The most OP argument for (defending) God

Summary

The video script addresses the argument that suffering and evil are used to question the existence of God. It explores how believers use the idea of God's incomprehensibility to defend their faith, suggesting that humans cannot understand God's actions due to our limited perspective. The speaker critiques this as an ad hoc reasoning, highlighting its use as a defense mechanism that undermines theology by making beliefs unfalsifiable. The argument's versatility is both its strength and weakness, as it can justify any theological claim while also invalidating any critique.

Takeaways

• 🤔 The speaker acknowledges letting Ben Shapiro's point about theodicy slide in a previous response.
• 📖 It's suggested that if we understood the mind of God, we would be like God, implying the impossibility of such understanding.
• 🧩 This point is versatile and can be used across various faith traditions to defend one's theology.
• 🐝 Catholic bishop Robert Barron uses this argument to explain why suffering exists despite a good God.
• 📜 The Book of Job is referenced as a classic biblical answer to the problem of evil and suffering.
• 🔄 William Lane Craig also uses this argument to counter the problem of evil, emphasizing our limited perspective.
• 🚫 The argument can be used to dismiss any objection to theological claims by citing human limitations.
• 🔄 However, this argument can also be used to justify undesirable characteristics of God, showing its double-edged nature.
• ⚖️ Consistently applying this reasoning would undermine any claims about God's intentions or behavior.
• 💡 The speaker reflects on how this argument was used to avoid falsification of beliefs during their time in a Christian college.
• 🔍 The argument is labeled as ad hoc reasoning, which is an excuse to rescue a theory from falsification without adding explanatory power.

Q & A

What is the main point that the speaker initially overlooked in Ben Shapiro's video about atheism?

The main point that the speaker initially overlooked is that it's difficult to blame people for not believing in God when they've experienced significant personal pain, as God is considered to be apart from human beings and understanding the mind of God is beyond human capability.

How does the speaker describe the argument that God's ways are beyond human comprehension?

The speaker describes this argument as a versatile defense for various faith traditions, suggesting that since God is the creator of all things and exists beyond human understanding, we cannot fully comprehend the reasons behind the suffering and evil in the world.

What is the Book of Job mentioned in the script, and how does it relate to the discussion?

The Book of Job is a part of the Bible that discusses the problem of suffering and theodicy. It is mentioned in the script as a classic biblical response to the presence of great evil and suffering, suggesting that humans cannot understand God's intentions and are not in a position to judge God's actions.

How does the speaker characterize the argument that God's ways are beyond human understanding?

The speaker characterizes this argument as both a strength and a weakness. It's a strength because it can defend any attribute of God, but it's also a weakness because it can be used to defend any behavior, including undesirable ones, and can undermine any claim about God's intentions or behavior.

What is meant by the term 'ad hoc reasoning' as used in the script?

In the script, 'ad hoc reasoning' refers to an argument made specifically to avoid falsification of one's beliefs. It's a type of reasoning that creates an excuse to rescue a theory from being proven false, often by attributing the lack of understanding to the limitations of the questioner.

Why does the speaker consider the argument about God's incomprehensibility to be 'overpowered'?

The speaker considers the argument to be 'overpowered' because it is so effective that it can defend any theological claim, making it difficult to falsify any belief about God. However, this effectiveness also makes it a fallacious and self-defeating excuse for clinging to preconceived ideas.

What is the speaker's opinion on the use of ad hoc excuses in theology?

The speaker believes that using ad hoc excuses in theology is a way of making beliefs unfalsifiable and is often used to avoid challenging questions or objections to one's beliefs. They view it as a way to cling to preconceived ideas rather than engaging with the actual evidence or arguments.

How does the speaker relate their personal experience with the argument about God's ways being beyond human understanding?

The speaker shares a personal anecdote about how they were trained to use this argument as a defense against difficult questions about theology. They eventually realized that this training was a way to avoid the falsification of their beliefs and maintain faith despite the lack of understanding.

What is the 'hot take' the speaker offers at the end of the script?

