Islamic Revival

Appearance

On this page

The Problem of Evil feat. Saf Chowdhury | Thought Adventure Podcast #13 (2021-08-01) ​

Description ​

The problem of evil is one of the most popular arguments many atheists use against theists. The argument attempts to show that the existence of God is logically impossible due to the existence of evil in the world.

In this podcast we have invited Dr Saffarak Choudhury who holds a PhD in Islamic studies and philosophy. He has also written a book on the Islamic answer to the problem of evil.

00:00 Introduction and Arguments 1:12:23 Pinecreek (Atheist) 1:58.10 Caleb Jackson (Christian) 2:20:38 Thinker Man (Atheist) 2:42:57 Matthew Bardos (Atheist) 3:04:43 Hi (Muslim) 3:17:34 Aschraf (Muslim) 3:31:23 Hapiness To You (Atheist) 3:36:58 Final Thoughts

Thought Adventure Support â—„ PayPal - https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=6KZWK75RB23RN â—„ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/ThoughtAdventurePodcast/join â—„ PATREON - https://www.patreon.com/thoughtadventurepodcast

Thought Adventure Social Media ◄ Twitter: https://twitter.com/T_A_Podcast​​ [@T_A_Podcast] ◄ Clubhouse https://www.clubhouse.com/club/thought-adventure-podcast ◄ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7x4UVfTz9QX8KVdEXquDUC ◄ Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/ThoughtAdventurePodcast ◄ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ThoughtAdventurePodcast​

The Hosts: ----------------------| Jake Brancatella, The Muslim Metaphysician

----------------------|

Yusuf Ponders, The Pondering Soul

----------------------|

Sharif

----------------------|

Abdulrahman

----------------------|

Admin

Riyad Gmail: hello.tapodcast@gmail.com

#ProblemOfeÉvil #Atheism #Hell

Summary of The Problem of Evil feat. Saf Chowdhury | Thought Adventure Podcast #13 ​

This summary is AI generated - there may be inaccuracies. *

00:00:00 - 01:00:00 ​

The Problem of Evil is a philosophical problem that asks why evil exists in the world. Saf Chowdhury from Thought Adventure Podcast discusses this problem and argues that a good god would provide reasons for why evil exists.

**00:00:00 ** In this Thought Adventure podcast, Saf Chowdhury discusses the problem of evil with Jake the Muslim and Abdul Rahman. Marsha Allah Brother Suffolk will also join the discussion. The three discuss how to respond to those who ask about the problem of evil.

  • **00:05:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a philosophical argument that tries to demonstrate that the existence of an evil god is impossible. It can act as a defeater by attacking the evidence offered in support of a belief, or it could act as an undermining defeater by attacking the claim itself.
  • **00:10:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a philosophical argument that alleges the existence of a god that is omniscient and omnipotent is incompatible with the existence of evil.
  • **00:15:00 ** The problem of evil is a challenge to the belief that an omnicompetent god exists. It attempts to demonstrate that existence of god and evil are not logically compatible.
  • **00:20:00 ** The problem of evil is a philosophical problem that asks whether evil exists and if so, why it exists. The atheist or skeptic's main argument is that evil does not logically follow from a god that is all-powerful and good. The assumption that evil must exist if god is all-powerful and good is questionable, and can be refuted with a counter-example.
  • **00:25:00 ** The "evidential problem of evil" is a philosophical argument against the existence of a benevolent god. It posits that if there is a god, then there must be evil in the world, as it is incompatible with a benevolent deity. Skeptical theism is a philosophical position which holds that we cannot know for certain that there is not a benevolent deity, and that we should remain skeptical of our ability to discern evil from good.
  • **00:30:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a problem that has been asked of religious people for centuries. The two main responses are that either God allows evil in order to make us better or that evil is real and people really do suffer. The theist argues that on their view, evil is a departure from a normative rule or ideal, while the atheist argues that evil is real and people do suffer. The theist argues that having confidence in God's existence doesn't mean that one needs to have confidence in their understanding of why evil exists.
  • **00:35:00 ** Skeptical theism is the position that humans are cognitively limited and that, therefore, they are not in a privileged epistemic standpoint to make judgments about the existence of god. The argument from evil is the claim that there is evidence of gratuitous evil in the world. Skeptical theism argues that, even if evils are gratuitous, it does not undermine the believer's belief in god.
  • **00:40:00
  • Discusses the problem of evil, and argues that some evils appear to have no reason, which cannot be used to infer that they are gratuitous.
  • **00:45:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a difficult question for believers to answer, as it appears that there is no point behind some evils in the world. Saf Chowdhury from Thought Adventure Podcast discusses this problem and argues that a good god would provide reasons for why evil exists.
  • **00:50:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a philosophical problem that asks why evil exists in the world. Islam discusses the concept of the problem of evil in various ways, and scholars throughout the ages have offered various solutions.
  • **00:55:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a problem that has been discussed by scholars for centuries, and it is still a problem today. Allah, the most powerful and loving God, can also be punishing and evil. All of creation, including humans, must try to embody all of Allah's good attributes in order to have faith in him.

01:00:00 - 02:00:00 ​

The problem of evil is a philosophical question that has been debated for centuries. Saf Chowdhury and Jake Makel argue that there is a contradiction between the idea that God is all-powerful and all-knowing and the existence of evil. They posit that this contradiction can only be resolved if one accepts that God is both all-powerful and all-knowing.

**01:00:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a philosophical problem that has been discussed by scholars for centuries. One response is that evil is an unavoidable occurrence, while another is that it is a matter of subjective perspective. The Problem of Evil is also discussed in relation to the Islamic concept of hikmah, which means wisdom. It is argued that even in the end, evil is not actually evil, but is actually disguised as good.

  • **01:05:00 ** The Problem of Evil discusses the problem of evil, which is the question of why evil exists in the world. After discussing various theories on why evil exists, the author argues that a god who is all-powerful and good would not allow millions of years of animal suffering for no apparent reason.
  • **01:10:00 ** Atheist Saf Chowdhury discusses the problem of evil from the perspective of God before creation and argues that anything added to a perfect God would not make it better.
  • **01:15:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a philosophical question about why a loving God would create a world with so much suffering. Saf Chowdhury from Thought Adventure Podcast discusses the idea that all humans have the potential for goodness, and that there is a possibility of belief in a God who does not create evil.
  • **01:20:00 ** <>
  • **01:25:00 ** Saf Chowdhury argues that there is no problem of evil because some people will go to hell, but ultimately this does not contradict the existence of good because Allah is happy with those who disbelieve.
  • **01:30:00 ** argues that if god's definition of good and evil is based on emotions, then it's irrelevant whether or not people feel icky about the consequences of this belief.
  • **01:35:00 ** The problem of evil is a problem for Allah because it implies inconsistency in his actions. Disbelief is not a problem for Allah because it is ordained by him as morally wrong. People will go to hell for eternity if they do not believe in Allah.
  • **01:40:00
  • Discusses the problem of evil, or the question of why evil exists in the world. Atheists and other non-theists often use this problem to critique the existence of God. While it is possible to argue that evil exists because of divine purposes, it is also possible to argue that evil exists independently of God. In either case, the existence of evil does not demonstrate that God does not exist.
  • **01:45:00 ** , Saf Chowdhury and Jake Makel argue that there is a logical contradiction between the idea that God wants people to go to Hell and the existence of evil. They posit that this contradiction can only be resolved if one accepts that God is both all-powerful and all-knowing.
  • **01:50:00 ** Saf Chowdhury argues that there is a problem with evil, as some people will end up in hell. He also points out that there is a logical contradiction in believing in a god who creates knowing what will happen will lead to people going to hell. This contradicts the idea of free will, which is central to Islam.
  • **01:55:00 ** Caleb Jackson argues that emotions play a role in judging the correctness of moral propositions. He also says that metaethical considerations, such as a person's underlying ethical theory, may play a role in how strongly they feel about a particular moral proposition.

02:00:00 - 03:00:00 ​

Saf Chowdhury discusses the problem of evil in this video. He argues that if there is a cause and effect relationship between x and y, then x must necessarily happen. However, if x does not necessarily happen, then there is no explanation for why it did not occur. Chowdhury argues that this makes it difficult to understand why God would choose one course of action over another.

**02:00:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a philosophical question that has been debated for centuries. Saf Chowdhury discusses how emotivism may or may not be able to justify moral propositions. He then goes on to discuss how a realist view of morality may or may not allow for an argument that evil is wrong. Lastly, he discusses how a theistic position might be able to provide a justification for evil.

  • **02:05:00 ** Saf Chowdhury, a skeptic of theism, shares his thoughts on the problem of evil, arguing that it does not logically follow that a god would be evil. He also argues that if there is a god, he has the right to control and determine how creation works.
  • **02:10:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a philosophical problem that asks why bad things happen to good people. It is a difficult problem to answer, as it is difficult to see how good people could bring about bad results. The idea that animals don't suffer the same way that humans do is also questioned, as animals do experience pain and suffering. Ultimately, Michael Murray argues that we cannot infer that animals suffer the same way that humans do, as we do not have the total understanding of reality.
  • **02:15:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a philosophical question about the existence of a God who permits gratuitous suffering in the world. features Saf Chowdhury from Thought Adventure Podcast discussing his thoughts on the topic. He says that on a subjective level, it seems that the atheist is justified in believing in the non-existence of a God, based on his experience of suffering. However, he also points out that there are defeaters for the atheist's position, which means that the cumulative case against the existence of a God is strong.
  • **02:20:00 ** Caleb Jackson discusses the problem of evil and how free will does not exist. He argues that if God knew what humans would do, then he could not have done otherwise, as free will does not exist. This results in evil being unjustifiable and unexplainable.
  • **02:25:00 ** Saf Chowdhury discusses the problem of evil. He says that if there is a cause and effect relationship between x and y, then x must necessarily happen. However, if x does not necessarily happen, then there is no explanation for why it did not occur. Chowdhury argues that this makes it difficult to understand why God would choose one course of action over another.
  • **02:30:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a discussion about whether or not it is possible for God to know the future of free agents without an explanation of how he knows it. The main point of the discussion is that if there is no mechanism by which God knows the future, then it is similar to saying that God knows it magically.
  • **02:35:00 ** Saf Chowdhury argues that it is impossible for God to know something beforehand, unless it is you know it. He gives an example of a person making a free choice, and argues that the knowledge of that choice must come from a causal chain. He then asserts that within the Islamic paradigm, there is no free will and that is how God knows. He ends by saying that the best argument he can muster is that there cannot be a mechanism for God to know the free choice beforehand.
  • **02:40:00 ** Matt Matthew discusses the problem of evil and how it applies to the belief in Allah. He argues that Allah is all-powerful and all-knowing, and that based on these premises, Allah should exist and be worshipped. He then presents his argument that Allah is active in human affairs and that therefore there is no free will. He ends the video by asking the audience to think about whether they agree with him.
  • **02:45:00
  • Discusses the problem of evil, specifically discussing how a god who is benevolent would help his followers, but a god who is evil will not. concludes that because the god is not benevolent, he cannot be worshiped and is therefore not existent.
  • **02:50:00 ** The problem of evil is a concern raised by some people, primarily atheists, regarding the existence of a good and just God. The Qur'an addresses this concern by stating that some people will never believe in God even if He were to show himself to them. The Islamic paradigm disagrees with this position, believing that a person is accountable for their own actions no matter what.
  • **02:55:00 ** argues that the evidence of creation shows that there is a creator, and that Muslims who convert to atheism because of this evidence are essentially conceding that there is a creator. In support of this argument, the speaker cites examples from the Quran and Hadith.

03:00:00 - 03:40:00 ​

Saf Chowdhury discusses the problem of evil with Thought Adventure host David Silverman. He argues that although evil may be necessary for some things, it cannot be the case that everything that God creates has a purpose. He also suggests that humans have an innate desire for meaning, even if that meaning may be elusive.

**03:00:00 ** The problem of evil is a difficult topic to discuss, as it implies predestination and free will. Saf Chowdhury from Thought Adventure Podcast discusses how the Qur'an explains the problem of evil. He states that by denying the signs of the creator, some people are doomed to have a disease in their hearts that is intensified by god. This punishment is due to their own actions and free choice, and cannot be reversed.

  • **03:05:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a difficult topic that requires understanding of the context of the verses in order to properly appreciate them. Shaykh Saf Chowdhury discusses how the difficulties in life can help one grow as a person, and how rejecting God can add to one's problems.
  • **03:10:00 ** Saf Chowdhury discusses the problem of evil with Thought Adventure host David Silverman. He argues that although evil may be necessary for some things, it cannot be the case that everything that God creates has a purpose. He also suggests that humans have an innate desire for meaning, even if that meaning may be elusive.
  • **03:15:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a topic of debate among Muslims. Saf Chowdhury, a Muslim thinker, says that even evil has a purpose, and is necessary in order to achieve a goal, such as the creation of humans.
  • **03:20:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a philosophical question that arises from the observation that evil exists in the world. There are several arguments that can be made for why evil exists, but ultimately, it remains an open question. Some people believe that evil is justified because it has a purpose, while others argue that it is gratuitous and has no purpose. There are also theodicies that can be offered to explain why evil exists. It is important to remember that evil does not exist in a vacuum, and that it is often related to suffering.
  • **03:25:00 ** The Problem of Evil is a philosophical problem that asks why evil exists in the world. The Islamic philosopher Saf Chowdhury discusses this problem in a Thought Adventure Podcast. He argues that the existence of suffering gives reason to disbelieve in the existence of an all-loving god. If this is the only argument against god's existence, it is a modest argument. However, it can be defeated by other arguments against god.
  • **03:30:00 ** The problem of evil is a philosophical question that Muslims believe is a test of character. Theists argue that suffering is necessary for happiness, but atheists argue that this is a contradiction in terms.
  • **03:35:00 ** Saf Chowdhury from Thought Adventure Network discusses the problem of evil with Jake from the Atheist Experience. Jake argues that there is no logical argument for the existence of evil, and that it is based on the fundamental presupposition or assumption about either the nature of evil or good. He also suggests that atheists should try to present more sophisticated arguments, rather than simply appealing to emotions. Saf concludes the discussion by urging atheists to listen to other atheists who may have more sophisticated arguments.
  • **03:40:00 ** Saf Chowdhury discusses the problem of evil with Thought Adventure host Dr. 22. He argues that unless believers are sincere, they will be unsuccessful in overcoming their feelings and emotions. Dr. 22 also thanks Saf for coming on the show and expresses appreciation for his contributions. The Thought Adventure team plans to release a community post about the next episode soon.

Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND

0:00:05 i am0:00:33 today on thought adventure podcast0:00:36 and we're going to be discussing today0:00:38 um a very important topic actually the0:00:40 topic is of the problem of evil0:00:43 alhamdulillah we have uh jake the muslim0:00:45 metaphysician assalamu alaikum0:00:49 uh we've also got abdul rahman somewhere0:00:51 maybe he's changing the nappies we're0:00:53 not sure0:00:54 but he's been very busy last week or so0:00:57 since the birth of his child so he might0:00:59 struggle to come on but he might come on0:01:01 later on inshaallah yusuf is also uh0:01:04 struggling to come on because he's0:01:06 actually at speaker's corner at the0:01:07 moment0:01:09 so he's with some of the brothers there0:01:11 ben uh jordan hamza from hamza's done0:01:14 so he's with them so uh if he can come0:01:17 on inshallah he'll be on shortly soon0:01:19 but i think he's also doing some filming0:01:21 out there as well so0:01:22 uh hopefully charlie's safe there and uh0:01:25 it's productive inshallah but also we0:01:28 have our special guest marsha allah0:01:31 brother dr0:01:33 safruk chowdhury0:01:35 a good friend of mine uh that we went to0:01:38 university together didn't we uh0:01:44 um it's great to be on guys thanks for0:01:46 having me on uh fantastic show0:01:49 well i give it success and please if our0:01:51 listeners0:01:52 viewers please support it support it0:01:57 let me just give a little way of0:01:59 introduction and i'm sure uh0:02:02 uh dr suffolk could correct me if i've0:02:06 missed any of the details out which i'm0:02:08 going to miss the details out yeah0:02:10 but uh as uh saf he studied at king's0:02:14 college london he where he did his0:02:16 philosophy degree that's where we met0:02:20 and then0:02:21 he went on to do an m.a i think in0:02:23 islamic studies0:02:25 then a phd in islamic studies0:02:28 he studied arabic0:02:30 and he he received various islamic0:02:32 jesuits0:02:34 with the0:02:36 amongst other scholars as well so he0:02:38 studied that0:02:40 he came back to the uk0:02:42 and he was a lecturer in arabic0:02:44 islamic studies and philosophy from my0:02:46 understanding and he was lecturing at0:02:49 some of the well-known prestigious0:02:51 universities0:02:52 uh in the uk including uh soas and0:02:55 birkbeck college which are you know0:02:57 people who know0:02:58 uh london and university of london know0:03:00 that these are considered some of the0:03:02 you know0:03:03 well-known well-established institutes0:03:06 within these uh areas but only that but0:03:08 brother saf has also written a number of0:03:10 books a number of works uh one of which0:03:13 was actually the islamic response to the0:03:15 problem of evil he's written other works0:03:18 as well in terms of uh you did a book on0:03:22 as well didn't you uh0:03:24 as well so that's a knowledge of0:03:26 rhetoric and it's in its relationship to0:03:28 the quran and the marriages of the quran0:03:32 and you've uh0:03:34 i think you've gone around you've0:03:36 presented papers across the country and0:03:39 the world isn't that right sir0:03:42 yeah yeah0:03:44 so0:03:46 although he looks very young marsha0:03:48 allah has uh has done lots of studying0:03:51 uh and uh you know we're very pleased to0:03:54 have him today on thought adventure0:03:56 podcast and inshallah hopefully he'll0:03:58 come on uh0:04:01 0:04:13 yeah so today's topic inshallah is going0:04:15 to be on the problem of evil now the0:04:18 problem of evil0:04:20 is one of those uh0:04:23 questions are constantly asked by0:04:25 atheists in one form or another even0:04:27 theists that will ask this particular0:04:28 question0:04:29 and it's one of those questions that is0:04:32 promoted as a question that demonstrates0:04:35 a logical0:04:36 contradiction within the nature of god0:04:38 so it's something that0:04:40 demonstrates the impossibility that a0:04:44 a creator allah god exists and so0:04:48 it it demonstrates an argument0:04:51 in order to demonstrate the0:04:52 impossibility of the belief in allah and0:04:54 therefore it requires a response0:04:57 from those who propose belief in allah0:05:02 the theistic god it0:05:05 gives us0:05:06 or it obliges us to be able to provide0:05:08 some sort of response0:05:10 uh to this so0:05:12 maybe first question to uh to brother0:05:14 surf as well is uh0:05:16 you know mine was a very brief0:05:18 introduction uh maybe you could maybe0:05:20 explain a little bit more in terms of0:05:35 foreign0:05:48 um0:05:49 to be amongst you guys this evening um0:05:52 it is a very difficult topic uh the0:05:54 problem of evil0:05:56 i mean in the interest of time of course0:05:58 uh to try and be brief0:06:01 yeah the problem of evil is sort of0:06:05 in terms of contemporary philosophy of0:06:07 religion0:06:08 is considered to be like a family of0:06:10 arguments0:06:12 that purport to demonstrate how evil0:06:16 or two things whether how the e how evil0:06:20 uh and the existence of an0:06:22 omni-competent god i an omnipotent0:06:24 omniscient omni benevolent i powerful0:06:28 all-knowing0:06:29 and holy good0:06:32 uh being0:06:33 that kind of being and the existence of0:06:35 evil is either impossible as you0:06:37 mentioned0:06:38 or0:06:40 um it's it's not likely that that kind0:06:42 of omni competent being0:06:45 um0:06:47 its existence is compatible with evil so0:06:49 there's the strong claim that is0:06:50 impossible by evil and the existence of0:06:52 god are incompatible0:06:54 or0:06:55 um0:06:56 the0:06:58 evil raises an objection in belief0:07:01 in that kind of being0:07:03 so yes as you rightly mentioned0:07:05 um the problem of evil can become0:07:08 an0:07:09 argument trying that tries to0:07:11 demonstrate0:07:13 that0:07:14 the existence of god is impossible given0:07:16 evil or0:07:18 that0:07:19 um the existence of evil0:07:21 and a belief in a particular type of0:07:24 creator or ultimate source of all0:07:27 reality0:07:28 that kind of existence of that kind of0:07:31 being and evil are you know are0:07:33 inconsistent0:07:34 so0:07:36 this is where you know you get0:07:38 you know two so i guess this is what0:07:40 might be important so what the problem0:07:42 of evil was trying to do effectively0:07:45 is0:07:46 either it's do is either trying to what0:07:48 we call problematize your belief and in0:07:51 epistemology in epistemology we call0:07:53 those defeaters0:07:56 so0:07:57 the problem of evil is either doing0:07:59 trying to di0:08:00 act as a defeater in two ways0:08:04 so0:08:05 one0:08:06 we would say0:08:08 the problem of evil as i've just sort of0:08:10 outlined it a family of arguments0:08:12 attempting to either demonstrate0:08:14 um that the existence of god and evil is0:08:16 logically impossible i.e0:08:18 the two cannot be compatible in any way0:08:21 or0:08:22 god defined a certain way0:08:24 whether he's omni-competent or in some0:08:26 other way0:08:27 powerful loving caring0:08:30 wise0:08:32 knowing and so on0:08:34 and that kind of being is incompatible0:08:36 with existence it's probably highly0:08:38 probable that that kind of being and the0:08:39 existence of evil are incompatible0:08:41 now0:08:42 what the problem of evil tries to do0:08:44 then is either tries to defeat or0:08:47 raise objections in two ways0:08:50 either it does it through what's known0:08:52 as a rebutting defeater0:08:54 what that means is that a rebutting0:08:56 defeater directly attacks your claim0:08:59 or belief you might have or one of your0:09:01 conclusions0:09:02 so0:09:03 um0:09:05 rebutting defeater goes straight to the0:09:07 heart of your claim0:09:09 so0:09:09 if you believe that god is i know omni0:09:12 competent he's omniscient omnipotent and0:09:15 omni-benevolent0:09:17 then a rebutting defeater will be will0:09:20 come in the form of an argument or an0:09:22 evidence to undermine that directly so0:09:25 you're trying to take the claim from0:09:26 under its feet0:09:28 different to that so the problem of evil0:09:31 could act as a rebutting defeater or the0:09:34 problem of evil could act as a0:09:36 what we call an undercutting or0:09:38 undermining defeater0:09:40 and what this kind of defeater does0:09:42 is it attacks the evidence0:09:45 you may offer in support of a claim or a0:09:47 belief so if you believe in god and then0:09:50 let's say you you use like a contingency0:09:53 argument to prove the existence of god0:09:55 or you use0:09:56 i know you give a design argument or0:10:00 a calam cosmological argument let's say0:10:02 for the existence of god then if someone0:10:05 tries to if someone tries to challenge0:10:08 your argument and prove that0:10:10 it is inadequate0:10:13 i.e the belief in god that you have that0:10:15 rests on an argument by your0:10:17 cosmological argument0:10:19 it's not adequately supported by the0:10:21 evidence0:10:22 this will be an undercutting or0:10:23 undermining defeater i it's targeting0:10:26 your justification for your belief0:10:29 so the problem of evil can can take two0:10:32 um0:10:33 sort of lines of attack it could either0:10:35 try and defeat your0:10:36 your belief directly by being a0:10:38 rebutting defeater or it could0:10:41 take the undermining or undercutting0:10:42 defeater route and try and bring doubt0:10:46 in your justification for believing in0:10:48 god0:10:49 so i think those two are important to0:10:51 mention0:10:52 okay0:10:53 um0:10:55 before we go into the specific question0:10:57 i was gonna ask which is what is the0:10:58 actual logical presentation of the0:11:00 argument one thing i just thought uh to0:11:02 raise is that0:11:03 what i tend to find when regards to0:11:05 atheists is that they try to go to god0:11:08 and demonstrate some sort of0:11:10 incompatibility incorrectness regardless0:11:12 of that0:11:13 whereas what we try to do is we try to0:11:15 go from contingent things and build the0:11:17 argument up so we go from what he's0:11:20 known and then look at the logical0:11:21 entailments to that whereas what they're0:11:23 trying to do is they're trying to go0:11:25 straight to the you know the idea of god0:11:28 and i think one of the problems is is0:11:30 that there's a lot of hidden assumptions0:11:33 that they're bringing a lot of baggages0:11:35 that they're bringing into their0:11:36 conceptions about god about the nature0:11:38 of good about the nature of evil in0:11:41 order to then say it's incorrect and i0:11:42 think the better way before going to the0:11:45 nature of god is to go to things which0:11:47 we know and build the argument uh0:11:50 regards to that yeah i think yeah0:11:52 there's a0:11:53 the point i was going to mention later0:11:54 but you know you mentioned it now0:11:56 was then how you tackle0:11:59 theological questions or0:12:01 problems like the problem of evil it0:12:04 depends on whether as you mentioned you0:12:05 take a top-down approach or bottom-up0:12:07 approach0:12:08 a top-down approach is you start with0:12:11 some kind of theoretical theoretical0:12:13 postulation about0:12:15 let's say god0:12:17 um so you know you you rationally0:12:19 postulate0:12:20 um0:12:22 that you know that0:12:24 how you're going to understand god when0:12:26 it comes to this issue then you try and0:12:27 work your way down0:12:28 or uh the other way is bottom up you're0:12:31 trying to work from0:12:33 um0:12:36 reality0:12:37 and then trying to come to some kind of0:12:38 conclusion but ultimately though0:12:42 what you're going to find is0:12:44 i think anyway0:12:46 is0:12:47 a lot of the arguments are going to0:12:50 require0:12:51 what you understand from scripture i in0:12:53 our case of quran hadith0:12:55 because matters about the divine0:12:58 matters about divine motives divine0:13:00 actions0:13:02 are best known0:13:04 by how the creator himself reveals his0:13:06 own motives and actions can you see0:13:08 so that element is important so you know0:13:11 so0:13:12 and i think this is why the the problem0:13:14 of evil0:13:15 disentangling it is so difficult because0:13:17 it's so is stitched with so many0:13:20 assumptions as you mentioned0:13:21 presupposition0:13:22 so many um0:13:25 sort of uh ideas and and and whether0:13:28 these ideas are taken from philosophical0:13:30 literature0:13:31 theological literature or from from0:13:33 revelation itself so all this is0:13:35 stitched together in the problem you see0:13:37 so some of it has to be disentangled as0:13:39 we inshallah we might come to see when0:13:41 we look at how some people object using0:13:43 the problem of evil to object0:13:45 about certain aspects about the divine0:13:47 well that objection will only be valid0:13:50 given certain assumptions you have about0:13:51 god can you see0:13:53 yeah yeah so the question then arises0:13:55 yeah where you get these assumptions0:13:56 from0:13:57 so0:13:58 you mentioned that there's like two0:13:59 types of presentations so the argument0:14:01 there's a logical one there's an0:14:02 evidentialist one yeah um so what's the0:14:05 logical presentation of the argument0:14:08 right so generally the0:14:10 in in the literature so i'm just0:14:12 sticking with a contemporary literature0:14:14 um0:14:15 so you'll find in in the literature two0:14:19 uh0:14:20 types of0:14:22 arguments0:14:23 uh when it comes to the problem of evil0:14:25 so one is often called the logical or0:14:28 the formal problem of evil and what this0:14:30 says is0:14:32 and what this states0:14:34 is that0:14:36 if you take god defined a certain way so0:14:39 as i mentioned that omni-competent being0:14:42 if you define god to be that way and0:14:44 there is evil0:14:47 um the two are incompatible0:14:50 not only are they incompatible they0:14:52 cannot be there's no way you can0:14:53 harmonize that so if you take the0:14:55 statement god is omni-competent there is0:14:58 evil0:14:59 um the two0:15:01 the conclusion is there is no god so the0:15:04 two statements are logically0:15:06 incompatible i.e there's no way0:15:09 to ensure that the two statements are0:15:12 consistent so that's the logical0:15:14 problem or the formal problem of evil0:15:16 you state it in0:15:18 uh premises in an argument or you state0:15:21 it in a proposition0:15:23 and then0:15:24 you show how the two propositions in the0:15:26 argument or statements are inconsistent0:15:28 or they're a contradiction you cannot0:15:30 have both god being omnicompetent and0:15:32 they're being evil in the world the two0:15:34 cannot be reconciled0:15:36 so that's the logical or the formal0:15:38 problem of evil it tries to demonstrate0:15:41 that0:15:42 existence of god and evil are just not0:15:44 logically compatible0:15:46 and so0:15:47 um that kind of argument is a rebutting0:15:51 defeater it's going it's attacking the0:15:54 belief or the claim that god exists0:15:57 so our so one's object or belief that0:15:59 god exists that's directly being0:16:01 attacked0:16:03 and the other the other formulation you0:16:05 find in the literature is what's known0:16:07 as the0:16:08 evidentialist problem of evil or the0:16:12 probabilistic problem of evil has0:16:14 different terms in the literature and0:16:16 what this says is less of an ambitious0:16:19 claim0:16:20 what the evidentialist uh problem of0:16:22 evil0:16:23 states is that okay0:16:26 the existence of of an omni-competent0:16:28 god and evil may not be logically0:16:31 inconsistent or logically impossible0:16:33 either statements are not logically0:16:34 incompatible but0:16:37 but0:16:38 the kind of being that a let's say a0:16:41 muslim or a theist generally believes in0:16:45 that kind of being0:16:47 given0:16:48 the types of evil we have in the world0:16:50 um0:16:52 makes the existence of that kind of0:16:53 being highly improbable0:16:55 or you should at least yeah or you0:16:57 should at least0:16:58 relinquish your belief0:17:01 about that that omni-competent god0:17:03 so that belief you have about god0:17:06 and the existence of evil our income are0:17:08 it's highly likely that the two are not0:17:10 compatible0:17:12 okay0:17:13 um0:17:14 so0:17:16 let me bring an abdul actually in terms0:17:18 of his thoughts really briefly0:17:21 uh about this this idea of the logical0:17:24 problem and the evidentialist problem or0:17:26 evidential problem0:17:28 what what what are your thoughts yeah0:17:29 absolutely um yeah so so i lost0:17:32 connection for a while so i i didn't0:17:33 hear everything but uh yeah so so in in0:17:36 my view i i think most philosophers0:17:39 generally agree that the the logical0:17:41 problem has been0:17:44 somewhat defeated by by planting as free0:17:46 will defense uh0:17:48 and uh and and i think the the0:17:50 evidential problem of evil is0:17:52 a serious challenge that we should take0:17:54 seriously0:17:55 uh and and it's it's more of a challenge0:17:57 because it makes a more modest claim as0:17:59 as dr sapp just put it that it's just0:18:02 not likely that such a being exists0:18:05 provided0:18:06 the existence of evil so i think the0:18:09 evidential problem is one that0:18:11 that that is quite challenging and0:18:13 should be taken seriously yeah i think0:18:15 you're right i mean even from from you0:18:17 know0:18:18 one of the great you know william rowe0:18:20 for example and you know acknowledged0:18:24 you know several decades ago0:18:26 after planting as uh0:18:29 free world defense that0:18:31 you know the logical problem of evil0:18:35 is you know0:18:37 there is no way to show0:18:39 that it's logically impossible that god0:18:41 exists and evil exists the reason being0:18:45 is because the contradiction is not0:18:47 apparent it's not evident that you have0:18:49 ex heavy evil and then you believe in0:18:51 omni-competent god it's not quite clear0:18:54 how the two statements are contradictory0:18:56 so what the argument relied on0:18:59 was assumptions about this0:19:01 omni-competent being so the atheist0:19:04 interlocutor or the atheist objector0:19:07 had assumptions about omnipotence and0:19:10 the goodness of god0:19:12 you know built into the argument that0:19:14 had to be teased out so for example one0:19:17 of the assumptions was0:19:19 if god is you know absolutely powerful0:19:22 then he can prevent any and all evils0:19:27 um so surely he can prevent all evils0:19:29 right he's you know the omni-combatant0:19:32 being0:19:33 but not necessarily because all you had0:19:35 to now show was um that because you0:19:39 framed it in the logical way all you had0:19:41 to show was it was logically possible0:19:44 for0:19:45 um0:19:46 to show that you know0:19:48 yet you have to show there's a0:19:49 possibility0:19:51 that um0:19:53 you know the evil0:19:55 there's some ambiguity0:19:56 in god's prevention of evil0:19:59 he may you know if people act freely for0:20:01 example if free will is involved that0:20:03 inevitably some ambiguity will follow it0:20:06 doesn't follow that god can prevent the0:20:08 evil um so0:20:11 you know all you had to show was0:20:12 minimally it's something is logically0:20:14 possible for the argument to fall down0:20:17 and so the other assumption was about0:20:19 divine goodness and and and0:20:21 uh0:20:22 benevolence i surely the assumption goes0:20:25 surely god would want to remove or evil0:20:27 yes0:20:29 you know maybe he you know0:20:30 he0:20:31 he doesn't god does want to remove all0:20:33 evil but0:20:35 it may necessarily be the case that he0:20:37 may permit it for some other reason for0:20:39 some other greater good or some0:20:41 god-justifying reason0:20:42 so all the all the0:20:44 the theist had to show was it's0:20:46 logically compatible0:20:48 um0:20:49 that evil exists with god by rebutting0:20:51 these assumptions and so the argument0:20:53 ultimately0:20:54 fell it fell because it was trying to be0:20:56 too ambitious it just you cannot show0:21:00 it's logically impossible that evil and0:21:03 god exist because0:21:04 there can be some possible circumstance0:21:06 in which you can harmonize the0:21:08 statements0:21:09 so from from my understanding uh0:21:13 what the atheist or what certain0:21:14 philosophers are trying to present is0:21:16 they're trying to say0:21:17 uh you know an all good uh all-powerful0:21:20 god0:21:21 means that0:21:22 evil yeah entails0:21:25 that there wouldn't be no evil yeah0:21:27 if evil exists and that all good0:21:29 all-powerful god cannot exist yeah0:21:31 that's right0:21:32 now all a0:21:34 uh you know a theist has to do is give a0:21:37 possible ex0:21:39 explanation a possible explanation0:21:41 doesn't mean it's the true explanation0:21:43 it just means it's an explanation to get0:21:46 away it's like you're giving a story0:21:48 yeah yeah i think it's not obviously0:21:50 contradictory yeah because you're using0:21:52 the realm of logic0:21:53 um because logical possibility is a0:21:55 wider scope so0:21:57 you you only have to show that something0:22:00 isn't self-contradictory in your counter0:22:03 example0:22:04 to show that it's not logically0:22:06 impossible that's all you have to show0:22:08 because because once you bring a counter0:22:10 example the logical impossibility fails0:22:13 right right0:22:14 yeah so even if it's not the true state0:22:16 of the affairs no it may not actually be0:22:18 true at all it might even be plausible0:22:20 yeah0:22:21 yeah0:22:22 but it just has to be logically possible0:22:24 that just has to be an explanation0:22:26 that's right and so so what you're0:22:27 saying stuff then is that well the0:22:29 philosophers are generally is it a case0:22:32 that they're generally in agreement that0:22:34 the logical uh problem of evil isn't0:22:37 really a real logical problem anymore0:22:40 yeah there was some push back to0:22:42 planting as an argument a couple a0:22:43 couple of years ago but it still stands0:22:46 because it's too it's too strong a claim0:22:49 i.e how can you show that there are no0:22:51 counter instances logically how can you0:22:54 show there are no counter instances0:22:56 you can't show that it's just0:22:59 so it was too0:23:00 it was too strong the claim the logical0:23:03 problem evil the claim was too strong0:23:05 okay yeah0:23:08 yeah so i think this is very important0:23:09 to0:23:10 point out um as sef explained0:23:14 that0:23:15 the argument the the logical problem had0:23:18 a lot of assumptions built in it and0:23:20 depending on who the person is maybe0:23:22 some of the assumptions may be slightly0:23:25 different but i think0:23:27 when we engage with atheists or skeptics0:23:30 and people like this0:23:32 when when they raise this issue0:23:35 we need to ask them questions to sort of0:23:38 tease out what those fundamental0:23:40 assumptions are because a lot of times0:23:43 they don't make it so clear themselves0:23:45 and so we need to ask questions to try0:23:48 to tease out what those underlying0:23:51 assumptions are that are sort of0:23:54 the grounding for part of their argument0:23:56 that they don't make explicit and i0:23:58 think that many times when we do that0:24:00 what's going to happen is some of those0:24:03 assumptions are questionable themselves0:24:05 and then we can sort of pick out which0:24:08 ones we we think are questionable and0:24:10 and go from there so i think that is a0:24:13 very important point0:24:14 so maybe just focus on the the logical0:24:16 problem so obviously you guys are saying0:24:19 yeah it's been defeated or if there's a0:24:21 there's a counter argument and they0:24:22 can't demonstrate it's clearly a logical0:24:24 impossibility so what0:24:25 what examples could you give to the0:24:27 audience in order to help them0:24:29 how to say okay this is this is one key0:24:32 example we can give in order to0:24:34 demonstrate that0:24:36 this logical problem is not really a0:24:37 logical problem0:24:39 or what assumptions are atheists0:24:41 themselves making0:24:44 well again one of the the main0:24:46 assumptions is about divine goodness um0:24:50 the assumption is that if god you know0:24:52 is is all loving0:24:54 but he he would want to remove all evil0:24:59 either shouldn't be any evil if he's0:25:01 only benevolent0:25:03 sure you know0:25:05 um and so they say surely god wouldn't0:25:07 want to0:25:09 permit or will there to be0:25:11 bad states of affairs right surely you0:25:13 know you wouldn't want that if it's0:25:15 omni-benevolent0:25:17 well not necessarily0:25:19 not necessarily when you make that claim0:25:21 you're saying that god must have no0:25:22 reasons for for permitting bad states of0:25:25 affairs now how do you prove that how do0:25:28 you prove that there cannot be any0:25:30 reason at all0:25:32 for god wanting to0:25:34 permit evil0:25:36 that's just0:25:37 that claim is just too fantastic0:25:40 can you see so that so so that could be0:25:42 a maneuver maneuver to make why assume0:25:46 if that is your assumption of course as0:25:47 jake mentioned you know you may differ0:25:49 with certain people0:25:50 but the one of the main assumptions is0:25:52 god will want to remove all evils0:25:55 because there shouldn't be any evil if0:25:56 you have a benevolent being that's the0:25:58 claim0:25:59 but because you do have evil there can't0:26:00 be a benevolent being and if there can't0:26:03 be a benevolent being then you just0:26:05 relinquish one of the core attributes of0:26:07 god so you know0:26:10 you can't have you can't have it both0:26:11 ways0:26:12 but so it seems to me what you're saying0:26:14 is that there's two sort of angles to0:26:15 this one angle is to say that you're0:26:18 trying to presuppose what you think0:26:20 would be0:26:22 god's goodness0:26:23 and then superimposing that upon god so0:26:25 that's one problem and the second0:26:27 problem0:26:28 isn't it yeah and the second problem is0:26:30 is that to assume0:26:33 that suffering or evil0:26:35 is0:26:36 in and of itself at that moment a0:26:39 totality of evil yeah maybe there's a0:26:42 reason to have a small amount of0:26:45 suffering in the grand scheme of of the0:26:47 creator to allow greater good so for0:26:49 example you know people give these types0:26:51 of examples like you know you go to the0:26:53 doctor you get a medicine0:26:55 you know you you know you might take it0:26:58 it might make you feel a bit ill while0:27:00 you're saying because you suffer from0:27:01 the side effects but the greater good in0:27:03 that context would be curing of the0:27:05 disease yeah0:27:07 so those are the two types of0:27:08 assumptions that people are bringing0:27:10 this is a logical argument all you have0:27:12 to show is that particular counter0:27:14 instance is something possible0:27:16 yeah yeah and and so and then once you0:27:19 once you've established that then you0:27:21 can't really establish that as a logical0:27:23 contradiction because you have a way out0:27:26 to give a possible explanation so is it0:27:28 so this is so in terms of um0:27:31 then the evidential0:27:33 argument against0:27:35 uh or the problem of evil0:27:37 how does you you've already explained it0:27:39 you basically said it's0:27:41 seemingly that if there's a no good or0:27:44 powerful creator then seemingly there0:27:46 shouldn't be evil yeah0:27:48 yeah so the evidential prop the0:27:50 evidential problem of evil raised by0:27:52 objectors so an atheist might say okay i0:27:55 grant that0:27:57 the0:27:58 existence of evil and the omni competent0:28:00 god that you believe in0:28:04 are not logically incompatible0:28:07 okay0:28:09 i accept that0:28:11 but0:28:13 some evils0:28:14 may be compatible with god but not all0:28:17 evils0:28:19 can you see so the evidentialist wants0:28:21 to make the maneuver and say0:28:23 okay0:28:24 i want to say your belief in the0:28:26 existence of god is not reasonable0:28:28 why0:28:28 are given the the kind of being that you0:28:30 believe in0:28:31 why because some evils are just are not0:28:34 compatible with the kind of being that0:28:36 you believe in0:28:38 so or is it highly improbable that the0:28:41 two can be made can be harmonized or0:28:43 compatible0:28:44 so0:28:45 the evidentialist as i mentioned is is0:28:48 using an undercutting defeater not a0:28:51 rebutting defeater they're trying to hit0:28:53 your justification0:28:55 for belief in god not the actual belief0:28:57 in god itself0:28:58 they're trying to show that you have0:28:59 inadequate evidence the evidence that0:29:01 you present0:29:03 um doesn't stack up0:29:05 given the kinds of evil types of evil0:29:07 profusion or distribution and character0:29:10 of evil in the world now0:29:13 responses to the evidential problem of0:29:15 evil come in several forms or you could0:29:18 say there are several tracks of0:29:20 responses you can take0:29:23 now one of them i think0:29:25 uh0:29:28 that you could take is what's known as0:29:31 um0:29:34 in contemporary literature it's known as0:29:35 skeptical theism0:29:38 a skeptical theism says look okay0:29:42 um0:29:43 we0:29:45 um we should be skeptical0:29:48 in our ability to be able to know or0:29:50 discern0:29:52 um0:29:53 from what we see the evils we see and0:29:56 and and fathom and experience in the0:29:57 world0:29:58 we should remain skeptical for our0:30:00 ability to be able to discern0:30:02 um0:30:04 you know uh0:30:07 whether0:30:08 that evil that we see counts as good0:30:11 evidence against the existence of god0:30:14 because0:30:15 we're so limited in our0:30:18 cognitive powers we're so limited in0:30:21 what we can know and understand and0:30:22 fathom0:30:23 and we're dealing with an infinitely0:30:25 intelligent and you know all-knowing0:30:28 being0:30:29 so our finite non capacities0:30:32 pitched against an infinite you know0:30:34 knowledgeable mind is sure0:30:37 there's no way we're going to fathom0:30:39 what reasons0:30:40 this intelligent infinitely intelligent0:30:42 being0:30:42 what reasons would would he have for0:30:44 permitting evils is beyond our0:30:46 comprehension so we should just say look0:30:49 for we don't know for all we know he has0:30:51 good reasons for why he allows evil but0:30:54 we should be we should know that given0:30:56 our cognitive limitations0:30:58 we have to remain skeptical that we're0:31:00 going to have to put our finger on it so0:31:02 that's one track what's known as a kind0:31:04 of skeptical theist room0:31:06 another track0:31:08 is to say okay0:31:10 um0:31:11 the way to deal with the evidential0:31:14 problem of evil is to offer what's0:31:16 called theodicies0:31:18 now theodicies are0:31:20 an account or a way you try and make0:31:24 sense of0:31:26 there being evil in the world0:31:28 and why god would allow evil in the0:31:30 world i what possible reason or just a0:31:34 god you know0:31:35 what justification would god have for0:31:37 permitting evil0:31:38 whether they are his actual0:31:40 justifications or possible0:31:42 justifications0:31:43 so how do we harmonize these two0:31:46 now these are called theodicies0:31:48 um0:31:49 and theodicies come in many different0:31:51 stripes you know0:31:53 in the contemporary literature and in0:31:54 the medieval literature as well0:31:56 so god may allow evil0:31:59 in order to make us better human beings0:32:01 god may allow evil to educate us god may0:32:04 allow evil to contrast it um so you know0:32:07 what's good so you know good you know0:32:09 something for its opposite0:32:11 well you know you might have what's0:32:12 known as what it may not be an actual0:32:14 evil in the end it may be a disguised0:32:16 good and the list goes on and on there0:32:18 are so many0:32:19 theodosies that a person can give or an0:32:21 account or a model or a way by which to0:32:24 make the0:32:25 existence of god or give an explanation0:32:27 for why god allows0:32:29 evil and for why there exists evil in0:32:31 the world so that's the second response0:32:32 to the odyssey the third response very0:32:35 quickly and we can discuss them and0:32:36 unpack some of them0:32:37 uh the third the third way to deal with0:32:40 the evidentialist problem of he was to0:32:41 say okay0:32:42 now you are attacking my justification0:32:46 for my belief in god but you're not0:32:47 attacking my belief in god directly okay0:32:49 so what i'm gonna do is i'm gonna deal0:32:51 with you by showing you0:32:53 that0:32:54 there are positive arguments for the0:32:57 existence of god i i have more0:32:59 justifications for believing that god0:33:01 exists so that might be based on a0:33:04 design argument a cosmological argument0:33:06 you know an ontological argument0:33:08 whatever argument someone uses0:33:10 so0:33:11 um even though0:33:14 um0:33:14 0:33:15 you may not know why0:33:17 what good reasons god has for permitting0:33:19 evil what you do know is you have0:33:21 confidence in the belief in god0:33:24 so0:33:25 this will counter0:33:27 this will be a defeat for the the0:33:29 defeater yeah0:33:30 so having confidence that god exists0:33:34 um doesn't mean i need to have0:33:35 confidence that i know what particular0:33:37 good is served by every particular evil0:33:39 in the world0:33:40 so0:33:41 all i need to know is i have confidence0:33:43 that god exists0:33:44 and0:33:45 god has informed us that he gives us he0:33:48 has good reasons for why he might allow0:33:50 evil to exist being the kind of being0:33:52 that he is0:33:53 so those are three0:33:55 um that one can adopt0:33:58 um a final one i can throw in if you0:34:00 want0:34:01 is well you can do what's known as0:34:02 turning the tables0:34:04 so the evidentialist objector to to0:34:08 against a theist says okay the god that0:34:11 you believe in is highly improbable but0:34:13 one could turn the tables and say okay0:34:15 look0:34:16 um what actually makes something evil on0:34:18 your on your view on your world view0:34:21 you know0:34:22 evil quite clearly is real0:34:24 and it's not illusory0:34:26 and people really suffer0:34:28 uh people really have pain there are0:34:30 really real horrors in the world0:34:32 um but what makes something an evil0:34:35 state of affairs on your world view0:34:39 and this is where the theists kind of0:34:41 say well0:34:42 on my world view a kind of evil is a0:34:46 kind of departure from something0:34:47 normative whether that is a rule or a0:34:49 command or an idea whatever it might be0:34:52 the evil is some kind of departure from0:34:54 a normative rule or a command or an0:34:57 ideal i the way things ought to be0:35:00 but0:35:01 on a naturalistic and atheistic0:35:03 worldview are you a world without god0:35:06 how do