Transcription
Yeah. So God, just because God can and he's unwilling doesn't make him an evil.
Okay. The question is, do you accept the modified third premise that God can eliminate anything in reality that he wants?
What's going on, my friends? Welcome back to the channel. I hope life is treating you kindly. Today in this video, we're diving into one of the most intense Does God Exist debates I've seen in a while between Wi-Fi Gospel representing the Christian worldview and Danny from Phil Talk taking the atheist position hosted by modern-day debate. What starts as a philosophical back and forth about knowledge and logic escalates into a full-blown showdown when Danny pulls out the classic problem of evil. And let me tell you, the way Gospel handles it genuinely caught me off guard. Make sure you stay locked in all the way through because the final exchange completely flips the direction of this debate in a way you will not expect. Also, drop a comment letting me know what country or city you're tuning in from. I love seeing just how global this little community has become. All right, without any more delay, let's jump in.
Uh, okay. Um, so then I can give an argument against um God's existence where we're understanding God as traditional in a tradition traditional monotheistic way where God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Um, presumably my debate opponent accepts that. Um so the argument goes something like this that um an all good being is um a holy good being is one that is opposed to evil and being opposed to evil implies that you have a disposition to eliminate when you can. There are no limits to God. And so from those premises you get that evil is eliminated. But guess what? Evil is not eliminated. There are evil things in the world. So it one of those premises have to be false. either we're giving up on a monotheistic traditional a traditional monotheistic conception of God or you're giving up on the existence of evil.
So, I will get into that, but I do want to point out that one, that would not defeat uh the existence of God on itself. And two, I could do the same pedantic stuff and have you go through syllogisms and then ask you for more syllogism. I'm not going to do that. But like
that's what you're supposed to do. That's what you're supposed to do. Like nobody wants to listen to that. First of all,
it's called a debate. You It's called a debate. You analyze the premises.
All right. Hey, I was going to be charitable. Now I won't. All right. There you go.
Give me the syllogism. Give me the syllogism.
I just gave you the syllogism.
All right. First first premise.
Yeah. A holy good being is opposed to evil.
A holy good being is opposed to evil. Second premise. And u what it means to be opposed to evil is to have a disposition to eliminate it when it can.
Okay. Conclusion.
Oh no, there's more. There's another premise, right?
Um
uh so
so it's not a syllogism.
No, it's an argument. [laughter] Do you know what a syllogism is?
So arguments don't have to be syllogisms.
Yes. Why don't you do you know you just go look what a syllogism is. Read a logic book. Okay.
I I'm just throwing your own medicine back at you and you don't like it. Go ahead with the next premise.
Yeah. So the idea is that um God is omnipotent. God has no limits. That's the third premise. By the way, a syllogism is a two has two premises.
Just go on with the argument, dude.
I just did. I just gave you the third premise. Do you accept it?
Okay. Is there a conclusion?
Yeah. The the conclusion is that there's no evil if you accept those there's three premises.
So the conclusion is there is no evil.
That's right.
And how does that make God not exist?
Well, presumably you think there's evil, right?
Well, why what does it matter what I think? It's your argument, Danny.
Well, it matters what you think because it's a reduct absurdum.
You don't like it, do you?
Do like what?
All right. So, so let me teach. What do you think you're doing?
No, I'm just giving you your medicine back at you. But presumably what you mean is that
Okay. Presumably what you mean is that a good God can exist because of this argument
that a traditional e Yeah. You're have to give up on a traditional monotheistic conception of God or you have to give up on the existence of evil. Which
could a traditional monotheistic God who is all good? Um, could part of that be creating uh people with free will?
Sure.
Okay. And could part
Sorry, what premise are you rejecting?
Well, I'm rejecting that the disposition to that he I guess doesn't I would agree that to disposition the disposition to eliminate evil when it can is true. But saying that uh I I guess my argument is that God created
Which premise do you disagree with? One, two, or three?
I would agree with that. A creating creating humans with free will and having acts of evil.