The 'hot take' the speaker offers is that arguing for theology often involves creating clever ad hoc excuses to hold onto spiritual beliefs that are actually based on unrelated reasons, such as group belonging or emotionally powerful experiences.

Why does the speaker suggest that objections to theological claims can be dismissed on the grounds of human limitations?

The speaker suggests this because if objections can be dismissed by claiming that humans cannot understand God's ways, then any description of God's nature or behavior can also be dismissed for the same reason, rendering the argument self-defeating and unfalsifiable.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 The Omnipotence Defense

The paragraph discusses a common defense used by religious apologists to justify the existence of God despite the presence of evil and suffering. It argues that if God is truly omnipotent and transcendent, humans cannot comprehend His ways, and thus, cannot judge His actions. This defense is highlighted as being versatile and used across various faith traditions, including Judaism and Christianity. The paragraph mentions figures like Ben Shapiro and Catholic Bishop Robert Barron, who use this argument to suggest that the existence of suffering does not negate the possibility of a good and just God. It also touches on how this argument can be used to defend against other objections to theological claims, such as scriptural contradictions or perceived design flaws in nature.

05:02

🔄 The Double-Edged Sword of Theological Defense

This paragraph examines the potential weaknesses of the omnipotence defense presented in the first paragraph. It points out that while the argument can be used to defend the idea of a benevolent and omnipotent God, it can also be employed to justify the existence of an evil God. The paragraph suggests that the defense's flexibility is both its strength and its flaw, as it can be used to dismiss any criticism of God's nature or behavior by claiming human limitations. However, it also argues that applying this defense consistently would undermine any positive claims about God, as it would mean that humans cannot truly understand or describe God's intentions. The paragraph concludes by likening this defense to an ad hoc hypothesis, which is a term used to describe an argument made to save a theory from falsification without providing additional explanatory power.

10:02

🔮 The Unfalsifiable Nature of Theological Claims

The final paragraph delves into the idea that theological arguments often rely on unfalsifiable claims, which are not subject to empirical testing or verification. It suggests that these arguments are ad hoc in nature, created to protect preconceived beliefs rather than to provide a genuine understanding of God or theology. The paragraph argues that these defenses are self-defeating, as they undermine the very claims they are meant to support. The speaker also shares a personal anecdote about how this realization led to a questioning of his own beliefs. The paragraph concludes with a critique of theology as a discipline, suggesting that it often involves creating excuses to maintain spiritual beliefs that are not based on testable or verifiable evidence.

Keywords

💡Atheism

Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. In the context of the video, atheism is discussed as a position that questions the existence of God, particularly in light of personal pain and suffering. The script references Ben Shapiro's video on atheism, indicating that the video is a response to arguments made by him regarding atheism.

💡Theodicy

Theodicy refers to the attempt to reconcile the existence of evil or suffering with the idea of a benevolent and omnipotent God. The video discusses theodicy in relation to the problem of evil, using examples from religious figures like Catholic bishop Robert Barron and Protestant apologist William Lane Craig to illustrate how theodicy is used to defend the existence of God despite the presence of evil.

💡Transcendence

Transcendence in a theological context means existing beyond the range of normal experience or beyond the scope of human understanding. The video script argues that if God is transcendent, humans cannot be expected to understand God's actions or intentions, which is used as a defense against objections to the existence or nature of God.

💡Cognitive Limitations

Cognitive limitations refer to the inherent constraints on human knowledge and understanding. The script uses this concept to argue that because humans have limited cognitive abilities, they cannot fully grasp the mind of God, and thus cannot judge God's actions or reasons for allowing suffering.

💡Apologetics

Apologetics is a branch of theology that offers a rational defense of religious doctrines. In the video, apologetics is mentioned as a source where the speaker learned the argument that God's ways are beyond human understanding, which is used to defend against challenges to religious beliefs.

