jesus himself says the most powerful love is laying your life down for your friends - as he did for us. But he can only lay his life down and die for us - show the greatest love - in a world that allowed death, and for people who needed that savior. Created directly in heaven, we would have no free will, no ability to choose GOd rather than temptations and sins, no need for compassion, and God himself could not show us the greatest love - that he did - in his sacrifice. There are plenty of goods gained from a TEMPORARY experience of separation from God - with the ability to respond to that separation - moving towards him, or away - and be reconciled in his loving sacrifice. The angels are his messengers. He didn't die for them. He died for us.

This is also what Thanos said. You are saying that evil without purpose is impossible because otherwise your theological position breaks down. I’ve been on a missions trip to Mexico and can tell you that there were people suffering for no reason. And of course, if you don’t believe, your life is worse than meaningless, apparently.

An omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent God MUST know a myriad ways of bringing good without evil.

​@@haitaelpastor976drawing closer to God is what brings about the greatest good. The more people that do, the more good there is. The idea of free-will exists and thus good needs to come about via the willful act of free creatures

😂 we all land somewhere in the spectrum

Good is just a lack of evil, there cannot be evil in the world created by a good god but there can be good in the world created by an evil God.

@@Qwerty-lp1fz "Good is just a lack of evil" Wrong, good can be without evil but evil cannot exist independently.

@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 Wrong, evil can be without good but good cannot exist independently

​@Qwerty-lp1fz And this would be wrong. No different than saying that Light is the lack of darkness or heat is the lack of coldness. Evil does not exist in of itself, they are always based on some form of good. Evil is simply lesser goods.

He explicitly talks about that in the video

Easy to say if you live in a first-world country. Also, infinitely? That seems a bit impossible. If there are more people in Hell than in Heaven, I don’t see how that’s better. People suffering eternally for the moral equivalent of stealing a cookie seems pretty evil to me.

"Easy to say if you live in a first-world country." This. Most of the people in the world live miserably. And there's evil we cannot even imagine out there, beyond our comfy walls.

i mean god creates and kills everyone, so if creators are good and killer/destroyer are evil,then god is as good as evil

Creation doesn't necessarily mean good. In a void neither good or evil can exist so to increase good or evil creation can be done. An example would be a being that creates a universe so that it can make it's inhabitants to suffer. That act of creation would be more evil than simply not creating anything

@@rahulpaul147 That presumes that all suffering is evil to begin with. But also, what measure can you actually say that it is actually more evil? To exist is to be good, for goodness is to be desired and existence is what makes things actual. Evil on the other hand, I'm not entirely sure exists in of itself. Can you name me something that is independently evil that doesn't require goodness to precede it?

@@Cklert Your are defining existence as good. By What measure can you actually say it is good ? I am not saying suffering is evil. Suffering is bad and undesiarable mostly. To create a world to make suffering that would be evil. Evil doesn't need to exist independently. For a creation to be evil the evil existing in the creation just need to be more than the good

​​@@rahulpaul147 In Biblical or Spiritual terms that place is called Hell. The ultimate separation from all Good. God is love and shows this by allowing the evil to exist. God loves Satan because he allows Satan to exist, and is therefore Good.

Not really. It's obvious that a primitive Hebrew war/storm god that indulges in animal sacrifices, loves the smell of burnt meat, who battles mythological sea creatures like other fictional gods from ancient Canaan, who can't help the Israelites overcome iron chariots and who evolved over time from one of many tribal gods and patron deities to become "God of the universe" is man made. We're just waiting for you guys to catch on. --------------------------------------------------------- According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown." *"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.* A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"* (Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)* *"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"* (Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular. El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.) *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.

like every argument for theism for believing in god which in the end is just a leap of faith because you cant know the supernatural