Okay, you have to understand something right out of the gate. When Dany drops this problem of evil argument on the table, he is pulling out what atheists consider their nuclear option. This is the argument that has been used for hundreds of years to try to corner Christians into admitting their god either does not exist or is not actually good. And when Danny lays it out, he builds it like a mathematical trap. holy good being opposed to evil disposition to eliminate evil when able, no limits on God. And here's what people don't realize. This argument traces all the way back to Epicurus in ancient Greece over 2,000 years ago. So when you hear it, you are hearing an argument that has been refined, sharpened, and weaponized against theism for literally millennia. But here is where it gets interesting. Because Wi-Fi Gospel does not panic. He does not do what most Christians do, which is get flustered and start quoting Bible verses at someone who doesn't care about Bible verses. He does something I find genuinely impressive. He walks into the argument, examines each premise like a mechanic looking under a hood, and starts asking the questions Dany does not want him to ask. And when Danny says God is omnipotent and God has no limits and declares that the third premise, you have to understand how loaded that claim actually is. Because the definition of omnipotence Dany is using is not the Christian definition of omnipotence. It is a cartoon version of omnipotence designed to make the Christian God logically impossible. And Wi-Fi Gospel catches it immediately. This is the part that blows my mind. Wi-Fi Gospels counter is so simple and so devastating that Dany does not even realize at first what just happened. Wifi turns around and asks whether part of a good God's plan could be creating people with free will and Danny has to say yes, which means the entire problem of evil just got a massive crack running straight down the middle of it. Because if free will is a good thing, then a good God can permit evil as a byproduct of a greater good. And that opens a door Danny cannot close.
That's not a premise that I didn't give that premise.
I thought you wrote a a good God, a good God uh is opposed to evil. Yes. Yeah. So, no. All right. It's number four then. Your conclusion there is no evil.
Oh, so you accept the premises, but you deny the conclusion is what I'm hearing. Oh god.
Yeah, because they don't lead to the conclusion.
Oh, they don't lead to the conclusion. All right, but it's a valid argument. And here's why. Right.
What's what's number three? All I have is God is omnipotent.
God has no limits. Right. So if you do you Okay. So I I'll repeat the three premises. Okay.
Yeah. So I would I would actually disagree with premise three.
Uh okay. So God has limits.
Yes.
All right. And so he's unable to prevent evil, for example. No, he's unwilling to uh prevent all evil.
All right. So, God is not omnipotent.
No, he is. He's just unwilling to prevent all evil.
Wait, the third premise is omnipotent. God is omnipotent.
Yeah, he limits himself.
Okay. So, God is not omnipotent.
If if by God not being if you think that uh by being omnipotent, he can't limit himself, then no, God's not omnipotent.
No. H being omnipotent is having no limits in what the being can do.
I disagree.
Okay. So God is omnipotent. You've conceded
under your definition of omnipotence.
Omnip. So you dis you think omnipotence doesn't mean having no limits in what a being can do.
No I mean sure go with that then. Yeah. God is not omnipotent. Nowhere does is that a Christian view under that definition of omnipotence.
Okay. So God is limited. Nice. Nice to hear. All right. Okay. Um
and so your argument Hold on. So does your argument prove that God doesn't exist?
It proves that traditional monotheism is false, which is what Christians accept.
So is that what we're talking about?
Yeah, presumably capital G God is the one only God who's at the highest echelon of power and on Christian on Christianity, right? Um that is going to be omnipotence, maximal power.
So Christianity is not true, therefore God doesn't exist. God,
no. If you want to say God can be evil or weak or not knowledgeable, then I have other arguments for that kind of thing. Well, I'm I mean I disagree with your definition your like yeah God and under your definition that uh God is just has no limits at all then yeah that Christian God is not omnipotent.
The only the only one that matters actually is I can modify the third premise as God can eliminate anything in reality that he wants. I can modify it to that and you still have a problem.
Can eliminate anything?
Yeah. So God, just because God can and he's unwilling doesn't make him an evil.
Okay. The question is, do you accept the modified third premise that God can eliminate anything in reality that he wants?
Yeah, he can eliminate anything in reality. Disposition to only evil when it can't. Yeah. But that that then that changes everything because
uh God
Yeah. Because God can uh eliminate uh beings with free will, but he chooses not to. And but creating beings with free will is good.
Sorry. Which premise are you denying
with the modified third premise?
Premise two.
Premise two. Premise two is that what it means to be opposed is to have a disposition.
Actually, I I want a justification for premise two.
That's just analytic. It's by definition what opposed is. So like I'll give you an example.
If I say I'm opposed to abortion, right? Then that means that
I'm going to eliminate it if I can.