💡Ad Hoc Hypothesis

An ad hoc hypothesis is an argument made to defend a theory when it is faced with criticism, often in a way that is improvised and not based on prior evidence. The video script criticizes the use of ad hoc hypotheses in theology, suggesting that they are used to avoid falsifying religious beliefs rather than providing genuine explanations.

💡Falsifiability

Falsifiability is the ability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be contradicted by empirical evidence. The video argues that theological arguments about God's nature are often made unfalsifiable by claiming that God's ways are beyond human understanding, thus avoiding the need for evidence.

💡Unfalsifiable

Unfalsifiable refers to a claim or theory that cannot be proven false, often because it is not testable or verifiable. The video discusses how theological arguments can be made unfalsifiable by attributing all lack of understanding to human limitations, thus protecting the beliefs from being disproven.

💡Evil

In the context of the video, evil refers to morally wrong or harmful actions or events, particularly those that cause suffering. The script uses the problem of evil as a central theme to explore the question of why a good God would allow suffering and how this is addressed in various theological arguments.

💡Scripture

Scripture, in a religious context, refers to the written texts that religious individuals consider to be authoritative or sacred. The video mentions scripture in the context of objections that find contradictions within it, using the argument of God's transcendence to suggest that such contradictions might not be contradictions from a divine perspective.

💡Design

Design, in the context of the video, refers to the idea that the natural world is the result of intelligent design, often attributed to a deity. The script discusses how objections to the idea of a perfect intelligent designer, based on perceived flaws in nature, can be countered by arguing that humans lack the perspective to judge such design.

Highlights

Ben Shapiro's argument about theodicy is highlighted as a powerful defense for believers.

The argument posits that understanding the mind of God is beyond human capability.

Catholic bishop Robert Barron uses the argument to explain suffering and justify God's ways.

The Book of Job is referenced as a classic biblical answer to the problem of evil.

William Lane Craig argues that we cannot expect to see the reasons why God permits evil.

The argument can be used to defend any theological claim against objections.

The argument's versatility allows it to be used across various faith traditions.

The argument can also be used to defend a malevolent God, showing its double-edged nature.

Consistent application of the argument leads to the inability to make any claims about God.

The argument is described as 'overpowered' because it can defend against any objection.

The argument is criticized as an ad hoc hypothesis, designed to avoid falsification.

Ad hoc hypotheses are compared to Carl Sagan's dragon in the garage analogy.

The argument is seen as a self-defeating excuse for clinging to preconceived ideas.

The speaker shares a personal story of how this argument was used to avoid doubts.

The argument is compared to making beliefs unfalsifiable, which is seen as a problem.

The speaker concludes that theology often relies on ad hoc excuses to maintain beliefs.

A call to action for viewers to comment on their thoughts about the argument's validity.

