Suffering and Evil: The Logical Problem (William Lane Craig Edition) (feat. Prophet of Zod)

Summary

In this video, the hosts dissect William Lane Craig's arguments for God, focusing on the problem of suffering and evil. They challenge Craig's portrayal of atheists' expectations and the use of 'suffering' as an abstract term that inadequately captures the nuances of human experience. The discussion critiques the logical inconsistency of an all-powerful, all-loving God allowing suffering, introducing the concept of free will as a potential explanation. The hosts argue that God's inability to force moral choices doesn't justify inaction against unnecessary horrors and that the assumption of God's preference for a world without suffering is not necessarily true. They conclude that invoking God's infinite qualities to justify suffering is an insufficient argument without demonstrable reasoning.

Takeaways

• 🤔 The discussion revolves around the problem of evil and suffering, questioning the existence of an all-powerful and all-loving God in the face of such realities.
• 📚 The script references William Lane Craig's arguments for God, specifically his animated series on theodicy, which attempts to reconcile the existence of evil with the concept of God.
• 🗣️ The conversation is a dialogue between a former Christian and Prophet of Zod, who critiques Craig's approach to the problem of evil.
• 🧐 The script challenges the notion that atheists expect theists to reconcile the existence of God with suffering, arguing that suffering is a complex aspect of human experience and not always negative.
• 🚫 The use of the term 'suffering' is critiqued for being overly broad and potentially distracting from the more specific issue of unnecessary horrors and gratuitous violence.
• 🤨 The script suggests that the argument from evil may be begging the question by assuming that God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incompatible with the existence of suffering.
• 🔄 The concept of free will is introduced as a potential explanation for why an all-powerful and all-loving God might allow suffering, but the script argues that this is a red herring.
• 👮‍♂️ An analogy is used involving a police officer and a violent crime to illustrate that preventing harm does not necessarily violate free will.
• 🙅‍♂️ The script argues that the logical problem of evil fails because it assumes that God must create a world without suffering or that God must force beings to act morally, both of which are not necessarily true.
• 🤷‍♂️ The discussion concludes by suggesting that the logical problem of evil is not as compelling as it might seem and that the burden of proof lies with those asserting that God has reasons beyond our comprehension for allowing suffering.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the video?

The main topic of the video is the discussion of the logical problem of evil, specifically examining William Lane Craig's arguments for the existence of God in relation to the presence of suffering and evil in the world.

Who are the speakers in the video?

The speakers in the video are Paulo Gia and Prophet of Zod, both former Christians, discussing the arguments presented by William Lane Craig.

What is the logical problem of evil as presented by Epicurus?

The logical problem of evil, as presented by Epicurus, is a dilemma that argues it is logically impossible for an all-powerful, all-loving God to coexist with evil and suffering in the world. It presents four scenarios that lead to the conclusion that God does not exist because suffering does exist.

What is the criticism of using the term 'suffering' in the context of the logical problem of evil?

The criticism is that 'suffering' is an abstract term that does not accurately represent the complexity of human experiences. It suggests that suffering can be interwoven with positive emotions and is not necessarily something that should be entirely removed from life.

What is the argument against the idea that God must create a world without suffering?

The argument is that it is not logically impossible for God to create a world with suffering. It suggests that God could have created a world with free will, and free will cannot be forced to choose good, making the task of creating a world without suffering through free will logically impossible.

What is the analogy used to explain the concept of free will in relation to the police officer?

The analogy compares a police officer who does not intervene to stop a stabbing to God's inaction in the face of suffering. It argues that just as the police officer could have stopped the attack without violating the attacker's free will, God could also have curtailed suffering without violating free will.

What is the counter-argument to the idea that God must make people do good?

The counter-argument is that the logical problem of evil does not demand that God make people do good. Instead, it calls for God to curtail the impact of bad actions on others, which can be done without violating free will.

What is the criticism of the claim that God has good reasons for permitting suffering?

The criticism is that this claim is an appeal to God's infinite qualities, which is seen as an excuse that is only convincing to those who already believe in God. It argues that such a claim does not provide a compelling reason for non-believers to accept the existence of God.

What is the argument's stance on the possibility of God and suffering coexisting?

