Atheist Professor Does Q & A With Christian High School Students

It was interesting to watch high school Christians try and match arguments with an adult and well versed atheist. 

Sean McDowell makes it plain we should respect the medium of communication equally to the content of the message with unbelievers, but there are moments when there is only attack. This occurred on this board!

I will forgive, but I will not forget it!

Interesting approach (watched from beginning through).    I think I am NOW more interested in hearing the facts and reasoning behind the speaker's beliefs.    Maybe I will see if I can find other material by the speaker on this point.

without giving away too much for anyone who might want to watch this, I would just say that I thought the professor was more convincing in the first 45 minutes of the video than he was in the last 20 , even though i didnt necessarily agree with him. He seemed more sincere in the beginning than he did at the end, and since you watched it you may know what i mean. 

I do know what you mean.   He actually did a great job fielding the questions.   That is why I am intrigued since he clearly understands the other side of the coin below the superficial talking point level.

Maybe it is because the video does NOT permit McDowell (after the 'Superman' to 'Clark Kent' conversion - I suddenly remembered him and his bio) time before lunch period, to deliver an apologetic point by point to the 'talking points' we often here from an atheist. 

Sorry to say, but generally speaking atheists are either "excited" to have material to share from the last hundred years or many of them simply like to steamroll and "dominate" others with a "information dump" landing from multiple directions. NOTE: This last sentence I really do not mean to slight anyone, but it bares stating and a moment of reflection.

I thought it was set up as an interesting premise. I also thought he did better as an atheist. Like Tig, it makes me wonder how good a debater he is when he takes the other side. 

Point: The best debates happen when both sides get to make proper arguments. (No haranguing the commenter with slights, innuendos, and condescending language, or tones.)

What I found interesting (and to be reminded of) is the Christian attitude: patience. It is hard to hold it together in the face of a verbal onslaught (of machine gun "loud-talking.") These children would be overwhelmed easily.

Definitely.

Sorry to say, but generally speaking atheists are either "excited" to have material to share from the last hundred years or many of them simply like to steamroll and "dominate" others with a "information dump" landing from multiple directions. NOTE: This last sentence I really do not mean to slight anyone, but it bares stating and a moment of reflection.

I think atheists (at least those who engage in debate) are motivated by two key things:

1. The hope that an interlocutor will bring up something that justifies their belief other than (ultimately) 'I just believe'.
2. A serious response (not defensive, honest, no tactics) of the rebuttal they made to a religious point (and hopefully one that is persuasive).

The religious argument is an extraordinarily difficult one to make.   It is an argument of certain knowledge about an entity that has no supporting evidence and is envisioned historically by countless billions of people to manifest in an extraordinary variation of forms, personalities, objectives and behavior.   And even within a consistent view the entity is defined as a contradiction.

To me, it is just blatantly obvious that nobody has any certain knowledge whatsoever of that which they refer to as 'God' (or by any other name).

• The hope that an interlocutor will bring up something that justifies their belief other than (ultimately) 'I just believe'.
• A serious response (not defensive, honest, no tactics) of the rebuttal they made to a religious point (and hopefully one that is persuasive).

• Justification of their beliefs comes out through the exercise of faith in an individual's living. Granted we see faith played out in many forms. It is likened to a raw diamond with multifaceted sides on display. Christianity is not something "heavenly" it is a religious construct for humans who share a grouping of beliefs. No one should expect to use such human terminology in Heaven.(It is faith - not certainty.) I am fully aware that churches internally use the vernacular of - knowing - God is real (because we can feel God in our souls, nevertheless. No one should have expectation of an atheist accepting that type or phrasing of knowing, however.
• Christianity is based on a faith. No one has seen God in spiritual form. If it serves to help clarify, in lieu of calling it Spirit, call God a state of mind shared by many carnal beings. It is called: Faith, for a reason.

But many Christians do claim that they KNOW God (their god) is real.   For example, you KNOW God is real even though you have no way of truly knowing.

Thus if someone suggested that you might have some tiny doubt that God is real, your religious background would cause you to reject that notion as an indictment of weak faith (considered to be a bad thing).

What justifies you telling me what my faith is? @2.1.7 I explained that Christianity is a construct based of faith. It even comes to mind scripturally from Hebrews 11.1. Our practice of faith gives us experiences to 'bank' on. Our indwelling by Spirit, gives us insights into spiritual thinking along those lines (and living that way). However, only a fool or a liar in this 'generation' will tell you that God has tangibly appeared to him or her.

I am not such a fool or liar!

What justifies you telling me what my faith is?

Okay CB, you are getting defensive and I am not interested in laying out in detail how this discussion is way off course.

I am tuning out.

I don't think he's getting defensive by trying to explain where his faith comes from.

He starts off with:

CB @2.1.9 ☞ What justifies you telling me what my faith is? 

and ends with:

CB @2.1.9 ☞ I am not such a fool or liar!

