Suffering and Evil: The Logical Problem (William Lane Craig Edition) (feat. Prophet of Zod)
Summary
TLDRIn 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
- ๐ค 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.
- ๐ 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.
- ๐ฃ๏ธ The conversation is a dialogue between a former Christian and Prophet of Zod, who critiques Craig's approach to the problem of evil.
- ๐ง 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.
- ๐ซ 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.
- ๐คจ 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.
- ๐ 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.
- ๐ฎโโ๏ธ An analogy is used involving a police officer and a violent crime to illustrate that preventing harm does not necessarily violate free will.
- ๐ โโ๏ธ 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.
- ๐คทโโ๏ธ 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
๐ค 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.
๐ 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.
๐ 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
๐กSuffering
๐กEvil
๐กFree Will
๐กTheodicy
๐กEpicurus
๐กContingency
๐กSin
๐กAtheist
๐กArgument from Evil
๐กWilliam Lane Craig
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]
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)