​@Exodus314GodisPi-n2d According to the Bible, Jesus was a failed apocalyptic preacher. Do you guys ever investigate properly? --------------------------------------------------------- *Jesus is clearly speaking to the disciples and gives a timeframe for when the Son of Man would come.* "Jesus sent these twelve out, charging them, saying: Do not go into the way of the nations, and do not go into a Samaritan city. *But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.* And going on, proclaim, saying, The kingdom of Heaven has drawn near" (Matthew 10:5-7) “Truly I say to you, ***you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes”*** (Matthew 10:23); For the *Son of man* shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; ***and then he shall reward every man according to his works.*** Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here will not taste death*** before they see the *Son of Man* coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:27-28) Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here*** will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God (Luke 9:27) Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Mark 13:30) *He says that the coming of the Son of Man will be accompanied by:* The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the *Son of Man* in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the *Son of Man* coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Matthew 24:29-34) There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the *Son of Man* coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. When you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Luke 21:25-32) He also falsely prophesied to the high priest, the Sanhedrin and Nathaniel. *Jesus falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin* Jesus also falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin (assemblies of either twenty-three or seventy-one rabbis appointed to sit as a tribunal) You will see the *Son of Man* sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and ***coming on the clouds of heaven*** (Matthew 26:64) (Mark 14:62) Except the high priest and the Sanhedrin never saw Jesus sitting at the right hand side of God, or coming on the clouds of heaven, or any such thing. *Jesus falsely prophesied to Nathaniel* Jesus also falsely prophesied to Nathaniel when he declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” Jesus said, You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that. He then added, ***“Very truly I tell you, you will see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man*** (John 1:50-51) *Nathaniel never saw any such thing. Neither did anyone else.* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Also look up: Watch *Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman* *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* *"Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet - History for Atheists"* (Tim O'Neill is a former Christian and is familiar with most of the Biblical scholarship. He's been studying the scholarship and history for decades) *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."* Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity. *“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress *"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53 *"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"* *"Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy? | Westar Institute"* *"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"What Do the Apostles’ Deaths Prove? Guest Post by Kyle Smith. - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*

@Exodus314GodisPi-n2d In essence the act of believing is a leap of faith. God existence can not be proved empirically but with logical argument that are based on their own theology. All other religions have scholars that have the same conviction and still have totally different natural theology, agnosticism is the only scientific, humble view. This knowledge escapes our reach, look at how dumb Mormons look going house to house preaching a conman's book, all honest preachers in essence are the same

You are just saying that because you don't want to believe in evil God.

🙏

Nah, this based upon unjustified presuppositions. Knowledge is neither good or bad, it’s what you would do with it that makes you either good or bad. Same goes for power etc, these are not moral attributes. What you guys do is presuppose what God must be, even though you have no true basis for this. An open theist could easily say that he doesn’t consider absolute omniscience as a great making property and what are you gonna say? “No you are wrong!😡😡😡😡” Good argument bro. Nobody in this world can by natural theology simply presuppose or say what God must exactly be, you may you can know he exists and is therefore powerful to a large degree, but you can’t just fill in: God is this, that etc erc. Also, God dying for you is personal belief and not something considered in the debate topic of this video

Sauron is an evil god

He didn't really die, just took a weekend before coming back. And even if he did, it's like cheating on yourself at Solitaire.

The Abrahamic god clearly is evil. It's amazing the mental gymnastics believers will perform to defend Biblical atrocities and immorality. And you guys are supposed to be the beacons of morality. -----------------------‐-------------------‐------‐------ *This website is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called God of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children.* I have included references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow along. *It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said Thou shall not kill.* For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses (Joshua 6). In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! *Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody!* In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 & Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). ***This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.*** ***Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says it’s OK.*** If more people would actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more atheists like myself. *Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven:* For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (Matthew 19:12). *I don’t know why anyone would follow the teachings of someone who literally tells all men to cut off their privates.* The God of the Bible also was a big fan of ritual human sacrifice and animal sacrifice. *And just in case you are thinking that the evil and immoral laws of the Old Testament are no longer in effect, perhaps you should read where Jesus makes it perfectly clear:* It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid (Luke 16:17). There are many more quotes on this topic at my Do Not Ignore the Old Testament web page. *If you follow the links on this site you will learn about all the nasty things in the Bible that are usually not talked about by priests and preachers.* www.evilbible.com/ Watch *"Context!!!!!!"* by NonStampCollector (A good video for believers who try to rationalise Biblical atrocities and immorality by saying "Out of context".)