Yet I never told him what his faith was nor did I suggest he was a fool or a liar.   I made a statement of fact that CB himself has made clear for years:

TiG @2.1.8 ☞ For example, you KNOW God is real even though you have no way of truly knowing.

CB has stated that God (as he perceives God) is absolutely real, no doubt in his mind.    My comment (opinion) is that he has no way of truly knowing.    That is my assessment on the knowing of God; that is not telling him what his faith is (in any way).

I originally chose to not detail this in a reply to CB because it is clear that he was reacting defensively instead of trying to communicate.   Thus further communication would be pointless.  That is, I was not interested in getting CB upset.

ok...stepping back now

WTH?  My comment is courteous enough to ask appropriate questions and provide GREATER detail and understanding. It is not an attack on anybody! God is Spirit. I believe in Spirit. In addition, I believe in faith. That is, faith is what we hold on to in the INTERIM of knowing God ("for real)."  Simply accept me for who I say I am-you have no way of knowing better who I am from day to day.

What's the problem?

Moreover, if I modulate or express growth and development in my faith, is it not similar to modifications in stances put down and taken up in the sciences and philosophy? Who is better equipped to understand my thinking/mind than me?

Oh, and no, God has not tangibly appeared in this generation that I know of -with certainty or presentation of flesh or any tangible essence. God is Spirit.

Thank you, dear Trout G' "for your service."  MY HERO!

What's the problem?

This is why I originally chose to not get into it.   I have no interest in getting into a meta cycle and am not going to spend my time addressing what will (from experience) be an endless series of tangents and strawman questions such as:  "Who is better equipped to understand my thinking/mind than me?"  as if I have suggested otherwise.   

I am not in any meta discussion with you, TiG. Please return to the topic of the videos. Let's not discuss each other (at all).

By the way, it was interesting to observe that even these kids have much of the basic talking points down.   Trouble is, talking points do not take one too far unless one can deal with the rebuttals.   That requires an understanding much deeper than simply knowing a talking point.     Example talking points are the fine-tuning argument, complexity necessitates sentience, purpose of life, arbiter of objective morality, etc.

Here is a mini debate on "God" that you might like Tig

I will check it out.   Alex is one of my favorites.   Brilliant young man.

How does physical, material life end without something taking it?

How many people have died in the history of the world? How come Coronavirus matter against all prior deaths, even natural death?

God is the ultimate good (we are explained in scripture); but human life is on a spectrum (scale) as a result there is ultimate evil as a 'weight' balance.

How does physical, material life end without something taking it?

When a star runs out of fuel (nothing left to power fusion) its life ends.   Nothing took its 'life', it simply ran its course.

Nice. But in context of the video @3.1 I am addressing organic animal life.

How does physical, material life end without something taking it?

Okay.   A biological organism's life ends when one or more critical functions fail.   For example, heart failure.   These failures are often the result of a cellular degradation (cells do not perfectly replace cells that have died) or by harmful mutations such as cancer.

Biological entities can be viewed as machines that eventually wear out.    They are forms (of existence) and forms do not last forever.

That is 'something' takes it (natural death).

That leads to the second question @3.1.2

How many people have died in the history of the world? How come Coronavirus matters [more] against all prior deaths, even natural death?

That is 'something' takes it (natural death).

Then you wanted a circular answer?   Death yields death.

How many people have died in the history of the world? How come Coronavirus matters [more] against all prior deaths, even natural death?

I am not sure anyone thinks that the cumulative historical deaths should even be compared to the loss of life by the pandemic.   I do not understand why you would ask such a question.

I framed my question in a manner I found appropriate. You can reframe it, but I hope we can 'stay' communicating after you do that.

My question (to JR) was from something stated in @3.1 video. Before we continue on this track, have you listened to the 9 minute plus video?

I framed my question in a manner I found appropriate.

There is nothing I can say in response; you have offered no new info.   

Before we continue on this track, have you listened to the 9 minute plus video?

Yes.

How many people have died in the history of the world? How come Coronavirus matter against all prior deaths, even natural death?

If I may interject, death by a virus is a natural death. That is the purpose of viruses. 

I am not sure anyone thinks that the cumulative historical deaths should even be compared to the loss of life by the pandemic.   I do not understand why you would ask such a question.

In the second video clip (in the comments), Alex is laying down two propositions: 1: That God allows Covid to take the lives of 100,000 British citizens. 2. That God and followers of God have no "moral qualm" with so many lives lost to Covid.

To which I asked @3.1.2:

How many people have died in the history of the world? How come Coronavirus matter against all prior deaths, even natural death?

Is my question rhetorical. Yes! It should be. Because it should be understood that God, being over all (if extant), has accountability for all death everywhere and in every instance of the activity! Subsequently, what makes death due to COVID-19 (century 2000) more worthy of distinction or suitable for divine 'correction' than all other occasions of death?