Says who?
Hm.
Says who?
That's just what it means. The word of mean, do you know what a definition is?
Wait. So in order to be opposed to something, you would therefore have to eliminate it if you can.
No.
Yeah. If if you're opposed to it and you're able, especially effortlessly able to eliminate it, don't in what sense are you opposed to it?
Well, it's just a dis it's just a uh a preference.
Yeah. If you have the preference to let's say eliminate if you have the preference against abortion, but you have no disposition to eliminate it. I don't even know what that means.
Well, like if I have the value, if I value freedom over the evil of abortion.
Okay. So, you can have conflicting will. You can have an opposition.
That's not conflicting.
It is conflicting. Like if
No, I I oppose ab say this isn't my position but if I opposed abortion but I preferred ultimate freedom
those are conflicting values
because one, you can't get both.
Yes, you can by if other people choose not to abort.
No, the point is that it's not within your power to get both.
Okay, even if it was
well then there wouldn't be a problem
even both that there's there is no What are you saying? Look, it's very
It's the same with God. If God has the value of free will, but he opposes evil.
Yeah, he can get both, right? You just said it.
Could Could God create beings with free will and there be no evil?
You just said it was possible. They're not conflicting. You can't God can get both.
No, he cannot create beings with free will and not have evil. So then it's then it's conflicting values.
How is it conflicting values?
Because you can't get both. It so they're conflicting. You have to God has to choose.
No, he he has both.
Oh, he has no a world of
No, no, he doesn't have no He has a world with beings with free will and there's evil.
He has both.
So God wants evil
in the sense that he wants beings with free will. Yeah. Okay.
If God didn't want there to be evil in the world,
I'll take that. Okay. A holy good being wants evil. That I'll take that. Yeah. Okay. I'll buy that. Okay.
So then your argument doesn't work. Is that what you're biting?
Just like a hol a holy evil being just loves the good sometimes, right?
How does that make God evil?
Do what do you think holy good means? Do holy good things like evil things? Do they want evil things?
No. That that God doesn't do something that is evil. A holy good being is disposed and ordered only toward the good, not evil.
Oh, this is the part where the whole thing collapses. Because when Wi-Fi gospel says God can eliminate beings with free will but chooses not to. And creating beings with free will is good, that single sentence is doing more theological work than most people appreciate. This is the free will defense and it has been developed and refined by some of the sharpest minds in philosophy including Alvin Plantinga in the 1970s whose version of this argument is widely considered to have answered the logical problem of evil so definitively that even many prominent atheist philosophers acknowledge it works. This is not amateur theology. This is the heavy machinery of Christian philosophy being deployed in real time. And here's what people don't realize. When WiFi says, "If God has the value of free will, but he opposes evil, he can get both right." He is cutting through the false dilemma Dany has been trying to impose. Dany keeps wanting it to be either free will or no evil. And Wi-Fi keeps saying, "No, it is both." And that is the entire point of this world we live in. God values free creatures more than he values a universe of puppets. And any parent who has ever let their child make a painful mistake in order to grow into a real person understands this intuitively. And the line that absolutely wrecked me is when Wii says he has a world with beings with free will and there's evil, he has both. You can hear Danny's argument disintegrating because the original syllogism said these two things cannot coexist and WFI just showed that they can they do and that there is a coherent reason for it. At that point, Dany is reaching for whatever he can grab, trying to get Wifi to admit God wants evil in some twisted sense, but Wifi does not flinch. He lands it with the definitional closer. A wholly good being is disposed and ordered only toward the good, not evil. And that closes the door. Because what Wifi just articulated is the traditional Christian doctrine that God wills the good, permits the evil for the sake of a greater good, and remains wholly oriented toward goodness himself. This is not God wanting evil. This is God permitting free beings to exist knowing they will sometimes misuse that freedom because the alternative, a cosmos of mindless robots would not contain the highest goods at all. Things like genuine love, genuine virtue, genuine relationship. Honestly, watching Wi-Fi gospel navigate this was impressive. He did not let Danny pick the definitions. He did not let Danny pick the terms. And when Dany tried to escape, Wi-Fi walked him right back into the core Christian position and held him there until the argument ran out of gas.
So, what do you guys think of this? Leave your thoughts down in the comments. Please like and subscribe and I will see you in the next video.