Transcription
You really want it. Um, but the reason why I'm not Christian is because I don't think that an all-good God is compatible with excessive, unnecessary suffering.
>> What do you classify as unnecessary suffering?
>> So, unnecessary suffering to me just means that there's not like some higher outweighing good associated with it.
>> Mhm. And why is it not compatible?
>> It's not compatible because God being all-good is also good-maximizing. Um, that I would take a maximally good God to be good-maximizing, which means that we would live in a world which is good-maximized.
>> I don't know what that means because if God is infinite goodness, there wouldn't be some maximum form of goodness that.
>> So, do you know how like some, some numbers are like higher than others?
>> Yeah.
>> You know how there's like an amount of good in the world?
>> I don't think that there's like a certain amount of good. I don't think you can maximize good. That doesn't make sense in my.
>> Wait, so is God maximally good?
>> He is infinitely good. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Cool. Yeah. So, uh, the most good that could possibly exist in the world, uh, is the, the good that would exist in the world if God is perfectly good. Because alternatively, uh, that means that there would be a better God, uh, who would make a better world if the world is not the most good world. It doesn't depend on our situation.
>> God's goodness doesn't depend on us.
>> No, I think it does.
>> Why?
>> So, if we have it that God is all-good and he made the world, then we would expect him to make the most good world. I don't think an all-good God is making like a, like a kind of okay world.
>> What do you mean most good? That's what I'm trying to.
>> Yeah, just like perfectly good. Couldn't be more good. So you do understand that in our worldview, like the source of all goodness is God, right?
>> Yeah.
>> So if he's the infinite good, the maximum good, it can't get any more good than God.
>> Yeah. And you understand like some worlds are going to be.
>> There's no like tank of goodness that us now all of a sudden affecting his goodness.
>> Would you, do you understand like the idea that like some worlds are going to be more good than others?
>> No.
>> Okay. Wait. So, let's say that instead of this world, it's just a bunch of like, like babies funneling into like a wood chipper infinitely for all eternity. Uh, and like God is just creating like a new stream of babies to funnel into the wood chipper. Would you say that wood chipper world is better or worse than our world?
>> I mean, I can say better or worse, but I wouldn't say that there's more.
>> I want an answer. Is it better or is it more or less good?
>> In what way?
>> In whatever sense you use when you say God is all good. Is whichever world good, less good?
>> And I'm sorry, what, what question did I ask you and how do you think that answers that?
>> Because I don't think you understand my paradigm when you're saying.
>> I'm sorry, can you repeat back to me what my question was or were you not even listening?
>> If there was a world with a whole bunch of babies going in a wood chipper, would that world be more good than this one?
>> Would it be less good than this one?
>> Less good.
>> I don't get what you mean by that.
>> You, you're not, you don't understand the question. You're not sure if, if a bunch of babies getting funneled into a wood chipper is good or bad.
>> Do you not, I mean, like this is basic relations. So.
>> Wait, do you think that this makes you look like good faith? Like you might actually win some souls being this dishonest?
>> I'm trying to help you understand something.
>> Well, that's, that's fine. I just think that like the Christian lives. Hello. Hello. Go for it.
>> With creation, we have different types of relations. When we talk about God and we talk about creation, there's a certain thing as a real relation. There's logical relations. There's different types of relations. So when you're saying, is there a certain amount of goodness that is in this quote unquote world? That doesn't make sense to me.
>> Why?
>> Because all goodness comes from God. So if all goodness comes from God, in any world that exists, it exists through God.
>> So the level of goodness wouldn't be more or less. So I'm trying to figure out what you mean by that.
>> Which, which one's more good? Uh, donating to charity or torturing babies?
>> Which one's more good? It aligns with God.
>> So.
>> I'm sorry. And what, what do you think the question was and how do you think that answered it?
>> Because you're saying is there a world where there is more?
>> No, this is I'm just like, let's.
>> What was your first question that you asked then?
>> Wait, wait. Let's just start with actions and we'll work our way up to worlds. I can see that we're not going to get to worlds.
>> Uh, because right now, what I just, to just to see if you're good faith, I just want to know which one's which one is more good. Donating to charity or torturing babies?
>> I need to know what you mean by good. That's all I need to know.
>> Whatever you mean by good. It's an internal.
>> Whatever I mean by good. I have multiple definitions for good and it could.
>> Yeah. Like, like morally good. Which one is more morally good? Torturing babies or morally good donating to charity.
>> Yeah. Perfect. So do you agree that God, so, so we understand that certain actions are more good and and less good, uh, than, than certain other ones. So clearly there's like a way to compare them. Similarly, we could take the totality of of good, uh, and and bad in a world. Um, and if God is perfectly why not.