Why not 100,000 Brits dead of Covid-19 in that sense? (Note: As a human being I can be saddened and am; but this is an essential argument.)

I am 'okay' with that fine point, Perrie!  (Smile.) Followup @3.1.11.

The question of course remains.   There are countless historical examples of seemingly pointless deaths.   Religious people chalk this up to 'God works in mysterious ways'.   Others are not persuaded by an answer that simply surrenders.

That is the purpose of viruses. 

I'm going to disagree, slightly.  Replication is the purpose of viruses.  They use us (and other living beings) to do so, and sometimes we end up dead.  We're collateral damage.  Viruses that don't kill outright tend to proliferate better than more deadly ones.  Some viruses shoot themselves in the foot, and kill their replication factories - us.

CB, I don't think the video implies that coronavirus "matters more" than other deaths, certainly not more than all prior deaths.  Using coronavirus deaths in a pandemic was a device to frame the debate about how a good God could let people suffer. 

You might not like the bishop's answer, but I think it is a viable one. The fact that there is suffering and God seemingly allows it is not tremendously convincing evidence against the existence of God. For one reason as the bishop says we cannot put ourselves into the perspective of God and it is possible that human suffering has a meaning that we cannot fathom. Secondly, it is the nature of this existence that we experience duality and relativity in everything that happens . Without pain we would not know what joy is, etc.  This experience of duality and relativity is essential to this existence. God could not spare us suffering and still have us experience existence as we do. 

The fact that there is suffering and God seemingly allows it is not tremendously convincing evidence against the existence of God. 

It is simply 'the Lord works in mysterious ways'.    I find that to be an answer in lieu of a real answer.    As an analogy, the lack of any evidence that Leprechauns exist, given the centuries they have been claimed to exist, persuades one to not be convinced that Leprechauns actually exist.   An Irishman explaining how Leprechauns are wee folk who are keen to hide is not very convincing.

Without pain we would not know what joy is, etc.  This experience of duality and relativity is essential to this existence. God could not spare us suffering and still have us experience existence as we do. 

So God makes us suffer so that we can experience joy.   I am surprised that you do not find that to be a contrived answer.   God, per the Bible, can pretty much do whatever He wishes.   If we are going to take the position that we cannot possibly understand God and the complexity of all the He does then why do we make an argument which presumes God is incapable of enabling us to experience joy, etc. without having our child be raped and murdered by a pedophile or to have entire villages wiped out by a volcanic eruption, tsunami, tornado, ...?

What we have is life on a planet where bad thing happen with no clear reason (other than the impartial acts of nature and malicious acts of individual agents).   Throughout history, human beings have invented gods as the explanation for that which we could not understand.  The gods were a placeholder for science;  volcanic eruptions were an angry Vulcan.   We invented rituals to attempt to appease the gods and these rituals evolved into religions — thousands of them.   We have a history of thousands of gods and religions worshipping these gods and in all this time not a single god has ever been evidenced;  not a shred of solid evidence that these gods were more than simply the result of human imagination and generational / cultural belief.

So yes, I am not persuaded by the Bishop's explanation.   I suspect that you would not be persuaded by someone explaining why Zeus does exist even though he and fellow gods do not seem to make a showing on the planet anymore.    Take any of the gods of history or even gods believed today (e.g. Brahma) and I suspect that nobody would be able to impress you of their existence with mere hand-waving in lieu of genuine evidence or sound logic which proves the god necessarily must exist.

Now there is nothing I can say to that. History speaks to death (of all varieties and persuasions) occurring. Alex is suggesting or outright stating that there is something (he knows) to be wrong or immoral about a good God allowing death (in Covid-19 specifically) to occur. The large numbers being indicative of the magnitude. Alex, is attempting to lay a charge at religion/God's foot, without explaining why death per se is a bad thing.

Thank you for the fine point. (Smile.) Also, Alex goes on to ponder the death of animal life (that is, beasts and sea life) as a whole as an activity of some kind of continuous suffering.

What next comes to my mind is this: Does Alex eat? Does Alex 'kill' or agrees with 'killing' so that he can consume 'meat'?

Can he comprehend what could (absurdly) occur if all people who ever die (through suffering and other means of 'departure) were filling up a spot on the planet today? It would be a management nightmare, before long!

It seems we have these susceptible bodies on a spectrum of life on one end and its contrast death on the other. It's all very practical, really. Rather 'joyful' at birth and rather 'ugly' in The End.

Yes, that is Alex's opinion.    He considers deaths such as a young child dying at four years of age from leukemia to be a pointless waste of a life unlived.   He observes pointless death and suffering and that persuades him against the notion of a loving god.   In other words, someone claims:  'God is love' and Alex looks around and states:  'I just do not see it'.    Yet again this is a claim sans evidence that flies in the face of sensory observation and the processing thereof by a rational mind.

There is only one God. And there can be only one God. If Zeus was one of many gods then he was not God. 

Why do atheists always want to talk about Roman and Greek and other ancient deities? 