you determine0:35:09 the way something ought to be are you0:35:10 how do you determine what is normative0:35:13 um0:35:15 you know there's no there's no0:35:18 conformity or departure from an absolute0:35:20 standard on a naturalistic world view so0:35:22 actually what you're doing here is0:35:24 you're making the problem of evil a0:35:25 problem for atheism0:35:27 so these are kind of four0:35:28 sort of tracks you could use to respond0:35:30 to the evidential problem of evil and i0:35:32 think there are four cogent responses0:35:34 there's good to have in the toolkit0:35:37 so the skeptical theism yeah theodicy0:35:40 yeah uh0:35:41 what was the third one so yeah good0:35:43 arguments for the existence of god using0:35:45 that's right yeah other arguments0:35:47 and the fourth one is to basically ask0:35:49 the question how do you determine0:35:50 morality how do you determine the is and0:35:52 the oughts0:35:54 uh on a naturalistic paradigm that's0:35:56 right um so jake i don't know if i just0:35:58 come into you for yourself and uh0:36:01 could just explain just go over0:36:03 skeptical theism again just because some0:36:05 people might think skeptical theism are0:36:06 we0:36:07 skeptical about belief in god now no no0:36:10 no i think0:36:11 the skeptical0:36:13 the skeptical theo's position is that0:36:15 look they say0:36:17 i0:36:18 we are cognitively limited0:36:20 finite creatures0:36:22 that's just a fact0:36:23 um0:36:24 now how could it be that without0:36:26 cognitive limitations we can fathom0:36:29 or0:36:30 discern0:36:31 what an infinite0:36:33 intelligent0:36:34 being what decisions and what choices0:36:37 such a being makes there's no way we're0:36:39 gonna we're gonna fathom that um0:36:42 so it's not that we don't know he has0:36:44 reasons0:36:45 there's no way of us knowing because0:36:47 he's inscrutable in that sense0:36:50 so we reserve0:36:52 we we reserve our ability ability to be0:36:55 able to make judgments about0:36:57 the the workings of an infinite mind0:36:59 yeah yeah so jake0:37:01 can ask brothers0:37:03 go ahead no if jake is going to say0:37:04 something he can go ahead0:37:07 oh just on skeptical theism i mean it's0:37:10 basically what uh soft said it's just0:37:12 the fact that0:37:14 we're not0:37:15 as humans we're not really in0:37:18 any0:37:19 privileged epistemic standpoint in order0:37:21 to say0:37:22 that you know0:37:23 this this is this is evil or that god0:37:26 should have done this or shouldn't do0:37:28 that we're just not really in the grand0:37:30 scheme of things we only sort of have a0:37:32 snapshot we don't have the the full0:37:35 movie and so we're not really in a0:37:37 privileged epistemic standpoint to0:37:40 really make claims on the ultimate scale0:37:43 of these sort of things and so0:37:46 um i i do think it is a good response0:37:49 whether or not it solves everything is0:37:51 another story but i think it definitely0:37:53 is is part of the package that um0:37:56 i would recommend as far as employing a0:37:59 response to0:38:00 uh the problem of evil0:38:06 yeah0:38:06 yeah so so um0:38:08 one of the four points you mentioned was0:38:10 positive arguments for theism right and0:38:13 um i i think one of the good ways to do0:38:15 that is is what they call the mauryan0:38:17 shift right so so let's assume that we0:38:19 we already have reason to believe that0:38:21 god exists so an omnipotent omniscient0:38:24 omnibenevolent creator exists so it0:38:25 couldn't be the case that gratuitous0:38:28 evil0:38:29 uh um exists right so i mean that's0:38:31 that's flipping it upside down but i0:38:33 think that's once we've exhausted uh0:38:36 uh all right all responses to the0:38:38 argument and we sort of weigh it out uh0:38:42 against like the com0:38:43 cumulative case for theism but if we're0:38:46 dealing with the argument on its own0:38:49 um0:38:50 uh0:38:51 and and we talk about skeptical theism0:38:53 uh isn't there a worry that uh that0:38:56 might be an appeal to mystery that can0:38:59 maybe backfire in let's say if a theist0:39:02 is making a design argument for the0:39:04 existence of god well the naturalist can0:39:06 say for all we know0:39:08 right a natural0:39:10 origin0:39:12 can account for the apparent design in0:39:14 the world let's assume the design0:39:15 argument works so um i mean what what0:39:18 would you say about that yeah no if you0:39:20 notice the argument is not i put it to0:39:22 mystery0:39:24 you're not you're not doing it on0:39:26 tacleed can you see you're not doing it0:39:27 in the islamic context based on a belief0:39:29 with no evidence what you're saying to0:39:32 the um0:39:33 the evidentialist objector0:39:36 you're saying look okay0:39:37 you're asking me why why0:39:40 first of all to assume whether evils are0:39:43 gratuitous but i don't think they are0:39:45 but but even if we're to concede that we0:39:47 ought not to i think but let's just say0:39:49 we do that does nothing to undermine my0:39:52 belief why0:39:54 because the his his challenge is that0:39:57 it's an it's a undercutting defeater can0:40:00 you see he's challenging my0:40:01 justification for0:40:03 my belief in god based on0:40:06 uh0:40:07 he's attacking my justification for my0:40:08 belief in god okay so you're attacking0:40:09 my justification i'm going to give you0:40:11 some justification for why i have0:40:13 confidence0:40:14 and certainty in god existing so i'm not0:40:17 doing it i'm not appealing to mystery0:40:19 what i'm saying is here are proofs for0:40:22 the existence of god that gives me0:40:24 confidence that god exists i don't need0:40:27 to have confidence0:40:29 that i know what particular good is0:40:31 served by every particular evil in the0:40:33 world i don't need to have confidence in0:40:35 that once i have confidence in the0:40:37 belief in god why0:40:39 because god tells me that he's the kind0:40:41 of being that he is powerful good loving0:40:44 wise and so on so i have confidence that0:40:48 he has whatever reasons he has he has0:40:50 reasons and they are sufficient for0:40:52 serving whatever ends they are to serve0:40:54 so that's not that's not an appeal to0:40:56 mystery can you see0:40:58 yeah yeah i i see what you're saying but0:40:59 what if we're going to deal with the0:41:01 argument on its own without looking at a0:41:02 cumulative case and bringing in other0:41:04 evidences for forgot so something like0:41:06 what draper does when he talks about0:41:07 possible worlds and and you know what0:41:10 would be most likely on naturalism0:41:11 versus theism so like intrinsic0:41:14 probability prior probability and stuff0:41:15 like that um0:41:17 looking at that alone i mean would you0:41:19 say that the existence of evil0:41:22 is it can be regarded as0:41:25 evidence for0:41:27 the non-existence of the specific0:41:28 conception of god that we believe in0:41:31 um right so here i think two two0:41:33 particular um0:41:35 responses you can make and let me see0:41:36 what your ideas are so if we're just not0:41:38 gonna take a cumulative0:41:40 uh response to the evidentialist problem0:41:43 of evil either four that i mentioned0:41:45 let's say you want to tackle the0:41:46 argument head-on with another a0:41:48 different argument or just isolate the0:41:50 argument and attack it well you've got0:41:52 two options i think there are more but0:41:54 you know let's see what you think of0:41:55 this one you can deny that there are0:41:57 gratuitous evils that's the first option0:41:59 i.e0:42:00 you could say uh0:42:02 it's not really true0:42:05 that some evils have this some evils are0:42:08 pointless it's not true0:42:10 i.e that some evils look gratuitous0:42:13 and this is like stephen wychester's0:42:15 sort of example he differentiates0:42:17 between0:42:20 one not seeing that evil has a point0:42:23 not seeing that evil as a point and two0:42:26 seeing that evil has no point0:42:29 now the scope of that negation is0:42:30 important so he gives an example so0:42:34 if i remember correctly he says that uh0:42:36 suppose you're going to go to the0:42:38 doctors right or dentist i can't0:42:40 remember to get an injection a0:42:42 vaccination0:42:43 and the nurse0:42:46 and the nurse drops a needle on the0:42:47 floor let's say right and she picks up0:42:49 and says oh0:42:50 um she looks at the needle and says oh0:42:53 um it appears that there's no bacteria0:42:55 or dirt on the needle um0:42:58 and she says you know pull your sleeve0:43:00 up so i can put the0:43:02 put the needle in0:43:03 would you go ahead and allow her or him0:43:05 to put that needle in your arm i don't0:43:07 think so0:43:08 um0:43:09 um so0:43:10 for a while it does not appear0:43:13 even though like it doesn't appear that0:43:14 is bacteria on the needle you wouldn't0:43:16 say that it appears that there are no0:43:19 bacteria on the needle can you see0:43:21 so that's why kisha's example so with0:43:24 respect to evils in the world it does0:43:26 not appear that they have a reason0:43:28 but0:43:29 um0:43:31 it is false that they appear to have no0:43:33 reason that statement is false you0:43:35 cannot make the inference from0:43:37 it does not appear that evils you know0:43:39 do not have a reason0:43:41 to conclude therefore that it's false0:43:44 that there are no reasons behind the0:43:46 evils so that inference is not warranted0:43:49 so just like your inference that it0:43:50 appears that there are no bacteria on0:43:52 the needle you can't infer0:43:55 that um0:43:56 that there are no bacteria on the needle0:43:59 so it appears to me there are no0:44:00 bacterias on the meat on the needle0:44:02 therefore i infer that there are no0:44:04 bacterias on the needle the parallel0:44:06 example is it appears to me that there0:44:08 are no point there are no reasons behind0:44:11 the evil the gratuitous therefore there0:44:13 are no reasons behind the evil now that0:44:16 inference is not warranted you need some0:44:18 other steps0:44:19 can you see0:44:20 so the atheist so would you say would0:44:23 you say that like so so0:44:26 so on the the let's say the0:44:28 non-existence of god0:44:30 there would be a specific type of evil0:44:33 expected or specific type of evidence0:44:35 expected where we can make that0:44:37 inference right and and but then we we0:44:41 we are not justified in making that jump0:44:43 because we don't have access to what0:44:46 kind of a world that is0:44:48 meaning that in order to infer that0:44:52 the um the apparent gratuitousness of0:44:55 the evil0:44:56 is0:44:57 does mean that the evil is gratuitous we0:44:59 would have to know what gratuitous evil0:45:02 looks like0:45:03 well that as well but you'd have to say0:45:06 how do you make on what basis do you0:45:08 infer that you cannot it appears to you0:45:11 that evil is gratuitous therefore0:45:14 there must be no point behind any evils0:45:17 that inference is too strong that's not0:45:19 warranted you need some gaps to fill in0:45:22 and so that could be one way you tackle0:45:25 uh the evidential problem of evil the0:45:27 other way you could tackle it and this0:45:28 is to swallow the pill a bit0:45:30 is to say okay yeah you know what0:45:33 there are gratuis there are gratuitous0:45:35 evils in the world and it's so clear0:45:37 that there are some evils just are so0:45:40 pointless0:45:42 but you know what0:45:43 um0:45:44 that's what we should expect why because0:45:47 the world is cr is not perfect0:45:49 only god only our last perfect0:45:52 the world is um is finite it's limited0:45:55 it's it's uh uh um0:45:58 it's created in a way which is dependent0:46:01 um0:46:02 and so there's going to be there's going0:46:03 to be imperfections in the world0:46:05 so0:46:06 how could god how could god create0:46:07 something that's perfect he couldn't0:46:10 um so0:46:11 if the world is imperfect and we have0:46:13 free will then we should just expect0:46:16 um to see0:46:17 um0:46:18 you know we should expect to see or not0:46:21 be we should expect that their evils0:46:23 don't have any point evils are pointless0:46:25 we should expect that because you know0:46:27 we have the ambiguity that arises out of0:46:29 free will and the fact that the world is0:46:31 imperfect the cocktail of those two0:46:33 things0:46:34 implies that well0:46:35 you know what it's just0:46:38 it's just logically impossible to have a0:46:39 world without evil and it you know0:46:43 gratuitous evil is just a fact of the0:46:45 world now that does nothing0:46:48 to undermine belief in god0:46:50 in fact it gives a reason for god to0:46:52 come in0:46:53 and for us to pin our hopes from god so0:46:55 that so that could be a way to to yeah0:46:57 ro row makes0:46:59 yeah roe makes a response to this0:47:01 objection that you know you can't make0:47:03 the inference from from the appearance0:47:05 to the the appearance that it is to that0:47:07 it actually is uh and he's he he0:47:10 basically makes this move where he says0:47:12 that well if a good god exists you would0:47:15 expect him to tell0:47:18 uh you know certain victims of0:47:20 horrendous evil why they are0:47:22 experiencing that evil so that it0:47:24 wouldn't seem gratuitous0:47:26 so um uh what would you say to that0:47:28 sorry so0:47:29 are you saying the objection is we can0:47:32 intuitively identify gratuitous evils0:47:36 no0:47:37 so so i think ro rowe makes this0:47:39 argument that0:47:40 uh uh you would expect uh uh that a0:47:43 loving god would0:47:45 would would uh provide0:47:47 us with reasons for why the evil exists0:47:50 so so let's grant so i i think he would0:47:53 grant the the epistemic limitation that0:47:55 that okay we can't we can't access0:47:57 the reasons but he's saying that if a0:48:00 good god did exist you would expect us0:48:03 to have access to the reasons not0:48:06 necessarily0:48:07 yeah not necessarily though0:48:09 the the withdrawal0:48:11 of a possible reason0:48:13 for the evil for why0:48:15 the divine might permit the evil may be0:48:17 a good it may be something that draws0:48:19 you in makes you curious it may even0:48:22 um0:48:23 uh spark your inquiry to find out hang0:48:26 on why why is this it's why is this this0:48:28 particular suffering happening and what0:48:30 are we going to do to alleviate it so0:48:32 that your distance from0:48:34 the reason may be the good that finally0:48:37 drives you to try and ameliorate the0:48:39 evil that's just a possible0:48:41 um0:48:43 disguise good behind it so0:48:46 so again we can ask ro the same question0:48:49 why do you assume0:48:50 that going back to my initial point0:48:52 perhaps you were not there when we when0:48:53 we went through it is why must you0:48:55 assume0:48:57 that a benevolent being0:48:59 must provide you must provide your ought0:49:01 to provide you0:49:03 he's bound by some kind of0:49:05 prerogative0:49:06 to disclose0:49:08 explicitly permissions0:49:10 for why evil are permitted0:49:12 that is an assumption about the divine0:49:13 in and of itself0:49:15 um0:49:16 so it's not to dodge the question0:49:18 because you've got we've got tools in0:49:20 there we've got you know a set of tools0:49:23 that we can use it's not dodging the0:49:24 question it's just asking someone to0:49:26 clarify their assumption0:49:28 so the question is yeah i know i know i0:49:30 i know i know i know of course you're0:49:31 not dodging yeah no no no i'm just0:49:32 trying to ask people0:49:34 yeah yeah yeah yeah it's not it's not0:49:35 about ducking or diving it's about where0:49:37 did you pick that assumption up from0:49:39 did you pick up from scripture0:49:41 is it something that you postulated0:49:44 um so yeah can you see so we have to we0:49:47 want to push back on that i think0:49:51 yeah no sir i think uh it's a good back0:49:53 and forth just so that the views are0:49:55 well we are gonna0:49:57 have callers in uh inshallah and also i0:50:00 i know staff he actually said to me if0:50:03 we could do it another day because he's0:50:04 got like family round and stuff but um0:50:06 you know he's been able to do it so0:50:08 so0:50:09 we see his children0:50:15 but yeah so0:50:16 um0:50:17 so in essence what you're saying is this0:50:18 is and i think we said it at the0:50:20 beginning we where people who0:50:22 demonstrate whether it's a logical0:50:24 argument against uh the for the problem0:50:27 of evil or whether it's an evidentialist0:50:28 arguments against problem of or for the0:50:30 problem of evil they tend to come with a0:50:32 lot of presuppositions0:50:34 the danger for a theist is not to0:50:37 identify some of those presuppositions0:50:39 and and push back on them yeah ask them0:50:42 why why why do you think this0:50:45 because yeah we might think of it from a0:50:47 limited perspective but why what what0:50:50 what evidence can you give what what0:50:52 justification can you give and then0:50:54 that's when the presuppositions and the0:50:57 assumptions come out well they would say0:50:59 well that's what i would do or that's0:51:01 how i think yeah which itself falls down0:51:04 uh regards to this so um0:51:08 the other point uh i think we we touched0:51:10 upon because i think we want to go to0:51:12 callers soon unless we want to0:51:14 if there any of the other brothers have0:51:15 got any points that they want to raise0:51:17 or0:51:18 any questions that they want to ask0:51:20 jake0:51:22 uh no not unless you wanted to hit on0:51:24 any of the other questions we had0:51:27 uh yeah yeah okay we'll move on to the0:51:28 other questions because we've got a0:51:29 couple more uh which is good that he0:51:33 reminded me0:51:34 so really quickly then so i think we've0:51:36 gone through like there's four key0:51:38 possible defenses for the problem of0:51:40 evil particularly from an evidentialist0:51:42 the skeptical theism yeah which is based0:51:44 saying we're limited god is unlimited0:51:46 how can we really understand what's good0:51:48 and evil yeah second one which is0:51:50 there's various arguments theodicies0:51:53 that are used to counteract0:51:55 thirdly is that we actually have good0:51:57 strong reasons to have confidence in0:51:59 belief in god where we go from what we0:52:02 sense0:52:03 and what we see as a reality around us0:52:05 to conclude0:52:06 about a creator so why should we use0:52:09 something which is a possible or even0:52:12 plausible criticism against belief in0:52:15 god when you've got these strong0:52:16 arguments you'd rather go where the the0:52:19 the strength of the arguments is uh and0:52:21 uh0:52:23 the fourth one was the fourth one again0:52:26 yeah the the fourth one was well you0:52:27 know you turn the table you say okay oh0:52:29 yes no ask them what do you think0:52:30 discussion what is evil on your world0:52:33 view how do you account for it yeah um0:52:36 sure yeah surely evils are0:52:39 if you were to agree you know some bad0:52:41 state of affairs that you ought to0:52:42 remove or immediately0:52:44 yeah yeah0:52:45 so uh so0:52:46 what how does how0:52:48 how does islam uh and0:52:51 many of the ulima of the past0:52:53 you know obviously they discussed the0:52:55 concept of the problem of evil how did0:52:57 they view it how did they seek to0:52:58 address it0:53:01 ah okay yeah so i mean one0:53:04 uh one you know0:53:06 as with a lot of things in my own study0:53:08 you know i begin with0:53:09 islam0:53:11 is0:53:14 i think frames0:53:16 uh0:53:17 the issue0:53:18 or the puzzle0:53:20 um i mean pretty much the way0:53:23 that contemporary analytic philosophers0:53:24 of religion sort of0:53:26 um summarize the problem0:53:28 and then he talks about how0:53:30 under the name of0:53:34 you know perhaps you may ask0:53:37 that what is the meaning of god's being0:53:38 compassionate0:53:46 you might ask what is the meaning of0:53:48 god's being compassionate and the most0:53:50 compassionate0:53:51 um0:53:52 for surely0:54:04 surely a compassionate person does not0:54:07 see someone being afflicted injured or0:54:08 tormented or ill without rushing to0:54:12 remove that from him if he is able to0:54:14 remove it0:54:40 so he says that look0:54:42 if0:54:43 now if god is able to stop every0:54:46 misfortune you know to avert all poverty0:54:48 and grief and and0:54:50 you know and to remove every sickness0:54:52 and injury that someone might have0:54:54 you know0:54:55 he's able to do all that but yet the0:54:57 world is overflowing with sickness and0:55:00 you know tribulations and calamities0:55:02 he's able to remove all of them and yet0:55:05 yet he leaves his servants in travail to0:55:08 disasters and misfortunes someone could0:55:10 ask that hajjit islam says so look how0:55:12 he frames it0:55:14 you know the problem was well known0:55:15 amongst our scholars can you see it's0:55:17 not a new0:55:18 formulation by philosophers in the last0:55:20 50 60 70 years0:55:23 so0:55:24 now this particular issue0:55:26 of trying to reconcile god's being0:55:31 but we also have to remember by the way0:55:33 and people forget this that one of the0:55:34 names of allah subhanallah ta'ala is0:55:36 al-wadud0:55:38 and comes into the mix here because0:55:41 means0:55:49 means0:55:50 looking out like you know0:55:52 loving the good for all of creation0:55:55 that's what0:55:56 means allah's love0:55:58 or wanting good for all of creation so0:56:01 he does good to them and praises them0:56:03 yeah0:56:04 and so0:56:06 um0:56:06 and0:56:07 will do the act of wood of loving0:56:23 he loves and cares for something without0:56:25 that thing needing it0:56:27 can you see0:56:28 whereas those attributes apply to things0:56:31 that are0:56:33 or they need it0:56:34 yeah0:56:35 so hadith islam says0:56:37 is someone who loves and cares for0:56:39 everything in creation0:56:41 uh allah0:56:45 out of just pure love there's no the0:56:47 thing doesn't even need it0:56:49 um0:56:50 and then he says this kind of love if it0:56:53 embodies if we embody as human beings i0:56:56 we contemplate in allah's name and we0:56:58 try and embody it0:57:00 it means0:57:07 it's to want for all of creation or0:57:09 people what you would desire for0:57:11 yourself0:57:16 such that one of the the sort of0:57:19 um sort of men of allah you know one of0:57:22 them people who have intimate knowledge0:57:23 of allah he said0:57:35 such that people would trample over me0:57:39 to get to the other side that's the kind0:57:41 of love we're talking about0:57:43 that that a human being embodies from0:57:45 knowing what0:57:46 means in the name of allah subhanallah0:57:48 to allah the other example that they0:57:50 give and imam al-ghazali gives this0:57:51 example i'm sorry i'm i'm banging on0:57:53 about this but i just i'll tell you why0:57:55 i'm mentioning this0:57:57 he also gives an example of when in0:57:59 battle our prophet0:58:02 his blessed face was struck and his0:58:04 blessed tooth was broken0:58:06 what was his reply to that attack0:58:12 allah forgive0:58:14 my people because they're ignorant that0:58:16 they don't know that's why they're0:58:17 striking a prophet of allah0:58:20 so0:58:20 the reason why i mentioned this is that0:58:22 our scholars knew0:58:24 that these names like0:58:27 um0:58:29 they come into tension with the0:58:32 the unimaginable horrors that we see in0:58:34 the world0:58:35 and so0:58:36 um0:58:37 so often they would frame it in how then0:58:40 do we come to understand these names of0:58:42 allah and try and calibrate that with0:58:45 existence we see in the world now in0:58:47 terms of0:58:48 the theological discussions in the books0:58:50 of kalam the science of islamic theology0:58:55 you'll find it like under topics like uh0:59:00 like what is good or bad can the mind0:59:02 discern or judge what is good and what0:59:04 is bad0:59:05 um0:59:06 deal with tajweed0:59:07 justice and goodness and injustice0:59:10 so they would they would put the topic0:59:12 under that so they would ask questions0:59:15 like can we judge0:59:16 correctly what is good or bad0:59:18 can evil be ascribed to allah's actions0:59:21 can allah prevent evil is god obligated0:59:24 to do what is best0:59:26 for his creatures0:59:27 um the doctrine of osla that the more0:59:30 tesla argued for is god just in allowing0:59:33 pain and suffering can allah punish0:59:35 innocence and things like that so all0:59:37 these questions are0:59:38 you know asked but it was framed in that0:59:40 way they looked at the names and0:59:41 attributes of allah0:59:43 and then0:59:44 um framed it as well then surely0:59:47 a a a0:59:48 a person a being0:59:52 wouldn't allow his servants0:59:54 um to just be0:59:56 strewn with these troubles and and0:59:59 tribulations and tests and pain and1:00:01 suffering1:00:02 so it's there in our literature and lot1:00:04 not many people are aware that it was1:00:06 intimately discussed by our scholars1:00:08 how so really quickly actually because1:00:11 uh we want to try and get some callers1:00:13 in and i know stuff you're you're very1:00:15 busy and uh you may have to leave us in1:00:17 a bit but i just wanted to1:00:19 what you mentioned earlier there1:00:21 how do you then how did the automatic1:00:23 square this with maybe concepts like1:00:25 punishment or hell1:00:27 as an example1:00:28 yeah or even even just general evil in1:00:31 the world1:00:32 then1:00:34 well maybe we'll talk about evil in the1:00:35 world and then we'll talk about yeah so1:00:37 strategies1:00:39 and especially1:00:47 his position and the position of his1:00:49 school was1:00:50 generally we shouldn't1:00:52 we shouldn't1:00:53 be involved in theodicies i we shouldn't1:00:56 try and vindicate1:00:59 allah in the face of1:01:02 what we perceive to be evil or injustice1:01:04 pain suffering things like that1:01:06 it's improper to ask about the divine1:01:09 motives1:01:10 why did allah what's what's behind1:01:12 allah's action for allowing this or1:01:15 why did allah's will permit this or can1:01:17 see they felt1:01:19 because of our cognitive limitations who1:01:21 are we1:01:23 we will be questioned he will he will1:01:24 not be questioned1:01:26 can you see1:01:27 so1:01:28 let he will not be questioned rather1:01:30 they will be questioned1:01:31 alone1:01:32 yeah so1:01:33 quran isn't it1:01:36 yeah1:01:37 so it does overlap with the skeptical1:01:39 theist1:01:40 position a bit as well so there's the1:01:42 anti theodicy position of the asha allah1:01:45 you don't look for causes for god's1:01:47 actions it's improper1:01:49 allah could do whatever he wants1:01:51 to do he has dominion sovereignty and1:01:53 control and power over his creation he1:01:56 created it he has no moral obligations1:01:58 to his creation so if he wants to create1:02:01 something and then annihilate it he can1:02:03 do that there is no there's no account1:02:05 to give here you can see there's no oh1:02:08 let me explain why god would want to do1:02:10 this1:02:11 um1:02:12 if he wants to create1:02:13 uh if he wants to punish any category of1:02:16 his creations he can1:02:18 because he's not1:02:19 he's not beholden to any standard1:02:22 and1:02:23 there's not anything he owes some he1:02:25 doesn't owe anyone anything1:02:28 um so1:02:29 so like if i own something like my own1:02:31 property1:02:32 um1:02:33 i could do whatever i want in there i1:02:34 have tasaru fat as we say i have i can1:02:37 have disposable power over i can do1:02:40 whatever i want1:02:41 so similarly1:02:43 allah subhanahu ta'ala can do whatever1:02:45 he wants to his creation whatever he1:02:46 wants there is no one to question him1:02:48 because there is no standard which is1:02:51 there's no metric by which the divine1:02:53 actions are measured1:02:55 so1:02:55 that's one one position1:02:58 the other position in in in our s in our1:03:01 tradition you see and this is1:03:02 particularly the more tesla1:03:04 is that they say no1:03:06 uh1:03:09 allah has to do what is1:03:11 in the material in the best interest and1:03:13 welfare of his creatures he's obligated1:03:16 to do that1:03:18 and so his actions are guided by human1:03:20 welfare1:03:21 it's a human muslim1:03:23 and so he's bound morally1:03:26 to do that1:03:27 and we see some of that view has you1:03:29 know1:03:30 quite a lot of philosophers today like1:03:32 that kind of view that god's actions1:03:35 must be in line with some kind of1:03:36 benefit or1:03:38 some kind of good discernible good1:03:41 i'm sorry i lost the other part of your1:03:42 question it was about uh so the response1:03:45 is yeah so one is skeptical theism one1:03:47 is to say god will only do what's in in1:03:50 the best interest so if there's evil in1:03:52 the world it must serve some kind of1:03:54 greater good1:03:56 yeah there must be some kind of good1:03:58 behind it as to why allah might allow it1:04:01 the other thing is that the other1:04:02 responses you find in our literature1:04:04 is evil is unavoidable occurrence1:04:08 from the way the world was created1:04:10 you create human beings with free will a1:04:12 corollary of that1:04:14 um an ill exam of that is well1:04:16 you're going to get people are going to1:04:17 do bad um if you create objects with1:04:20 sharp property1:04:21 there's going to be use for good it's1:04:22 going to be used for bad1:04:24 other responses are you know evil is1:04:27 just a matter of subjective perspective1:04:29 you think something is evil1:04:31 but in a greater perspective or in a1:04:33 more broader perspective1:04:35 um someone with more scaled or higher1:04:38 knowledge it may not be an evil1:04:42 another response you'll find in the1:04:43 literature especially with uh1:04:47 he wrote1:04:48 wonderful wonderful1:04:51 ways in which evil is integrated into1:04:54 the the hikmah of allah so even in the1:04:57 end is not actually evil it's actually1:04:58 disguised good1:05:00 evil allows us to appreciate what is1:05:02 good are you so1:05:04 uh you know with opposites you come to1:05:05 know things1:05:07 um1:05:11 with the opposite you come to know what1:05:13 something is1:05:14 evil is just a part of the way the world1:05:16 is just like everything else it's just1:05:17 the furniture of the world1:05:19 evil is a means to draw closer to allah1:05:23 um1:05:24 evil is to build our nafs and make us1:05:26 better1:05:27 evil is necessary to secure more goods1:05:30 evil is part of the perfection of allah1:05:34 what's known as aesthetic theodicy so1:05:36 evil is part of the1:05:38 the picture the entire perfect picture1:05:40 of the world1:05:42 um so these are just some of them there1:05:44 are tons there are tons of responses1:05:46 that you find yeah yeah1:05:48 so really i think it's uh i just wanted1:05:51 two quick questions1:05:54 so the first first quick question is in1:05:57 relation to animal suffering because it1:05:58 seems to be quite a popular one1:06:01 uh you know sorry man i don't mean to1:06:03 put you on the on the time clock for1:06:05 this one1:06:06 but you know one of the arguments i1:06:08 think uh it was alex o'connor does uh1:06:11 what's his cosmic skeptic i think it is1:06:13 you know he's he's very much into this1:06:15 contingency argument but he then he says1:06:17 oh but there's this gratuitous evil1:06:19 particularly animal suffering1:06:22 you know1:06:23 animal suffering is gratuitous yeah yeah1:06:26 so he's saying he's gratuitous and1:06:28 there's no way around it that no good1:06:30 god all powerful would allow you know1:06:33 millions of years of animal suffering1:06:35 for no apparent reason1:06:38 all right so this is known as the um1:06:42 the darwinian problem of evil or the1:06:44 evolutionary problem of evil1:06:46 now i just to shamelessly do a plug yeah1:06:50 um so in my current book on the problem1:06:52 of evil i devote1:06:54 uh half the book to addressing1:06:57 the problem of animal suffering and the1:06:58 evolutionary problem of evil1:07:01 and in a forthcoming paper which1:07:02 hopefully will be published1:07:04 i i used other theodisies animal1:07:07 theodosi uh evolutionary theodicies to1:07:10 that aren't used in the book1:07:12 again it goes back to the question1:07:14 um1:07:16 what what are your value presuppositions1:07:18 about animal suffering1:07:20 now1:07:21 now we've got to i'm not demeaning in1:07:23 any way1:07:25 the1:07:26 seriousness of suffering1:07:28 especially you know human suffering1:07:29 creaturely pain things like that1:07:32 but we have to press someone to say what1:07:35 is it specifically that you find1:07:38 problematic1:07:39 about1:07:40 um1:07:41 a loss of hanoi to allo creating animals1:07:44 for all these you know1:07:45 millions of years1:07:47 um or creatures non-human animals1:07:50 um some have become extinct1:07:52 and1:07:53 all we find in in that animal history is1:07:56 death destruction waste1:07:58 um you know extinction things like that1:08:02 uh1:08:04 well1:08:05 again we can utilize some of the1:08:07 theologies that i mentioned1:08:09 one it depends1:08:11 you might think again allah has no1:08:13 obligations right that might be one1:08:15 response you make if allah creates his1:08:17 creatures1:08:18 even if he creates one creature and he1:08:19 disposes of it however he wishes1:08:22 quantifying that to millions is1:08:25 irrelevant because1:08:26 suddenly one one million animals doesn't1:08:29 become a moral imperative on allah to1:08:31 now say i've got to stop creating1:08:33 animals because other animals are going1:08:34 to eat them um can you see so if you're1:08:37 gonna you can take that route and say1:08:39 the divine has no1:08:40 no no obligations to any of these1:08:42 creatures not to human beings let alone1:08:44 animals1:08:45 so there really is no issue here to1:08:47 resolve1:08:48 um what we have to then do is try and1:08:50 conform1:08:52 our1:08:53 natural1:08:54 inclinations when we see animals suffer1:08:56 or when we see the sort of nature red in1:08:58 tooth and claw1:08:59 um that you know we1:09:01 how1:09:02 how what kind of response does that put1:09:04 in us as as creatures so some people say1:09:07 all this death and suffering in the1:09:09 natural world is is a kind of educative1:09:11 for the odyssey it's to us to try and1:09:14 come to higher consciousness about1:09:15 allah's names and attributes look how1:09:17 allah is almost look how he created1:09:19 these different you know biodiversity1:09:22 um allah is um1:09:26 he's so wise he's put everything in its1:09:28 proper place in the natural world1:09:29 predation doesn't happen1:09:32 um without you know some kind of1:09:34 system