>> Could you, do you acknowledge that in the same way you can rank moral actions, you can also rank worlds? Like, um, let's say that we have like this world except there's like, we have two worlds exactly the same except in one world, uh, someone gets like, like unalived. Um, then in the world where someone gets unalived, we would call that like the less good world, right? Like we would agree that that world would be worse.
>> I don't give what that, bro. When you say less good, you could say that the people are less good. There's no such thing as like less good in the world.
>> So.
>> Do you acknowledge that that the action of unaliving someone is less.
>> The opposite, opposite. Hold on. The opposite of goodness is like non-existence.
>> So there can't be less non-existence in something.
>> So when, uh, so like torturing babies is non-existent. That's a privation of something that's good.
>> But I thought the opposite of good was non-existence.
>> That would be pure evil. I'm saying that when we're talking about something, you have to understand it in whatever way we're talking about. So if I say that good is pure existence, the opposite of goodness would be what? Evil, which is.
>> You're saying that like evil is like non-existence?
>> It doesn't have a substance. No.
>> Oh, okay. Wait, so evil doesn't exist?
>> It doesn't have a substance. It's a privation.
>> So, okay. Uh, premise one, uh, evil doesn't exist. Uh, premise two, if evil doesn't exist, then nothing in our world is evil. Uh, is that, so, uh, uh, conclusion, nothing in our world is evil. Is that what you'd say?
>> Do you understand what we're saying when we say nothing in the world?
>> Which premise would you reject of that?
>> Uh, the second one. Nothing at all.
>> Okay. That, that if evil doesn't exist in our world, then there is no evil in our world.
>> Wait. So.
>> Two different types of the word.
>> And I'm so sorry. Say there are two different types that you're using. So in one, I'm saying there's no substance that is called evil because when I say evil, I mean non-existence. So by very definition, there is no non-existence.
>> No, I'm using the same sense of the word.
>> I'm using the the same sense both times.
>> What's your definition then? So give me.
>> My, I mean, my definition of evil is probably going to track on to something like unempathetic. Um, so that's probably, but because the problem of evil is an internal critique, we're probably just going to use yours.
>> Yeah. If then we're going to use mine, then that's going to be non-existence. So how is non-existence existing?
>> Wait. So, does the torture of babies exist?
>> That's a privation of goodness.
>> The torture of babies, does it exist?
>> So, are you calling it a privation? Is this.
>> Wait, I just want to know. It's a question. Does the torture of babies exist?
>> Uh, hopefully it doesn't, but it probably does. So.
>> Yeah. Yeah, exactly. It probably does. Um, and is that evil? It depends what you're using.
>> It depends.
>> Yes.
>> It, the tor, whether the torturing babies is evil depends. It depends.
>> What did I say evil?
>> You're not sure. It depends. You, you need more information.
>> You're literally showing that you don't understand basic metaphysics. What did I say evil is?
>> You said that evil is the privation of good, that it's non-existence.
>> Did I give you two definitions or not? Uh, it seems to be, although I'm not sure if you're saying that these are actually two definitions. If I gave you two definitions, it would depend on which definition you're using. Correct.
>> So, I'm talking about moral good.
>> I'm just asking you if there are two definitions, it depends on which definition you're using. Correct.
>> I guess, but I think it's, I mean, it's pretty clear that I'm talking about moral good. Say. Oh, I'm saying you don't know. You don't know.
>> Yeah. Wait, wait. So, so now, now with the context, I'm talking about using a specific definition. Context that it's about moral good.
>> Yeah, moral good. We're talking about moral good.
>> So, we're talking about a privation. Correct.
>> Okay. So, what do you take? Do you take privation to just be like not good?
>> Okay. A privation means that it is not in align with the will of how things, of of God or how things are supposed to be patterned as.
>> Okay. So.
>> For instance.
>> Is God's will maximally good?
>> H.
>> Is God's will maximally good? Which will?
>> You said in the same sense of like if it is in line with God's will, if it's not in line with God's will, is God's will maximally good?
>> My will.
>> In the same sense that you're talking about God's will. If something's in line with God's will, then you're saying it's good. So I'm just wondering, is God's will maximally good?
>> In that sense, yes.
>> Okay. Yeah. Perfect. So, uh, then.
>> Are you going to ask which sense? Cuz you're already going to conflate something. Wait. So, and does God's will happen?
>> Not all the time.
>> Not all the time. So, when God's, when God wills something, when God wills something, sometimes it doesn't happen.
>> There is a certain will, quote unquote, will.
>> How many wills does God have?
>> Okay. Faculties. One.
>> Wills. How many wills does God have?
>> Faculties. One. Cuz will is a function of nature. Okay. So, if we're talking about a faculty, he has one faculty.
>> Did I say the word faculty even a single time? Even one single time.
>> The reason I have to specify the question, answer the question, I have to specify the question is because you thrive the question off of the questions asserting your own question. You act like you answer the question.