In this existence we have to experience duality.  I suppose an all powerful God could make us happy all the time but it would have no meaning. 

Why do atheists always want to talk about Roman and Greek and other ancient deities? 

Because of the similarity in evidence for any of them, which is to say, none.

There is only one God. And there can be only one God. If Zeus was one of many gods then he was not God. 

By what logic is there only one god?   Zeus was the main god of ancient Greece.   Yahweh is the main god (Father hypostasis) of Christianity yet there are other hypostases plus we have Satan and the hierarchy of angels (consider these lesser gods as per the ancients).  

Why do atheists always want to talk about Roman and Greek and other ancient deities? 

Because nowadays nobody believes these gods existed.   Thus everyone is an atheist regarding these gods.   You can thus view these gods as atheists view all gods;  you can appreciate the viewpoint of an atheist.   Gods currently believed to exist have no more evidence of their existence than the ancient gods.   One critical commonality, however, is that people truly believed they existed and shaped their societies around these gods.

So the question I would ask is why anyone is so certain that the Christian God exists and the only god and thus certain that ancient gods such as Zeus are merely products of ancient imaginations?

In this existence we have to experience duality.  I suppose an all powerful God could make us happy all the time but it would have no meaning. 

I think an all powerful god could provide a content life with challenges that enable growth without having to take actions such as make an innocent young child suffer cancer and die before s/he is even able to attend school.

By the definition of God - THE Supreme Being. 

For better or worse this existence is based on duality and relativity. If it were otherwise it wouldnt be this existence. Maybe one day we will get to find out why that is so, but I doubt it. . 

By the definition of god that you adopt there can be only one supreme creator entity.   

So why is your definition of god correct while the ancient Greeks are wrong?    They too are allowed to define god as they see fit, right?

How do we know that the Christian God exists but all other gods do not exist?    Thousands of gods over history yet the only god who exists is the Christian God but whose existence is no more evidenced than any of the others.

Other than culture (indoctrination) why is the Christian God real and Zeus not real?

If it were otherwise it wouldnt be this existence.

Well, sure, but that does not in any way support the notion that this is the work of a god.

See @3.1.19 please.

Does Alex eat? Does Alex 'kill' or agrees with 'killing' so that he can consume 'meat'?

Alex is a vegetarian.

Can he comprehend what could (absurdly) occur if all people who ever die (through suffering and other means of 'departure) were filling up a spot on the planet today? 

Alex is not arguing that human beings should be immortal.   If that is what you got then you completely missed his point.

Alex recognizes the practical advantages of forms emerging, undergoing change and eventually losing form (birth, growth, death).   He is talking about the pointless suffering and noting that this certainly seems like what would happen if there were no loving god or if the creator completely ignored us.   That is, what we observe correlates better with no god rather than a loving god who has the power and knowledge to not bring a child into life only to make her suffer and then kill her with cancer before she starts pre-school.

Okay, Alex is a vegetarian. How does he feel about meat-eaters? Maybe, you know? What about vegetable life? Isn't it life of another form-unable to run, or get out of the way of its consumption? Should Alex 'forsake' his portions so life can continue unimpaired or 'arrested in development' by consumption?

There is an absurdity, in trying to discuss matters too big for humanity to tackle - as Alex attempts to do when moralizing against the concept of God. He must first explain his own activities on this planet as good and wholesome, and further only good and wholesome.

He is talking about the pointless suffering and noting that this certainly seems like what would happen if there were no loving god or if the creator completely ignored us.   

Has Alex proven beyond doubt that suffering is pointless?

On a spectrum of joy (and pleasure) there is an essential area for pain (and suffering). TiG, do you agree with this?

Moreover, Alex can complain about suffering even as we all do. It's dreadful. However, isn't suffering one way in which humans learn to 'do better' next time?

For example, 'Covid' vaccines are a tool borne of suffering from coronavirus. The vaccines 'emerging' are not pointless things!

How does he feel about meat-eaters?

He thinks that raising animals for slaughter is wrong.   I do not think he has anything personal against meat eaters as he recently was one.

Should Alex 'forsake' his portions so life can continue unimpaired or 'arrested in development' by consumption?

Okay, so you are asking if Alex has a problem eating plants??   No, the man is not giving up food.   He realizes that to survive he necessarily will have to eat a life form.   Go research Alex yourself, this is pretty pointless.

He must first explain his own activities on this planet as good and wholesome, and further only good and wholesome.

Where do you find Alex claiming he is pure and perfect (good and wholesome) and what does any of this have to do with ... anything relevant?

Has Alex proven beyond doubt that suffering is pointless?

Proven?   I have no idea how anyone could prove that and I have never observed him suggest that all suffering is pointless.   He just does not see the point in the examples he raised.

On a spectrum of joy (and pleasure) there is an essential area for pain (and suffering). TiG, do you agree with this?