in play there you know there's a1:09:36 whole uh ecosystem at play1:09:39 um1:09:40 and another attribute would be1:09:44 look at how look how what kind of b must1:09:46 have created all these species so maybe1:09:49 the prediction1:09:50 um1:09:52 all these things that would happen in1:09:53 the animal kingdom maybe that is a1:09:54 pointer to making us more aware1:09:57 of allah's attributes i'm talking from a1:09:59 theist1:10:00 perspective um1:10:03 for an atheist you know you have to just1:10:05 say again go back to our presupposition1:10:07 that we talked about earlier1:10:09 you know god what kind of idea of god1:10:11 are you holding when it comes to animal1:10:12 suffering and the evolutionary1:10:15 um this values or discomforts that we1:10:18 see1:10:19 um what kind of god and what assumptions1:10:21 are you making about the divine so yeah1:10:22 so god could want his creation perhaps1:10:25 the the whole of1:10:26 uh this discomfort we see in nature is1:10:29 to make us1:10:30 educate us about who our lord is so you1:10:33 come to know allah through the good and1:10:35 through what is the bad and the ugly1:10:37 um1:10:38 maybe it's an aesthetic theodicy as i1:10:41 mentioned it's part of allah's overall1:10:43 artistic picture of the world yes1:10:45 believe it or not iblis is also part of1:10:47 allah's creation1:10:48 and al-hafiz1:10:50 talks about why would allah create1:10:51 iblees and he gives like 24 reasons what1:10:54 good can come out of1:10:55 creating a belief so the fount of all1:10:58 evil you know so he talks about the1:11:00 fountain of all evil iblis1:11:02 um so that could be a possible reason1:11:05 um maybe all the way our last created1:11:07 animals one of the corollaries is this1:11:09 is how they behave they're just acting1:11:11 like the nature1:11:12 so it's a it's a it's inevitable given1:11:14 the way our last created nature and so1:11:16 on and so on and so on so you can rattle1:11:18 off i think a number of1:11:20 uh theodicies1:11:22 but as i said they just go towards some1:11:24 way and giving you a kind of generic1:11:26 account1:11:27 you know i cannot account for every1:11:29 instance of evil with these theodicies1:11:32 but they're not that's not their purpose1:11:34 can you see there's nothing it's the1:11:35 case it's casey1:11:37 yeah yeah1:11:38 just to give a possible explanation1:11:41 about these topics uh i think uh i think1:11:44 we've we've actually uh we've1:11:47 put your um1:11:48 book in the chat in the live chat so1:11:52 i think uh you know1:11:53 inshallah opportunity for muslims1:11:56 non-muslims that you know if you if you1:11:58 want you can get a hold of his book you1:12:00 can buy his book inshallah uh and you1:12:02 know it goes into a bit more detail um1:12:05 sorry stop what is we've got a caller1:12:07 that wants to call in so1:12:09 uh so maybe we'll go to our first caller1:12:11 while we go to the first caller i'm just1:12:13 going to quickly jump off i'll be here1:12:16 i'll be off1:12:17 and i'll let jake and abdul and saf take1:12:20 over1:12:21 sure so we've got a few people waiting1:12:24 but we've got1:12:25 mr pine creek waiting so let's bring him1:12:28 on and1:12:29 uh1:12:30 see what he's got to say1:12:32 welcome1:12:33 hey thanks for having me on um1:12:37 and good to1:12:38 see you staff is that how you see your1:12:40 name yeah yeah it is it is okay well i'm1:12:42 an atheist and um the way i usually talk1:12:45 about the problem of evil is from the1:12:46 perspective of god before creation1:12:50 and then i think what you said earlier1:12:52 was very good about not making any1:12:53 assumptions so i'll just ask you um1:12:56 do you believe that allah1:13:00 sees the future it's never surprised1:13:02 knows what's going to happen1:13:06 yes1:13:07 yes yeah and you do believe that's1:13:09 perfect you can't get better than allah1:13:11 for sure1:13:12 okay1:13:13 and so1:13:15 um1:13:16 if we have i i like the two worlds1:13:19 uh hypothetical experiments so let's say1:13:21 you have two two worlds one world is1:13:23 just allah yeah1:13:25 another world is allah plus extra stuff1:13:28 like the universe1:13:30 yeah uh the first world has no sin1:13:34 correct1:13:36 has no pain1:13:37 has no suffering1:13:39 the second world has all in it but has1:13:42 all that other stuff1:13:44 which world is better in your opinion1:13:46 the first world or the second world war1:13:50 well i can't make that judgment1:13:52 um because1:13:54 it's your opinion1:13:56 yeah1:13:56 but how1:13:58 how could you compare a world1:14:00 let's say if god inhabits a world a1:14:02 possible world1:14:04 in which there is only god1:14:06 um and and i prefer let's say that word1:14:09 over a world in which there is god in1:14:11 which and there are creatures of god1:14:13 plus one or allah plus one in which he1:14:16 can then1:14:17 manifest or exhibit or exemplify his1:14:20 beautiful names and attributes1:14:22 um1:14:23 it's difficult for the mind to make1:14:25 these judgments uh just like how how can1:14:28 i prefer a world in which there are no1:14:31 moral creatures1:14:32 because there are no moral properties of1:14:34 moral freedom to a world in which1:14:36 you know there aren't such1:14:38 such creatures on what bases am i1:14:40 judging can you see i can have a pr i1:14:43 can just have a an inclination or a1:14:44 preference but that's all it could be1:14:47 right yeah well i guess the question1:14:49 gets more at1:14:51 if by definition allah is perfect and1:14:53 you can't get better yeah then anything1:14:56 you add to it's not going to make it1:14:58 better1:14:59 yeah for sure i think adding something1:15:01 to i don't think creation1:15:04 adds to the1:15:05 somehow god lacked perfection then he1:15:08 created1:15:09 creation and then he became a little bit1:15:11 more perfect yeah you don't believe that1:15:12 right yeah for sure i mean but now why1:15:15 the divine would create1:15:18 creatures in such a loving way1:15:20 um we were just talking about one of the1:15:22 names of god being1:15:24 the the love the one who loves without1:15:26 any1:15:27 um need for a person to have that love1:15:30 um so1:15:31 why he did that1:15:34 now these are going into the realms of1:15:35 divine motives can you see and1:15:37 i will start to struggle unless he1:15:39 discloses his reasons why1:15:42 is there anything that you think that1:15:43 allah doesn't want1:15:46 no he didn't say in scripture that he1:15:48 doesn't want it's just if someone were1:15:50 to ask me on what what grounds1:15:53 are you making to say one world is1:15:55 better than another world i'm just going1:15:57 to struggle i can give some1:16:00 you know sort of generic reasons why i1:16:02 might prefer one based on scripture or1:16:04 something like that but can you think of1:16:05 something that allah would say no i1:16:07 don't want this1:16:09 yeah he doesn't like for example the1:16:11 things that lots of things he doesn't1:16:12 love he tells us1:16:14 he doesn't love that people1:16:16 um are you know1:16:17 are deceived and they run away from him1:16:19 okay so let's say let's call that1:16:21 disbelief yeah disbelief let's call that1:16:24 disbelief yeah yeah so they're in the1:16:26 first world there's no disbelief this is1:16:28 just allah yeah1:16:30 in the second world there's allah plus1:16:31 people who do believe and disbelief sure1:16:34 so now we have two worlds1:16:36 and one world that1:16:38 entails something that allah doesn't1:16:40 want disbelief for sure1:16:43 so wouldn't you say the first world's1:16:44 better because it first of all doesn't1:16:45 have any disbelief in it not necessarily1:16:48 again you need a value criterion you see1:16:50 when you're judging between worlds1:16:51 because the by having people who1:16:53 disbelieve there's also the possibility1:16:55 that people will lovingly turn to god1:16:57 because you need moral freedom in order1:16:59 to believe and disbelieve in god so we1:17:02 have belief and disbelief but in the1:17:03 first world there's just1:17:05 allah you can't get better than that1:17:08 so1:17:09 i understand your your answer is1:17:11 basically you don't want to judge1:17:13 between the two worlds do you believe1:17:15 allah was free not to create the second1:17:17 world1:17:18 for sure but he's not bad yeah my my1:17:20 what i understand is that the divine if1:17:23 he creates a world1:17:25 then he creates it out of a choice not1:17:27 out of a necessity so i believe in a1:17:29 choice model a divine action i don't1:17:31 believe in the necessitarian model okay1:17:34 so i could have chosen not to create1:17:36 anything he could have chosen not to1:17:38 because he's not bound by any1:17:41 uh higher principle1:17:43 or1:17:45 any in any higher axiom by which he must1:17:48 create a world he creates it out of1:17:50 choice now why he created the world i1:17:52 now allah plus the world or plus1:17:55 creation why he created everything other1:17:57 than himself and whether that world is1:17:59 better1:18:01 it's hard hard to to judge but the fact1:18:04 that he created it and i you know he's1:18:05 given he's blessed me with being and1:18:07 existence1:18:08 so from my you know from my own1:18:10 predilection i think it's a good word1:18:13 there would be no disbelief of allah1:18:15 never created correct1:18:17 there'd be no disbelief for sure there'd1:18:19 also be no belief1:18:20 for sure right so okay so i agree it1:18:23 makes well you're seeing logical sense1:18:25 if there was if allah chose his free1:18:27 will not to create zero disbelief i'm1:18:30 saying that if someone were to say um a1:18:32 world1:18:33 um in which there are creatures who1:18:35 disbelieve which would also entail that1:18:37 they believe as well1:18:38 maybe that possibility of belief whether1:18:41 or someone lovingly turns to allah that1:18:43 might be the good the disguise good that1:18:46 that becomes a god justifying reason why1:18:48 allah created the world that could be1:18:49 the good1:18:50 um for all i know for all i know um1:18:55 but what we do get if i want to get a1:18:57 bit mystical1:18:58 um in the mystical1:19:01 tradition1:19:02 um you do get some scholars who say1:19:05 no but this is their own deliberations1:19:07 you know there's nothing there's no1:19:08 theological1:19:09 um1:19:11 there's no normativity here but this is1:19:14 but this is the the tension i think um1:19:18 christians jews all have to well maybe1:19:20 not jews have to deal with is that1:19:23 allah tell me if you disagree with1:19:25 anything i'm about to say1:19:26 allah is not okay with this belief or1:19:28 sin1:19:29 he's not okay with it he doesn't like it1:19:32 he created knowing what that that would1:19:34 result for sure and he said i'm going to1:19:37 create it anyhow that's right that's1:19:39 basically the problem of evil right1:19:40 there1:19:42 that's right and the angels the angels1:19:43 in the quranic tradition the angels1:19:46 asked that very same question in in1:19:48 1:19:49 when1:19:50 according to our you know1:19:52 belief adam was created1:19:54 and then the angels asked god why are1:19:56 you creating a being that is going to be1:19:59 a representative that's not only going1:20:00 to create mischief on earth he's going1:20:02 to create their progeny his project he's1:20:04 going to create bloodshed on the earth1:20:06 and then god's response was look1:20:08 i know what you do not know so you are1:20:10 finite creatures i know and and i am1:20:13 i am your lord i know better1:20:16 that there may be greater goods that1:20:18 unfold that's one possible reason for1:20:20 why creating human beings on earth1:20:23 but you still have the problem of hell1:20:25 i won't make any assumptions but do you1:20:26 believe that some people tonight can i1:20:28 ask you a question pine creek because i1:20:30 think uh dr saf1:20:32 the the answer he wants from you is i1:20:35 would choose world a over world b1:20:38 so why don't you as a theist believe1:20:40 that god should choose world a over1:20:42 world b is is that's what you're getting1:20:44 at right pine creek i mean but you need1:20:45 a value criteria1:20:47 yeah precisely to judge between one1:20:49 possible possible world with another1:20:52 possible world why why must we assume1:20:55 that a world1:20:56 that god creating let's say automaton1:20:59 or a world with you know just only1:21:02 people just do good why is that a world1:21:04 that is better than a world in which we1:21:06 inhabit now1:21:07 because of what you said1:21:09 would you prefer one over the other this1:21:11 is like an internal critique so the1:21:12 criterion we prefer is what does allah1:21:14 desire1:21:16 that's the criterion allah is the1:21:17 criterion and our response will be that1:21:20 he the what he desires may be secured by1:21:22 creating the kind of world that he's1:21:23 created1:21:24 but what he doesn't desire is disbelief1:21:26 yes for sure but he knows but it would1:21:29 be his belief if he never created so1:21:32 there's the attention that's not1:21:33 attention because that because what you1:21:36 could say is the the purpose is that god1:21:38 seeks by creating the world with the1:21:40 possibility the possibility not the1:21:42 necessity but the possibility of1:21:44 disbelief being in there1:21:46 god creating a world in which there is a1:21:48 possibility of disbelief because there1:21:50 is a possibility of belief1:21:53 maybe1:21:54 over the span of whatever human history1:21:56 however or whatever span of time you1:21:58 want to take1:21:59 secures the goods that he wants to seek1:22:00 based on his wise purposes right but1:22:02 some of those some of those1:22:04 goods that he secures to seek is knowing1:22:06 with 100 certainty which i think you1:22:08 believe that some will disbelieve and1:22:11 some people1:22:12 will1:22:14 willfully antagonistically reject god1:22:16 doesn't matter what circumstance they1:22:18 will be put in yeah right and so1:22:20 there would be no pain no evil no1:22:22 suffering and more most importantly1:22:24 there'd be nobody in hell1:22:26 today or in the future there'd be nobody1:22:29 in hell if allah never created it1:22:30 correct1:22:31 if you never created hell yeah there1:22:33 would be nobody no if you never created1:22:34 anything1:22:35 there'd be no1:22:36 anything1:22:38 so every person who who ends up in hell1:22:42 has ended up there because allah chose1:22:44 that of history able to create1:22:46 if he chose people to create he chose to1:22:48 create people people choose whether they1:22:51 want to be with god or be distant from1:22:53 god right but1:22:54 if god never created them knowing what1:22:56 they would choose and that they would1:22:58 end up there they would not be there so1:23:00 just like with companies the ceo the the1:23:03 buck stops at the top1:23:05 that's partially responsible for him but1:23:07 is that would you agree with it1:23:10 but you cannot move to a fur your1:23:12 inference can only go so far all you can1:23:14 say is1:23:15 um1:23:17 if god didn't create anything then1:23:20 nobody would have went to hell that's1:23:21 true because there would be no heaven no1:23:23 hell no nothing that's true that's1:23:25 all the inference that you can make1:23:27 there are no further influences that you1:23:28 can make about that's the important one1:23:31 no but that's pine creek can i answer1:23:32 your1:23:33 yeah that doesn't do anything for1:23:34 anyone's view it you're just saying that1:23:36 if god didn't create anything then it1:23:39 follows that some people would not be in1:23:40 hell if god created hell that just1:23:42 follows1:23:43 the fact of god created hell yeah but1:23:45 but there are no more there are no more1:23:47 moral claims or further claims that you1:23:49 can infer from just that statement well1:23:51 you know we can because if morality is1:23:53 defined by the nature of allah and allah1:23:55 doesn't like1:23:56 disbelief1:23:58 yet he created knowing disbelieving1:24:00 results sorry pancreas1:24:02 using your track of the inference i1:24:04 think yeah yeah yeah so what are you1:24:05 listening do you think let me ask you a1:24:07 question sorry do you think uh allah1:24:10 likes sinful people1:24:14 no1:24:14 do you think that allah therefore would1:24:17 want to create a world where there is no1:24:18 sinful people1:24:20 yeah correct1:24:22 that would be wrong from an islamic1:24:24 paradigm1:24:25 because islamic because from the islamic1:24:27 paradigm we believe that god wanted1:24:30 people to commit sin so god would1:24:31 forgive them1:24:34 about did god want to create people so1:24:35 they end up in hell would you agree with1:24:37 that1:24:38 no no but you understand that particular1:24:40 point1:24:41 you're saying god created people because1:24:42 he wanted it to sin so he could forgive1:24:44 them1:24:45 right so so your point this is what i1:24:48 understand from your argument because1:24:49 let's narrow it down1:24:51 your point was this was that1:24:53 god desires nobody to commit sin let's1:24:55 say as an example1:24:57 therefore god has the power to do that1:25:00 therefore god would only seek to1:25:02 establish a world that doesn't have1:25:04 people committing sin that was your line1:25:06 of argument now i gave a possible1:25:08 argument or possible explanation in fact1:25:10 it's the islamic explanation1:25:12 which is that god does want to create1:25:14 people who commit sin so that he can1:25:16 forgive them so although god dislikes1:25:19 sinners1:25:20 he allows sinners to exist in order for1:25:23 for for god to forgive them i get that1:25:25 yeah here's but then you gotta take one1:25:27 step further1:25:28 does god want p to create people knowing1:25:32 with understand certainty that some will1:25:34 die without asking for forgiveness from1:25:36 allah and end up in hell but you1:25:38 understand the point the wider point1:25:40 this is the wider point now yeah there's1:25:42 my point1:25:44 what's the wider point not making than1:25:46 kind of you're saying that god created1:25:48 people because he gave them an1:25:50 opportunity to1:25:51 ask for forgiveness of him no that's not1:25:53 the wider point1:25:56 the wider point isn't that1:25:58 that's the wider point1:25:59 the wider point is that some we have1:26:01 limitations in terms of understanding1:26:04 the reasons why god would create certain1:26:07 things and therefore to try to determine1:26:10 that therefore there is a logical1:26:12 contradiction which is what you're1:26:13 trying to argue no no no i'm not seeing1:26:14 a logical contribution1:26:16 well1:26:17 what are you arguing for then because i1:26:19 think the problem is and this is what dr1:26:21 staff was pointing out that based on1:26:24 what he answered and your claims1:26:27 it doesn't necessarily entail what you1:26:30 think it does you're making an1:26:32 additional inference that you cannot get1:26:34 from the information that what's the1:26:35 inference i'm making1:26:37 well you tell us because you just said1:26:38 it wasn't the logical con uh contract no1:26:40 my whole point is my whole point is to1:26:43 help the muslim feel icky about it1:26:46 um it's just no seriously that's it1:26:49 because and i think it's a very powerful1:26:51 argument which i think even theists will1:26:53 admit to there's no problem of evil for1:26:55 the atheists it's for the theist1:26:57 so the it's oh no i think no that's1:26:59 wrong1:27:01 okay1:27:02 from the record1:27:05 can you make can you make the argument1:27:06 sorry i don't mean yeah so can you just1:27:08 make the argument right now in premise1:27:10 premise conclusion form well1:27:12 i'll try um supremacist one would be god1:27:15 doesn't like sin he doesn't like1:27:17 disbelief1:27:18 premise two would be something like god1:27:20 knows the future with certainty he's1:27:22 never surprised i think both of these1:27:24 things both these both these premises1:27:26 you guys agree with1:27:28 three um1:27:30 it would be that he knows with certainty1:27:32 some will disbelieve in hell1:27:36 uh conclusion1:27:39 allah was okay with some people1:27:40 disbelieving in going to hell1:27:43 so so so that's what1:27:49 disbelieving and going to hell right uh1:27:53 are you saying that that contradicts1:27:56 all i'm saying is god god1:27:58 did1:28:00 okay so you're arguing from emotion here1:28:02 because it's not definitely you feel1:28:03 likey okay1:28:06 here so here here here's the issue1:28:07 here's the issue pine creek oh he just1:28:09 said he's already1:28:10 what what you want what you want to say1:28:12 what you want to say what you want to1:28:14 say is that1:28:16 you know this world that god actualized1:28:19 is not ideal in the sense that there is1:28:22 evil in it and people will be tortured1:28:24 in hell for an eternity1:28:26 therefore yes yes therefore it is it is1:28:29 something that is not uh you know the1:28:32 best of possible all possible world or1:28:34 it's not something that's morally good1:28:36 or justified right1:28:38 but uh let me ask you a question are1:28:41 what are your views on morality what's1:28:43 what's your underlying ethical theory1:28:45 that i want you to assume that i have1:28:46 none1:28:48 how can i then how can i understand what1:28:50 you mean by good and evil i'm using your1:28:52 definitions1:28:53 what is my definition of good and evil1:28:55 anything that goes uh1:28:57 in line with allah's will his nature is1:29:00 good anything that doesn't evil1:29:02 then okay okay fine fire wrong so let's1:29:04 let's go with that let's go with that am1:29:06 i wrong let's let's assume it's my1:29:08 definition let's assume it's my1:29:09 definition1:29:10 then how does me feeling feeling icky1:29:13 about anything affect reality in any way1:29:16 shape or form if you're granting if1:29:18 you're granting1:29:22 you're if you're foreign for the sake of1:29:24 the argument that good and evil are1:29:27 defined by what god does then why does1:29:30 me feeling icky about anything1:29:33 have any significance at all here1:29:35 because you're granting that what he1:29:36 does is good by definition1:29:38 let's call it a day and go home yeah but1:29:40 wait but wait but wait you guys feel1:29:42 icky so what so what what's wrong with1:29:43 feeling well you know what what is1:29:45 feeling icky proof i was wrong about you1:29:47 i do you don't feel lucky about it right1:29:50 let's assume i do let's assume i do what1:29:52 does it prove what it what what argument1:29:54 are you trying to make it you're1:29:56 granting you yourself are granting for1:29:58 the sake of the argument that good and1:30:00 evil are defined by god's acts right so1:30:04 whatever it's a divine command theory1:30:05 basically right now if that is the case1:30:08 and you're already granting that in your1:30:10 argument yeah then you say that1:30:13 me feeling icky should have any role to1:30:15 play in determining what is good or evil1:30:18 then you're contradicting yourself no no1:30:19 i'm not saying what determines good or1:30:21 evil i'm saying how what you do with1:30:23 your life in terms of worship uh how you1:30:26 practically outlive the consequences of1:30:29 this belief that's what i'm talking1:30:30 about fine i can feel licky all day1:30:32 right but that doesn't constitute an1:30:34 argument so do you have a better1:30:36 argument to make than you know guys you1:30:38 should feel icky about this because us1:30:41 feeling icky about it doesn't prove1:30:42 anything unless you're gonna say that1:30:44 our subjective feeling about what is1:30:46 good and evil actually reflects an1:30:49 actual reality of what is objectively1:30:51 good and evil1:30:53 okay i do what if god decreed before the1:30:55 beginning of creation1:30:58 that1:30:59 uh your children all of them will end up1:31:02 in hell1:31:03 let me ask you a question1:31:06 would you have rather god created1:31:07 nothing1:31:09 um i i don't know if i would rather god1:31:11 created nothing i would have liked it1:31:12 let's let's let's make that more modest1:31:15 why wouldn't you1:31:16 i wouldn't have liked it but then here's1:31:18 the fundamental question1:31:20 based on your definition of good and1:31:22 evil that you're using for the sake of1:31:24 this argument my not liking it is1:31:26 irrelevant1:31:27 okay that's the point do you want to1:31:29 focus on i understand i understand1:31:31 you're making yeah yeah yeah yeah but my1:31:33 question to you is would you worship1:31:35 allah if he told you that1:31:37 that all your children1:31:40 i he created for destruction to go to1:31:43 hell1:31:46 again again accepting your accepting1:31:48 your definition for granted accepted1:31:50 your definition that you're using in the1:31:51 argument because i'm dealing with your1:31:52 ideas yes i would because we would like1:31:55 to be a people that follows reason and1:31:57 evidence so objectively speaking if that1:31:59 is what's good and if that is how good1:32:02 and evil is defined will be still the1:32:04 source of objective good so i will still1:32:06 want to worship that god why you still1:32:08 have the option because we don't need to1:32:10 have an emotional argument or appeal to1:32:12 emotion the fact is is that you've1:32:15 already admitted that your whole1:32:17 argument is based on emotions rather1:32:20 than a strict logical argument so it's1:32:23 powerful because of emotion but the the1:32:25 point of everything i've been saying i1:32:27 think you guys agree with1:32:29 and the thing is no i don't i don't1:32:30 agree what part have you disagreed with1:32:34 your inference that you're going to that1:32:36 we should say oh no the god the the1:32:38 world in which god existed alone by1:32:40 himself is better no we're rejected i1:32:42 asked the question1:32:43 nobody nobody agreed to that1:32:46 but you both agreed yeah but here's the1:32:47 question you were asking1:32:49 listen listen you got to focus on this1:32:52 point you're coming on here and you're1:32:54 not giving a logical argument you're1:32:56 admitting that you're giving an argument1:32:58 that is purely based on emotions1:33:01 i'm giving an argument to show that1:33:04 allah created something that he doesn't1:33:05 want are we agreed no no no we don't1:33:09 agree no that's what gets done okay okay1:33:11 we're assuming1:33:12 does gala want disbelief1:33:15 see we've already been down this line of1:33:17 questions does gala want this does all1:33:19 of you we've already answered that he1:33:20 said you said no1:33:22 so there's a little crate1:33:25 okay so there's a difference1:33:28 right one of the brothers mentioned in1:33:30 in the chat uh blazing hearts1:33:32 uh so ira the kaunya which is god's uh1:33:35 you know cosmic decree1:33:38 is what he wants the world to be like1:33:41 god's ira1:33:42 or his1:33:44 legislative decree is what he dislikes1:33:48 in terms of legislation moral right1:33:49 immoral wrong you're equivocating1:33:51 between the two when you say god1:33:54 doesn't will for good1:33:56 for for evil but then he wills to create1:33:58 evil there's an equivocation on these1:34:00 two wills right so he dislikes the evil1:34:04 in a legislative1:34:06 sense but he wills for a world1:34:10 that contains evil to exist so there is1:34:12 an equivocation you're making i don't1:34:13 quite understand that because if allah1:34:15 didn't want disbelief all he had to do1:34:17 is not create yes i think we all agreed1:34:19 upon on that uh we don't so what do you1:34:21 mean by want here so we what we say is1:34:23 that he wanted a world with disbelief1:34:25 that doesn't mean that he likes1:34:28 disbelief1:34:29 itself okay that's fine so you're saying1:34:31 he wanted people to disbelieve in him1:34:34 to create a world where some would god1:34:36 god willed to create a world where1:34:39 people would freely disbelieve in him1:34:42 although he doesn't1:34:44 morally approve of that disbelief1:34:46 there's nothing incoherent okay1:34:48 and but do you believe allah knew that1:34:50 if he didn't create then all that would1:34:52 have been solved1:34:53 who there's no problem1:34:57 no no there is a problem disbelieving1:35:05 is disbelief a problem for allah no no1:35:08 that's the whole point1:35:10 of an inference i'm asking i'm asking is1:35:13 sin a problem for allah1:35:15 no1:35:16 is people going to hell for eternity a1:35:18 problem for allah no no1:35:20 okay1:35:21 so allah would you say i don't know a1:35:23 better word to use but is allah okay1:35:25 with sin disbelief and people going to1:35:27 hell1:35:28 you're equivocating now so he's okay1:35:30 with it in the sense that he willed for1:35:32 a world to exist that contains these1:35:35 things but he does not he doesn't he he1:35:38 says or he he decrees that these things1:35:41 are morally wrong right so that's not1:35:44 that's not the same thing as him not1:35:46 willing for them to exist would you just1:35:47 say he decrees that they're morally1:35:49 wrong what did i miss that1:35:52 legislates he legislates that they're1:35:54 morally wrong so he1:35:56 created something1:35:58 and legislated it as morally wrong1:36:01 no no1:36:02 you're gonna have to you're gonna have1:36:03 to sin1:36:04 and he said that these sins are not okay1:36:09 you're saying that there's some kind of1:36:11 inconsistency but then when we ask for1:36:13 what the logical inconsistency is you1:36:15 don't have one other than that1:36:17 i'm trying to steal manual here it1:36:19 doesn't feel good no we're trying to1:36:20 steal man you but you're not giving us1:36:22 anything to work with you're just saying1:36:23 it's an emotional argument it's like1:36:25 it's your belief not mine that's why i'm1:36:27 asking you the question so let's go to1:36:29 the final challenge1:36:30 you're getting to a conclusion you're1:36:32 making an inference from either what1:36:34 you're saying or what we're saying that1:36:36 doesn't actually follow by necessity1:36:38 that's the whole problem with your1:36:39 argument1:36:40 well my argument is basically this and1:36:42 tell me you stop me when you disagree1:36:44 with something1:36:45 allah is perfect allah knew the future1:36:48 um1:36:50 he doesn't like sin he doesn't like1:36:52 disbelief but he created it1:36:55 uh what else1:36:58 i'm sorry1:36:59 we're gonna keep going on we're gonna1:37:00 keep going on so the point is either1:37:03 make the logical argument or admit that1:37:05 you're not making a logical argument1:37:07 you're making1:37:08 you're making an argument from emotion1:37:10 in which case the emotional argument is1:37:12 it's not quite just an argument from1:37:14 from emotion it's also an internal1:37:16 critique that shows that there's a1:37:17 tension there and i think even staff1:37:19 admits this1:37:21 they're either provided either provide1:37:23 the logical argument right now in law1:37:25 and premise premise conclusion form or1:37:27 go back1:37:28 prepare it like ap did he did his1:37:31 homework and he made a video after the1:37:33 the stream go back prepare the argument1:37:35 in a way that we can understand it well1:37:37 here's the terms are defined where it's1:37:38 intelligible and come presented and1:37:40 we'll deal with it but the way1:37:41 we're presenting it now that's not a1:37:43 logical argument what's interesting1:37:45 about this is there's there's hardly1:37:46 anything you guys have disagreed with me1:37:48 on it's maybe you said that i'm using1:37:50 different the whole point is you're1:37:52 getting you're inferring something based1:37:55 on what we agreed on and you're getting1:37:56 to a conclusion that we don't agree with1:37:58 now seth hasn't spoken in a while i'd1:38:01 like for him to come in and maybe1:38:03 comment on on what he is seeing1:38:05 happening here1:38:06 oh no no no thanks for bringing me the1:38:08 conversation again i think1:38:11 it's important that perhaps we tease out1:38:14 or when we can in another time perhaps1:38:16 i'm not sure1:38:17 what the assumptions are on each1:38:20 uh uh1:38:21 what the underlying assumptions are the1:38:23 argument whenever we we begin with1:38:26 um1:38:26 would you prefer god doing x and y1:38:29 already we have to assume1:38:31 what is in topic interlocutor1:38:33 what is their idea about god um even if1:38:36 they might try and use our own1:38:37 definition1:38:39 um1:38:40 because grating underneath are these1:38:43 assumptions about1:38:44 surely god would not want to prefer a1:38:46 world in which he creates free creatures1:38:48 which has the the corollary of there1:38:50 being sin not that he creates the sin1:38:53 with the person but that there is a1:38:54 coralie of sin right1:38:58 he would want a world in which only1:39:00 there was good and not sin1:39:02 well how do you know that i mean i mean1:39:04 we just this is what i'm saying the1:39:05 value criterion to use to judge one1:39:08 world is better or or or worse than1:39:13 and worse in what respect first of all1:39:15 um that depends on the background1:39:17 information we're using to construct the1:39:19 argument so relative to certain1:39:21 background information1:39:23 me i'm sure the answers could be yes or1:39:25 no so we have to get the background1:39:27 information straight if someone says if1:39:29 allah is x y1:39:31 then1:39:32 and then this happens then wouldn't the1:39:34 conclusion be this yeah given x and y1:39:36 but let me also bring in a b and c can1:39:39 you see so the background information is1:39:41 important for how we construct the1:39:42 argument1:39:43 um so i think i'd better it would be1:39:45 better for me to learn1:39:47 learn better the argument perhaps when1:39:50 we have1:39:51 a way we can but you've you've heard1:39:52 what i've said before right so there's1:39:54 nothing new and and usually the outs a1:39:57 lot of theists give is that they limit1:39:59 god's um knowledge of the future they1:40:01 you know there's open theists yeah yeah1:40:04 they say he can only know the noble so1:40:05 that's one out that theaters have1:40:07 another i would say that god is1:40:09 they limit his omnipotence1:40:11 that that1:40:12 that certain attributes of god is better1:40:15 when it's demonstrated and so therefore1:40:16 that's why you need to create another1:40:19 out is that god is not free it's part of1:40:21 his nature to create so he had to create1:40:24 because if he was free he would see1:40:25 what's come and say you know what i1:40:27 don't need