The argument suggests that it is possible for God and suffering to coexist, and that the logical problem of evil does not necessarily disprove the existence of God.

What is the conclusion of the video regarding the logical problem of evil?

The conclusion is that the logical problem of evil is not a convincing argument against the existence of God, as it fails to demonstrate that it is logically impossible for both God and suffering to exist.

What is the next step in the discussion according to the video?

The next step in the discussion is to explore the probability version of the problem of evil, which is not covered in the current video.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 The Problem of Evil and God's Existence

The paragraph introduces a discussion on the existence of God in light of the problem of evil and suffering. It features a conversation between a former Christian and a skeptic, critiquing William Lane Craig's arguments on the topic. The focus is on the logical problem of evil, as presented by Epicurus, which questions how an all-powerful and all-loving God can coexist with the presence of evil. The conversation suggests that the problem is often oversimplified and that the term 'suffering' is used too broadly, potentially distracting from more specific instances of unnecessary horrors and violence.

05:01

🔍 Analyzing the Free Will Defense

This paragraph delves into the free will defense, a common theistic response to the problem of evil. It argues that God cannot force free will, which is likened to the impossibility of creating a square circle. The paragraph uses an analogy of a police officer witnessing a crime to illustrate the expectation that an all-powerful being should intervene to prevent evil without violating free will. It critiques the idea that God's inaction can be justified by the necessity of preserving free will, suggesting that this is a misdirection from the core issue of unnecessary suffering.

10:02

📚 The Logical Problem of Evil Revisited

The final paragraph addresses the burden of proof in the debate surrounding the logical problem of evil. It challenges the notion that atheists must prove it's impossible for God to have good reasons for allowing suffering. The paragraph uses a metaphor of an 'infinite rock God' to satirize the idea of asserting a deity's incomprehensible purposes without providing evidence. It concludes by suggesting that the logical problem of evil is not as conclusive as some theists claim, and that the debate should move beyond this to consider other aspects of the problem, such as the evidential problem of evil.

Keywords

💡Suffering

Suffering refers to the state of enduring pain, distress, or hardship. In the video, suffering is a central theme as it is used to question the existence of an all-powerful and all-loving God. The script discusses how the presence of suffering in the world seems incompatible with the traditional attributes of God, leading to the logical problem of evil. The term is used to critique theodicies that attempt to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of God.

💡Evil

Evil, in this context, denotes morally wrong or harmful actions or behaviors. The video script uses the term to explore the argument against the existence of God, suggesting that if an all-powerful and all-good God existed, evil would not be permitted to exist. The discussion revolves around the paradox that if God can prevent evil but does not, then He is not good, and if He cannot, then He is not all-powerful.

💡Free Will

Free will is the power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will. In the video, free will is introduced as a potential explanation for why an all-powerful God might allow evil and suffering to exist. The argument suggests that God may have created beings with the ability to choose between good and evil, thus allowing for the possibility of evil actions.

💡Theodicy

Theodicy is an attempt to justify the ways of God, particularly in light of the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The video discusses theodicies as part of the broader exploration of the problem of evil. It critiques the idea that suffering can be justified or explained away by appealing to God's nature or plan, suggesting that such explanations often fail to address the real-world experiences of suffering.

💡Epicurus

Epicurus was an ancient Greek philosopher, and in the context of the video, his name is associated with the 'Problem of Evil', also known as the 'Epicurean Paradox'. The script references Epicurus's argument that the existence of evil and suffering is logically inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God.

💡Contingency

Contingency, in philosophy, refers to the idea that things could have been otherwise—that is, they are not necessary. In the video, contingency is discussed in relation to the existence of evil and suffering. It is suggested that if God's actions or the world's state were contingent, then they could have been different, implying that the presence of evil is not necessary or inevitable.

💡Sin

Sin is a term often used in religious contexts to describe morally wrong actions or thoughts that go against divine law. In the video, sin is mentioned as a potential source of evil and suffering. The discussion touches on the idea that human sinfulness might be a reason for the existence of evil, but it also questions why a perfect God would create beings capable of sin.

💡Atheist

An atheist is someone who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. The video features a conversation between a former Christian and an atheist, where they critique the arguments for God's existence, particularly in relation to the problem of evil and suffering. The term is used to represent the perspective that challenges theistic explanations for the existence of suffering.