Essential?   Do you mean necessary?   I do not understand your question when 'essential' is used.    If 'necessary' is used then I do not agree;  I do not think pain and suffering is necessary to appreciate joy and pleasure.

Moreover, Alex can complain about suffering even as we all do. It's dreadful. However, isn't suffering one way in which humans learn to 'do better' next time?

Yeah, well we can learn to do better by experiencing missing our objectives.   One need not literally suffer to learn.   Parents can raise their children well without causing them to suffer.   

For example, 'Covid' vaccines are a tool borne of suffering from coronavirus. The vaccines 'emerging' are not pointless things!

What a funny way to look at things.   You think that the worldwide suffering for this pandemic was worthwhile because it gave us a vaccine?    How about we skip all the suffering and never need a vaccine in the first place?

 No, the man is not giving up food.   He realizes that to survive he necessarily will have to eat a life form.

Then, I offer a supposition: Alex should ponder justification for his needs on this and other scores, before demanding justification from God in supplying means to achieve his needs.

Where do you find Alex claiming he is pure and perfect (good and wholesome) and what does any of this have to do with ... anything relevant?

No, Alex is highly probable not good and wholesome, I suppose. After all, he needs to eat to survive. Which invariably means something (quite a few somethings) suffers and dies.

He is not demanding justification from God.   He does not believe any god exists.   

I doubt Alex has any problem with the realization that the human life form is indigenous to this planet and to exist in the first place (and thus to survive) we necessarily consume forms of life.   That is, I am confident Alex understands the food chain and has no problem eating fruits and vegetables to sustain his own life.

Um, you seem really resentful of this young man.  Why?

He thinks that raising animals for slaughter is wrong.   I do not think he has anything personal against meat eaters as he recently was one.

Yet we have Alex 'debating' God (who Alex views as insignificant enough to not exist) with a church Bishop in a video to gaze upon. I wonder if Alex wishes he had not caused suffering for those past meat consumptions. Or, maybe at the time meat was needful as a means of bringing Alex to where he is 'today.'

Well, Alex didn't dwell on his past for us to know how he feels about eating meat ever again. Moreover, since he does not ask other humans to forsake their meats - why ask God for justification for offering humanity provisions?

I do not resent Alex. Not at all.

I do not think pain and suffering is necessary to appreciate joy and pleasure

With you consider these selections to be polar 'opposites' of some sort?

 He just does not see the point in the examples he raised.

So, Alex needs enlightenment of some kind, is that right? From where might he expect such comprehension of suffering to hail from?

Yet we have Alex 'debating' God (who Alex views as insignificant enough to not exist) with a church Bishop in a video to gaze upon. I wonder if Alex wishes he had not caused suffering for those past meat consumptions. Or, maybe at the time meat was needful as a means of bringing Alex to where he is 'today.'

Alex is not debating God;  he does not believe there is any god.   I mentioned that to you, right?

Well, Alex didn't dwell on his past for us to know how he feels about eating meat ever again.

Did you expect him to discuss his eating habits in this video?   How is this relevant?

Moreover, since he does not ask other humans to forsake their meats - why ask God for justification for offering humanity provisions?

He does not ask God for justification.  He argues that observed reality operates as one would expect if there were no loving god.   That is, the seemingly pointless suffering is what one would expect if there was no sentient power preventing such suffering.   You get that, right?

So, Alex needs enlightenment of some kind, is that right? From where might he expect such comprehension of suffering to hail from?

I doubt Alex considers the products of human imagination (fiction) to be enlightening.   I am confident he has concluded that suffering is the result of disinterested causal chains.

 One need not literally suffer to learn. 

Yet, . . . we do learn to 'do better' by experiencing suffering, right or wrong?  Suffering has its. . .purposes. . . maybe?

No, I do not agree.   I see no value in suffering.   I see value in advantages and consequences of actions because that is feedback that helps us do better towards some goal, but I do not see any value in suffering such as an innocent child suffering and dying from leukemia before reaching pre-school.

How about we skip all the suffering and never need a vaccine in the first place?

Would such a proposition be equivalent to getting a 'degree' in life without every going to any proper 'schools'? What has been 'learned'?

I disagree with the bishop's answer.  He basically says "Well, we're not able to say that there's no moral justification for allowing a hundred thousand (in the UK) to die of coronavirus.  We don't have godlike knowledge.  It's arrogant to say either way" while simultaneously insisting that there must be moral justification (which insistence he has just proclaimed to be arrogant).

It boils down to "God works in mysterious ways, and don't you dare doubt it, oh, and by the way, you're emotional."  It's religious gaslighting.

Why must one suffer to learn?

Would such a proposition be equivalent to getting a 'degree' in life without every going to any proper 'schools'? What has been 'learned'?

No, I said nothing about having a free ride to a reward.    You are trying to equate suffering with learning.   I continue to explain why I find that to be wrong.   One does not need to suffer to learn.   The four year old child suffering with leukemia is, per you, doing so in order to learn.   So she dies at four having learned suffering.   