I've come to find the argument that suffering is more fundamental to existence than happiness pretty compelling. Inaction will inevitably lead to suffering in some form whereas activity at least has the potential for a positive outcome for the person. This existential asymmetry lends at least some prima facie credence to the Evil God hypothesis.

Evidence would be nice too.

I find the fact (as far as I'm aware of it being so) that 99% of all species that ever existed on earth are extinct pretty compelling. If God truly has both the power and desire to do good, why would he design such a brutal landscape to cause us humans to exist? I believe this is why many fundamentalist Christians deny evolution still, a natural interpretation of the theory doesn't align with God very well.

​@@Isaac-vj2xnWhy is a species going extinct evil?

How are you so sure?

Baseless conclusion without even a claim. U should be awarded for some sort of illogical breakthrough.

How do you know an evil god doesn't exist and we aren't play things for its amusement?

@@epicofgilgamesh9964 he doesn't but think he does, look at the ancient greeks and zeus...

@@Daniel2374I am just wondering, did you listen to the video?

If you are christian, what makes you think that Yahweh is in fact the creator? Your conclusion doesn't imply that christianity is true.

@@alemore1146proof from thousands of philosophers

Dualism seems clearly correct to me, although Stephen Law is not arguing in favor of dualism.

@@nikhiljaikumar8611 I think he is. He believes good and evil are equal powers rather than evil being merely spoiled goodness. Trent’s rebuttal to his existence of an evil good is exactly why dualism cannot exist. Evil by its nature is inferior to good.

@@shawnboahene5231 On a techincal point, your use of dualism is totally valid in theology (‘dualist’ = someone who believes that Good and Evil - or God and the Devil - are independent and more or less equal forces in the world), but not in philosophy. To a philosopher, dualism is used in an ontological sense. Property dualism. Substance dualism. And in that sense, Christianity is completely dualist: two kinds of stuff, natural and supernatural. Law isn't arguing for theological dualism at all. He's an atheist, he certainly //doesn't// believe these as real forces in the first place. Trent didn't do the best presentation of Law's point about theodicies. Law does not think there is an evil God. He thinks that believers who dismiss evil god with a theodicy of "look at all the good" are right, but that raises questions for the theodices the same believers use in favour of a good god.

​@@nikhiljaikumar8611 everyone is kinda dualistic, theres Satan and theres God, thats all. Satan is not as powerfull as God, but because his hate is infinite, given the chance he would destroy everything God just does not allow it, hence he inspires us to do bad, and the more we stray from God, the more evil we become as a species, and the less he interferes in the world in the sense of preventing catatrophes.

@@Onlyafool172 that's not dualism. Christianity teaches that the devil is created by God and has no power that God doesn't allow him- that is definitely not dualism. for the record, I disagree with Christianity and monotheism here.

Can god send people to eternal torment simply for not getting saved? If yes, either the morality of god is arbitrary (anything goes since if it's done by God, it necessarily is good with no constraints [surely allowing or enforcing the torture of millions merely for lack of faith is at least a concerning practice to label 'moral'... surely...]) or god is powerless to do otherwise (which at least initially calls into queston his all powerful nature).

@@AbstractMan1 God who is the source of all good, will send people to a place that lacks good for those who reject him, the source of all good. That seems logically consistent.

@@Cklert The question isn’t one of logical consistency. The question is *how* is that good? Surely we understand that people make mistakes in life and reject things they don’t realize they shouldn’t have rejected? Surely people can be unconvinced of certain things and therefore lack belief yet be wrong? Yet you would say that *what is deserved for these people* is everlasting, immeasurable torture? This, brother, is seemingly as far from proportionate justice as possible. And further, even if people somehow *did* know god was real and still chose to reject adhering to his will… surely this also does not justify eternally burning them for it? If you honestly and truly think that this is good and that this is right without problem… then you are beyond reasonable persuasion. It’s one thing to have faith in god and think perhaps hell or that unbelievers going there will be revealed later to make sense or not be as horrifying an idea as it is now, but to not see issue or have no concern regarding the moral vindication of such a being who tortures or sends to eternal torture those who don’t believe is to simply lack an appreciation for a concept that serious theologians and believers have struggled with for hundreds of years.