this i don't need people1:40:29 that's an assumption i don't need this i1:40:31 mean it's not about needs so this is1:40:32 what do you believe that1:40:34 yeah the language becomes very important1:40:36 it's not that god is perfected if he1:40:38 didn't create a world or he did create a1:40:39 world or some1:40:41 um some particular purpose completes his1:40:44 actions or something like that to assume1:40:47 that about god you know he's all ready1:40:48 to make assumptions about the nature do1:40:51 you believe that that allah needed to1:40:53 create in order to no i'm saying he1:40:54 doesn't he didn't need anything yeah1:40:55 yeah yeah yeah so if allah could have1:40:58 just walked away from creation said i1:41:00 don't need this i don't need people to1:41:02 ask forgiveness of me but but that again1:41:05 it goes back to what you're what you1:41:06 take god to be at the same time as well1:41:08 he he wanted to create i mean so we're1:41:11 going into the realms of divine motives1:41:13 you see so it becomes difficult1:41:15 if you're assuming um that this is a1:41:19 this is a being who is1:41:21 you know1:41:22 maximally great powerful and has all the1:41:25 great making properties that1:41:26 philosophers talk about um so he has1:41:28 those properties assuming that you take1:41:30 that kind of understanding assuming it1:41:32 for the argument if you are1:41:34 then1:41:35 um1:41:36 you know1:41:37 you're going to be restricted in how and1:41:39 what you can say about the divine i'm1:41:41 just saying that i can't make these1:41:43 value judgments because it's in the1:41:46 realm of the divine1:41:47 motives and actions now how could i know1:41:50 you know1:41:51 which world to prefer you know a world1:41:53 where this1:41:54 allah himself and then allah plus the1:41:57 rest of creation1:41:58 right which is better which i would1:42:00 prefer i need some1:42:03 criterion right to to to decide which1:42:06 one most people don't prefer pain1:42:08 suffering and definitely hell i think1:42:10 that's pretty safe to say1:42:12 but1:42:22 who prefers hell1:42:24 i mean eternal conscious torment1:42:26 concrete1:42:29 you know knowing the realizing the1:42:31 seriousness of hell i want to share the1:42:33 message of truth to others to save1:42:35 myself and others from this but nobody1:42:37 prefers to be there is my point yeah but1:42:40 you're you're saying a world in which1:42:41 there is hell as opposed to one that's1:42:43 not and you're trying to say that1:42:45 everyone should say that the one where1:42:47 there is a hell is necessarily worse1:42:49 than one that where there isn't but1:42:51 that's again that's an assumption that1:42:53 we're not buying into so you have to1:42:55 provide an argument for that1:42:57 underlying assumption that's1:42:59 underpinning your entire argument or a1:43:00 value criteria that's the criteria and1:43:03 you don't have a criterion by which you1:43:05 can even judge for preferring one world1:43:08 over another well i can that's why i was1:43:10 asking the questions about the criterion1:43:13 from allah's perspective yes and1:43:15 obviously by the fact that he created1:43:17 that demonstrates your assumption that1:43:20 this world is necessarily worse is1:43:22 actually the fact that he created yeah1:43:26 the fact that he created demonstrations1:43:28 this is that your that your assumption1:43:31 that based on his character maybe1:43:34 let me finish her that he would not have1:43:36 created is fundamentally flawed unless1:43:39 he's like schizophrenic i mean1:43:42 because you said because you said1:43:44 because the fact he created shows that1:43:46 he did want this did prefer this but1:43:50 this is the question at hand the problem1:43:52 of evil is a question that's posited by1:43:55 atheists or even non-theists of a1:43:57 different religion1:43:58 to to as an internal critique that maybe1:44:00 the god you're talking about doesn't1:44:02 exist1:44:04 yeah but we already have arguments that1:44:06 get us to that god i know i understand1:44:08 there's a cumulative case when you talk1:44:10 about other things but on this issue1:44:12 alone with the problem of evil you can't1:44:13 look at it in a vacuum1:44:17 we're now sentient beings looking at1:44:19 this issue and asking ourselves1:44:23 can i give you two statements hell1:44:25 exists hell is real okay1:44:28 uh god does not exist1:44:31 how can you feel the steps for me for1:44:33 those two statements1:44:34 uh you could be really hard without1:44:36 changing the definition of hell1:44:38 well this is this is the point so the1:44:40 whole the whole1:44:41 um you cannot you cannot say well1:44:44 some people say hell's reincarnation1:44:46 into the world this is what i'm just1:44:47 about to come to i'm just about to1:44:49 elaborate on on on on this this1:44:51 hypothetical argument so this is why i'm1:44:53 saying that1:44:54 you cannot infer the non-existence of1:44:57 god1:44:58 um from the existence of hell1:45:01 um just like we argued for about an hour1:45:03 and a half we discussed1:45:05 that you cannot include1:45:07 the non-existence of god from the1:45:08 existence of evil so you've got to fill1:45:11 in the steps so you ever implement the1:45:13 argument they got to fill in the steps1:45:15 and give their definitions one of the1:45:16 definitions of god is1:45:18 if one if if one of the definitions of1:45:20 god is a god that doesn't want anyone to1:45:22 go to hell1:45:24 which i know you guys don't believe but1:45:25 if1:45:26 someone had that definition and you1:45:28 could demonstrate or say in some way i1:45:30 don't know how the hell is real and1:45:31 people go there1:45:32 then you've defeated that god1:45:35 you know uh because it doesn't disprove1:45:38 god exists you've just shown an argument1:45:41 that might be a rebutting defeater1:45:43 yeah that's what i mean1:45:44 it might be but it's not clear how do1:45:46 you have to show a logical contradiction1:45:47 for it to be a rebutting defeater yeah1:45:49 it's the want not want that's the1:45:51 logical contradiction i think when we1:45:54 see the argument if i personally i would1:45:55 like to learn better um well you've1:45:57 heard this before like this is the1:45:58 possible worlds before creation type1:46:00 argument which i'm no the problem with1:46:02 the problem again1:46:03 assumptions about metaphysics or1:46:04 possible worlds and so on yeah but i've1:46:06 taken way too much time i think the1:46:08 problem pine creek is this is that1:46:10 you're not we're trying to deal with1:46:11 your argument1:46:12 now you're trying to say on the one hand1:46:14 that your god is impossible and we're1:46:17 saying in order for you to say our god1:46:19 is impossible you have to prove you have1:46:22 to use that word impossible you have to1:46:24 provide a logical argument to1:46:26 demonstrate a logical impossibility1:46:29 initially you came on and you started1:46:31 saying i'm here just to make muslims1:46:32 feel icky about that position1:46:35 well yeah and then abdul rahman1:46:37 explained the point which is that well1:46:38 that's just an appeal to emotion jake1:46:40 made the point as well uh then said okay1:46:43 what's the actual uh logical1:46:45 contradiction what's the premise premise1:46:47 conclusion that we can look at storage1:46:48 and analyze where there are logical1:46:50 contradictions you didn't really provide1:46:52 one per se1:46:53 except no all you well okay go ahead1:46:55 explain it one more time explain1:46:57 here's a logical this is and what you're1:46:59 saying this is a logical contradiction1:47:01 yeah1:47:02 no well1:47:04 if there is a logical contradiction but1:47:06 it's all steeped deep in definitions1:47:08 it's the want god oh sorry allah wants1:47:11 and allah doesn't want and then abdul1:47:13 mentioned this earlier when he talked1:47:15 about1:47:16 i forget the words used because he spoke1:47:17 a different language but there's1:47:19 different1:47:20 ways of decrees he decrees the cosmic1:47:23 reality though1:47:25 christians get the same answer1:47:27 where people can freely choose but at1:47:30 the same time he legislates for human1:47:31 beings to say that they should avoid1:47:35 sin and hell fight or sin and disbelief1:47:37 yeah so there's no there's no logical1:47:39 contradiction there well so the point is1:47:42 this is a logical contradiction would be1:47:44 is that god1:47:45 wants to stop all disbelief but1:47:48 disbelief exists therefore god is either1:47:51 not omnipotent or he's not all knowing1:47:54 yeah1:47:54 that would be a logical contradiction1:47:57 that's why but what you're trying to do1:47:58 you're trying to say this is what islam1:48:00 fits into but islam doesn't fit into1:48:02 this well i agree if1:48:06 because yeah so islam says this this is1:48:09 what islam says islam says that allah1:48:12 created the world created heaven and1:48:14 hell and created human beings with free1:48:16 will to the ability to choose and then1:48:19 said to human beings that if you freely1:48:21 choose that if you freely choose to have1:48:23 belief in good actions you go to1:48:24 paradise if you freely choose to commit1:48:27 sin and disbelief you go to hellfire1:48:30 yeah now on that premise i that's why i1:48:32 asked you a very specific question on1:48:34 that premise what is the logical1:48:36 contradiction or is it just an appeal to1:48:38 emotion there's no logical contradiction1:48:41 at all okay if if you guys believe that1:48:44 allah wants people to go to hell no but1:48:46 what what did i just say there i said1:48:48 god created human beings1:48:50 free will he created the universe or a1:48:53 creation with heaven and hell yeah right1:48:56 and he god legislated but you're1:48:57 focusing on i understand god's1:48:59 legislated yeah that that therefore1:49:02 whoever commits disbelief yeah will be1:49:05 assigned to hell fire and who have1:49:07 belief and righteous actions will go to1:49:09 paradise you want to focus on the free1:49:10 will of humans and i want to focus on1:49:11 the free will of allah that's the point1:49:14 right so explain1:49:17 the two1:49:18 yeah link the two just sorry bring the1:49:20 two together so you're saying that god1:49:23 could have created a universe in which1:49:25 human beings only choose to go to1:49:28 paradise no no i'm not even saying that1:49:30 i'm saying allah had two choices create1:49:33 or not create1:49:34 so let's assume if he creates it would1:49:37 have to be exactly what you guys are1:49:38 describing that's one option the other1:49:40 option is don't don't create anything1:49:42 okay1:49:43 and so there's two options and then so1:49:46 and so if you're a muslim and you say oh1:49:48 no allah is okay i mean i know the1:49:51 language is a problem allah1:49:53 is okay with it or he desires it or he1:49:55 wanted to but he's not surprised by what1:49:58 happens with his creation and so he1:49:59 created knowing exactly what would1:50:02 happen that some people would end up in1:50:03 hell and you know what he created anyhow1:50:06 yeah that's all i'm saying so there's no1:50:08 contradiction so what's the question1:50:10 that there is1:50:11 so so my goal1:50:13 in circles guys no but our pine creek1:50:15 your goal should be this your goal1:50:17 should be to be epistemically justified1:50:20 and consistent with the way you're1:50:22 trying to build an argument building an1:50:24 argument just appealing to emotion is1:50:26 not1:50:27 sincere honest well you could say1:50:30 sincere and honest in one perspective1:50:32 but he's not epistemically justified to1:50:34 build an argument just to appeal to1:50:36 emotions because we can make any1:50:38 argument based upon emotions it then1:50:41 becomes my emotions versus somebody1:50:42 else's emotions1:50:44 you want to have you want to be able to1:50:47 treat them1:50:48 on reason and arguments isn't it yeah1:50:50 but sharif the other problem is is that1:50:52 you said you were doing an internal1:50:54 critique but then it wound up being an1:50:55 external critique because1:50:57 because of your fundamental1:50:59 presupposition of saying well surely1:51:02 anybody would agree that this world is1:51:04 not as good as this other world no i1:51:06 just talked about one little thing i1:51:08 said anybody here who wants to spend1:51:10 turning he'll raise your hand and abdul1:51:12 even admitted earlier he agreed okay i1:51:14 know what you mean no we didn't we never1:51:16 said no no we never said so you're1:51:18 confusing the difference between an1:51:20 individual actually wanting to spend1:51:22 eternity in hell versus a world in which1:51:25 hell exists the two aren't the same and1:51:27 for you to act as if they are the same1:51:30 is a problem1:51:31 the the bottom line is this there would1:51:33 be no disbelief no sin no pain no1:51:36 suffering no hell people in hell if1:51:38 allah never created and that's something1:51:39 everyone here agrees and and1:51:43 here's your1:51:44 statement what's the conclusion1:51:46 the conclusion is that you have a choice1:51:49 to worship a god or not that's the1:51:51 conclusion yeah you do have a choice and1:51:54 so what and so or come or be open to the1:51:57 idea that maybe the god you believe in1:52:00 doesn't exist maybe there is a god but1:52:02 not the one you believe in1:52:04 because1:52:05 i guarantee you1:52:07 i i guaran this this is one claim i'll1:52:09 make i'll guarantee that there's some1:52:11 muslims listening here1:52:13 who are listening1:52:14 i'm waiting for your argument pine creek1:52:17 how does that argument that you just1:52:19 presented result in god does not exist1:52:22 or your god does not exist no i'm not if1:52:24 your god exists then this is what i was1:52:26 going to say i guarantee you some1:52:27 muslims who might be you know the weak1:52:29 type1:52:30 wavering on the fence are going to hear1:52:32 what we're discussing and say you know1:52:34 what that pine creek kind of makes sense1:52:37 the god1:52:38 is a schmuck1:52:39 but i'm pancreas please don't use that1:52:41 language yeah uh1:52:43 i don't yeah it is yeah pine creek what1:52:45 i don't understand is where's your1:52:48 argument1:52:49 he doesn't have one it doesn't have1:52:50 where's your argument where the argument1:52:53 is allah wants all it doesn't work hold1:52:55 up hold on hold on angry you said you1:52:57 said at the first so again you're sort1:52:59 of changing initially he said your god1:53:01 does not exist because and then you're1:53:03 about to give an explanation then you1:53:05 start saying well some muslims i didn't1:53:06 say that1:53:07 and then you said muslims might not be1:53:08 wavy now you're saying to me god wants1:53:11 that god doesn't want right that's1:53:12 another that's right1:53:14 i've been i said three times i've given1:53:16 you an answer a number of times and you1:53:18 said yeah okay that makes sense it's not1:53:20 an internal critique then you said it's1:53:21 not a logical contradiction you're i1:53:23 gave you your own1:53:25 then you said it's not a logical1:53:26 contradiction so what exactly is the1:53:29 argument do you understand where the1:53:31 frustration is the argument is1:53:33 free will did not need to create decided1:53:36 to create knowing exactly what would1:53:38 happen and it leads some people to hell1:53:40 okay so what's up so sorry hold on what1:53:43 what's that what what's that problem1:53:45 his creation lead to pain evil suffering1:53:48 and some people going to hell what what1:53:50 category is that a logical contradiction1:53:54 it an evidential no i would say that's1:53:56 just i would say that's a logical1:53:57 deduction of where the premises lead1:53:59 that you believe in a god who created1:54:01 knowing what will happen was okay with1:54:03 it whatever that means and that led to1:54:05 people going to hell but what does that1:54:07 mean in terms of your argument against1:54:10 islam and against god in general or god1:54:13 or the god that we all all i'm pointing1:54:15 out is what you believe1:54:17 yeah i'm pointing out where you believe1:54:19 but we as muslims we know what we1:54:21 believe this is not are you sure for us1:54:23 maybe you guys do but not all of them1:54:25 i'm sure you admit that i think i think1:54:26 no i don't see one thing1:54:28 we're gonna have to move on guys we're1:54:30 gonna have to let me just say one thing1:54:32 one thing and then we'll move on because1:54:33 pine creek what he's trying to do here1:54:35 is his thesis statement because he1:54:37 didn't manage to to bring the position1:54:39 to a contradiction so he's saying well1:54:40 maybe some people in the audience will1:54:42 see the fact that god wanted some people1:54:45 or willed for some people to burn in1:54:48 hell therefore you know they might have1:54:50 some kind of an emotional reaction to1:54:52 that and you know leave islam or1:54:54 something fine but you need to admit1:54:56 that it's an emotional reaction1:54:59 and and since we're appealing to1:55:00 emotions here i'd like to rephrase that1:55:02 statement that god willed for creatures1:55:05 who freely choose to be evil1:55:08 to justly get punished in hell if1:55:11 somebody has a negative emotional1:55:12 reaction to that then by all means but1:55:14 what sharif was just saying is that a1:55:17 negative emotional reaction or an1:55:18 argument for motion can be valuable to1:55:21 some people but we prefer evidence and1:55:22 reason so maybe next time when you have1:55:24 an actual logical argument and you have1:55:27 actual reasons to present1:55:30 and you you you choose to do that1:55:32 instead of appealing to emotion we can1:55:34 have a discussion i'm not trying to be1:55:35 rude to you i'm just saying that1:55:36 literally you're not presenting an1:55:37 argument but1:55:39 i'm what i'm hearing1:55:40 and i've been hearing this from sharif1:55:42 as well it's like1:55:43 it i hear an overcompensation like you1:55:46 guys really need to show that what you1:55:48 believe is logical and it's full of1:55:50 evidence because we don't want to look1:55:51 stupid right that's why i'm i'm1:55:53 sensitive1:55:55 taking you seriously man we're taking1:55:57 you seriously you're saying you make a1:55:58 logical argument we want you to present1:56:00 it you want to say you want to make an1:56:01 argument i came on here i want to deal1:56:03 with it i think you're going to have1:56:04 asking almost all questions1:56:07 i made one claim1:56:09 that you made an emotional appeal to the1:56:11 audience1:56:12 thank you for coming pine cree pine1:56:14 creek the point1:56:16 the point pancreatic if you need to go1:56:17 that's fine but i just wanted to make1:56:19 this point as well no he has to go1:56:21 whether he wants to go or not because we1:56:23 have other people not okay rude but we1:56:25 have other people waiting i'm more1:56:27 interested in those other people1:56:30 i i don't think so1:56:31 i don't we'll find out1:56:33 take care guys thanks for having me on1:56:35 thank you take care take care bye1:56:37 okay while he's off because i do really1:56:39 want to make this point and hopefully by1:56:41 greek's listening in the uh in the chat1:56:43 uh in the youtube the point is this is1:56:46 that look he's trying to present an1:56:48 emotional argument to try to so-called1:56:50 shake the foundations of some muslims1:56:52 yeah1:56:53 it's an emotional argument that's it1:56:56 that's all he's doing he's not even an1:56:57 argument he's just he's the same people1:57:00 same thing1:57:01 it's just an emotion now you can't go1:57:03 from saying i'm trying to make an1:57:05 internal critique to then saying well1:57:08 i'm just trying to affect emotional1:57:09 people you know emotional uh weak-minded1:57:12 muslims or whatever it is1:57:14 he needs to think about himself and look1:57:16 at his own epistemic foundations and how1:57:18 he builds his own how he builds his own1:57:21 ideas up first and foremost he should1:57:24 not be building his ideas based upon1:57:26 emotions and rejecting one proposition1:57:29 over another proposition just because it1:57:31 makes him feel icky thus yeah you know1:57:33 it's crazy yeah and he said oh well the1:57:36 muslims here they just want to be1:57:38 logical and rational well yeah of course1:57:41 we don't want to make arguments and have1:57:44 our beliefs based purely on emotion1:57:47 rather than logic and reason of course1:57:49 now doug if that's what you want then1:57:52 fine maybe that's why you're an atheist1:57:54 because your arguments and your position1:57:56 is based on emotion rather than reason1:57:59 and you know the fact that you were kind1:58:00 of happy to admit that live on the show1:58:03 i think1:58:04 that's a plus for us and not for you but1:58:07 i think we need to go to the uh the next1:58:09 guest here we have uh caleb jackson here1:58:13 waiting in the background so1:58:15 welcome caleb1:58:16 hello jake and abdul and everyone else1:58:18 it's nice to see your faces and i'm so1:58:20 used to calling you just1:58:22 from voices so this is nice1:58:24 good to see you caleb good to see you as1:58:26 well1:58:27 yeah i thought this was an interesting1:58:29 conversation um1:58:31 you know doug is certainly an itch i1:58:33 haven't talked to him in person but he1:58:35 sounds like a very interesting person to1:58:37 talk to i'm sure what do you think1:58:39 also okay what did you think to his1:58:41 points because he was on the one hand he1:58:44 was trying to claim he was doing an1:58:45 internal critique and then on the other1:58:47 hand he was just and saying there's a1:58:48 logical problem and then on the other1:58:50 hand he was just saying that i'm trying1:58:52 to appeal to people's emotions1:58:55 yeah so i think that there's kind of a1:58:56 middle ground so on the one hand i don't1:58:58 think his arguments weren't inherently1:59:00 successful but i also1:59:02 i don't necessarily dismiss emotional1:59:03 arguments because i do think when you're1:59:05 using something like let's say the more1:59:07 argument or the argument for moral1:59:08 truths a lot of that is emotional and it1:59:10 just intuitive and that's not1:59:12 necessarily wrong that we have certain1:59:14 moral intuitions that are so strong that1:59:16 it would be very hard to reason out of1:59:18 them and so i think that one could say1:59:20 that the argument for hell is one of1:59:21 those that it just seems to us so1:59:24 obviously wrong perhaps more obvious1:59:26 than certain other elements of1:59:27 philosophy um and that's why do you1:59:30 think we have to but we have to be1:59:31 upfront about it right that this is the1:59:33 argument i'm making i'm making an1:59:34 argument from emotion and i i want to1:59:36 ask you a question because because i1:59:38 know you're you're well read on this1:59:39 topic1:59:40 what do you think the role of like meta1:59:42 ethics and like you know you're1:59:44 underlying a person's underlying theory1:59:46 of ethics plays in in these arguments1:59:49 because because you talked about1:59:50 emotions and sure i agree that if i have1:59:53 an emotional response to something then1:59:55 that emotional response can be taken1:59:57 seriously if i emotionally1:59:59 you know feel icky about something and2:00:02 i'm let's say an2:00:03 emotivist i can have reason to say that2:00:06 this thing is immoral because i think2:00:09 that moral propositions are reducible to2:00:13 emotional uh2:00:14 reactions so uh but then2:00:17 i don't know what you could do apart2:00:19 from that really if you're gonna say2:00:21 anything about how that reflects on2:00:23 reality so how do you think a person's2:00:25 underlying ethical theory2:00:27 would2:00:28 basically influence his either the2:00:30 argument he's making or whether or or2:00:32 his defense of of of the theistic2:00:34 position2:00:35 yeah that's a good question so i think2:00:37 that um2:00:38 when you bring up meta ethics that is a2:00:40 very hard area to get into but i do2:00:42 think that uh i would say most people2:00:44 would recognize that objective human2:00:46 value is real uh how we interpret that2:00:48 may differ but i i think that it is very2:00:50 intuitive to us prop even more so than2:00:53 the ideas of the external world for2:00:55 example that you know certain moral2:00:57 properties exist and we can ask why that2:00:59 is and you mentioned motivism and part2:01:02 of that could be partially emotivism but2:01:04 i don't think you can use emotivism2:01:06 alone to justify morality because at2:01:08 least at least under a naturalistic view2:01:10 because then you could just say well you2:01:12 know our emotions are biochemicals in2:01:13 the brain why should we why are these2:01:15 chemicals any more significant than any2:01:17 other chemicals in the universe when it2:01:19 really it wouldn't be it would just be2:01:21 saying well i want it to be but if2:01:22 you're going to appeal to motivism then2:01:23 people can believe in god because it2:01:25 gives them comfort even if it's not true2:01:27 if you're going to describe that so i2:01:28 just don't think it's very successful2:01:30 under uh naturalism but i would say that2:01:33 motions may be how we recognize certain2:01:35 moral properties even if they're not2:01:36 identical to them it's not so so2:01:39 sorry sorry to cut you off so so yeah so2:01:41 i agree that okay so if it's on2:01:43 emotivism alone you can't really say2:01:44 anything because it's just a subjective2:01:46 you know emotion but then is what you're2:01:49 saying basically this that if you have2:01:50 like a realist view about morality that2:01:53 basically uh2:01:55 you know can be arrived at through2:01:57 either reason or intuition emotion or2:02:00 whatnot then you can make the argument2:02:02 that actually i'm not sure what argument2:02:04 pine creek was trying to make but then2:02:05 you can make the kind of argument then2:02:07 that to say that okay therefore this2:02:10 creating this world or allowing this2:02:12 kind of evil is objectively2:02:14 uh wrong and and and and by to justify2:02:18 that you bring in your your your2:02:20 underlying theory of ethics in order to2:02:22 and possibly2:02:24 maybe maybe even defend it in order to2:02:26 to to drive your case home2:02:29 yeah because essentially you're saying2:02:31 um i2:02:32 feel very very strongly that this kind2:02:34 of word would be wrong and then you're2:02:35 going to say well what you know what are2:02:37 you basing that off of and i think it'd2:02:39 be hard to avoid some kind of theistic2:02:41 conclusion if you really do hold to the2:02:43 hypothesis the hypothesis of2:02:45 indifference than what what is one world2:02:47 over in the other world um but i also2:02:49 don't necessarily like saying when2:02:50 people are like oh problem of evil just2:02:52 proves god exists because if evil exists2:02:53 god exists i will agree that if evil2:02:55 exists god exists but i think what paul2:02:57 draper and others do is they just change2:02:59 it from problem of evil to saying the2:03:00 hypothesis has been difference of saying2:03:03 if we look at the world and predict that2:03:05 the world the universe is indifferent2:03:06 then you'd expect some good things some2:03:08 bad things kind of randomness whereas if2:03:10 there was a god you wouldn't expect2:03:11 certain activities if god really cared2:03:13 about humans and wanted them to2:03:15 have moral goodness for example i don't2:03:17 think that works at the end of the day2:03:19 um but certainly i think it's harder to2:03:21 deal with specific examples than it is2:03:23 to do a general premise i think we can2:03:25 look at the world generally and say um2:03:27 we can combine saying well free will may2:03:29 be a factor soul making and for specific2:03:32 examples i might use more skepticism2:03:34 divine skepticism with those things in2:03:37 mind2:03:38 so it's not just you know begging the2:03:39 question because if i were to say you2:03:41 know there's an invisible leprechaun and2:03:42 you asked for evidence and i was and i2:03:43 gave you all these reasons why maybe he2:03:45 wants to stay hidden from us you know2:03:47 those are logically possible but they2:03:48 seem very ad hoc because we have no2:03:50 reason to think that the leprechaun2:03:51 would do so things but if we have2:03:53 reasons to say well here's an evil2:03:55 situation that i can't explain very well2:03:57 i could say well i don't know why god2:03:59 allows this specific situation but2:04:01 because i know i'm sorry because i have2:04:03 good reasons to think that he gives us2:04:05 free will which might entail certain2:04:06 evils and he gives a soul-making which2:04:07 might tell certain evils even though i2:04:09 can't necessarily prove that those apply2:04:11 in this case i can at least say that i'm2:04:13 warranted and thinking that god allows2:04:15 evil for good things and so i can think2:04:17 that this situation may be one of those2:04:19 even if i don't know exactly how it's2:04:20 going to turn out so that i think is is2:04:22 one you could do but the question i was2:04:24 going to i have like 10 minutes on here2:04:26 by the way so i didn't want to2:04:28 take the show off but the one of the2:04:29 questions i was going to ask well i had2:04:31 i had two um one was are you familiar2:04:34 with uh stephen law's evil god challenge2:04:36 and what are your feelings on that and2:04:38 the second one was uh are there any in2:04:40 islam is there any particular theodicy2:04:42 for animal suffering in particular2:04:43 because i think theodicy usually we2:04:45 focus on humans and that often goes2:04:47 under look we look at evolutionary2:04:49 history and all the violence that that2:04:50 goes with that so2:04:52 those would be the two things2:04:54 yeah so the first quest i i i don't2:04:56 brothers dr saf is gone and he he has2:05:00 a chapter unfortunately he had to go so2:05:02 i just want to let the audience know2:05:04 that he only had uh until the top of the2:05:07 hour which just passed um so he had to2:05:10 go but we thank him for joining us and2:05:11 coming on2:05:12 so go ahead abdu2:05:14 yeah so so so the evil god challenge i i2:05:17 um2:05:18 uh i i don't i don't think it works and2:05:20 i think uh2:05:22 i think one of the arguments2:05:24 uh coons makes for for uh basically uh2:05:27 at least the plausibility of the2:05:29 foundation of reality being2:05:31 uh ultimately good2:05:34 sort of counters that argument in the2:05:36 sense that we have reason to believe2:05:39 that the foundation of reality or the2:05:41 necessary being is ultimately good2:05:44 something that isn't deficient something2:05:45 that doesn't have any deficiencies2:05:47 something that is not contingent2:05:48 basically necessary couldn't possibly be2:05:51 evil2:05:52 and and there's a lot of like uh2:05:54 defenses of this in in psychology like2:05:56 you can provide evidence from psychology2:05:58 and and how evil works and how2:06:01 it is actually2:06:02 a deficiency in nature that leads to uh2:06:06 uh evil and uh the the necessary2:06:09 existence couldn't be deficient and is2:06:12 ultimately supreme so2:06:14 there there couldn't be uh he couldn't2:06:16 be evil basically uh on the second2:06:18 question i don't know uh brother sharif2:06:20 you wanna take that i don't know if you2:06:21 read a brother uh saff's work uh if not2:06:24 maybe yeah2:06:26 yeah yeah go ahead yes so i think2:06:27 there's uh i think south mentioned the2:06:29 point anyway in terms of i don't did you2:06:31 caleb sorry did you hear uh2:06:34 uh because i asked that particular2:06:35 question to suffer oh okay i'm so i was2:06:38 going in and out of the chat2:06:40 so yeah i'm sorry yeah if i repeat2:06:42 something that's already been said then2:06:44 you can just say that yeah yeah watch2:06:45 the video so so some of the some of it2:06:47 is related to uh skeptical theism the2:06:50 idea that well you know we've only got a2:06:52 limited perspective and that maybe on a2:06:55 cosmic scale there is a there's a beauty2:06:58 there's an aesthetic even with animal2:07:00 suffering in that perspective we just2:07:02 have a limited perspective on that the2:07:05 the second argument that he used he said2:07:07 well you're saying it's gratuitous but2:07:09 it doesn't necessarily mean that there2:07:10 is no reason yeah for for an evil to2:07:14 exist and he gave the example of2:07:15 dropping a needle and saying that this2:07:18 nurse picks it up and says oh let me put2:07:20 it inside you you know inject you2:07:22 there's no bacteria because i don't see2:07:24 any bacteria it doesn't necessarily2:07:25 follow therefore there is no bacteria2:07:27 within that2:07:28 the third aspect is that god has2:07:31 complete dominion and therefore he has2:07:32 the right in order to control the and2:07:36 determine how creation works and that2:07:38 gold god is not beholden to a more2:07:41 criteria beyond himself so he has the2:07:44 basis to determine how functions how2:07:47 things should function in terms of uh2:07:49 the world um the third thing is2:07:52 which is probably where i look at this2:07:54 perspective is that2:07:56 rather than going to a discussion about2:07:57 the odyssey in in terms of gratuitous2:07:59 evil about animals i look at it from the2:08:01 point of view of saying look do we have2:08:03 good reasons to believe in god if we2:08:05 have good reasons to believe in god and2:08:07 we're limited creatures and god is2:08:09 unlimited then there are certain things2:08:11 that i cannot fathom because i have only2:08:13 a very uh you know a very narrow2:08:16 perspective of how the universe operates2:08:18 and how all of time would operate2:08:21 and therefore i can't use a2:08:24 you know even a probabilistic argument2:08:27 to overcome my belief2:08:29 of a creator when i have got stronger2:08:31 arguments to affirm the belief in a2:08:34 creator2:08:35 yeah so a couple of things on that um i2:08:38 think that with skeptical theism it can2:08:40 work on certain aspects but i think you2:08:42 have to make sure that you have an2:08:44 inference i know you mentioned that at2:08:45 the end of having a cumulative case and2:08:47 that's certainly important but i think2:08:49 with like weikstra's example of no seems2:08:51 and like needles and bacteria one i2:08:54 guess one critique you could do is that2:08:56 well we we've been able to observe2:08:57 bacteria under microscopes so we know2:08:59 they exist