A degree is a goal.   Having to work hard to achieve a goal is a good thing (for character).   Would you think things improved if the student is required to undergo floggings if they get a score less than a B?

@3.1.35 [Alex] does not believe any god exists. 

He does not ask God for justification.  He argues that observed reality operates as one would expect if there were no loving god.   That is, the seemingly pointless suffering is what one would expect if there was no sentient power preventing such suffering.   You get that, right?

Since Alex does not believe any god exist: What is the question involving non-existent God/s?

In the opening to the second video @3.1, Alex specifically uses this phrase, "morally justifiable" or words to that effect as well as another phrase "morally allowable" thereabouts in stating that the believer must 'answer' in lieu of God. That is an 'ask' for God justification.

As it turns out, Alex should be asking nature (and humanity) why be so unloving and pointless. Or is it such that when it comes to nature being callous, 'abrupt,' and deadly with humanity the questioner feels no need to ask for moral justification or moral allowability?

[Alex] has concluded that suffering is the result of disinterested causal chains.

Then, his thoughts on the matter of religion (and the bishop's presence) are irrelevant. He may as well complain about nature's (disinterest) in suffering and any other such things!

 I see no value in suffering. 

Consequences of actions, . . . but not value in suffering? To be clear, you see no value (at all) in suffering the consequences as a teaching tool?

Why ask me? In general, I find myself on this 'rock' same as you!  That said, I have learned a lot from suffering through a toothache. . .namely, to ease up on the causal factors of tooth decay (as often as I can).

Why ask me?

Because you're the one who seems to be making the assertion.

That is an 'ask' for God justification.

No, that's pointing out the lack of moral justification as a reason for not believing in a loving god.

Alex should be asking nature (and humanity) why be so unloving and pointless.

If they are, and they were made by God, it's because God made them unloving, so it still comes back to God.

Or is it such that when it comes to nature being callous, 'abrupt,' and deadly with humanity the questioner feels no need to ask for moral justification or moral allowability?

Nobody is making the claim that humans are perfect and uniformly benevolent.  That claim is made regarding God.  That's why the question is asked about God, and not about humans.

Since Alex does not believe any god exist: What is the question involving non-existent God/s?

I do not know what you are trying to ask.

In the opening to the second video @ 3.1 , Alex specifically uses this phrase, "morally justifiable" or words to that effect as well as another phrase "morally allowable" thereabouts in stating that the believer must 'answer' in lieu of God. That is  an 'ask'  for God justification.

Alex holds that morality is an emergent property of society.

As it turns out, Alex should be asking nature (and humanity) why be so unloving and pointless.

He is not asking a question, he is making a statement.   He is stating that the evidenced indifference towards suffering suggests that there is no loving god (no sentient entity who loves us).

Or is it such that when it comes to nature being callous, 'abrupt,' and deadly with humanity the questioner feels no need to ask for moral justification or moral allowability?

Nature is not sentient.   Morality is an attribute of sentience. 

I'm not that familiar with the bishop, but I have seen a couple of his short videos. He is a You Tube star .

He has a Masters degree in philosophy and has taught at Notre Dame. He's had 50 million views on his You Tube channel. 

The point he made is that it is not fair to say "suffering" is proof there is no God, because we as human beings cannot view things from the perspective of God. You and I may not like to hear that, but it is not an unreasonable argument. I'm pretty sure the bishop doesnt like human suffering either. Why doesnt God, if it exists , let everyone live to be 500 years old with no tooth decay, no arthritis and no hair loss ?   We don't know because we are not God. 

Then, his thoughts on the matter of religion (and the bishop's presence) are irrelevant.

I see.   So if Alex does not agree with the Bishop his positions are irrelevant.

He may as well complain about nature's (disinterest) in suffering and any other such things!

He is not complaining about anything.   

I know what he said.  And I disagree with it.  Justin Bieber is a Youtube star, too.

Consequences of actions, . . . but not value in suffering?

Correct!

To be clear, you see no value (at all) in suffering the consequences as a teaching tool?

Now you are trying to playing semantics games.    The suffering we are discussing is physical / mental anguish such as a little child dying from cancer.   You want to equivocate 'suffering' into its other usage which connotes:   'experience'. 

Experiencing the consequences of failure (e.g. dealing with getting a D grade on an exam,  dealing with screwing up a project at work) is what enables learning.   Being flogged (suffering as used here) for these failures does not.

Whatever. I have a feeling the bishop could hold his own with the famed atheists of Newstalkers. 

The point he made is that it is not fair to say "suffering" is proof there is no God, because we as human beings cannot view things from the perspective of God.

Of course it is not proof.   It is simply another area where what one can observe does not correlate with the Christian God as defined.   Proof is an inappropriate word.

You and I may not like to hear that, but it is not an unreasonable argument.