💡Argument from Evil

The argument from evil is a philosophical argument that seeks to challenge the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly good God by pointing to the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The video script delves into this argument, examining its logical structure and the assumptions it makes about the nature of God and the existence of evil.

💡William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig is a prominent Christian philosopher and apologist. In the video, his arguments for the existence of God are being critiqued, particularly his attempts to reconcile the existence of God with the reality of evil and suffering. The script mentions an animated series by Craig, indicating that the video is part of a series analyzing his work.

Highlights

Discussion on the logical problem of evil and suffering in relation to the existence of God.

Introduction to William Lane Craig's arguments for God and the issue of suffering and evil.

Critique of the portrayal of suffering as a monolithic experience, arguing for a more nuanced view.

The logical problem of evil as framed by Epicurus, questioning the coexistence of God and evil.

Analysis of the assumption that God can create any world He wants without logical contradictions.

Argument that an all-loving God would prefer a world without suffering, with a critique of this assumption.

Discussion on the implications of free will and its limitations in the context of God's omnipotence.

Analogy comparing God's inaction to a police officer's failure to intervene in a violent crime.

Critique of the argument that God cannot intervene without violating free will, using the police analogy.

The claim that God's preference for a world without suffering is not necessarily true, and its implications.

The argument that God's reasons for allowing suffering might be beyond human comprehension.

Critique of the appeal to God's infinite qualities as an excuse for unexplained suffering.

The logical problem of evil is deemed too heavy a burden of proof for atheists to bear.

The dismissal of the logical problem of evil by some philosophers and the shift towards the probability version.

Final thoughts on the necessity to explore the probability version of the problem of evil.

Endorsement of the channel 'Prophet of Zod' for its insightful content on similar topics.