@@AbstractMan1 It’s a difficult issue, no doubt. Most Christians and Muslims will “justify” eternal Hell with God being of immense, endless value. So if you sin against such a God you deserve an endless punishment. It’s more of an assertion than an actually something logical, but to say it’s entirely unworthy of consideration is also false. I think at the end of the day their refutation doesn’t work cause of the fact that God created this reality while knowing billions people would end up in Hell. Would you create a kid of whom you foreknew it would become a disbeliever and go to eternal Hell, eben if that was by his own free will? No right? Yet God did that for billions upon billions. I don’t understand why these debates are always about natural evils and disasters while the great evil lures in Gods decision to create us while knowing this disastrous end. Passages like 1 tim 2:4 are therefore a joke. God doesn’t want to save all people, how self destructive it would be for God to create something he knew is entirely against his desire. I respect the Quran more for not sharing that sentiment, even though God is plainly evil then

If God is the standard of goodness, then God is also the standard of evil. As the singular standard, nothing would be evil - or good - if God didn't deem it to be so and he could deem anything to be one or the other. This is what being a standard means.

And she was not like Eru. She was still a creation, just a mysterious one.

@@wulfheort8021 indeed. It's a fascinating commentary on how something purely evil could not create but only corrupt and destroy and would inevitably end up consuming itself. It could never be an equal opposite to the holy and good.

@@michaels7325 Exactly and Tolkien was very aware of that. There isn't a greater fantasy work than his that reflects (Christian) theology and philosophy.

​@@wulfheort8021 He really was, and even with his villains one can see varying degrees of being depending on the current goodness of the creature. Melkor was at first the greatest and most skilled of the Ainur but by the end of the first age he had fallen so deeply into his evil that he became 1 dimensional as a person. Not only did he lose his complexity as a character but his power dissipated into the world. He became mean and little. Sauron himself was greater than his own master by then and that is because his own being was not swallowed up and he had not fallen to such great depravity (yet). I could go on but Tolkien really was such an artist...

Yes, God would cease to be God if He had no power over Evil. As a matter of fact, demons submitted to Jesus in the Bible.

Okay, so let’s say that instead of creating the universe, God was to create just Hell and tile this out to infinity. While that might not be the worst thing possible, it gets pretty close to evil incarnate. We can imagine a perfectly good God doing the same for Heaven. The video relies entirely on the subtle implications of near-synonyms. The omni-traits are not inherently good. Evil is morally, not functionally “worse”. Sure, the world isn’t as evil as it could be, but it’s equally not the best. It doesn’t matter that it’s slightly good.

@@seanpierce9386 Hell is not eternal. Hell will be empty on the General Judgement. Hell exists because of what we certainly know as justice. Lazarus and the rich man is a good example.

@@Misael-Hernandez Then what’s the point of spreading the Gospel? If you get to go yo Heaven anyway, that overrides any brief time spent in Hell. There’s no Biblical or theological precedent for this.

@@seanpierce9386 I did not say we get to go to Heaven anyway. The Gospel is the Good News of the Kingdom of God. It's a free pass to heaven regardless of any state of being whether a heartless person or a sincere one. The only thing left is for us to choose that gift or to reject it, and in this life we cannot say it is over until we pass away, and even when we pass away we are either in Hell, Heaven, or Purgatory. On the last Judgement (General Judgement) everyone will be present and then everything will be made known. If I died not repenting of my sins but choosing to do Evil, then to the lake of fire along with Satan and his demons.

