Is Schmid part of the Real Atheology group?

@@mugsofmirth8101 Nope, the hosts probably asked him to do it and he did it just for fun.

@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco well that's nice to hear. His impression of Swinburne isn't bad but based on my interactions with him, it seems he has a bit of growing up to do.

God is basically a cosmic utilitarian -- which would be fine as a theory I guess, if these guys weren't committed to rejecting that -- whose maximization function is... ssssssssomething... which these theodicies claim to be Good(TM). There appears to be no principled reason, given this, to assume that what God values is what humans value (or should value), which is equal parts troublesome and puzzling. So God wants to bring about maximal "whatever," but he won't show himself or explain why it's valuable (to humans, at any rate) and why we ought to participate in his project. And the consequence of this project is that we appear to suffer, and quite a lot, which would be a strong disincentive to want to sign on to God's program. So... why are we supposed to want to help God again? Your #2 is also intensely problematic for these theists because, if conceded, their theism becomes untenable. Possibly, God's higher purpose necessitates lying to human beings through false revelation for some greater justified good that can only be attained by God misleading us in this exact fashion. It's not therefore reasonable to believe that Christianity is true -- only that it's USEFUL TO GOD that we think it true -- and that's probably not where they want to end up.

Empty objections

Yeah man, I’m still upset about it.

That will be addressed in future episodes, yes.

Universalists still have a few issues, though: 1) Why did God create anything at all? What justifies this act? Is the act of creation ever right, correct, or permissible? If it isn't, then a perfectly good God cannot do it, and because we exist, we can conclude that a perfectly good God doesn't exist (or that it does exist and is not omnipotent and/or not the creator, anyway). 2) Is God justified in creating beings that will suffer, even if he compensates them for it later? That sounds like imperfect justice to me; human justice systems practice compensation because we can't be perfectly just. Perfect justice is getting everything right the first time. 3) What accounts for the different DEGREES of suffering that conscious beings experience? It's not like God can compensate the person who suffers more with even-more-infinite bliss. In some respects it's completely trivial whether I live 70 years comfortably and someone else grows up poor and abused and dies after 30 years of abject misery; what's forty years to eternity? And yet we don't seem to think it trivial from our perspective; certainly the other person who didn't have my comfortable and long life wouldn't!

@@Napoleon...00 thanks. I never considered it could be an argument for deism but you're absolutely right about that. I wouldn't see it as an argument for atheism (mainly because it only targets some theological views and not others) but it certainly is an argument against theologies like Christianity.

Certainly the universe is visible to everyone, but not everyone can see that the universe is God, since the universe is very well disguised as just being an assortment or random stuff. The problem of hiddenness for a pantheist becomes a question of why God would be disguised as mindless mundane stuff instead of making it apparent that this stuff is God.

@@Ansatz66 The Universe is not just "an assortment of random stuff". Take our solar system for example. Key word here: *system* which suggests there is an associated unity and organization to it. If it were just a random assortment of stuff then the word *system* would not apply. We can also see this unity and organization not just in space but even in our own bodies: our respiratory system, cardiovascular system, digestive system, etc.

Does your view of God include being unsurpassably loving?

@@mugsofmirth8101 : Naturally a pantheist thinks that the universe is not just random stuff, but the point is that it is disguised to give the impression that it is just random stuff, even if that is not really true. The solar system may have unity and organization, but it is disguised to look like it's just rocks spinning around each other under the influence of mindless gravity. If it were not so disguised, then it could show off its design openly. The solar system could have the form of a vast cathedral with stained glass windows and flying buttresses and so on. Instead, it just looks like rocks and gasses. So why the deception? That is the question that the problem of hiddenness seeks to answer.

We’ve criticized the view, yes. We’ve done episodes on it. But we’ve not formally debated anyone about it nor do we plan to.

@@RealAtheology I'd be interested to see the videos in which you criticize them. I'd also be interested to know why you have no intention of debating them. Is it that you see them as allies despite your differences?

@@mugsofmirth8101 In episode RA010: Interview: Ozymandias Ramses II on Atheism and Lacktheism, we critique the lacktheists' conception of Atheism and argue why it's incorrect. We've also done several devil's advocates debates, where we defend Theism against a Theist interlocutor who defends Atheism.

@@RealAtheology alright, I'll be sure to watch those videos when I get a chance. So is there a particular reason you won't debate the so-called "new atheists" ? If you think your conception of atheism should be the predominant one, then it may be to your benefit to challenge them in debate as that would increase your exposure to a broader secularist audience. While I don't think it will change their viewer's minds instantaneously, at least it would make you known to them and little by little perhaps you could win them over. Food for thought.

@@mugsofmirth8101 that’s a fair consideration. But I’ve found those conversations to be incredibly difficult/frustrating to have so I lack the bandwidth to put up with them frankly. Speaking of myself then, it’s mostly my own disinterest that explains my avoidance in engaging directly with them on the topic.