Transcripts

we are all well aware of the suffering

and people in the world horrific

suffering unspeakable evil is it's in

free will

contingency probably sin right welcome

to Paolo gia where a former Christian

take a look at the claims of Christians

if you're new to the channel why not tap

on the subscribe button so you can be

notified when we post new science

theology or news videos today we're

gonna continue our look at William Lane

Craig animated series on the arguments

for God with his first episode on

suffering and evil and when we say we I

mean that I'm being joined by fellow

former Christian prophet of Zod well hey

look where I am awesome I've been a fan

of this channel since back when I had

just a couple hundred subscribers so

it's an honor and a great thrill to be

here see how long that lasts thanks for

having me Paul or mister ogia or

whatever you want me to call you

whatever your man just call me when

you're done

wait you just said we'd be doing this

together listening to William Lane Craig

arguments is part of my definition of

suffering and evil use it you got this

Epicurus framed the logical problem of

suffering and evil like this if God is

willing to prevent evil but not able

then he's not all-powerful

if he is able to prevent evil but not

willing he is not good

but if he is both willing and able how

can evil exist and if he is neither able

nor willing then why call him God in

other words is logically impossible for

God and suffering to both exist but we

know full well that suffering exists

therefore God does not is this a good

argument let's look at it more closely

are these two statements logically

inconsistent alright there's one thing

we need to nip in the bud right here and

now Craig or whoever's narrating this

well-worn nonsense for him claims that

atheists expect theists to reconcile an

all-powerful all-loving God with the

fact that suffering exists this isn't

necessarily true and this choice of

words represents our objection very

poorly suffering is an abstract term

that imprecisely describes a single

component a single flavor of a lot of

our experiences and the suffering itself

cannot be singularly extracted from

these experiences modest amounts of it

can be interwoven with and even bleed

into other sometimes positive emotions

which actually makes it an important and

powerful part of our lives to remove

everything that includes some suffering

is not realistic logical or even

necessarily desirable so when the

apologist uses an overly broad term like

suffering in this context when the

conversation should be about unnecessary

Horrors and gratuitous violence for

which there's no plausible justification

he's leaving the door open to

distractions giving himself room to

explain why God allows us to stub our

toes while hoping his audience forgets

the fact that he just plopped down with

a bucket of popcorn or watched the

Holocaust on top of it all this phrasing

insinuates and was possibly meant to

insinuate that we have childish

expectations of God no here is an

example of two logical inconsistent

statements david can't be both married

and a bachelor but there is no explicit

contradiction between these two

statements so there must be hidden

assumptions behind this argument that

would bring out the alleged

contradiction my previous videos in this

series have identified a number of

places where Craig phrases a premise in

such a way that it smuggles in

assumptions we call it begging the

question if anyone can identify this it

should be him

here they are if God is all-powerful he

can create any world he wants so far so

good I guess at least any world without

logical contradictions and if God is all

loving he prefers the world without

suffering again phrasing is important

here I can't stress that enough based on

where this is going I suspect he wants

to mire us down in the semantics of what

it would mean for God to prefer or

create a world without suffering but

what if we allowed that it was okay for

God to have created the world more or

less like it is but insist he should I

don't know show up at the house of

parents who are persistently beating

molesting and otherwise tormenting their

children he doesn't have to create a

perfect world to live up to the minimal

expectations we have of Child Protective

Services so if an all-powerful

all-loving God exists it follows that

suffering does not exist since suffering

obviously does exist the Atheist

concludes that God must not exist but

are the atheists two hidden assumptions

necessarily true so are the Atheist two

hidden assumptions true

that's a pretty loaded question until we

establish that atheist generally make

these assumptions now I do think the

first one is pretty obviously true of an

omnipotent creator god unless he's going

to try to muddy things with a poorly

conceived objection about freewill which

come on we all know is going to happen

but I've already shown how the choice of

the word suffering pushes the second

objection into territory I wouldn't

argue from and doubt most other atheist

would come on man don't force me to use

something as trite as the word straw man

here consider the first assumption can

God create any world he wants what if he

wants a world populated by people who

have freewill

it's logically impossible for God to

force someone to freely choose to do

good for sin free choices is like making

a square circle it's not logically

possible it's not that God lacks the

power to perform the task is that the

suppose that task itself is just

nonsense

ooh now before we allow this square

circle buffoonery to pass we should back

up and clarify which task were actually

talking about and I think the best way

to do that is with an analogy let's say

a police officer sees a knife-wielding

attacker coming at a woman in a dark

alley the attacker is not exceptionally

strong or fast and any competent law

enforcement professional should easily

be able to intervene but instead our

officer just stands there and watches

the victim get stabbed over and over

until she bleeds out and dies would we

find this acceptable no and if we wanted

to get all fancy and epicurean about it

we might phrase our criticism like this

if the officer was willing to stop the

stabbing but not able then he is not

competent if he was able to stop the

stabbing but not willing then he is a

bad officer if he was both willing and

able then how could the stabbing have

taken place and if he is neither able

nor willing then why call him a police

officer I don't know I guess that's

where the phrasing works better for God

but the point is we'd all agree that the

officer sucked at his job and was a

piece of person on top of it

but let's add a justification into the

mix as he's watching the gruesome scene

unfold he shrugs and says boy what a

shame but I can't force him to freely do

good at least without violating his free

will so what are you gonna do does this

get him off the hook of course not

nobody ever considered him obligated to

force the criminal to freely do good to

clear the low bar of not being a piece