Transcripts

in my recent response to Ben Shapiro's

video about atheism I let one of his

points slide listen there's no way to

blame people who don't believe in God

because they've experienced enormous

amounts of personal pain God is apart

from human beings and if we understood

the mind of God then we would be like

God in his totality which we are not if

we understood the mind of God then we

would be like God in his totality which

we are not

this point probably doesn't strike you

as particularly special or powerful but

I think it is in fact I think it's one

of the most powerful responses one can

give to those questioning their God I

would have included it in my Arguments

for God's existence tier list but it's

not exactly a formal argument for the

existence of God it's more of an

all-purpose defense of one's specific

theology it's versatile enough that a

variety of Faith Traditions can use it

Ben Shapiro practices Judaism and he

used it but Christian apologists can use

it too here's Catholic bishop Robert

Barron using it in response to the idea

that there's no good explanation for why

a good just God would allow the level of

suffering humans and other animals have

experienced if we're talking about not

one contingent cause among many so

someone who might be ordering things in

one corner of his of the universe but of

God ipsum essay the creator of all

things who's who's

um preserve is all of space and all of

time is it at all likely that we're

going to see

the the full implications of whatever is

happening the full implications across

space and time of what's being permitted

and the answer there's obviously no and

I think now go back to the Book of Job

as the is the classic biblical answer in

in the presence of great evil great

suffering is we we don't know what God

is up to and we're in no position now

I'd put that back on Alex we're in no

position to say

definitively there is no morally

justifiable reason for this particular

evil because we need

a god-like perspective on all of space

and all of time in order to make that

claim and that's the import of of God's

speech to job the longest speech of God

anywhere in the Bible where were you

when I made the you know the the heavens

and the Earth Etc but it just means

you're in no position

to pronounce or to articulate that

premise that you have clear knowledge

there can't be a morally justifiable

reason for a given suffering arguably

the world's top Protestant Christian

apologist William Lane Craig regularly

makes this point as well here's a clip

of him speaking on the problem of evil

all the way back in the year 2000. The

Atheist seems to think that if God has

morally sufficient reasons for

permitting the evils that occur these

reasons must be evident to us but

there's absolutely no grounds for that

assumption on the contrary given our

limits in time and space intelligence

and insight we shouldn't expect to see

the reasons why God permits every evil

take for example our being historically

limited evils which might appear

gratuitous within our limited frame of

reference might be seen to be justly

permitted within God's wider frame of

reference all three examples I've

provided here have been responses to the

problems of evil or suffering but this

point can be made in response to

countless other objections to

theological claims if I show some

apparent contradiction in scripture and

say that such a contradiction doesn't

point to Divine authorship one could

retort well who are you to say that God

didn't have a sufficient reason to

inspire the text to be written that way

given our cognitive and even temporal

limitations we shouldn't expect to see

or understand why God inspired the text

to be written in a specific way for all

we know by God's standards this could

not be a contradiction at all or some

Factor we're unaware of could justify a

contradiction being divinely inspired

likewise if I point to some part of

nature which seems poorly designed like

an inefficient metabolic cycle or an

organ prone to failure and say it

doesn't fit with the idea of a perfect

intelligent designer one could respond

how can you say that's poor design you'd

have to have the perspective of a

perfect intelligent designer in order to

prove that design isn't perfect those

things could be designed in a way that

is perfect from a higher perspective but

we humans don't have access to that

perspective if a perfect intelligent

designer exists we should expect to see

things in nature which we struggle to

see as perfectly designed I'm sure you

get the idea this point can handle

basically any objection to any theology

which invokes an omnipotent or at least

sufficiently Transcendent God its

versatility is unmatched and it is true

if a god is so transcendently powerful

and intelligent we humans and our

limitations probably wouldn't be able to

understand Its Behavior much of the time

so that's it right Believers in this God

are correct and non-believers are

without excuse case closed well

not quite this Point's versatility is a

strength but it's also a major weakness

while it can serve as a defense of God's

goodness Perfection intelligence or any

other quality one might want to

attribute to their God it can also work

in the opposite direction God is good he

doesn't cause gratuitous evil but rather

creates goodness out of evil such that

he's morally Justified for allowing evil

to exist

um no God is the most evil being

possible he actually creates the

greatest possible evil out of good in

order to prove he doesn't you'd have to

have a Godlike perspective which you

don't have if a maximally evil God

exists we should expect to see things

which we struggle to understand as evil

because we humans are limited yeah this

argument works just as well in defending

the idea of a god with any and all

undesirable characteristics as it does