Because it’s a hypothetical. We assume all the positions of the theist except for claiming God is evil. The point is not to prove anything, but to show that certain arguments theists make (maybe not even all of them) are nonsensical. It’s a counterexample device. For example: How do Christians have a concept of evil if God is not evil? Clearly, evil is the natural state of things, but humans have disobeyed God by becoming good. You simply can’t explain evil with a good God, so it must be false. By the way, contrary to what is said in the video, evil can coexist with the omni-traits. Consider a God who creates only Hell.

@@seanpierce9386 That's really not true. Atheists take their position for granted when if everything is just a random assortment of matter, there is no good or evil. Atheists say we are good therefore Christianity is evil

So everything God does is good because he did it?

@@haitaelpastor976 God would have to be maximally good

@@TheThreatenedSwan You didn't answer the question. Again: so everything God does is good because he did it?

Couldn't you propose a stupid god or a weak god as an undercutter, by this logic?

@@bearistotle2820 i'm not sure, for example: maybe a theist would say something about the fine tuning of the universe for life is evidence for God's intelligence but the "dumb god" challenge would be to say that all of the pointless things in nature is a is evidence for the contrary but on this example it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that isn't an undercutter defeater but instead a separate objection on another data point on the claim of God's intelligence. the theodicy being given trys to show that God would allow evil for a greater good but in this example God isn't allowing stupidity for greater intellect.

@LukeBowman08 To be honest, I don't like that form of theodicy very much either. To say that evil is only permitted so that a good that wouldn't have been possible otherwise could come about, seems to be saying that evil is necessary for God's purpose, but how could one say that evil is necessary?

@@becketlad8727 ahh good point, basically it seems problematic that God is limited in what goods He can bring about and in order to bring about certain or quantitatively more goods He must permit evil. i think that God could have chosen to create an other world with less or even no evil but for some reason God decided to create this world either because it is more valuable than other worlds with less evil (because of that theodicy or some other theodicy) or because He can choose whatever world He wants to create because He's God. its not that God's purpose has to be this world but He chose this world as what He will create.

​@@becketlad8727 oh I totally agree. The reason I always thought God aloud evil is because he allows free will. And if a being has free will, then it has the ability to choose to do evil

I’m hard-pressed to think of any evil things that God has done. What do you have in mind?

@@VanchaMarch2 He hasn't done anything evil. He is the Creator, so He can do literally anything and not be evil. He also cannot be evil because He is All-Good, He is Love. An evil god would force you to worship him, and if you don't, he sends you to Hell. But God gives you a choice to accept Him as your Savior, and if you don't accept, you send yourself to Hell. You can worship God all you want, but if you haven't accepted His gift of Salvation, that worship would be for nothing. Worshiping God is a good deed, and we are not justified by our good deeds. We are only justified by our faith in Jesus Christ.

​@@VanchaMarch2God punishes all of humanity for sins of two people. He killed everyone in the world with a flood. Killed first borns of Egypt.Commanded a Genocide against cananites etc. All these acts are evil

​@rahulpaul147 It's frustrating when people, both for and against God's existence, discuss His "morality." Morality is based on acting in accord with human nature. God has a divine nature. Applying the standard for goodness that is meant for us to God is like applying the standard for goodness that is meant for a plant to us. God can take away whatever He freely and generously gave us, and it would be just. We aren't owed health, life, or anything.

@@PrimeTimePaulyRat I only answered that because the person specifically asked for evil acts committed by God. Nobody in this world is owned anything so does that mean we can simply kill someone ? Why can't we apply our morality to God ? If we can't apply our standard then what standard can we apply ?

God is all evil by his ontological nature, he can't possibly be good. All you're gonna say is that god is "great-making" like Trent does, which is just begging the question. The point at hand is how can you know god is great-making in reality when the world does not seem to show that. It doesn't matter if your theology is internally consistent if it doesn't actually interface with reality.

@@WaterCat5 God is defined as a or the maximally great being And since being good is greater than being evil he must be good

@@RustyCog Right, and that doesn't matter on its own. I can define god a different way. What matters is whether the definition actually has evidence for it. Show me evidence of this maximally great being, and then I'll care.

@@WaterCat5 before I answer I want to ask, have you ever looked for evidence?