and so we can infer even2:09:01 though i can't see with naked eye i can2:09:02 explain to you why i can't see it2:09:04 because well you know the microscope is2:09:06 just2:09:06 i don't have them with me but if i did i2:09:08 would probably be able to see them um2:09:10 but if i were to say to you well um how2:09:12 do i know that there's not an elephant2:09:13 in your room well you could say because2:09:15 i don't see one well that would be a2:09:16 pretty good argument because we know2:09:17 typically elephants don't require any2:09:19 kind of special things to see them you2:09:21 just look at them and there it's there2:09:23 it's obvious so i guess i think it just2:09:25 depends on in one in the situation2:09:27 bacteria you can explain why you don't2:09:29 know and in some cases and not others2:09:32 but and this was brought up earlier of2:09:33 like you know god just not telling us of2:09:35 well here's the reason and what i would2:09:38 say to that is um as far as why god is2:09:40 what you know why isn't that when a2:09:42 woman is attacked god appears and says2:09:44 well here's why this happened to you and2:09:46 gives you the whole thing uh and i and i2:09:48 talked about this a little bit in my2:09:49 book on the subject but i i called the2:09:51 oedipus defense because in greek2:09:53 mythology you had oedipus who when he2:09:55 was a child his parents were told a2:09:57 prophecy of he's going to kill his dad2:09:59 and marry his mom and so they try to2:10:00 avoid this by putting him in the woods2:10:02 and then long story and what he did it2:10:04 ultimately ended up so if god so it2:10:06 might be the case that if god were to2:10:07 tell us hey actually this will allow2:10:09 this will be bring such and such good um2:10:11 the person knowing that information2:10:13 might create a self-fulfilling prophecy2:10:15 that ends up making something worse in2:10:16 the long run if i tell you oh well um2:10:18 the reason this person's gonna shoot for2:10:20 school and it's gonna lead to this good2:10:21 maybe that'll lead to people not2:10:23 interfering in a certain way and lead to2:10:25 worse things in the long run so god may2:10:27 have good reasons not to tell us2:10:28 specific details2:10:30 um but as far as how that pertains to2:10:32 animal suffering i think it's just more2:10:34 difficult because with human suffering2:10:36 we do have many of those inferences we2:10:38 can see that humans have objective value2:10:39 we can see soul making we can free will2:10:42 but none of those seem obvious with2:10:43 animals it doesn't seem as if animals2:10:45 have as much value as humans it doesn't2:10:46 seem as if animals have free will in the2:10:48 same sense that we do it doesn't seem2:10:50 that animals really can build moral2:10:51 character so when we're looking for2:10:53 possible reasons why god might have it2:10:55 with them it's a bit more difficult to2:10:56 see yeah agreed i i understand yeah yeah2:10:59 no no you're right and i think the the2:11:01 the issue is is about in terms of the2:11:02 need of falling on the floor is that do2:11:05 do we have the total awareness of the2:11:07 reality i think that's the question so2:11:10 when it comes to the issue of saying2:11:11 something's good or something's evil do2:11:13 we have the total awareness of the2:11:14 reality and the answer would be no in2:11:16 both situations and because there's no2:11:19 in both situations then you can't move2:11:20 from that to the inference therefore god2:11:24 is evil and therefore god doesn't exist2:11:26 or and omni benevolent god doesn't exist2:11:30 so i think that's the problem the2:11:31 problem is saying that we don't have the2:11:33 total understanding of the particular2:11:35 reality at hand therefore how can you2:11:37 make this so as an example one2:11:40 particular argument that might be used2:11:42 for animal suffering is that animals2:11:44 don't suffer and feel pain in the same2:11:46 way that human beings do yeah so that's2:11:49 one possible argument or explanation2:11:51 that people could provide2:11:54 yes they may have responses that we2:11:57 would infer from our first person2:12:00 subjective experience that they're2:12:01 suffering but they don't feel it or2:12:04 sense it or have that retrospective2:12:06 sensation of that particular suffering2:12:08 in a way that a human being does and2:12:10 therefore you can't infer it as the same2:12:12 form of suffering that human beings uh2:12:15 would face yeah2:12:16 um that's michael murray's uh theodicy2:12:19 in his2:12:20 nature red tooth and claw and i think2:12:22 that i mean there are scientific issues2:12:24 with that because you can look at2:12:25 cerebral cortexes and especially with2:12:26 higher primates where they do feel they2:12:29 have awareness of pain and stuff but you2:12:30 could always say well it's with the soul2:12:32 of the animal and the soul is different2:12:33 yeah we can't falsify that so2:12:36 you know maybe it only looks like2:12:37 they're really in pain but they're not2:12:38 so2:12:39 not even looks like we had a con we had2:12:41 a stream about consciousness and we2:12:43 explained that there is no there's2:12:45 nothing necessitating2:12:47 brain states to cause particular2:12:50 experiences2:12:51 that's just a correlation that's not2:12:52 causation so it's not the case that2:12:54 science proves causation in this2:12:56 situation that because they can say well2:12:58 these things light up therefore it2:13:00 results in this so there is still2:13:03 something further uh that's you know why2:13:06 well you know we wouldn't we wouldn't2:13:07 we're not materialist on the you know on2:13:10 the view of consciousness exactly if i2:13:11 could say something2:13:12 i could say something to caleb about2:13:14 that no no because because that no seem2:13:16 objection that i brought up earlier uh2:13:19 rose i think row responded to it by2:13:21 saying that um2:13:24 well if in in the case of the bacteria2:13:26 as you mentioned right2:13:28 you would expect it a specific you would2:13:31 expect that to be the case but in the2:13:33 case of an all-loving god you would2:13:35 expect him to reveal to certain2:13:38 creatures like he mentioned the little2:13:39 girl that suffered for five years2:13:41 um you would expect him to reveal to her2:13:44 uh why she's suffering and in the case2:13:46 of the girl like in the case of humans2:13:48 we have2:13:49 a soul-building2:13:51 theodicy for example but in the case of2:13:54 animals it's a bit more challenging but2:13:56 i i think i think the challenge here i i2:13:58 think what what rose says is that2:14:01 on the existence of an all loving god2:14:03 you would expect for the the suffering2:14:06 of animals not to appear gratuitous2:14:09 basically and i'm not so sure that's2:14:12 true i mean i'm i'm not so sure how2:14:14 i would be able to see the purpose2:14:18 of god in allowing animals to2:14:23 suffer2:14:24 so so i mean i i just i just don't know2:14:27 how that would work2:14:28 uh and i i think a lot of a lot of the2:14:30 appeal a lot of the appeal for uh the2:14:32 problem of animal suffering is about is2:14:35 about numbers right the evolutionary2:14:37 problem of evil is is basically about2:14:39 the amount of suffering2:14:41 and and uh i think part of the response2:14:44 to it should be uh apart from this point2:14:47 that you know um i i don't know what it2:14:49 would look like for the suffering of an2:14:51 animal that i i cannot relate to2:14:54 in any way shape or form2:14:56 i don't know what it would look like for2:14:57 it to appear not gratuitous right so its2:15:00 mere appearance of gratuitous isn't2:15:02 sufficient because i i wouldn't know2:15:04 what evidence to expect2:15:06 for go ahead no i'm sorry i and i'm2:15:09 gonna have to leave in just a few2:15:10 minutes so let me just uh give my2:15:11 thoughts on that real fast uh like and2:15:13 of course i'm playing devil's advocate2:15:14 because i'm not an atheist yeah i don't2:15:15 know that but uh i guess what they would2:15:17 say is first of all when we're inferring2:15:19 you know animal pain stuff you could2:15:21 give that argument for you know the2:15:22 other minds i i can't i don't know that2:15:24 you have thoughts or emotions uh the2:15:26 best i can do is say well i have2:15:27 thoughts and you seem to be acting2:15:29 extremely similar to how i do when i2:15:30 have thoughts and so i can infer that2:15:32 you do in fact have thoughts like i do2:15:34 even though i can't so i guess we could2:15:36 they would say we can do this similar2:15:37 things with animals so yes we can't2:15:39 maybe prove it for certainty but it's a2:15:40 it's an inference but uh more2:15:42 importantly with the um2:15:44 oh i forgot oh you said what would it2:15:46 look like if it wasn't gratuitous well i2:15:47 guess like the in the inclination is2:15:50 when we look at passages and you know2:15:52 abrahamic tests about garden of eden2:15:54 where all the animals look like they're2:15:56 vegetarians and maybe if they do have to2:15:58 die they die peacefully in their sleep2:16:00 you know you may not have predation or2:16:01 you might not have animals getting2:16:02 tumors or um i i can recall just2:16:06 watching videos where you know a2:16:07 crocodile tears a zebra apart and rips2:16:09 out its intestines and really grew some2:16:10 ways2:16:11 i think it's not too hard to imagine a2:16:13 world where that doesn't happen and2:16:14 where all animals are either you know we2:16:16 had the line in the lamb in isaiah or2:16:19 how it's supposed to look in the new2:16:20 creation after the resurrection so um i2:16:23 i personally yeah yeah i i see what2:16:25 you're saying but um i mean i mean i2:16:27 agree with you first of all about the2:16:28 inference part right that i mean at2:16:30 least we can make the inference that2:16:31 they are having that that kind of2:16:33 experience uh although there is2:16:34 empirical evidence that not all animals2:16:36 suffer in the same way we do sure i2:16:38 don't know2:16:39 yeah uh but then uh so so so the thing2:16:42 about gratuitous suffering is that um i2:16:45 mean uh2:16:46 you're right so so it could there could2:16:48 have existed a world where animals just2:16:50 magically vanish sure and and and in2:16:53 that case i think uh it would be uh2:16:56 easier to to to infer that you know2:16:58 there is an all-loving god i can grant2:17:00 that i can grant that if we were all2:17:02 created in heaven2:17:03 then it would seem that way sure but uh2:17:06 i i think on a more practical level when2:17:08 i'm looking at this world and the way it2:17:10 operates uh i i don't know what evidence2:17:14 i would accept uh what evidence i would2:17:17 expect given the workings of of the2:17:19 natural world for there to be2:17:22 if if i were2:17:24 you know if there were to be2:17:25 non-gratuitous suffering for animals2:17:28 what what evidence would i expect in in2:17:30 in2:17:31 that is in line with the theodicies that2:17:33 we form on a human level because on a2:17:35 human level it's all about purpose right2:17:37 it's all about purpose and2:17:39 intentionality and and you know uh2:17:42 destiny and stuff like that but we don't2:17:44 know that for animals right so so so uh2:17:47 i i'm not so sure2:17:49 given the way the natural lord works2:17:52 i'd be able to expect anything else and2:17:54 and this again can can backfire that's2:17:57 what i was mentioning to dr saf earlier2:17:59 for making design arguments well the2:18:01 atheists can say that you wouldn't know2:18:02 what to expect uh you know if if there2:18:05 were a natural origin you wouldn't know2:18:08 that you would you would you wouldn't2:18:10 see this kind of world or you wouldn't2:18:11 know what a chaotic world would look2:18:13 like i i get that and i think i think at2:18:15 the end of the day right2:18:18 at least we have to admit that the2:18:20 suffering of animals is seemingly2:18:22 gratuitous i mean we have to concede2:18:25 that part2:18:26 and and2:18:28 and uh2:18:29 maybe maybe we can even concede that it2:18:31 provides some2:18:33 epistemically some reason for people to2:18:36 make the inferences they do make about2:18:38 god2:18:38 uh but i i i think it doesn't make a2:18:42 very strong case considering the2:18:44 cumulative evidence so so yeah i mean2:18:47 the the the defenses i think work2:18:50 and the theodicies as a positive case2:18:52 for why god would permit evil i think2:18:55 they work for the theist2:18:57 probably not going to convince the you2:18:59 know your biggest skeptic out there and2:19:01 it might even give them reason to2:19:03 disbelieve in god but i think all in all2:19:06 uh um2:19:08 you know sorry one last thing all in all2:19:10 if they're looking at it2:19:10 phenomenologically in the sense that you2:19:12 know me experiencing this evil in the2:19:14 world that seems to be gratuitous you2:19:16 know gives me reason to believe in god2:19:18 and let's say the theist says me2:19:20 experiencing this good in the world2:19:22 gives me reason to believe in a good god2:19:24 well i would grant that for both the2:19:26 atheist and the theist on a subjective2:19:28 level and and and and i would say2:19:30 basically what swinburne says that you2:19:31 are justified in believing your seemings2:19:34 what seems to be the case for you2:19:36 until you're provided with a defeater2:19:38 what i do think is the case is that the2:19:41 atheist who2:19:42 you know phenomenologically can can can2:19:45 can infer the uh uh or can can can2:19:48 believe in the non-existence of god2:19:50 because of his experience of suffering2:19:52 does have defeaters for his position so2:19:54 that's when it gets into a cumulative2:19:56 case2:19:57 uh and and and i think that the atheist2:20:00 the theist doesn't so um okay2:20:02 all right guys2:20:03 i gotta go thank you for so much you all2:20:05 for having me on hopefully i'll be able2:20:06 to pop in for other things but this is2:20:08 this is fun so yeah if i can plug in my2:20:10 book right before i go uh2:20:12 caleb jackson searching for a solution2:20:14 to suffering it is from a christian2:20:16 perspective and not an islamic one so2:20:17 i'll put that out there but just a2:20:19 universalist christian perspective right2:20:21 yeah yes thank you if you wanna have a2:20:23 talk on hell we can do another show but2:20:24 yeah yeah yeah so everyone watching read2:20:27 the christian literature read the2:20:28 islamic literature and just find which2:20:30 one you find to be more helpful with2:20:32 either so2:20:33 thank you for that guys thanks all right2:20:34 thanks caleb see you later2:20:37 all right so we've got thinker man next2:20:41 he's been waiting for a while2:20:44 welcome2:20:47 hi guys how are you doing2:20:49 good how are you2:20:51 i'm fine thank you2:20:53 so uh the problem i have uh with the2:20:57 problem of evil is that the only problem2:20:59 that i can think of2:21:00 or the only evil that i can think of2:21:02 that2:21:03 i think that it's unjustifiable and2:21:06 unexplainable is2:21:08 god2:21:09 predestining people to go to hell2:21:13 so i'll lay out the argument and to do2:21:16 that2:21:17 i will show basically that2:21:19 free will cannot exist2:21:21 and2:21:22 therefore2:21:23 it it is unjustifiable to send people to2:21:26 hell so it goes like this that if god2:21:28 knew before the creation of2:21:30 any human2:21:31 what he2:21:32 he is going to do2:21:34 therefore2:21:35 he could not have done otherwise2:21:37 because if free will exist then2:21:39 predicting it predicting choice is2:21:41 impossible it's logically impossible2:21:44 therefore free will does not exist and2:21:46 therefore god created the evil person2:21:49 evil therefore he had no other choice2:21:51 but to do evil and then to punish him it2:21:54 is2:21:55 an unjustifiable evil so that's the uh2:21:58 best example i can think of that2:22:00 of an evil that i just can't explain2:22:02 away2:22:03 yeah so we don't we don't believe2:22:06 uh2:22:07 i don't know how familiar you are with2:22:08 kadur uh but we do not believe that god2:22:12 just predetermined everything uh2:22:14 willy-nilly uh so i don't know i think2:22:17 it's based on a misunderstanding2:22:19 of the doctrine of of khadr so there are2:22:22 four general principles or it's based on2:22:25 four things which is uh basically god's2:22:29 knowledge so that he knows what's going2:22:31 to happen that's one thing it's the2:22:33 writing down of what's going to happen2:22:36 so he writes it down2:22:38 uh it's based on his will meaning that2:22:41 uh he wills it to happen what will2:22:43 happen what doesn't and then he creates2:22:45 everything so but there's nothing really2:22:48 within that that necessitates that god2:22:51 predetermines everything in the sense2:22:53 that you do everything because god2:22:55 predetermined you to do it as if you're2:22:57 a robot so i think it's just based on2:23:00 a slight misconception of uh the islamic2:23:03 doctrine of2:23:05 you know khadr2:23:07 right2:23:07 so jake my point is that there is no2:23:10 logical way to predict2:23:13 what choice the human would make2:23:15 if he was free to make that choice why2:23:18 and2:23:20 yeah because uh2:23:22 if if he was free to make that choice2:23:24 that means there is no cause2:23:26 for him making that choice no2:23:28 explanation for why he made that choice2:23:31 and if there's no cause no explanation2:23:33 like that how would you say that2:23:35 yeah because he has free will he has the2:23:36 ability to choose between multiple2:23:38 people2:23:39 so if i have a reason for choosing2:23:41 something that means i don't have free2:23:42 will2:23:44 no it's that nothing makes you choose it2:23:48 makes you choose it forcibly makes it2:23:50 yeah whether it's an international i2:23:52 could i could have an internal reason2:23:54 which is prior to my will2:23:56 which informs my will but doesn't2:23:59 necessitate it and i still have free2:24:01 will2:24:03 yeah if it doesn't necessitate it then2:24:05 there's always the option that you might2:24:06 not do it and then therefore you can't2:24:08 predict it with a hundred percent2:24:10 accuracy2:24:11 why would you say2:24:12 that listen so if x causes y2:24:17 right a hundred percent of the time2:24:20 then x is no like we're not saying that2:24:23 we're so2:24:24 it's the same thing with god uh with uh2:24:27 creatures with free will you could even2:24:29 argue uh quantum indeterminacy if you2:24:32 take a certain view of quantum mechanics2:24:35 in which you think it's indeterministic2:24:38 you can have a cause or explanation of2:24:41 something that is2:24:43 non-necessitating so you can have an2:24:45 explanation of something that doesn't2:24:48 necessarily entail2:24:50 what it's explaining so those are two2:24:51 different things2:24:54 right so the problem would be that if it2:24:56 doesn't necessa necessitate it that2:24:59 means that there is a probability that2:25:01 it might not happen correct2:25:04 uh from our perspective but god who's2:25:07 all-knowing he knows what is actually2:25:09 going to occur2:25:11 yeah that that's my point exactly if he2:25:14 knows what's going to occur with a2:25:15 hundred percent accuracy then that neces2:25:18 necessitates it2:25:19 if you knew it like no no no but you're2:25:21 you're looking at it as if2:25:23 god2:25:24 it's going to happen because god knows2:25:26 it instead of2:25:28 god knows it because it's going to2:25:30 happen those are two different things2:25:32 listen so the point the point is uh it's2:25:35 actually a very subtle point the point2:25:37 is that there there is no way for god to2:25:40 predict it if2:25:42 if2:25:43 it wasn't necessary so if there was like2:25:46 that's your that's your assumption2:25:47 though you're not you're just stating it2:25:49 you're not really giving an argument for2:25:51 it2:25:52 the argument is that2:25:54 like like i said before if x causes y2:25:57 necessarily then it's easy to predict2:26:00 that if x then y right but if x occurs2:26:04 and why can not occur as well and2:26:08 and there's no real explanation for why2:26:09 why did not occur2:26:11 or just probabilistic or the explanation2:26:14 is the will of the free creature2:26:18 so that just pushes it one step back why2:26:21 is the will of the creature to make that2:26:23 choice and not a different choice2:26:25 it's primitive2:26:27 sorry it's primitive you don't go2:26:29 further than that2:26:32 why we can always ask the question2:26:35 no you don't the the act of the will for2:26:38 example if i have a reason2:26:40 if i have a reason for performing a2:26:42 particular action i can appeal to that2:26:44 reason but that reason2:26:46 although it may be in some sense an2:26:48 explanation of what i choose it doesn't2:26:51 necessitate what i choose2:26:53 so2:26:54 i'm still struggling to understand why2:26:57 you think2:26:58 that this2:27:00 that god's knowledge somehow of what i2:27:02 do2:27:03 necessitates2:27:05 from the beginning meaning prior to2:27:07 creation that this is going to occur2:27:10 i still don't grasp that point2:27:14 um2:27:15 i think i explained it i i don't know2:27:18 what to do other than repeat myself that2:27:20 there would be no way to predict2:27:23 it unless it neces unless the cause2:27:27 necessitates the effect if it doesn't2:27:29 necessitate the effect let's say let's2:27:31 say if x happens a can happen b could2:27:34 happen and c can happen and there's no2:27:36 uh2:27:37 explanation for2:27:39 uh for why a a would happen or b would2:27:41 happen2:27:42 remember when i brought up what the the2:27:44 four main elements of khadir are so2:27:47 you have the knowledge so allah knows2:27:50 what's going to happen then you have the2:27:52 writing of it down meaning2:27:55 now once it's written down whatever is2:27:57 written down will happen right but it2:28:00 doesn't happen necessarily2:28:03 and also god's knowledge of those things2:28:06 isn't necessary in the sense that if we2:28:09 were to freely will to do something else2:28:12 then god's knowledge would reflect that2:28:14 and hence his writing of what is going2:28:16 to happen2:28:18 what what is actually written down would2:28:19 also reflect it so it's just a matter of2:28:22 priority which is primary and which is2:28:24 secondary in the ordering2:28:28 uh yeah but2:28:29 now you're assuming that god observes2:28:32 our choices and then writes it down but2:28:34 the order is actually different he first2:28:37 writes it down no no no no no i said2:28:39 that god has knowledge of it based on2:28:42 his knowledge he then writes it down2:28:45 but what is the knowledge based on the2:28:47 knowledge is based on the actions of the2:28:49 free creatures of what we are going to2:28:52 do2:28:53 he doesn't he doesn't determine what we2:28:56 are going to do in that sense no he2:28:58 knows it because he knows what the free2:29:01 creatures are going to do and then he2:29:03 writes it down2:29:05 jake would you agree that god predicts2:29:08 our choices would you are you okay with2:29:10 that sentence2:29:11 no2:29:12 in the sense of what what do you mean2:29:14 predicts2:29:16 like it has not happened2:29:18 yet2:29:18 and he2:29:20 predicts that it is going to happen2:29:21 before the event actually happens no he2:29:24 knows what's going to happen2:29:26 so he doesn't diction it's not a2:29:27 prediction it's not a prediction he2:29:29 knows what's going to happen2:29:31 he's not like oh i'm pretty sure sharif2:29:34 is going to stay on the stream for 102:29:35 more minutes uh no he knows when the2:29:38 stream is going to end2:29:40 for example2:29:42 how does he know it2:29:44 is2:29:45 how does he know it because he's2:29:46 all-knowing2:29:49 right that's not an explanation2:29:52 how is that not an explanation what do2:29:54 you are what type of mechanism are you2:29:56 looking for i don't understand2:29:58 yes i'm sorry2:30:00 yes is this your so your argument is2:30:02 basically god knows what's gonna happen2:30:04 in the future2:30:05 uh2:30:06 uh based upon some sort of prediction2:30:08 the prediction is hundred percent so2:30:09 therefore god's knowledge is causative2:30:12 yeah yeah i think you get it you you2:30:14 start it off well2:30:16 we all get it jake jake gets it the2:30:18 issue is this is though is that is that2:30:20 god's knowledge is not pred he's not2:30:23 predictive2:30:24 he's not god's knowledge is complete2:30:27 meaning that he know already knows2:30:29 what's going to happen in the future2:30:31 yes it's like for example2:30:34 yeah it's not causative and so like for2:30:36 example if i watched uh2:30:39 you know i replay the football match2:30:41 and i know the score at the end of it my2:30:43 knowledge2:30:44 is not causative of the score even2:30:47 though the football match would not2:30:50 have a result other than what my2:30:52 knowledge is2:30:56 right uh so i i think that's where we're2:30:59 having a disagreement because i think2:31:01 that the only possible way to know uh2:31:04 the the choice is if it was causative2:31:08 if it was not positive then i could not2:31:10 think of a way2:31:11 for god to know it can you provide an2:31:13 argument for that uh yeah2:31:15 that's the whole point of what i said to2:31:16 you from the beginning2:31:18 that's an assumption that you have but2:31:20 you haven't given an argument for why2:31:22 that is necessarily true2:31:24 yeah so you're saying that it is2:31:26 impossible for god to have foreknowledge2:31:28 of something unless uh for for knowledge2:31:32 of something that is arbitrary right2:31:34 that is an arbitrary free choice can you2:31:37 provide a logical argument that2:31:39 demonstrates that impossibility2:31:42 yeah so uh i think i'll try like this if2:31:45 if it does not have a cause2:31:47 then or an explanation for why that2:31:50 thing necessarily happens then you2:31:52 cannot predict it2:31:54 yeah but that's an assertion where's the2:31:56 argument why why2:31:58 first of all again god's knowledge isn't2:32:00 predictive in the sense that god has2:32:02 knowledge of the future right now you're2:32:04 trying to say he couldn't possibly have2:32:07 knowledge of a free choice because a2:32:09 free choice is arbitrary right so right2:32:13 now i want you to provide an argument2:32:16 for that if you could otherwise it's2:32:18 just it's just an assertion that we2:32:20 disagree with god could know something2:32:22 it could have foreknowledge of something2:32:24 that is arbitrary2:32:26 the main thing is that uh god knows2:32:28 before and the event happens later2:32:31 so that that would necessitate2:32:35 so good guarantee2:32:37 yeah i was saying that because it2:32:39 happens before and the event happens2:32:40 later there has to be a method or a way2:32:43 for god to know it before it happens2:32:46 and i don't know2:32:49 sorry think about i don't mean to2:32:50 interrupt you2:32:53 it seems like what you're doing is this2:32:55 is you're saying that you like you've2:32:56 got a scientist2:32:58 and a scientist has seen that if i drop2:33:01 a ball the force of gravity pulls it to2:33:03 the earth and it falls down2:33:05 and so he understands the mechanism2:33:08 because he understands the mechanism2:33:10 that he gets not maybe not that ball but2:33:12 maybe he gets a bottle and he drops it2:33:15 and because he understands the mechanism2:33:17 he understands what's going to happen2:33:19 god's knowledge is not like that doesn't2:33:21 have to know the conditions in order to2:33:24 be able to make predictions god can2:33:26 simply know what your free choices are2:33:32 without explain without an explanation2:33:34 of how he knows it2:33:38 he doesn't god doesn't need an2:33:40 explanation of knowing the condition the2:33:42 preconditions to your choices in order2:33:45 to know what your choice is going to be2:33:47 god can just simply know your free2:33:48 choice2:33:50 but that would be like saying it that2:33:52 that it's it's all it's akin to saying2:33:54 like he magically knows it2:33:56 no it's not magically nosey we're saying2:33:58 god is omniscient means that he knows2:34:00 all true propositions2:34:03 yeah one of those true propositions is2:34:05 what you're going to choose2:34:08 so if the if there's no2:34:10 mechanism by which god knows if there's2:34:12 no explanation for how god knows then i2:34:15 think it's very similar to saying that2:34:17 god knows it magically2:34:19 no god no no no no you see you see the2:34:21 thing is2:34:22 first of all it depends on what you mean2:34:24 by mechanism so2:34:26 there is a way in which god knows right2:34:30 it's not that uh it's it's not that2:34:32 there is no2:34:34 you know way in which god knows that we2:34:36 don't understand so there is a reality2:34:38 to god's omniscience that we don't2:34:40 understand2:34:41 and in order for you to say that it is2:34:44 impossible for2:34:46 an omniscient being to know the future2:34:49 action of a free agent2:34:51 all we're saying is you're going to have2:34:53 to present an argument for that your2:34:55 assertion here is i guess what your2:34:57 argument relies on is the the the2:35:00 assertion that it is impossible to2:35:02 foreknow something2:35:04 unless it is you know it it it happens2:35:07 within a2:35:09 deterministic causal series right and2:35:12 and i just i don't2:35:14 i mean okay i i maybe i see some2:35:17 intuition there2:35:18 from a human perspective but i just2:35:20 don't see a logical argument i don't see2:35:22 how that's necessitated2:35:26 so it would all depend on whether you2:35:28 agree with the fact that uh you2:35:30 there has to be a mechanism or a process2:35:32 through which god knows i think you said2:35:34 that there there is2:35:37 there is a reality there is a reality to2:35:40 it2:35:41 think about what do you mean by2:35:42 mechanism2:35:44 oh basically um a way or a method by2:35:47 which god knows that's what i mean okay2:35:50 so let me maybe make more specific2:35:53 are you saying mechanism is that god2:35:55 knows something that has not come to be2:35:58 because he knows the causal chain and2:36:01 what it will lead to is that what you're2:36:02 saying2:36:04 yes2:36:05 right so we're saying that when we talk2:36:07 about god we're not talking about god2:36:09 knowing you know a causal chain2:36:12 that's not how we know because it2:36:14 because even in in even in your example2:36:16 you're you're the example that you're2:36:18 giving you're basically saying he knows2:36:19 all causal chains all realities all2:36:23 possible effects yeah so he has this2:36:26 aspect of knowledge2:36:27 uh the scope of which we can't2:36:30 comprehend but you're2:36:31 granting that he has that scope of2:36:33 knowledge now we're saying we believe2:36:35 that he has a scope of knowledge that he2:36:37 knows the future choices of human beings2:36:40 without even having to know the causal2:36:42 change that led to the person's uh2:36:44 choice2:36:45 the scope2:36:46 you're trying to say that second thing2:36:48 that i said is impossible but yet you're2:36:52 saying that the first thing that you're2:36:53 granting is possible and you have to2:36:56 show why the second thing that i'm2:36:58 saying is impossible2:37:01 so so my my opinion is that uh within2:37:04 the islamic paradigm there is no free2:37:06 will and that's how god2:37:09 knows yeah2:37:11 but now you're just asserting it though2:37:12 bro i mean come on2:37:15 that was just an assertion that's true2:37:17 the the argument was which i made before2:37:19 that well that was just like my opinion2:37:22 uh but sheriff2:37:23 i was telling to sharif the argument was2:37:25 the one which i made before that there2:37:27 has to be a causal chain for god to know2:37:30 beforehand if he was observing then2:37:31 there was no problem2:37:33 and then if you say that no there's no2:37:35 he he just knows and then uh2:37:38 why why can't he quote unquote2:37:40 intuitively know with2:37:42 just an intuitive grasp of what will2:37:45 occur there's nothing incoherent about2:37:47 that whatsoever2:37:49 yeah so thinker man god all possible2:37:51 worlds are grounded in god as which2:37:53 means that god has knowledge of all2:37:56 possible worlds there are possible2:37:58 worlds with free agents so god has2:38:00 knowledge of those possible worlds2:38:02 because2:38:03 you know he's the only one as the2:38:05 necessary being who can actualize them2:38:07 so if he has knowledge of these possible2:38:09 worlds and some possible worlds has free2:38:11 agents then it follows that he knows the2:38:14 acts of the free agents because he knows2:38:16 all every possible world2:38:18 so um2:38:19 there's nothing incoherent about that2:38:20 what you're asking for is a mechanism2:38:22 which i don't see why i mean this is2:38:24 you need you need to provide a logical2:38:26 argument for why because what you're2:38:28 saying is that it couldn't be the case2:38:30 that god know has foreknowledge of a2:38:33 free choice but if you're making that as2:38:36 a logical argument you have to you have2:38:38 to provide the argument2:38:40 and think2:38:41 it sounds like you're making a very2:38:43 anthropomorphic somebody said in the in2:38:44 the chat as well which i agree you're2:38:46 making a very anthropomorphic view of2:38:48 how to know things2:38:50 you're saying this is how i would know2:38:52 things therefore this is how god knows2:38:53 things2:38:57 so the best argument that i can make and2:38:59 i don't think i can do any better than2:39:00 this is that2:39:02 i i i can show logically that there2:39:05 cannot be a mechanism2:39:07 that's all i can show that there cannot2:39:08 be a mechanism to know uh2:39:11 the free choice2:39:12 uh beforehand well okay2:39:15 let me give you one mechanism2:39:18 god's knowledge of past present and2:39:20 futures2:39:21 is at one moment2:39:22 he knows what's past present and future2:39:26 yes so you you mean that it's like2:39:29 turning the pages of a book he sees2:39:31 what's going to happen in the future so2:39:33 basically he's just observing that2:39:36 theory that's a b theory of time he sees2:39:38 all b theory of time so he sees past2:39:40 present and future2:39:42 you know b theory of time don't you2:39:43 think amen2:39:45 yeah i have an idea but uh it doesn't2:39:48 work because you have to say that god2:39:50 created uh creation and there was an2:39:53 instant in which there was no creation2:39:56 