>> I did. I did. I did. So.
>> And I'm sorry, what was the question?
>> Internal, like, what, what do you mean by.
>> Wait, do you remember you said you answered the question? What was the question?
>> Yeah, but what do you mean by will?
>> Wait, I'm sorry. Wait, what was, and I'm so sorry. What was the question? You said you answered it mostly.
>> How many does God have? So what?
>> No, that wasn't the question. My question most recently was, uh, did I use the word faculty even a single time?
>> So that's what you're going to say. Your, your last question. Well, I just want to know.
>> Instead of referring, instead of referring to what you was actually asking.
>> Because I just want you to acknowledge that you went off on like a side.
>> Are you, are you stooping? Well, I, I just wanted it to be clear to the audience what kind of like scumbag.
>> Tag, literally every single person knows what you were asking originally.
>> Do you want to answer the question? Did I use the word faculty even a single time?
>> So, what do you mean by will so I can.
>> Did I use the word faculty even a single time or did you just want to tell us about your like special interest?
>> Question. Answer the question. What do you mean?
>> Wait, I'm sorry. I just want you to answer mine first.
>> Well, I'm sorry. I just need you.
>> I want you to answer mine first.
>> I need you to answer the question first.
>> I want you to answer mine first.
>> So, what do you mean by what? I want you, I, whatever you mean when you talk about God's will.
>> It's an internal critique.
>> My will.
>> It's whatever you mean. It's an internal critique.
>> Wait, you're giving an internal critique to my view?
>> Hold on.
>> Wait. You're, wait, wait, wait. You're so confused. I understand. Like, you've gotten absolutely slammed in this discussion. So, you're probably concussed. You don't even know what's going on, which is why you think that maybe you're giving an internal critique, but I'm the one giving an internal critique cuz I'm critiquing your view. You're confused.
>> What do you mean by will?
>> Whatever you mean when you say will. Because when I give my definitions for something, you try and use your own definition, which seems like.
>> Well, no, no, no. Wait, when have I, when have I used my own definition? When have I inserted that?
>> I asked you, what do you mean by will? What do you mean by that?
>> Whatever you mean when you say when you're talking about God's will, whatever you mean.
>> It's an internal.
>> Hold on. And then when I started to explain what I meant by will, he said, "No, answer the question. Answer the question."
>> Because you started going off on your little side tangent about how many faculties God has. Nobody asked.
>> You didn't ask how many wills.
>> I didn't ask how many faculties.
>> Ask the question again, bro. Just ask.
>> Yeah. Uh, how many wills does God have?
>> One.
>> Cool. So then God's, when God wills something, it doesn't necessarily happen. So when God wills something, it doesn't necessarily happen.
>> Will is a faculty of his nature. So he has one faculty of judgments and certain things.
>> That was a yes or no question.
>> It's an irrelevant question because it has nothing to do with his.
>> It's a yes or no question. Answer it.
>> It has nothing to do. You're using will in a different sentence.
>> Yes or no?
>> I just answered the question.
>> No, you didn't. It's a yes or no question.
>> Did you free your slaves? Yes or no?
>> Uh, I don't own slaves.
>> I didn't ask. So when God, when God, wait, so which, which presupposition of this do you reject? When God wills something, does it sometimes not happen?
>> Not understand that there's a such thing as bad questions.
>> Which, wait, which, so which proposition of.
>> Nature.
>> Which proposition is baked into my question that you would reject?
>> Oh my gosh. Ask the question again.
>> Yeah. When God wills something, does it happen?
>> You're using will in a different way.
>> I'm saying that. Do you know I'm using will in whatever way you're using will? That's the way I'm using it. Using it as a faculty.
>> What do you mean by.
>> Talking of will as a faculty?
>> Whichever, whichever thing God has one of, that's the one I'm talking about.
>> So a natural capacity to do something.
>> Yeah. When God wills something, does it happen?
>> That has nothing to do with the capacity to do something. Do you not understand how this is different? This is why I told you that if you're going with my view, you have to understand what the definitions are.
>> You said that goodness is just going to be the things that are in line with God's will. You said God's will is maximally perfect. I asked you if everything in God's will happens. Uh, you said no, not necessarily. So now I'm just asking you, when God wills something, does it happen?
>> So we're using a different definition of will.
>> No, it's the same term. It is the exact same term. Keep up.
>> Okay. It's not. It's the same. And I understand like you're confused about what's going on. You've gotten slammed in this conversation. You've done terrible. But I just want to know when God wills something, does it happen?
>> There are plenty of atheists who have done way better jobs than this.
>> I don't think so. I think you're just confused. Again, you, you're, you're highly concussed. You got slammed in this conversation. It's going really bad. You're shredded. You don't know where you are. You don't know what your arguments are. You can't even like track the basic conversation. But I just want to know the answer to the question. It's a yes or no question. When God wills, something does happen. Why is this so hard for you to answer?