@@RustyCog Yeah, statistically more than most christians, hence why I am on a Christian channel trying to understand their viewpoint. I just find all the arguments unconvincing and ultimately evasive in nature. Trent keeps resorting to weird philosophical definitions instead of looking at his scripture, which does not display a maximally great being to being with.

Same can be said about the evil God and good too.

​@@forall1796The point went over your head

@@forall1796 How what I said can be used in the same to explain the evil God?

@@forall1796If in the Christian worldview, evil ceases to be, or never was, then everything still went as God wanted and has potentiality to go against, therefore good can exist without evil. But if there is only evil, and God was evil, what would be the determiner of evil being evil? What would be the potentially for good, as there’d have to be a standard there of some sort. I guess it all depends on why good is good, why God is goodness, cause couldn’t a God be all evil (or else he’d be arbitrary?) and whoever does the opposite of what he designed as evil is then good? I feel like there are areas to shoot down that line of thought, so I’d be interested to hear some Christian answers.

It’s a hypothetical. We assume objective morality because the theist does. That’s the point. Also, forall has a point. You can’t just claim that evil is the absence of good without backing up that claim. We could equally claim that good is the absence of evil. After all, suffering is the default in evolution, and humans are largely the exception to that. Trent’s objections conflate “worst” with “inept” rather than “evil mastermind”.

Excuse me for real?,how is that possible I have struggling financially, how was that possible?

Thanks to Kate Elizabeth Becherer

Her top notch guidance and expertise on digital market changed the game for me

I always appreciate God for his kindness upon my life

YES!!! That's exactly her name (Kate Elizabeth Becherer) so many people have recommended highly about her and am just starting with her 😊 from Brisbane Australia🇦🇺

No, and it's a pity Trent didn't fully discuss Law's point or the theodicies he thinks work both ways -- including the free will theodicy. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rrKeprxmztWdZmg.html Alex actaully speaks directly to Stephen here. This is lays out the terrain much better than Trent does. You might still think Trent's reponses hold up, but it's worth framing the discussion properly.

That assumes that free will exists and is objectively moral from an outside perspective. Here’s a counterpoint: I would rather be forced to follow God than be sent to Hell. Would that not make it moral for God to not give me free will? (If you consider the request to be an exercise of free will it becomes a paradox.) I don’t really mind if the evil God hypothetical doesn’t work out as long as it leads us to a better understanding of the actual claims being made rather than relying on theological assumptions. They are so frequently hidden away that neither side may recognize it.

Okay, what if the evil god just threw everyone in hell regardless? There you go, infinite suffering. God doesn’t do the same thing for Heaven, supposedly because some people reject Him. You bring up a good point though, He could just not create those people who would, and problem solved. This is the real point of the evil god. You get theists to list all the reasons it would be silly, and pull an Uno reverse card. I couldn’t care less if the idea is ultimately incoherent. With that said, Trent seems to conflate evil with incompetence. Evil can absolutely be created in the form of suffering.

But they make more sense for NO God.

Long and patient counter example?

If they have had that horrible personal experience, then no amount of apologetics would work. That trauma has to be processed.

The church is the kingdom of God!! Where we receive Forgiveness, Healing, peace, fortitude, and food for our soul to go through this life!!!!

Allowing a bit of good is in fact much worse. Gives false hope and convinces the victims that "God is good in the end".

I once heard on Relevant Radio that God loves Satan, that's why Satan exists, but Satan cannot love Him back.

Evil is not something that was created but rather the absence of goodness, in the same way that darkness is the absence of light, "evil does not exist".

"Good" in its own ontological concept can only be good through what is freely given and what is freely received. If one part of the good is rejected (either not freely given or freely received) it is then that evil is manifested, as it denies or rejects the good (life). A world without evil can exist, though God is properly demarcated by His nature to freely give without restricting what is freely received and what is not. The evil attributed to the world is the consequence of the rejection of life. Hatefulness, deceit, theft, rape, murder, etc. are all demonstrations of evil and the refusal/ denial to give life.