then you would have to believe that2:39:58 in the instant way in which there was no2:39:59 creation at that moment god did not know2:40:02 uh what the choice is2:40:04 he did know he knew what was going to2:40:06 happen2:40:07 you're2:40:08 just saying that he couldn't possibly2:40:10 know what's going to happen unless he2:40:13 necessarily determined everything that2:40:15 to happen and i don't see how that2:40:18 follows i mean it's just it's just an2:40:19 assertion2:40:22 like i said so i i can change the2:40:23 argument to make it such that there can2:40:25 be no mechanism by which god can know2:40:28 what is going to be the mechanism why2:40:30 can't he just intuitively know2:40:32 everything that's going to happen what's2:40:34 what's incoherent in that statement2:40:39 you may you may not be able to fathom it2:40:42 as a2:40:43 finite creature with limited knowledge i2:40:46 mean we could grant that that you may2:40:47 not be able to fathom well oh how does2:40:50 god know this i mean what is he thinking2:40:52 yeah i can understand that but in terms2:40:55 of saying that he couldn't possibly know2:40:57 future events intuitively i don't see2:41:00 why not2:41:04 um2:41:05 so uh the intuitive part2:41:07 i think i'll give a think over it but uh2:41:11 what do you guys think about the2:41:12 mechanistic part do you think do you2:41:14 guys agree that there can be no2:41:15 mechanism by which god knows2:41:17 well i don't know what you mean by2:41:19 mechanism anyway in that2:41:21 conversation2:41:23 a mechanism would be just any any way2:41:25 any possible2:41:26 way through which he he can know so2:41:29 here's the thing we say that god knows2:41:31 it because he's omniscient now you're2:41:34 asking for a further explanation of why2:41:37 god is omniscient we could give2:41:39 arguments that get us to a god that is2:41:41 omniscient but then asking further about2:41:45 why god is omniscient or how god is2:41:47 omniscient that's that's an entirely2:41:50 different story and2:41:51 we can speculate as to exactly how god2:41:55 knows a particular proposition or2:41:57 whatever but that's just speculation the2:41:59 fact of the matter is if we arrive at a2:42:02 creator that is omniscient unless we can2:42:05 point out the incoherence2:42:07 in the very2:42:09 nature of something being omniscient2:42:11 then we have no reason to doubt the2:42:13 arguments that get us there to begin2:42:15 with and so i mean that's just where we2:42:17 are at this point we're kind of spinning2:42:19 circles we have a few more guests so2:42:22 unfortunately um i'll let you make like2:42:25 a final statement but then we're gonna2:42:26 have to move on2:42:28 yeah i think the final statement would2:42:30 be that uh i i think i accept your point2:42:34 and um2:42:36 i'm going to think about it that's it2:42:38 okay well you're you are a thinker so go2:42:41 ahead and think about it but uh yeah2:42:43 thanks uh i know you waited a long time2:42:45 so uh thanks for coming on thank you2:42:48 thank you thank you man take care all2:42:49 right take care2:42:52 all right so2:42:54 we've got a few more people waiting here2:42:56 we're going to go to mr matthew2:42:59 he's been waiting a little bit too so2:43:01 we've got like four people so you're2:43:02 gonna have to2:43:03 i know everybody's been waiting a long2:43:05 time but we're gonna have to hit on some2:43:07 of these uh pretty quickly unfortunately2:43:10 we're not gonna be able to spend like a2:43:12 half hour with everybody so uh2:43:14 welcome matthew2:43:16 hi guys this is my second time on as you2:43:18 guys know i'm a huge fan of the show and2:43:19 i always comment thanks so much for2:43:20 having me again no problem thanks thanks2:43:23 matthew i will try to be brief um i'm a2:43:25 trial lawyer by trade so i know how to2:43:27 get to the points quick and get to the2:43:28 conclusions and go straight through it2:43:30 um it's a shame because you guys brought2:43:31 up cotter in the last one and i i did2:43:33 want to talk about that it's not what i2:43:35 originally wanted to talk about but2:43:36 maybe if we have a little more time we2:43:38 can get to that after i present my2:43:39 argument that i pre-prepared2:43:40 um because i really just want to pick2:43:42 your brains about cotter because i've2:43:44 read the quran and like passages like 22:43:46 6 who 212 really seem to suggest that2:43:48 there is predestination and no free will2:43:51 it actually says that god is being2:43:53 active in creating the future so but2:43:56 we'll get to that mate2:43:57 um so here's my uh2:43:59 back to the topic problem of evil thing2:44:01 and i've got chronic verses for each one2:44:04 of these but you might will probably2:44:05 agree with me anyway2:44:06 so it's it's a thought experiment it's2:44:08 an actual experiment and it's a logical2:44:10 argument2:44:11 so2:44:12 um2:44:13 allah is all-powerful and all-knowing2:44:16 quran 1670 says that2:44:19 uh2:44:20 allah wants to be worshipped2:44:22 quran 2014 says that2:44:26 allah knows the future2:44:28 quran 87 2-3 says that so based on those2:44:33 premises let's try something2:44:35 allah i am an atheist2:44:37 please appear before me now and make2:44:39 yourself known so that i can believe in2:44:41 you2:44:43 where is he2:44:44 what was that second2:44:46 quote2:44:47 yes again this was the second one2:44:51 20-14 he wants to be worshipped 2014. i2:44:54 should have also said that2:44:57 is active in human affairs so the verse2:45:00 in sort of2:45:01 it says indeed i am allah there is no2:45:04 deity except me so worship me and2:45:06 establish prayer for my remembrance2:45:09 this is a verse related to musa moses2:45:11 musa al-islam so moses you know the2:45:14 burning bush went to it2:45:17 god revealed these verse uh these words2:45:19 to him2:45:20 uh and explained to him that he was a2:45:22 prophet and then explained that this2:45:24 particular verse so it goes so basically2:45:26 and when he came to it he was called2:45:29 like to the burning bush oh moses indeed2:45:32 i'm your lord so remove your sandals2:45:35 indeed you are in a sacred valley of2:45:36 tour2:45:37 and i have chosen you so listen to what2:45:40 is revealed to you and then this is the2:45:42 verse 14. indeed i'm allah there is no2:45:45 deity except me so worship me and2:45:48 establish prayer for my remembrance in2:45:50 and then the next verse indeed the hour2:45:52 is coming i almost conceal it so that2:45:55 every soul may be recompensed according2:45:57 to what uh to that which uh to that for2:46:01 which it strives yeah2:46:04 you interpret that differently than i do2:46:06 that he wants to be worshipped or do you2:46:07 just i mean we don't even need to know2:46:09 saying you believe that all it wants to2:46:10 be worshipped i'm saying that verse that2:46:12 verse specifically was a uh was an2:46:15 instruction to moses2:46:17 yeah i'm just saying that verse was2:46:19 about moses2:46:20 if you want to say this does not matter2:46:23 uh because i think your argument is2:46:27 your argument was trying to say that2:46:29 god creates everything god wants us to2:46:32 worship him therefore2:46:34 uh i should be given evidence for god or2:46:37 something like that is that your arm2:46:39 well let's just back up so he's2:46:40 omnipotent right so it would be of no2:46:42 inconvenience to him to say hi to me2:46:44 right now and he's omniscient so he2:46:46 knows we're having this conversation so2:46:48 why doesn't he appear in front of me and2:46:49 say hi if he doesn't do it then i'm2:46:52 potentially going to burn in hellfire2:46:54 forever and it would be of zero2:46:55 inconvenience of him just to say hi all2:46:57 right so that's that's an evil god2:46:59 because he will not lift a finger to2:47:01 help me2:47:02 no you2:47:04 see2:47:04 what you're doing is you're presupposing2:47:06 a number of things aren't you you're2:47:08 presupposing that the reason god wants2:47:11 you to worship him2:47:14 such that he has not given you free will2:47:17 and such that he's created the universe2:47:19 in which you don't have the free will to2:47:21 choose not to worship so he's given you2:47:22 that so god wanted you to have that free2:47:25 will god wanted you to have the ability2:47:28 to choose between guidance and2:47:29 misguidance2:47:31 yeah now if you're all i2:47:33 so i don't agree with free will but even2:47:35 if i have free will it2:47:37 it's not he's not presenting me the2:47:38 evidence so if i'm a juror sitting in a2:47:40 courtroom2:47:41 i have free will to decide guilt or2:47:42 innocence but i want to see the evidence2:47:45 that's not that's not forcing me to2:47:46 believe in him that's just showing me2:47:48 the evidence so so you want evidence2:47:50 that god exists2:47:52 it would be of no inconvenience of him2:47:54 to appear before me right now if he's2:47:55 omnipotent no inconvenience2:47:57 yeah so one evidence would be the fact2:48:00 that the universe is considered2:48:01 cognition so he knows exactly the type2:48:03 of evidence that would convince me2:48:05 well you know2:48:07 you could be the case that god actually2:48:08 if he does reveal himself to you you2:48:10 would still disbelieve and he knows that2:48:12 you would do that because2:48:14 other reasons2:48:19 this is my point if he is omniscient2:48:21 he may know that even if he was to2:48:24 reveal himself because i don't know and2:48:25 i don't think you know matthew that2:48:27 actually if he was to reveal himself in2:48:29 a way2:48:30 yeah uh that is you know according to2:48:33 his majesty and nature that it would2:48:35 still convince you2:48:39 right now2:48:41 a lot to appear before me and if a giant2:48:43 magical creature appeared before me you2:48:45 don't think i would believe in him2:48:48 you know if a giant magical creature2:48:50 appeared before me in my room i wouldn't2:48:52 believe that's god2:48:54 i believe it's a contingent thing2:48:57 because it would be contained it would2:48:58 be limited engine thing either but2:49:00 that's a whole number because it would2:49:01 be limited it would be finite2:49:04 yeah2:49:05 but i specifically specifically asked2:49:07 for allah i specifically asked for allah2:49:10 so it's strong evidence that that it's a2:49:13 cause-and-effect relationship and he his2:49:15 lack of appearing is evidence of his2:49:17 non-existence because he intervenes in2:49:19 human affairs he wants to be worshipped2:49:22 he could appear because he's omnipotent2:49:23 he knows we're having this conversation2:49:25 so he's omniscient so what though those2:49:28 are the premises the conclusion is he2:49:29 should appear before me and say hi he2:49:31 does not that is evidence of his2:49:33 non-existence so there's your yeah2:49:35 no no there's your argument2:49:36 yeah that's that's not really enough so2:49:38 is it2:49:39 is it that2:49:40 if he doesn't do that it'll be unjust2:49:42 for him to punish you is that2:49:43 what it is or is that he's omnipotent so2:49:46 it's it is well let's think about this2:49:48 he's of it's of no no i i i heard i2:49:50 heard the argument right so because it's2:49:52 no inconvenience he will not lift a2:49:54 finger to help me2:49:56 not burn in hell for all eternity that2:49:57 makes him easier listen matthew matthew2:49:59 you you uh in order to burn in hell for2:50:02 an eternity you have to be a2:50:05 true disbeliever in the sense that you2:50:08 uh see the truth and you reject it so2:50:11 it's not that it's not2:50:13 one second one second one second so if2:50:15 you2:50:16 sincerely are sincerely seeking the2:50:18 truth but it is not presented to you or2:50:21 an adulterated version of it is2:50:22 presented to you and you reject it2:50:25 because of that then you're not really2:50:27 rejecting the truth because you haven't2:50:28 seen it so just at least in theory that2:50:31 answers your concern right there in the2:50:32 sense that if you don't see the evidence2:50:34 well keep looking and be sincere if you2:50:37 are sincere then you should you you have2:50:38 nothing to worry about2:50:40 but2:50:41 again i you propose a god that2:50:42 intervenes in human affairs correct2:50:47 we also we also propose a god that2:50:50 doesn't punish people except when2:50:52 a messenger is sent meaning the evidence2:50:55 is given2:50:56 so if you also2:50:57 wants to be well why would you only send2:50:59 one messenger 1400 years ago that's been2:51:00 a long time can he check in again2:51:03 but what's your option2:51:06 because matthew you you seem to be just2:51:08 making an argument that all this just2:51:11 seems inconvenient to you i'm i'm not2:51:13 what is the r is the argument2:51:16 yeah yeah let me try to steal man your2:51:19 argument is your argument that god could2:51:21 present conclusive evidence to you but2:51:24 he doesn't and therefore it is unjust2:51:26 for him to punish you in heaven2:51:29 yeah yeah exactly i know so what i'm2:51:31 saying in response to that is that the2:51:34 muslim position because you were quoting2:51:35 the quran so again you're doing an2:51:37 internal critique i assume the muslim2:51:39 position is that you are not accountable2:51:42 by2:51:43 to that which you do not know you need2:51:46 to receive evidence as in okay matthew2:51:49 do you agree that if somebody did2:51:51 receive conclusive evidence and they2:51:53 rejected it out of arrogance or whatever2:51:55 other reason they suppress the truth2:51:57 then that person can in principle be2:51:59 accountable2:52:01 well accountable sure2:52:02 yeah sure so that's that's what the2:52:04 punishment would be but accountable yeah2:52:06 all right fine so that's the picture2:52:08 we're proposing we're not saying that2:52:10 every endless person in the world who2:52:12 hasn't actually seen the evidence hasn't2:52:14 been presented with it is going to burn2:52:16 in hell for an eternity or see he2:52:18 doesn't answer the question2:52:20 of why he doesn't appear in front of me2:52:22 right now2:52:25 yeah since matt quoted uh scripture i2:52:28 want to quote a scripture so in chapter2:52:30 6 verse 11 this is what the quran says2:52:33 and you can reject it but this is our2:52:35 position2:52:36 allah says2:52:38 if we had sent down to them angels and2:52:40 the dead had spoken to them and even if2:52:42 we had gathered everything before them2:52:44 face to face still they would not2:52:47 believe2:52:48 so i mean2:52:50 well i've got another version this is2:52:52 this is2:52:53 a very important person but this is2:52:54 point though2:52:56 let me just let me just make one i just2:52:58 read it2:52:59 what what my point of it saying is is2:53:02 that2:53:03 this may maybe not for you maybe2:53:06 for somebody else we don't know if this2:53:08 verse of the quran is directly speaking2:53:10 to you in this case but the author of2:53:12 the quran is saying that there are2:53:14 certain people no matter what god did or2:53:17 matter what people did for that person2:53:20 they wouldn't believe they would just2:53:21 arrogantly stick their head in the sand2:53:24 and me from my experience with certain2:53:26 people i find that to be convincing2:53:29 because that's my experience with2:53:30 certain atheists so2:53:32 the implication though is that we have2:53:34 free will2:53:35 uh so that they can understand this but2:53:38 but so what what do you what is your2:53:39 take on quran 2 6 through 212.2:53:42 hold on hold on hold on sorry matthew2:53:44 before we jump onto free will discussion2:53:46 here um you made it came across as2:53:49 though you made two arguments yeah the2:53:51 first argument which is what abdul2:53:53 mentioned which is saying that2:53:55 god created you god wants you to worship2:53:58 god doesn't reveal himself to you and2:54:00 god punishes you and therefore it's2:54:03 unjust2:54:04 so now abdul said in response to that he2:54:07 said yeah but god's not going to punish2:54:08 you unless uh explicit evidence is given2:54:12 to you so it's not unjust because you're2:54:14 not going to get no no yeah but you're2:54:15 missing the next point he wants to be2:54:17 worshipped but he's not giving me the2:54:18 evidence and then the next question is2:54:20 why oh hold on hold on hold on it's not2:54:22 no no there's two that's why i said2:54:24 there's two arguments okay2:54:26 they're interrelated2:54:28 no but you have to separate them2:54:29 otherwise2:54:31 so i'm saying the first argument say2:54:33 that it's unjust doesn't fit the islamic2:54:36 paradigm you agree with that you're not2:54:38 going to get punished i don't agree with2:54:39 that because i believe2:54:41 a person is not going to get punished if2:54:43 the evidence is not shown to him2:54:48 so if that's true then that's fine yes2:54:51 right so that's all we believe the2:54:54 second one the second one the second2:54:55 argument that you're using which is to2:54:58 say that god should show himself to us2:55:02 if god wants us to believe2:55:04 yeah so god wants us to believe and god2:55:08 wants us to use our reason and look at2:55:10 the signs of creation to come to that2:55:12 conclusion2:55:14 he showed he sent one emissary or if you2:55:17 believe in all of them because you're2:55:18 muslims several2:55:19 thousands of years ago to one part of2:55:21 the world that's the best we can do2:55:23 we've been dividends himself we believe2:55:27 124 000. it's been fourteen hundred2:55:30 years right but that's not the point the2:55:33 point is this this is what listen to2:55:34 what i said is that god wants us to2:55:36 believe in him through looking at the2:55:38 signs of creation yeah which is the2:55:40 universe what we sense and come to the2:55:43 conclusion that god exists well so let's2:55:45 get into that so first of all i believe2:55:46 in this teleological argument that's the2:55:48 number one reason i'm an atheist if i2:55:49 could pick one one argument why i'm2:55:51 strong atheist it's a dysteriological2:55:52 argument i see no evidence of creation i2:55:54 see evidence of non-creation i see2:55:55 evidence of chaos and nature working of2:55:57 course by putting that aside we can we2:55:59 can talk yeah putting that to the side2:56:01 we're not we're not we're not presenting2:56:02 an argument for why god exists2:56:05 what i'm saying is that you're2:56:06 presenting an argument of saying god2:56:09 wants this but he's not doing this and2:56:12 i'm saying god wants this and he wants2:56:15 you to do this2:56:16 and if you're not going to do this2:56:18 therefore you know that's that's on you2:56:21 but the first 200 years ago all of these2:56:23 mental gymnastics and arguments are2:56:39 of the winged horse or anything like2:56:40 that by the way2:56:41 um a real example2:56:43 uh one bedouin uh he didn't believe in2:56:46 god and he spoke to some of the2:56:47 companions around the prophet peace be2:56:49 upon him2:56:50 and they wouldn't be able to convince2:56:51 him and so when the prophet peace be2:56:53 upon him spoke to him he said three2:56:55 words and then he accepted belief in one2:56:56 god and he gave him basically a form of2:56:59 contingency argument he said if you were2:57:01 to see foots prince in the sand what2:57:04 would you what would this indicate and2:57:06 he said well this would indicate a2:57:07 trouble that's gone by and then he said2:57:09 well look at the universe look at the2:57:11 heavens look at the stars does that not2:57:13 indicate that these things exist and2:57:15 therefore they are contingent finite2:57:17 beings that for2:57:19 behaviors and laws and therefore2:57:20 requires a creator yeah and so he2:57:22 accepted that argument similarly in the2:57:24 quran2:57:26 chapter 6 it gives the example of2:57:28 abraham ibrahim alaihissalam in which2:57:30 abraham he looked at the star that was2:57:32 worshipped and he saw its rise and he2:57:34 saw it set and he said well you know2:57:36 that can't be god and then he looked at2:57:38 the moon and he saw it rising it's2:57:39 always certain he said well that can't2:57:41 be god and i'm paraphrasing by the way2:57:43 and then he saw the sun and said well2:57:44 this is greater than the other two he2:57:46 saw it rise and he sort of set and then2:57:47 as soon as he saw it say he2:57:49 he relinquished belief in any of these2:57:51 celestial bodies because he wanted to2:57:52 believe in the one that created and2:57:55 ordained the celestial bodies either2:57:57 creator2:57:59 something that's not bound by laws yeah2:58:01 or patterns of behavior or being2:58:03 contingent or dependent2:58:04 so these are the arguments that were2:58:06 used within the quran many many verses2:58:09 in fact dozens of verses that talk to us2:58:11 and tells us to use our mind to look at2:58:14 creation or look at reality and from2:58:17 looking at reality come to the2:58:18 conclusion that there is a creator2:58:21 are you suggesting that no muslims2:58:23 converted because of the proposed2:58:24 miracles of muhammad2:58:27 no i'm saying about belief in one god2:58:29 i'm saying belief in one god numerous2:58:31 verses within the quran and indicate to2:58:33 us to look at the signs of the universe2:58:35 what we see within the universe to come2:58:37 to the conclusion for example2:58:42 indeed in the creation of the heavens2:58:43 and the earth and in the alternations of2:58:45 the night and day2:58:48 these are signs for people of death for2:58:51 people of thinking yeah so what was2:58:53 what's the quran telling us he's saying2:58:56 indeed in the creation of the heavens2:58:57 and the earth meaning what we see around2:58:59 us in the changes that we see yeah2:59:01 between night and day and the changes in2:59:04 other celestial objects that these if2:59:06 you think about them deeply are signs2:59:09 for the existence of the creator this is2:59:11 what the quran orders us to do to think2:59:14 to contemplate2:59:16 quran and hadith lists miracles done by2:59:18 the prophet muhammad uh let me just let2:59:20 me just say one thing uh sharif matt i2:59:23 do want to give you a chance to to make2:59:25 a final point because we've got we've2:59:27 got three or four other people waiting2:59:29 and we've been going for three hours2:59:31 so2:59:32 we're gonna have to let you go if you2:59:33 wanna just make a final comment2:59:36 yeah so i guess i'll use on my last2:59:38 minute to just i guess if i if there's2:59:39 enough time to ask about what your views2:59:41 on are quran 2 6 2 2 12.2:59:44 um2:59:46 i mean i'm just very curious it's not2:59:48 even a i mean i'll read2:59:50 uh two let's say 2 6 and it just starts2:59:53 here and it repeats similar things each2:59:55 time2:59:56 indeed those who disbelieve it is all2:59:58 the same for them whether you warn them2:59:59 or do not warn them they will not3:00:01 believe3:00:02 allah has set a seal upon their hearts3:00:05 and upon their hearing and over their3:00:06 vision is a veil and for them is a great3:00:09 punishment allah has set a seal upon3:00:11 their hearts3:00:12 tell me that does not suggest3:00:14 predestination3:00:16 no3:00:17 3:00:18 okay why3:00:20 because we don't take the quran in3:00:22 isolation what you have to do is you3:00:24 have to read the rest of the quran which3:00:26 it explains3:00:27 how that veiling actually takes place3:00:30 it's not from the beginning of time that3:00:31 allah just randomly selects people and3:00:33 says oh this guy is going to be veiled3:00:36 and the other one's going not going to3:00:37 be veiled no it's it's almost a3:00:39 self-failing that by arrogantly and3:00:42 persistently denying the signs of the3:00:44 creator eventually yes they're veiled3:00:47 and there's nothing you can do for them3:00:48 that's what it says yeah but that's what3:00:51 that's what's up3:00:52 that's how it's understood when you3:00:53 actually read the rest of the quran in3:00:55 the context i i hate to you know make3:00:57 this such a strong point but isn't that3:00:59 what all thieves say about all their3:01:00 holy books you're misinterpreting it i'm3:01:02 taking it as in it's plain meaning3:01:04 so now3:01:06 upon their hearts not they have set a3:01:08 seal upon their own heart so mafia what3:01:10 you have to do when when you look at3:01:12 explanation quran because quran has its3:01:14 own uh method well not only its own3:01:16 methodology but it explains its3:01:17 methodology and we also understand this3:01:19 from the time of the prophet peace be3:01:20 upon him3:01:21 is when you take a particular subject3:01:23 matter like for example free will or you3:01:25 take subject matter about heaven or hell3:01:27 or something like this yeah3:01:28 you have to take all the verses of quran3:01:31 you have to take all those verses you3:01:32 have to understand those verses in its3:01:35 context together so sometimes a3:01:37 particular verse in one area talks about3:01:38 one particular aspect but then he's3:01:40 elaborated in another verse in another3:01:42 area3:01:43 in greater detail so we can understand3:01:45 that so we understand that these3:01:46 particular verses are not talking about3:01:49 how all human beings have been3:01:51 determined whether they're disbelievers3:01:53 or not rather it's simply saying that3:01:55 there are certain people who because of3:01:57 the arrogance and because of their3:01:59 willful desire not to believe they have3:02:02 a3:02:03 they have a seal set upon their hearts3:02:05 so the causative aspect of this is not3:02:08 that god's causing it for them not to be3:02:11 guided but rather they themselves did3:02:13 not want to be guided3:02:18 can you read verse 10 you just needed to3:02:20 go a few verses later3:02:22 oh yes there is a disease in their3:02:23 hearts and allah has intensified this3:02:25 disease there you go so the point is3:02:28 okay yeah the point is that that is a3:02:31 consequence of the disease that is in3:02:33 their hearts as a result of their own3:02:36 free choice not to worship god this is3:02:38 the theme of god this is a tear3:02:41 yeah no but what did you just read3:02:44 that god has intensified their precisely3:02:47 one second precisely so he intensified3:02:49 it why what's the first part of the3:02:51 verse3:02:52 because they already had a3:02:52 predisposition3:02:54 no no no no no no3:03:07 okay one second earlier you said you3:03:09 want to read the quran for what it is3:03:11 right you don't want to assume anything3:03:12 you want to add to it right now right3:03:14 now right now you're bringing the word3:03:15 disposition in there to add that to the3:03:17 victims3:03:19 as if to imply that that that god caused3:03:22 that disposition in the first place so3:03:24 either way whether god increased or3:03:26 intensified the disease in their heart3:03:28 or not he is responsible for the first3:03:30 part of the disease let's not add things3:03:32 to the verse because you yourself said3:03:34 you just want to deal with that matter3:03:36 whether or not the text says3:03:37 the text says that there is a disease in3:03:41 their heart the second part is the3:03:43 punishment so they are accountable for3:03:45 their free choice of not worshiping god3:03:48 and the disease that they have in of in3:03:50 their heart is of their own action as a3:03:52 consequence of their own action and of3:03:54 their own rejection of god that's the3:03:56 disease that's in their own heart the3:03:58 consequence of that is that god3:04:00 intensifies it that's the punishment3:04:01 that's not to say that these people3:04:04 would have believed if god didn't3:04:06 intensify the the disease that is to say3:04:08 that they of their own actions are3:04:11 disbelievers they freely chose to reject3:04:14 god therefore the consequence of that is3:04:16 this punishment that you're reading3:04:20 which we just read two seven it says3:04:23 upon their hearts yes yes3:04:26 they have a disease he increases the3:04:27 disease3:04:30 we're gonna have to move on i'm sorry3:04:32 matt i wish we could talk about we'll3:04:34 have another one3:04:35 for having me on thank you all right3:04:36 take care3:04:39 um3:04:40 all right so we've got four people3:04:42 waiting we're gonna go to somebody3:04:44 called hi3:04:45 hi hi3:04:49 you are live3:04:51 you have to unmute your mic or3:04:53 can you hear me3:04:54 yes i can3:04:56 hi how are you3:04:59 hi hi how are you3:05:01 i'm good thanks3:05:08 yeah3:05:09 yeah did you have a comment or a3:05:10 question on on the problem of evil just3:05:13 quickly comment on the previous guest am3:05:15 i right that allah views the person3:05:17 because the person initially because the3:05:19 person3:05:20 uh initially disbelieved3:05:22 so the feeling is consequence of him3:05:25 yeah initially rejecting yeah okay3:05:27 so okay now moving on to the problem of3:05:30 evil i'm going gonna go back to the3:05:32 original say hi hi really quickly as3:05:34 well i just saw the point because i need3:05:36 to be re-emphasized when you read any3:05:38 text like for example when you're3:05:40 reading quran or any other text3:05:42 you have to use the tools and the uh3:05:44 the understanding of the audience how3:05:46 they understood the text what you can't3:05:48 do is you can't superimpose our views3:05:51 and then read one verse in isolation and3:05:53 think that's how it's done we know in in3:05:55 islam we have something called3:05:58 yeah i'm sure3:06:06 and one of the principles is that when3:06:08 you take a verse of quran the first3:06:10 thing that you do is you look at all the3:06:12 subject area that that particular or all3:06:14 the verses that that particular uh3:06:18 verses of the quran discuss that3:06:19 particular subject area and then you3:06:21 understand the subject area in its3:06:24 totality what you can't do is take one3:06:26 verse in isolation to the rest of the3:06:29 verses and then try to make an3:06:31 explanation of tough serve because then3:06:33 you'll just completely misunderstand the3:06:35 intent and the understanding of the3:06:37 audience how they understood it as well3:06:39 by the way just one quick question are3:06:41 you an atheist3:06:42 no no i'm a muslim okay all right go3:06:45 ahead3:06:46 i'm a reviewer bundle it like in the3:06:48 little sense i had the past size and3:06:50 then3:06:51 oh alhamdulillah okay go ahead3:06:54 so and also you guys of course helped me3:06:57 you know3:06:58 alhamdulillah four months ago3:07:01 you know3:07:02 because i think my pesticides my3:07:04 plasticizing was based on a lot of3:07:06 misconceptions and emotions3:07:15 did you feel icky hi3:07:18 yeah yeah it was leakiness i was like3:07:20 how can god do this but then i realized3:07:22 yeah it's not it's3:07:24 fallacious3:07:26 okay so yeah um yeah also i i recently3:07:29 heard a great analogy for the tough city3:07:31 like for example what is it the first3:07:33 amendment it says um3:07:36 like anybody can carry arms but this3:07:38 doesn't mean anywhere like i can doesn't3:07:40 mean i can pull up with the rocket3:07:41 launcher even if it seems that everybody3:07:43 can carry on3:07:45 we gotta have the lawyers3:07:47 you know3:07:48 explain it now my question was um about3:07:51 the problem of evil so3:07:54 you gave the knowledge of doctor3:07:57 having to3:07:58 you know in fact playing3:07:59 but my question was3:08:02 can god3:08:03 not3:08:04 can god use other means3:08:06 to achieve3:08:08 you know the desired goal or is it3:08:10 necessary for him to use evil to achieve3:08:13 the sad goal3:08:16 yeah it's a good question i think i'll3:08:18 let the other guys answer as well but i3:08:19 was going to say3:08:20 there's different ways of looking at3:08:22 this maybe it's the case that3:08:24 the difficulty helps you grow as a human3:08:26 being yeah it helps you grow as a muslim3:08:29 so you know you're not going to develop3:08:31 concept3:08:32 of patience and perseverance suburb if3:08:34 you don't have difficulty that you have3:08:36 to overcome that means you have to go3:08:37 through difficulty in order to develop3:08:40 this positive trait called suburb in the3:08:42 same way if you want to develop3:08:44 courage then you have to go through fear3:08:46 because you have to overcome fear and3:08:48 maybe these are the values that allah3:08:51 wants with human beings and once with3:08:53 muslims that they're able to exhibit3:08:55 these3:08:57 and these3:08:58 you know great3:09:00 properties that human beings should have3:09:02 these great moral characteristics but3:09:04 the only way to do that is to go and3:09:06 face the difficulties uh within life i3:09:09 think the the problem i ten then tend to3:09:12 sense when it comes to the issue of3:09:14 this whole topic area of difficulties3:09:16 and problems is we need to really put3:09:19 this into maybe context3:09:22 whether you believe in god or not you're3:09:24 going to face difficulties animals are3:09:26 going to suffer yeah there's going to be3:09:29 wars there's going to be tsunamis3:09:31 there's going to be famine there's going3:09:32 to be disease people are going to die3:09:35 so it doesn't solve any of these3:09:37 problems rejecting god what it does do3:09:40 is it adds to your problems because now3:09:43 you have no concept of absolute justice3:09:45 you have no concept of yet having a3:09:48 being or creator a los angeles that's3:09:50 going to provide you with ultimate3:09:52 happiness or is going to reward you for3:09:54 the difficulties that you face or remove3:09:57 the evils and the sins that you may have3:09:58 committed because of the difficulties3:10:00 that you faced in your life none of3:10:02 these things3:10:03 if your person is in just to you or3:10:04 unjust to you there's no recourse that3:10:07 you have yeah or an atheist would have3:10:10 in order to say well if i don't get3:10:12 justice in this life in the hereafter3:10:14 i'm going to get justice what you do3:10:16 what atheists do is that they try to3:10:19 give this icky arguments for3:10:21 uh you know evil or whatever is problem3:10:23 of evil but they don't solve the problem3:10:26 they actually make it worse3:10:28 yeah so i think so just going back to3:10:31 you know your particular question yes3:10:33 god could create a good without going3:10:36 through this but it could be the case3:10:38 that god wants you to go through this in3:10:39 order to become a better person in order3:10:42 to exhibit more characteristics yeah and3:10:45 as i understood3:10:47 it you know for us to get those values3:10:50 which he wants you uh you know it