>> Okay. When he wills something, it depends.
>> So sometimes God's will, God fails to bring something into existence.
>> There are certain things that God allows. So for instance, his will could be for letting people have free choice. So then yes, that will would occur.
>> Do we have free choice in heaven?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, cool. Wait. So then, uh, why, why does God allow, uh, why would God make people.
>> You want to ask me what free choice is before you make another mistake?
>> Uh, do you take it to be like the ability to do otherwise?
>> Otherwise of what?
>> Otherwise of what you did?
>> Sure. Like, what, what definition of free will are you going with? Yeah.
>> All right. Let's just go with my definition of free will then.
>> Which is what?
>> All right. For my definition of free will, we'll go with the ability of a person to make judgments and act on the choice of those judgments in alignment with and according to one's nature.
>> With one with nature being what?
>> You don't know what someone's nature is.
>> Well, you just use terms very weirdly and then you're condescending about it. So I'll just get clear on them.
>> How am I using anything weirdly? What's so weird about using the term nature?
>> Yeah, because so, uh, I mean, when we were talking about will, then you were like, "Well, that's not what I mean." And then we talk about good and you're like, "Well, I have two definitions of good." So I just want to get clear on what you mean.
>> Like, anybody who asks theological questions understands what I mean when I say that there's a faculty of will and then there's things that you will.
>> Well, I just want to know what you mean when you say nature. Can I just get like a definition of that?
>> A nature is on the basic terms what you are.
>> Oh, just what you are.
>> Mhm.
>> So, it's like a, it's like meaningless then it seems.
>> So, I mean, I guess, I guess it's like kind of an irrelevant part of the definition, right? Cuz like you're, you're you can't do anything that you can't do.
>> I mean, is it possible to to do anything against your nature anyway?
>> All right. So, when I say an alignment with.
>> It just seems like the definition isn't very well thought out. That's all I'm saying.
>> I was just going to give you what alignment with means because you understood.
>> Yeah. That's why you don't understand. Then you think my definition is bad because.
>> Well, your definition is bad because you couldn't do anything against your nature because to go against your nature would be against the law of non. Calm down, buddy. It's okay. And I understand why you need to like assert yourself cuz you're like upset right now. It's okay. Like you haven't done very well. I get it. Like you've embarrassed your position. It's okay. Just calm down. Take a deep breath. It'll be it'll be fine. Like seriously, like I'll be gone soon. The embarrassment is going to end soon.
>> Okay. This is probably the third day that you've got on a Christian's live and got waxed. And that's probably.
>> Do you think that you're doing well right now? I, I just don't know what you think giving a victory speech is gonna do for you when you've got nothing but shredded this entire time. Like this is actually like genuinely like a really embarrassing showing from you.
>> You just ramble.
>> Are you good? Can I explain now?
>> Did I ask you to?
>> So when I say alignment, you don't care if I explain or not.
>> I mean, did I ask you to like where?
>> Okay. I don't have to ask your permission on my life. All right. That like like on like a little hyperfixation ramble like you want to take us on the ramble roller coaster.
>> I think. Okay, guys. I think his plan is to keep doing this and keep.
>> Guys, I think this guy's plan is to grandstand so everyone forgets how badly he's losing.
>> He wants an excuse for me to.
>> Yeah, he, he wants to, he wants to find an excuse to kick me because he's done very badly literally anyway out of this conversation. But he's not going to get one. I mean, if he kicks me right now, he knows that the comment section is like heavily against me, so he can't kick me right now, but he needs to keep, uh, me around for at least a little bit.
>> Hey, hold on. Hold on. Hey, you said I can't kick you right now.
>> If you do, you're a coward. I mean, that would just be spineless, right? Like very bad in the conversation.
>> I'm a coward. If I kick. Oh my gosh.
>> Yeah, you can kick. I mean, kick me if you acknowledge like how badly you lost. Yeah.
>> Oh, it would hurt me.
>> Yeah. Well, I, I think what's hurting you even more, I think what's hurting you even more is like how bad you did in the debate. Like, like how, how good you are at turning people away from your religion.
>> I think my wife might act up.
>> I accept your surrender.
>> Unless you want to unless you want to act productive conversation and listen to me. I don't care if I kick you or not.
>> Yeah. I mean, if you, if you just want to take me on like the ramble roller coaster, I'm all right. But if you, if you want, if you're interested in your definition or not, do you want to hear my definition? Did I ask for your definition?
>> Do you want I need a.
>> Did I, did I ask?
>> Yes or no? Yes or no?
>> Did I ask?
>> Did you just start.
>> Next? Uh, Red thinks I won't kick.