of person all this officer had to

do was protect someone from harm and if

he tried to excuse himself from this

achievable and necessary task by talking

about the impossibility of the totally

different task of forcing the criminal

to want to be a good person we'd all

recognize his transparent attempt at

changing the subject the fact is he

could have stopped the attack without

violating free will whether he had to

use lethal force or could have instead

tackled and subdued the attacker no

physical action he took would have

altered the attackers desires or

anything else about his mindset the

whole time he was being restrained and

cuffed the guy could have lain there

squirming and foaming at the mouth and

just wishing to death he'd go stab

someone because free will is not

compromised when someone is stopped from

doing something so if the police or

government or parents can restrain

people for the sake of safety without

violating free will why can't God

further if there are morally obligated

to do so as far as they're able when it

protects people from harm then why isn't

God the Epicurean problem does not

demand that God make people do good in

fact it doesn't demand he alter their

thinking or personalities at all it just

calls for him to do something to curtail

the impact of their bad actions on other

people

so fine forcing freewill agents to do

good is as logically impossible as

creating a square circle but you know

what isn't as hard as creating a square

circle choosing to get out of your chair

and do something instead of passively

sitting there watching every single

brutal act of murder rape torture and

child abuse that's ever happened in the

history of humankind in other words you

can be better than a piece of

without breaking any rules of logic

that's all this logical problem is

really demanding of God

and bringing freewill into it is

deliberate misdirection

so it may not be feasible to create a

world populated by people who always

free choose to do what is morally good

so the first assumption is not

necessarily true and we never needed it

to be true therefore the argument fails

and what about the second assumption is

it necessarily true that God would

prefer a world without suffering how

could we possibly know this we all know

of cases where we permit suffering in

order to bring about the greater good if

it's even possible that God allows

suffering in order to achieve a greater

good then we cannot say this assumption

is necessarily true ok this blank an

appeal to God's infinite qualities is

one of those things that really bugs me

if you're a Christian sure you might

accept that literally any horrible thing

can be justified as part of God's

infinite plan and you might do so

without expecting his reasons to be

demonstrated to your satisfaction but

that's just because you're already

parked in your belief system and

accustomed to accepting it at face value

you start off thinking he exists he's

God and he's infinite so to you a

bald-faced declaration that everything

might be part of a greater plan makes

sense because you feel like it came from

God but to everybody else this excuse is

worthless because it just came from

another person to illustrate let's

switch roles for a moment if I brought

you a rock and said it was God you'd

expect me to give you a really

compelling reason to believe it right in

fact I dare say you'd ask me why it just

sits there being a rock because nothing

about sitting there being a rock seems

very godlike so what would move you from

thinking it was just a rock to thinking

it was God

you probably need some solid

demonstration or extremely spectacular

explanation of why this was the case but

what if I just told you well the rock is

infinitely intelligent so if it seems

silly to us that it would just sit there

being a rock that's just because it's

greater plan is beyond our finite

understanding it might not make sense to

us at the time but how can we presume to

understand an infinite God rocks reasons

for sitting there being a rock

so you see what I just did I showed you

something with apparently mundane

qualities a rock and made an assertion

which is that it was God then instead of

demonstrating anything godlike about it

I just made a second assertion which was

that it had an incomprehensible purpose

for looking mundane now think about how

badly this fails and why you as a human

can't just assert something's God then

think you've gotten any traction with a

non-believer by asserting something

about that claimed God's properties sure

it might tie up internal inconsistencies

for people who already believe but

that's it so please understand that when

you point to something as mundane as a

universe full of random and sometimes

awful events and assert that God's in

charge of it you need to show us why in

terms that are accessible and makes

sense to us you can't just make a second

assertion that he has reasons beyond our

comprehension since no God is speaking

up we are just stuck with humans weaving

webs of excuses for something that looks

natural and that's sure not going to

push me toward believing in God for the

logical problem of suffering to succeed

the Atheist would have to show that it's

logically impossible that Free Will

exists and that it's logically

impossible that God has good reasons for

permitting suffering this burden of

proof is too heavy to bear Wow there's

just something so audacious about

concocting a series of assertions and

then strutting in and telling other

people they have the burden of proof to

untangle and thoroughly disprove them I

doubt anybody could conclusively

disprove that my infinite rock God had

reasons for sitting there being a rock

but why should they have to

I'm just making untestable and wildly

superfluous explanations for why a rock

looks like a rock and if I did this in

demanda they proved me wrong they don't

know I was just being an ass geez why am

I even talking about this it's quite

possible that God and suffering both

exist this is why philosophers even it

these philosophers have given up on the

logical problem of evil oh great we're

at the part where they dismiss all

iterations of a counter Paula jeddak by

quote mining specific atheists or

agnostics who are probably just speaking

to the specific limitations of specific

versions of it this is such a Craig

thing to do it's not knowledged on

almost all sides that the logical

argument is

bankrupt yay three isolated decades-old

wait hey could you please animate me

clapping we don't have disney money

there's no clapping in apologia verse

calm down yeah but this is hardly the

end of the discussion

we still need to explore the probability

version of the problem of evil not today

we don't there's always plenty more

William Lane Craig my thanks to profit

of Zod for alleviating today's suffering

if hard already subscribed he is one of

the best most thought out most pointed

channels in all of YouTube and he

seriously oh it to yourselves to check

it out now if only from times where I've

played the characters of Adam and and

ham tap to watch

[Music]

you

[Music]