states3:10:53 us going to pain and suffering3:10:56 yeah and and and just that's one3:10:59 possible argument and like i said the3:11:00 other argument or the other point angle3:11:02 to look at this is that atheism3:11:06 literally dissolves nothing for a human3:11:08 for the human condition it makes our3:11:10 position even worse can you imagine an3:11:14 atheist who loses a child and knows that3:11:17 he'll never see that child again or an3:11:19 an atheist who goes through you know3:11:22 life-changing illness you know and3:11:25 struggles for the rest of his life and3:11:26 thinks this is it this is all i'm gonna3:11:28 have i mean yeah without even like a3:11:31 person going through this i remember3:11:33 when i was you know an3:11:35 even if i hadn't go too bad stuff just3:11:37 the mere possibility of me going to3:11:40 those stuff is enough to completely you3:11:41 know be a bigger problem than3:11:44 than yeah3:11:46 and possibility yeah and probably the3:11:49 point here is this is that you know in3:11:51 the west which is very secular there's3:11:54 massive endemic problems with mental3:11:55 health3:11:56 you know and now part of it is because3:11:58 people diagnosing mental health more and3:12:00 it's more acceptable but part of it is3:12:03 because of the lifestyles that we live3:12:04 one and secondly is because there are3:12:07 none of these mechanisms that3:12:09 contextualize problems like for example3:12:11 the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam3:12:13 said stranger the affairs of the3:12:15 believer when something afflicts when3:12:18 something good happens to him he's3:12:20 thankful to allah when something3:12:21 afflicts him and he remains patience3:12:23 then allah will reward him yeah so no3:12:26 matter what he does all his affairs are3:12:28 good so he has that very unique3:12:30 perspective that yes we face3:12:32 difficulties yes i'm gonna i don't like3:12:34 facing difficulties but i know there's3:12:37 something greater there's something3:12:39 permanent yeah and that permanency is3:12:42 what allows me to overcome gives me that3:12:45 moral fortitude and psychological3:12:48 characteristics that overcome the3:12:50 difficulties that i face if you take3:12:52 away that then what do you have you have3:12:54 nihilism yeah you have3:12:56 the moral indifference of the universe3:12:59 you have the fact that i just happen to3:13:01 be born in this particular environment3:13:04 facing these particular difficulties and3:13:07 is it really worth living my life in3:13:09 this particular way and some people say3:13:10 no or some people they need3:13:12 antidepressants or and anti-anxiety3:13:15 medications things like this yeah3:13:19 yeah and also when it comes to nihilism3:13:20 i see a lot of people they they3:13:24 but then3:13:25 they actually contact themselves by you3:13:28 know3:13:28 by3:13:30 acting inconsistently and saying okay3:13:31 except now listen but you know3:13:35 my meaning is to3:13:37 accept it or externalism is what3:13:40 gives value or3:13:42 life is worth living just for the sake3:13:43 which is completely contradictory with3:13:46 titleism you cannot3:13:49 you know it's just3:13:50 you can always start to escape them at3:13:52 that point which won't help because we3:13:53 have the fit threat to you know3:13:56 because we have the fit which doesn't3:13:57 allow us to completely escape3:14:00 yeah easier3:14:01 definitely i i think yeah just as a3:14:04 final point hi uh to yourself because we3:14:06 have to move on uh the the innate3:14:09 disposition of human beings is that we3:14:10 desire meaning nihilism doesn't give3:14:12 that and so nihilists themselves have to3:14:15 live the life with this illusion that3:14:17 there is a meaning to that life3:14:20 yeah i i want to just say something3:14:21 before before you leave um3:14:25 as opposed to high that and to answer3:14:28 your question right about whether evil3:14:30 was necessary you see you see it3:14:34 it couldn't be the case that anything3:14:36 god created3:14:39 doesn't have a purpose right so there's3:14:41 no such thing from the islamic3:14:43 perspective as gratuitous evil even if3:14:45 there is some if it's something that you3:14:47 think doesn't have a point well you're3:14:48 not a mission there are going to be3:14:50 things that you don't know the purpose3:14:51 for and and listen to this verse3:14:56 6 593:15:10 and with him are the keys of the unseen3:15:12 none knows them but he and he knows what3:15:15 is in the land and the sea not even a3:15:18 leaf falls but he knows it there is not3:15:21 a grain in the darkness of the earth nor3:15:24 anything wet or dry in it but in the3:15:27 mubin3:15:28 in a luminous book3:15:30 now3:15:31 a leaf falling might seem like something3:15:34 that is3:15:36 just completely random and purposeless a3:15:38 randomly falling in the middle of a3:15:40 forest3:15:41 right might seem completely random might3:15:44 seem completely pointless but he's3:15:46 telling you that even that3:15:48 and even you know a tiny piece of grain3:15:52 in the middle of the darkest3:15:55 depths of of the earth3:15:57 is in the book of allah and has a3:15:59 purpose so there is no such thing3:16:02 as anything that is purposeless let3:16:04 alone3:16:05 the suffering3:16:07 of a a a conscious being right3:16:10 allah knows of of if allah knows of a3:16:13 leaf that is falling in the middle of3:16:15 nowhere in the middle of the amazon then3:16:18 he certainly knows of3:16:20 any specific animal that is suffering3:16:22 and he mentioned this all over the quran3:16:25 that it is he who provides for3:16:28 you know3:16:28 every living creature including animals3:16:31 so yeah there is no such thing as3:16:33 gratuitous evil and every single evil3:16:36 that was created3:16:37 or every single uh you know amount of3:16:40 suffering that was created i don't know3:16:41 if you want to necessarily call that3:16:42 evil has a purpose and is not gratuitous3:16:46 so so you need to just know that and3:16:47 just get it out of the way i know that3:16:48 my question was just was it necessary3:16:51 for god to you know3:16:52 to achieve it's not about whether it's3:16:54 necessary it's a it has a purpose so if3:16:56 something has a purpose if x achieves y3:17:00 and in order to achieve y you need to do3:17:02 x3:17:03 then yes so god had a purpose for3:17:05 creating x x is whatever suffering you3:17:08 want to describe so yes so given that3:17:10 this suffering has a purpose yes it was3:17:14 needed in order to a achieve whatever3:17:17 goal god has3:17:18 yeah okay3:17:20 well anyway thank you uh for joining us3:17:23 uh until next time so i like him3:17:28 okay so we're gonna go we've got two3:17:31 more3:17:32 guests i'm gonna go to ashraf3:17:37 islam3:17:38 yeah3:17:41 um thank you for having me uh i really3:17:43 appreciate you guys work3:17:45 i was listening to a good majority of3:17:47 the live stream and i was trying to3:17:49 understand the i'm muslim i'm trying to3:17:51 understand the just the strongest3:17:54 argument that uh the uh the other side3:17:57 was able to represent3:17:59 i i don't really3:18:01 know uh what argument they have in terms3:18:04 of like how strong the problem of evil3:18:06 can be and then i also um i wanted to3:18:09 ask about3:18:11 sort of like3:18:12 the suffering3:18:14 that innocents would experience in in3:18:16 you know dunya3:18:19 that is something that isn't let's say3:18:21 somebody like a baby gets sick or3:18:23 something like that3:18:24 um just evil that exists or uh just uh3:18:28 tragedy uh how how is that uh3:18:33 it doesn't i'm not saying that it3:18:34 eliminates god or anything but i'm3:18:36 saying3:18:38 how is that kind of uh3:18:41 redeemed or3:18:43 how do we make sense of3:18:45 suffering i guess you would say just3:18:47 like from a perspective a muslim3:18:49 perspective so those two questions i3:18:51 wanted to ask3:18:56 abdu did you want to answer that do you3:18:58 want me to answer um3:19:00 sure so um3:19:02 yeah so i think we touched upon this3:19:04 you're you're asking about innocence3:19:05 suffering right3:19:07 um and and children3:19:09 are a good example but i mean um uh3:19:13 let's let's just say you're talking3:19:14 about natural evil right so there's3:19:15 there's moral evil let's say somebody3:19:17 murdering3:19:18 a3:19:19 you know an innocent person you could3:19:20 say that's because of their free will3:19:22 but natural uh evil3:19:25 maybe you can't say that3:19:26 but but um3:19:28 first of all i think you can because3:19:30 we we have scriptural evidence and3:19:32 rational evidence these arguments are3:19:34 made by philosophers that even natural3:19:36 evil can be a result of human free will3:19:39 in human acts allah says3:19:45 that you know3:19:47 um3:19:48 destruction has appeared3:19:50 in the sea and on the land because3:19:52 of people's acts or people's actions so3:19:55 there can be an argument for uh you know3:19:58 how uh uh even what seems to be natural3:20:01 evil is caused by humans and and and3:20:03 this this this is uh3:20:05 we even have like empirical evidence for3:20:07 this that you know certain human3:20:08 activity can lead to certain uh natural3:20:11 uh disasters uh as for as for um3:20:16 children suffering or animal suffering3:20:18 right so so i mean animal suffering is3:20:20 more challenging because for for the3:20:22 children you could say that they get an3:20:24 eternity3:20:26 in heaven right so that eternity in3:20:28 heaven we know through through a hadith3:20:31 right that that um3:20:34 that people in heaven will be asked if3:20:37 they've ever experienced suffering in3:20:38 their life3:20:39 and they will swear by the name of god3:20:41 that no they have never experienced3:20:43 suffering in their life nor they do they3:20:45 know what it is3:20:47 uh and that is not to belittle the3:20:49 suffering of of of uh you know3:20:52 children or animals but it is to say3:20:54 that3:20:55 uh that at least for the children at3:20:57 least for the children it's it's less3:20:59 challenging because there is that you3:21:01 know eternal heaven but then it's it's3:21:04 not like the suffering itself if you3:21:06 look at it like it3:21:08 has to be looked at as3:21:10 some kind of an intrinsic evil because3:21:13 as i just mentioned to the previous3:21:15 caller3:21:16 everything that happens3:21:18 is there for a purpose and god3:21:21 is the provider right so he will take3:21:25 care of those who are suffering he3:21:27 he he does care for them and nobody is3:21:30 going to just suffer gratuitously3:21:32 without purpose you can know the purpose3:21:34 sometimes sometimes you can't but we3:21:37 know for a fact3:21:38 that nobody suffers without purpose3:21:41 people some people suffer deservedly3:21:44 some people3:21:45 suffer for other purposes3:21:47 and god you know looks after all he is3:21:50 the provider uh so so so i think from3:21:53 from the islamic perspective it's just3:21:55 uh uh i mean there's no3:21:57 there's no it's not it's not a problem3:21:59 whatsoever but i mean from the atheist3:22:00 perspective when making the evidential3:22:02 argument they can say that you know um3:22:06 god could have made uh made it you know3:22:09 the case that there is less suffering3:22:10 that there's at least maybe one less3:22:12 child suffering or one less animal or3:22:15 that an animal suffers for you know a3:22:17 less amount of time before it dies right3:22:19 and and3:22:21 this is basically a discussion we've3:22:22 been having the whole stream right so3:22:24 there are responses to these arguments3:22:27 right first of all3:22:29 about whether it is justified to infer3:22:32 uh from the proposition that3:22:35 that that the suffering is apparently3:22:37 gratuitous that it is actually3:22:39 gratuitous that it is likely that there3:22:42 is no purpose for the suffering whether3:22:43 that inference is justified and we think3:22:46 that in many cases it is not3:22:49 because3:22:50 uh uh3:22:51 basically you you you don't have access3:22:55 to what you know things would look like3:22:58 if the suffering3:22:59 uh weren't to be gratuitous right and3:23:02 there is a uh of course you could3:23:04 conceive of of worlds and caleb3:23:06 mentioned this when he was on the call3:23:08 where animals just you know vanish out3:23:10 of existence and whatnot but i think3:23:11 like you know speaking practically3:23:13 within the natural world that we exist3:23:15 in3:23:16 it it just seems to be the case that3:23:18 there if there's an all-powerful3:23:20 god in control of everything then3:23:23 there's a lot of things that we're not3:23:24 going to know and like the number of3:23:27 children and animals often seems a lot3:23:28 from your perspective3:23:30 but i mean i mean it's not a lot from3:23:33 god's perspective because he takes care3:23:34 of each and every one individually and i3:23:36 remember3:23:38 an interesting quote from cs lewis3:23:40 i'll paraphrase that says that we3:23:42 shouldn't speak of collective suffering3:23:45 at all as if it's a thing because no one3:23:47 suffers it and and literally that's true3:23:49 i mean so nobody suffers all the3:23:51 suffering that's in the world right3:23:53 so so um3:23:56 then on the other side apart from the3:23:57 defenses you can provide in critiquing3:23:59 the argument you can provide theodicies3:24:01 for why suffering exists that you can3:24:03 provide3:24:04 reasons for why it is better for evil to3:24:07 exist than for you know us to be just in3:24:10 this3:24:11 eternal state of of of bliss you know3:24:14 without having gone through any notion3:24:16 of suffering whatsoever so um yeah so3:24:19 there are many responses from many3:24:20 different angles3:24:22 and uh and and i advise you to re-watch3:24:24 the stream because it was it was it was3:24:26 addressed in much more detail than what3:24:28 i just provided3:24:30 okay now i understand what you're saying3:24:32 it makes sense3:24:33 there's also this hadith that i heard of3:24:36 that says that3:24:38 there's going to be someone3:24:40 uh nyomi3:24:42 who3:24:42 who have basically lived a blissful life3:24:45 in the dunya and then allah is going to3:24:47 put him in hell for like a second or3:24:49 something you know what i'm talking3:24:50 about and when he's gonna after that i3:24:53 was gonna take him out and he's gonna3:24:54 ask him uh have you ever3:24:56 experienced any kind of bliss any and i3:24:59 think it's it's the same hadith it's3:25:00 just the completion of yes i just3:25:02 mentioned yes3:25:03 yeah i mean i mean but but then you see3:25:05 yeah but that's the person in hell and3:25:06 and what what you want to assume i guess3:25:10 is that the person who's in hell is3:25:12 is is justly in hell like you know he's3:25:14 been he deserves to be in hell all right3:25:16 so so so yes so so the idea uh depends3:25:20 on what argument you're making really3:25:21 because you can if you're making an3:25:23 argument if the problem you're concerned3:25:25 with is the problem of hell and that's a3:25:26 different story3:25:27 uh but but yeah so the idea is is is3:25:31 that i mean in that hadith specifically3:25:32 you realize that what we experience in3:25:34 this life is is is is3:25:36 literally you know uh is practically3:25:38 non-existent in comparison to the3:25:40 eternal afterlife i mean you could you3:25:41 could even3:25:42 you can make a mathematical3:25:44 demonstration of that basically and i've3:25:45 seen i've seen michael jones speak about3:25:47 this in one of his discussions as well3:25:49 uh where he mentioned uh3:25:51 dreams right how when you have a dream3:25:54 right and then you wake up from the3:25:55 dream3:25:56 right and then it's just suddenly gone3:25:58 you know it seems like it was like a3:25:59 fraction of a second or practically3:26:01 non-existent and we have reference to3:26:03 this in the quran that people when they3:26:05 are3:26:05 resurrected on the day of judgement they3:26:07 will be asked how long they've they've3:26:09 they've they were3:26:11 uh you know on earth or in this dunya3:26:13 and they will some of them will respond3:26:15 like you know a couple of hours or a day3:26:18 so so it basically feels like a dream3:26:20 and the prophet salallahu said ah a nes3:26:23 leader3:26:24 with that people are sleeping3:26:27 and if they if they die they're awakened3:26:28 so there are there are analogies to that3:26:31 within the text so so uh so it seems3:26:34 like it is a case that hadith we just3:26:37 mentioned about about you know the3:26:38 either the suffering or the3:26:40 pleasure being negligible you know in3:26:42 both heaven and hell3:26:44 there there is there is3:26:47 you can use that in in your response to3:26:49 uh the problem of evil because it seems3:26:51 like3:26:52 uh first of all that the suffering has a3:26:54 purpose and second of all uh the3:26:57 suffering will be almost as if it you3:26:59 know didn't exist for those who will end3:27:01 up in heaven right i mean it did exist3:27:03 but it was more it's more like i guess3:27:05 you would say uh3:27:07 uh uh3:27:08 a reality it's a it's not just a dream3:27:11 it's a reality right allah can create3:27:13 make it real he's the only one able to3:27:15 do that and3:27:17 um because of that it does it's like a3:27:20 dream that counts i guess you would say3:27:22 towards the true life you're gonna be3:27:24 living which is either with god or away3:27:27 from god in hell so yeah um yeah so i3:27:31 just kind of wanted to3:27:32 to get a good understanding of that and3:27:35 i just mainly um3:27:37 you know about like what is what is the3:27:39 strongest argument on the atheist or3:27:43 the non-muslim side uh about like with3:27:47 the problem like i didn't really hear3:27:48 anything that's3:27:50 convincing i guess from the the3:27:52 evidential the the evidential problem of3:27:55 evil in its different forms like we talk3:27:57 about animal suffering or problem of3:27:58 hell3:28:00 it's challenging it requires a response3:28:01 and i believe we we've gave an overview3:28:04 of what a response to these arguments3:28:05 would look like throughout this stream3:28:07 right so so i think the strongest case3:28:10 they can make3:28:11 is when their conclusion is modest when3:28:13 they say that the this the existence of3:28:16 you know what seems to be gratuitous3:28:18 suffering in the world at least gives us3:28:20 reason to3:28:22 disbelieve in the existence of an3:28:23 all-loving god3:28:25 and in certain contexts you might even3:28:27 want to grant that that you know if you3:28:28 look at it in a vacuum3:28:30 fine uh but then uh uh um it's just3:28:34 gonna depend on the formulation of the3:28:36 argument you're dealing with and uh3:28:39 apart from you know the idea that you3:28:41 can make a cumulative case and just you3:28:43 know the argument won't really do much3:28:45 work for the theist3:28:46 the argument itself can be attacked so3:28:48 so the the the epistemic limitations of3:28:51 humans so when you appeal to skeptical3:28:52 theism and and certain theodicies there3:28:55 are good responses back and forth and i3:28:58 i do believe it is the strongest3:28:59 argument on the atheist side but it's3:29:01 not going to do much work for the3:29:03 theists i and i think the atheists the3:29:05 the arguments that3:29:07 uh theists have against uh3:29:10 naturalism let's say or materialism are3:29:12 actual defeaters for their positions so3:29:14 they're not just3:29:15 reasons to disbelieve in in3:29:18 in materialism or naturalism3:29:20 or non-theism they're actually i think i3:29:22 think there are actual defeaters um3:29:25 you know on the theist side3:29:27 okay3:29:28 yeah uh but like what specifically in3:29:30 that problem of evil that evidential3:29:32 argument you're saying what specifically3:29:35 negates god's existence just because3:29:37 suffering exists or because yeah3:29:40 it's that you know it's that i3:29:42 experience evil so you know what you3:29:44 know maybe3:29:45 whoever created the world doesn't really3:29:47 care about me right it's it's it's right3:29:49 or is it evil or gives me a reason or is3:29:51 evil or something yeah right right okay3:29:53 okay i understand i mean and3:29:55 i guess you would say another just one3:29:57 more response to the3:29:59 islamic3:30:00 from the islamic perspective is that3:30:02 uh god created angels right without3:30:05 uh i guess you say the free will we have3:30:08 right they have to follow allah's3:30:10 command and everything well he created3:30:12 us right with a specific test in mind to3:30:15 see the quality of our character of our3:30:18 souls and stuff3:30:21 to see uh3:30:22 yes people as as beings that are gifted3:30:25 with understanding of what is going to3:30:27 be what is right what is wrong and and3:30:29 being able to comprehend what allah3:30:32 you know brought down through the3:30:33 messenger and stuff uh3:30:35 he he it's there for us as a test and3:30:40 if he wanted to he could have just if he3:30:41 didn't want us to have this test3:30:43 if you know from the islamic perspective3:30:46 i just i guess i don't see a problem3:30:48 with the problem of evil because it's a3:30:50 test3:30:51 at the end of the day he could have just3:30:52 created angels if he didn't want to put3:30:54 us through this you know and it's so we3:30:56 can freely go to him and submit our3:30:59 souls submitting to him yeah3:31:02 we agree3:31:03 we're gonna we're gonna have to move on3:31:05 though brother because we've got one one3:31:07 more guest and we've been going three3:31:09 and a half hours3:31:10 uh appreciate you coming on and uh3:31:13 asking questions and and giving your3:31:15 thoughts really do appreciate it okay3:31:17 thank you all right so i'm liking3:31:19 brother last night3:31:22 so we've got one last person here3:31:24 happiness to you welcome3:31:28 can you hear me guys3:31:30 yes we can3:31:32 yeah thanks for taking on i won't take3:31:34 much of the time3:31:36 the problem of evil with respect to you3:31:38 know imaginary god is that the word evil3:31:41 is a subjective one so what you call3:31:44 evil3:31:45 but the right word will be the suffering3:31:47 sorry yeah the suffering and pain3:31:49 but the main thing the problem is what i3:31:52 see is that is the for the theist is3:31:55 that you want to have your kick and eat3:31:57 it too3:31:58 on one3:31:59 side you'll say that it is all loving3:32:02 and yet there is a suffering but just3:32:03 now3:32:04 you guys said that the suffering is just3:32:06 for a few minutes and you will be having3:32:08 eternal happiness if that is the case3:32:11 there is no logical reason to give3:32:14 suffering to enjoy or appreciate3:32:16 happiness3:32:17 because what you are making is a3:32:18 subjective argument there is no logical3:32:21 necessity3:32:22 to have a suffering3:32:24 before3:32:25 happiness3:32:27 okay no one goes i don't think i don't3:32:29 know i'm not on my hand but let me come3:32:31 back let me complete no one i don't go3:32:33 and burn my hand3:32:34 then enjoy an apple or an enjoy an ice3:32:37 cream3:32:38 no yeah so no one made that argument3:32:40 yeah no one said that it's necessary to3:32:42 suffer in order to experience happiness3:32:44 i don't know where you're getting it3:32:45 from see if it is not necessary then it3:32:48 is by choice if it is3:32:51 this world3:32:52 so yes now if there is a choice then3:32:55 there is has to be a reason behind that3:32:58 and that reason can only be malice3:33:01 because3:33:02 why why is3:33:07 if you have a child3:33:09 or if you're 18 year old or 17 year old3:33:11 go and punch his teeth3:33:14 he it will cause3:33:15 pain but there is a reason behind it3:33:18 that's not malice it's out of love so3:33:20 it's a contradictory it's a basic3:33:21 contradiction3:33:24 why are you saying that it has to be3:33:26 malice3:33:27 you have an argument for it water is it3:33:29 love3:33:30 we have to do elimination is it love3:33:33 happiness3:33:34 why why can't it be for your happiness3:33:37 so punching causes happiness or is it3:33:41 it could it could eventually3:33:43 it eventually but does it now we're3:33:46 talking about suffering what happens3:33:48 later it might not happen suffering yes3:33:51 suffering and outcome of suffering can3:33:53 be good3:33:54 is it always is it logically3:33:57 contingent or why not require why not3:34:02 why not no no you have to prove why it3:34:04 is no no no you're in new york you're3:34:07 providing an argument you said that it3:34:09 necessarily is malice so you're the one3:34:12 that has to provide an argument for it3:34:14 but you can't and that's what happens3:34:15 with all the atheists that come on who3:34:17 said it kind of let me i told you i3:34:19 can't you can't have happiness you can't3:34:21 happiness this is what happens with all3:34:23 the atheists that come on here they make3:34:25 assertions we ask to provide arguments3:34:29 let me finish we asked to provide3:34:30 arguments for the fundamental3:34:32 assumptions you can't you just restate3:34:34 the same principle then we ask for it3:34:36 again and then you redo the same thing3:34:38 and it just happens over and over and3:34:39 over and over again and it's a vicious3:34:41 circle and to be quite frank i'm a bit3:34:43 annoyed because we've been going on3:34:45 three and a half hours so i'll tell you3:34:47 this i'm gonna give you two chances i'm3:34:49 gonna give you two more chances and then3:34:50 we're gonna end the show so you give me3:34:52 an argument for why3:34:55 what the suffering that you say that you3:34:57 experience in the world necessarily is3:35:00 based on malice so go ahead3:35:03 because here you claim that god is3:35:06 all-powerful3:35:07 that means there is no limitation on on3:35:10 him as me that means he made a choice to3:35:13 cause pain3:35:15 and choice to cause pain pain if it is3:35:18 good then you should have pain in your3:35:20 heaven but you don't you have happiness3:35:23 so that means you call it his mercy now3:35:26 if3:35:27 happiness is mercy3:35:28 then pain has to be his anger malice3:35:32 call whatever and if he that's it so3:35:35 that's a very simple3:35:36 argument3:35:51 you're gonna get is happiness in heaven3:35:55 now that reward is given a lot of mercy3:35:57 or is it given out of malice so let me3:36:00 ask you3:36:04 whoa you you're3:36:06 that yeah that's his mercy that he's3:36:08 completely okay you sound like a robot3:36:11 dude you sound like a robot because this3:36:13 pain is suffering even though and the3:36:16 important thing happening is you're3:36:17 breaking that3:36:18 entity god3:36:20 which does not have any limitations to3:36:23 cause3:36:24 because there's a limitation on me but3:36:26 he doesn't have any limitation but he3:36:28 chooses to cause suffering3:36:31 happiness okay you're you're out of here3:36:33 sorry sir3:36:35 you're either no either there's a3:36:36 problem with your connection or you or3:36:38 you're just ignoring me i don't know but3:36:40 sorry to tell you i don't have time for3:36:41 that now3:36:42 next there's there's one last person3:36:45 here3:36:46 waiting but your devices are not3:36:49 connected and you just left okay so3:36:51 you're3:36:52 you're out of here as well3:36:54 so that's it guys we don't have anybody3:36:56 else here waiting3:36:58 um i want to thank the audience3:37:00 for watching and staying with us for3:37:02 almost four hours we've been going on3:37:04 here now for a long time3:37:06 um definitely want to thank dr sef for3:37:09 coming on uh trying to break down the3:37:12 problem of evil with us explain the3:37:14 different perspectives you have the3:37:16 logical uh problem of evil the3:37:19 evidential one what are the responses to3:37:22 both of them from an islamic paradigm we3:37:24 went into all those details we dealt3:37:27 with3:37:28 pine creek and a few other atheists and3:37:30 i think what you guys can see what it3:37:32 comes down to is there's no logical3:37:35 argument it's based at the end of the3:37:37 day on the fundamental presupposition or3:37:40 assumption about either the nature of3:37:43 evil the nature of good what god3:37:45 shouldn't shouldn't do3:37:46 possible worlds and which one's better3:37:48 and then when we ask for logical3:37:50 justifications say oh well we're just3:37:53 really appealing to emotions so3:37:56 i think it was a good stream i'm3:37:57 disappointed i wish the atheist would3:38:00 come with a little bit something better3:38:01 than that but i think it was beneficial3:38:04 i don't know if you guys have any final3:38:06 comments before uh we wrap it up and and3:38:09 send the outro3:38:11 i think yeah3:38:12 i think jake you just want to go don't3:38:14 you3:38:15 oh yeah yeah i had enough i don't know3:38:20 i appreciate some of the comments and3:38:22 some of the questions that people are3:38:24 asking i think the problem is this is3:38:27 i i mean if i were to going to give a3:38:30 problem of evil what i would give is3:38:32 the problem of evil that i would launch3:38:34 i think would be most powerful3:38:37 is trying to listen to an atheist3:38:39 explain the problem of evil that's one3:38:42 of the most evil things i've3:38:43 come across and by four hours after of3:38:47 listening to that3:38:48 yes it is pretty torturous i'm wondering3:38:51 why god has put me through this and i3:38:54 have to end the stream3:38:56 3:38:57 i honestly feel i honestly feel your3:38:59 pain jake because a lot of these guys3:39:01 who come on like this brother just came3:39:03 on3:39:03 it's it's it's not like it's difficult3:39:06 to prepare for these discussions like3:39:08 literally while you're waiting there you3:39:09 guys have been waiting there for an hour3:39:10 you could just you know do a bit of3:39:12 research and you know present a logical3:39:14 form of the argument or try to present a3:39:16 decent defense of your premises so that3:39:18 when you come on and make assertions and3:39:20 we ask you to back your assertions by3:39:23 arguments or by evidence you're ready3:39:25 with answers but it seems like as jake3:39:27 just put it just all goes in circles and3:39:30 we ask for the evidence we ask for an3:39:32 argument you say you're making a logical3:39:34 argument the logical argument doesn't3:39:36 work jump to an argument from emotion so3:39:38 it's just it is a bit frustrating and we3:39:41 know that there are atheist arguments3:39:42 that are more sophisticated than this i3:39:44 think we're just frustrated that it3:39:46 hasn't been the case on this call yeah i3:39:48 think we tried to present some of those3:39:49 sophisticated arguments at the beginning3:39:51 of the stream as well we did it better3:39:53 than they could in the beginning yeah i3:39:55 think that's the problem what i was3:39:56 going to say is just as advice to3:39:58 atheists is they get hung up in this3:40:01 like very abstract way of looking at the3:40:04 problem of evil and god3:40:06 what they need to i think going back to3:40:08 my point that i mentioned to that3:40:09 brother high before is they need to3:40:12 really think about you're living in a3:40:13 life which you're gonna face difficulty3:40:15 anyway now either you're gonna answer3:40:17 your difficulty and problems by denying3:40:21 god3:40:22 uh which doesn't really work or you're3:40:24 going to look at the arguments for god3:40:27 and then that helps you contextualize3:40:29 the difficulties that you face3:40:31 and then any of these3:40:33 various arguments that they try to3:40:35 present for you know the problem of evil3:40:38 they're always going to be responses3:40:39 that we can give as theists and3:40:41 particularly as muslims because we don't3:40:42 believe this world is meant to be3:40:44 perfect we do believe that there was3:40:46 meant to be difficulties in this world3:40:47 because it is a test that's the reality3:40:50 of this life now you may like it you may3:40:52 not like it that's irrespective the fact3:40:55 it remains is that you know you have to3:40:58 be sincere based on the ideas and3:41:00 arguments that you need to follow3:41:02 irrespective and overcome your feelings3:41:04 and emotions yeah and it just3:41:06 establishes what i've experienced over3:41:08 especially over the past year and3:41:09 dealing with atheists more and more i3:41:11 talk to them i realize it's an emotional3:41:14 psychological issue something they don't3:41:16 like something they feel icky about and3:41:19 then they want us to feel icky about it3:41:21 as well it's not an actual3:41:24 logical or intellectual problem i'm not3:41:27 saying that some people don't have that3:41:30 but for the most part this is what i3:41:31 experienced and mr 22 here you're3:41:35 waiting i told you that your device is3:41:37 not connected so i literally3:41:39 cannot bring you on the stream unless3:41:41 your mic and camera are connected i3:41:44 can't bring you on the stream so i'm3:41:45 going to kick you out again for for the3:41:47 second time and maybe next3:41:50 show when you call in you get that3:41:52 figured out because unless you guys3:41:54 unless you're mic and your camera are3:41:56 connected now you can shut your camera3:41:58 off but unless it's connected on your3:42:01 device we literally cannot bring you on3:42:03 stream yard so i'm sorry about that but3:42:06 you'll you'll have to get that settled3:42:08 before you call in next time3:42:10 um3:42:12 uh italian stallion yeah thank you3:42:15 um but yeah guys uh i do just want to3:42:18 extend one last time appreciation for dr3:42:21 saf coming on appreciate all you guys3:42:24 for watching and your support all those3:42:26 who became members today uh we really do3:42:29 appreciate that it helps us out uh3:42:32 greatly and all the super chats as well3:42:34 so3:42:35 may allah rewards you guys for your3:42:37 continued support of of tap here but uh3:42:40 with that being said guys i don't know3:42:42 if we have any announcements3:42:44 about the next show do we want to say3:42:46 anything about that or we'll hold off3:42:49 we'll we'll hold off okay so we'll we'll3:42:51 let you guys know what the next episode3:42:53 is going to be about uh look out for3:42:55 that on twitter and the youtube channel3:42:57 we'll probably put up a community post3:42:59 about that but once again guys thanks3:43:02 for watching until next time assalamu3:43:04 alaikum

As-salamu alaykum! Content by SirVival