I think it is a non-argument.   He is simply saying that we should not trust our ability to reason because we suck at it compared to God.   It is simply:  'God works in mysterious ways'.   No matter how phrased, I find that to be a cop-out.

Appeal to authority.

I can understand logic as well as the bishop, and have no need to resort to cop-outs ("God works in mysterious ways") or ad hominem attacks ("You're being emotional and arrogant") to use it.  The bishop attempts to preclude the use of logic by such tactics.

I disagree. He made a valid point. You dont believe in God so you start with the pov that none of his points could possibly be valid. 

Answer this. No human being lives past the age of 110 or so.  Because human lives could conceivably be much longer than that , and pain free until the end, does the fact that human beings grow old and die , usually in pain,  prove that there is no God ?  If not why not? 

you start with the pov that none of his points could possibly be valid.

Never said such a thing, John.  But his argument was a copout.

The fact that humans grow old and die does not speak to the existence or nonexistence of God.  If God exists, he made us to die.  If he doesn't, we die because that's how nature works.  There is no conclusion to be drawn either way.

Then there wouldnt be a conclusion to be drawn either way about covid either, since that is also the way nature works. 

Nobody claims that nature is benevolent.  That claim is made about God, but the evidence does not support it, unless one's "evidence" is "well, maybe it's something we just can't understand."  That's a cop-out.

I dont think "we cant possibly have God's perspective" is a cop out. If God exists it is a reality .

Of course it's a cop-out.  It's asserting that there is evidence, while being unable to present it.  The bishop goes on to accuse those who don't buy into this unpresented evidence of emotional thinking and arrogance.

If we're debating a member here, and that member gets snarky and tells us "Well, I could explain it to you, but you wouldn't understand," we'd immediately recognize that that person is at best arguing a weak position and is aware of it and attempting to deflect, or at worst is just trolling.  The bishop is arguing a weak position, and attempting to deflect.

Then there wouldnt be a conclusion to be drawn either way about covid either, since that is also the way nature works. 

COVID-19 operates as one would predict given our understanding of our environment.   There is nothing at all strange about a virus (even a pandemic) breaking loose and infecting people (and killing many).   If not for the positive claim that a loving God exists, there would be no discussion.

But there is, so the discussion starts with the implied opening assertion:  a loving God exists.   From there one considers the facts and applies reason.   Suffering that seems pointless is consistent with a natural world where the dynamics we call physics act out.   These are behaviors that continually show themselves to be indifferent to the human condition.   Tornadoes do not 'consider' the suffering they impose on people.   COVID-19 simply did its thing and had no concept of life or death much less concern or love.    The way our environment behaves is consistent with no loving God.

Asserting a loving God requires that one try to explain what seem like contradictions.   When the explanation is nothing more, really, than ("God works in mysterious ways") no revealing insight has been offered.   The Bishop should leave it as:  "I do not know".

How about we skip all the suffering and never need a vaccine in the first place? No, I said nothing about having a free ride to a reward.    You are trying to equate suffering with learning.

It was only an analogy about suffering and learning through pain. You can toss it out if you wish. It's served its purpose in discussion.

Evidentially, God uses suffering as a teaching tool  We suffer, and from it we learn lessons and rewards.

Evidentially, God uses suffering as a teaching tool  We suffer, and from it we learn lessons and rewards.

That is not in evidence.   Suffering exists.   Claiming that suffering is a tool God uses to learn is pure speculation on your part.

The four year old child suffering with leukemia is, per you, doing so in order to learn.   So she dies at four having learned suffering.   

I never mentioned any suffering four year old, to be precise, until now.

Nevertheless, what does the death of any child of any age suffering and dying from leukemia teach others in the world and sciences about children with leukemia?

A degree is a goal.   Having to work hard to achieve a goal is a good thing (for character).   Would you think things improved if the student is required to undergo floggings if they get a score less than a B?

That is a rather crude hypothetical. In the abstract, "working hard" of itself is a type of suffering (hardship), yes?

We all suffer, that's clear. Whether suffering is 'must' is according to how you chose to framed the question.  That said, we all have stories of suffering, yes?

NOTE: This focus of discussion is on the two videos under discussion.

It has been made plain several times over in 'here' that Alex does not believe any God (of any kind) exist. So what point does Alex hope to transmit by asking a question he hopelessly can not accept as having an answer?

CB, you're the one who has repeatedly stated that suffering is necessary for learning.

Would such a proposition be equivalent to getting a 'degree' in life without every going to any proper 'schools'? What has been 'learned'?

Those were your words in response to TiG's suggestion that we could learn without suffering.

Yes, we likely all have suffered to some degree.  That doesn't mean suffering is necessary to learning.  Some of our suffering was likely without any lesson whatsoever.  It was just endured.

Much learning occurs without any suffering whatsoever.  Ask anybody who has had an excellent teacher or who loves to read whether they've learned without suffering, and they'll tell you they have, and that learning can be accompanied by great enjoyment - no suffering at all.