Of course God could create such a world. But He chose to create a world in which love is possible. Love requires freewill. And the will is not free where it never had the option of rejecting goodness. I think that God's omnipotence is shown in the fact that He can bring eternal good out of the greatest of evils, like the crucifixion. And even lesser evils can work for our eternal good, if we align our wills with God's. I know this personally, as I have a serious chronic illness that keeps me mostly housebound and couch bound. But God has used it to change my priorities and attitude. Evil cannot get the better of God.

The term you’re looking for is the Problem of Evil. All three previous comments are called theodicies, the most popular of which is the free will defence. However, all theodicies will neglect one thing, and that is Heaven. Whether or not you believe in true free will or whether Heaven has it, you must conclude Heaven is better than Earth. God could have easily sent everyone to Heaven instead. Adam and Eve were a lost cause. God could have started over or just never created the potential for evil. I’d encourage you to seek out answers to these questions. Be willing to entertain answers you don’t like, if they make sense. Don’t jump to conclusions too quickly either. Above all, make sure that what you believe is what YOU believe, not what other people tell you to.

@@ConnieRossini God intervenes when he sees fit, so negating the supposedly free will he gave to us.

That’s understandable to another human being even and as human beings are saddened when we feel “powerless” to help them see the truth. Yet God is all powerful? My belief in God is not challenged by this. My ability to subscribe to say OT God definitely is.

Like, I don’t violate anyone’s free will by showing them good reasoning and self understanding. I’ve done it in my life to varying degrees and “self help” myself to clear up my own distortions. Yet it seems (biblical) God could do more for people if our punishment is so intense and eternal.

Right!

I think it's more the place of there not being evidence for it. God is a cumulative case and other evidence doesn't work for an evil god. Also the idea of evil and God contradict in Christan morality. God and good are synonyms to Christians. To say something is good is to say it is godlike. Good actions are in alignment with the abstract good. Which is God. Evil is to go against god meaning a evil god is a god that is not in alignment with himself. Which is to say he is both god and not God. Like saying a square circle exists. It can't be both.

Regarding 2, I think people need to demonstrate that an entity (God) like this first exists before criticizing reactions to it (like the POE/POS). Also lost in these discussions is the simple fact that, whatever God's reasons for allowing certain things we regard as terrible to happen, we may not care what God's reasons are in the first place. Those reasons, whatever they may be, are also partially or entirely unavailable to us, epistemically speaking, anyway; assuming there are such reasons is useless to us on a practical level. The philosopher Sharon Street spoke of this in a cumbersomely titled essay.

@@mitslev4043 Those are good points too. I'm not sure I would be convinced of God for example if I didn't believe he did miracles, but what kind of evil God would do miracles?

@@CollinBoSmithOne who was trying to mislead you, just like a good God points to Himself. You have a point about the lack of an evil God. A good God is a recent phenomenon, relatively speaking. Polytheism used to be dominant, and it had all sorts of evil gods, but it didn’t have much of a tendency to convert nonbelievers. The whole good God thing took off because of the Abrahamic religions, which were quite prolific. So yes, not many people look into it because it’s the default view. Maybe you should look into it. It sounds like you engage well with these types of ideas and it’s very interesting to investigate the roots of your faith. You might be surprised by what you used to think.

Even if existence is defined as having properties, it seems obvious that necessary existence is clearly distinct from mere existence, so necessary existence must be a property even if existence isn't. A ball that happens to be red is clearly different from a ball that cannot be any other color but red, so the ball that must be red clearly has some property that distinguishes it from a ball that is merely red.

@@grantgooch5834 correct. hence why it's a nitpick. Trent's central point could be mapped perfectly fine onto more ironclad ontological argument formulations. I think if there's a problem here is that what Law is describing as a "Maximally Terrible Being" is not what he actually means. What he means is that an evil being is worse by it being more able to effect evil. Which I see his point, but seems like a misapplication of the ontological argument, as it can be built for any arbitrary trait. E.g. a footballer is a better footballer by being omnipotent but you can't use the ontological argument to prove that there exists some almighty footballer