in defending the idea of a god with

desirable ones as long as the God is

defined as Transcendent and to exist

Beyond Humanity's cognitive limits this

argument Works regardless of theology

that is however only if you use it only

as needed rather than consistently

across your entire theological system

applied consistently this line of

reasoning undermines any Claim about

God's intentions or behavior can't say

that God isn't all good because he

exists beyond your grasp then you can't

say God is good because he exists beyond

your grasp if you can't say he didn't

Inspire confusing or contradictory

scriptures because you'd have to have a

Godlike perspective to demonstrate that

then you can't say he inspired any

scriptures because you'd have to have a

Godlike perspective to demonstrate that

if objections to God's supposed nature

or behavior can be dismissed on the

grounds that humans are incapable of

understanding the ways of God than any

description of God's nature or behavior

can be dismissed on the grounds that

humans are incapable of understanding

the ways of God this is why I think this

defense of one's theology is rightly he

called overpowered it's so effective

that it kind of breaks the game that is

once theology this is obviously why this

idea of God's unintelligible nature is

only invoked in response to challenge

and ignored otherwise like many other

young theologically focused Christians I

learned this argument from Reading

apologetics books and hearing it

discussed in youth group they trained me

to bring it to mind any time I had or

heard difficult questions about theology

when such questions eventually began to

pile up in my senior year of college

Christian College mind you and serious

doubts emerged I fell back on that

training it kept me believing for quite

a while but eventually I saw that

training for what it was here's how I

explained that in my video where I visit

the creationist theme park the ark

encounter in hindsight I now see that

one of the main ways my big questions

were explained away as a Christian was

the argument that if something is hard

to understand or believe that's only

greater confirmation of God's word see

God is an intelligence far greater than

human understanding so we expect to lack

understanding of his words and ways

sometimes just because it doesn't make

sense to us doesn't mean it isn't true

now I realize that's a way of making

one's beliefs unfalsifiable it's enough

to chalk up all Flaws and All fallacies

and any theology to the ignorance of

those asking questions

convenient right this argument is only

meant for the specific purpose of

avoiding the falsification of one's

beliefs there's actually a term for this

kind of argument ad hoc reasoning or an

ad hoc hypothesis ad hoc is a Latin

phrase that translates to for this and

refers to something made for a special

purpose usually in an improvisational on

the spot kind of way an ad hoc

hypothesis is basically an excuse made

to rescue a potentially failing Theory

from falsification now proposing an ad

hoc hypothesis is not necessarily

logically fallacious if such a

hypothesis is testable and adds

explanatory power to the theory in

question that's not a problem I'll give

you an example of a fallacious ad hoc

hypothesis followed by a similar but

useful non-fallacious one I say there's

a dragon in my garage you ask to see it

I say it's unobservable but it's totally

still there I say there's a dragon in my

garage you ask to see it I say it's not

visible to the naked eye but but I think

it might be visible in the infrared

spectrum that second hypothesis could be

tested and whether testing confirms it

or not it still tells us something about

the theory of the Dragon in my garage

the first hypothesis on the other hand

is pretty useless for anything but

avoiding the falsification of my pet

Theory hey look at that a Carl Sagan

reference and an accidental pun thrown

in you guys are getting top tier quality

content today the theological argument

I've discussed here is an ad hoc

hypothesis in the style of the

unobservable Dragon its entire point is

that God's ways are unobservable it adds

nothing useful to and even severely

undermines the theory it seeks to defend

so while it first appears to be a

powerful defense of one's theology it's

actually as can be seen upon closer

inspection a fallacious and

self-defeating excuse for clinging to

one's preconceived ideas now if that was

not enough of a hot take I'll wrap up

with an even spicier opinion I think

devising clever ad hoc excuses for

holding onto one's spiritual beliefs a

set of ideas which is actually believed

for totally unrelated reasons is

basically what arguing for theology is

most of the time you start with a

conclusion based on beliefs you've

obtained through belonging to a group or

by emotionally powerful experiences then

any time in objection 2 or problem with

those beliefs is presented you create an

unfalsifiable ad hoc excuse for why

you're still justified in believing it

after all hypotheses about things

outside of nature or at least the grasp

of humans are not testable they add no

real explanatory power to the theories

they prop up

the ad hoc excuse is all one can say in

defense of these beliefs but what do you

think is that too harsh or too much of a

generalization do you like many past

commenters think what I call a hot take

is actually very mild let me know in the

comments thanks for watching I've been

Drew of genetically modified skeptic a

special thanks to my patrons for their

constant love and support if you want to

hear more from me then subscribe as

always if you are an apostate in need

there are resources Linked In the

description to help you find Community

and Mental Health support remember to be

kind to others in the comments and until

next time stay skeptical