Since Alex does not believe any god exist: What is the question involving non-existent God/s?

I do not know what you are trying to ask.

Since Alex does not believe in any God whatsoever, why 'trouble' the host and the Bishop with questions about that which he willfully not or can not be persuaded of or provided an answer? Use the time constructively to talk about nature's coronaviruses, and humanity's discovery of vaccines, in my opinion.

Any nonexistent God 'troubles' nobody.

So what point does Alex hope to transmit by asking a question he hopelessly can not accept as having an answer?

You realize he's making an argument, yes?  That he was asked a question about why he doesn't believe in God, and this was his answer?  The fact that his question can't be answered without resorting to copouts (which are non-answers pretending to be answers) confirms his position.

Why in the world do you think that him participating in a planned debate is equivalent to him "troubling" anybody?  Do you think either the bishop or the host don't know that they'll be asked difficult questions?  Do you know the host's position?

And there it is: Nature is not moral. And @3.1.35 [Alex] does not believe any god exists.  Alex made a category mistake!

I see.   So if Alex does not agree with the Bishop his positions are irrelevant.

No, it is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the Bishop.

Alex should not be querying a Bishop about suffering, believers, or God. As according to Alex's worldview there is no God to be 'studied'!

Alex should not be querying a Bishop about suffering, believers, or God.

Good grief.

You'd scrap the debate and replace it with a sermon.  Only the bishop is allowed to speak.

Alex should not be querying a Bishop about suffering, believers, or God. As according to Alex's worldview there is no God to be 'studied'!

That's not how debate works, CB.  I'm pretty sure you know that.

There is only one God. And there can be only one God.

That's nice. Prove it!

 If Zeus was one of many gods then he was not God.

Zeus was considered a god by the ancient Greeks. He was the "king" of the Olympian gods.

Why do atheists always want to talk about Roman and Greek and other ancient deities? 

Because they are just as valid and lacking in evidence as the monotheistic god.

In this existence we have to experience duality.  I suppose an all powerful God could make us happy all the time but it would have no meaning. 

God supposedly tried that with the Garden of Eden. But by the reasoning that being happy all the time would have no meaning, is that not the state of being in Heaven? So being happy in Heaven (for eternity) would have no meaning.

By the definition of God - THE Supreme Being. 

So I take it your belief in God follows the dictionary definition?

For better or worse this existence is based on duality and relativity. If it were otherwise it wouldnt be this existence. Maybe one day we will get to find out why that is so, but I doubt it. . 

How does that indicate the existence of god?

If God exists it is a reality .

A whopping big 'if' John. There is no evidence to suggest, much less support the existence of god.

@3.1.44 I see value in advantages and consequences of actions because that is feedback that helps us do better towards some goal, but I do not see any value in suffering. . . .

Actually the suffering we are discussing is universal based on the video @3.1 posted by JR. and permissible "uses" of a word or words is allowable in any discussion. A synonym for "action" is "experience." And you see no value in suffering. . . .

I did not mention "flogging" in my answer.

Of course, I am speaking from a perspective that permits God to exist by faith!  Subsequently, God allows suffering to exit. It's evident because suffering is tangible.

Would such a proposition be equivalent to getting a 'degree' in life without every going to any proper 'schools'? What has been 'learned'? Those were your words in response to TiG's suggestion that we could learn without suffering.

In context, that is an analogy. An analogy simply can be an analogy to (aid/smooth/"spirit") discussion along. Use the analogy properly. Particularly when it is elaborated on according.

To be firm and clear: It is not a "must" that suffering is essential to learning. Suffering is a way we learn. Everybody that has ever suffered knows this.

Take stock of my tooth/pain and suffering analogy @3.1.52.

Finally, again we are off the topic of the two significant videos!

See @3.1.35 it will display who wrote what.

Any nonexistent God 'troubles' nobody.

Such 'debate' is not purpose driven. Alex hoped to learn nothing (and probably exceeded expectations.) And, I do not care to speculate where the Bishop and host ended up!  I'd probably have to venture back to the end of the video (I forgot!).

Here's the context:

You said:

For example, 'Covid' vaccines are a tool borne of suffering from coronavirus.

TiG responded:

You think that the worldwide suffering for this pandemic was worthwhile because it gave us a vaccine?    How about we skip all the suffering and never need a vaccine in the first place?

In context, it certainly appears that you use "suffering" in one of its more severe connotations - involving severe illness, mass death, etc.

Your response to TiG about skipping the suffering:

Would such a proposition be equivalent to getting a 'degree' in life without every going to any proper 'schools'? What has been 'learned'?

In context, you seem to be claiming that suffering is necessary to learning.  Is that not what you meant, or have you reconsidered what you said?  No "analogy" bullshit, CB.  No games of "I said what I said, but what I meant in context was something else."

Such 'debate' is not purpose driven.

Then perhaps the bishop should not have participated in it.  But I disagree.  Alex's purpose was to state his reasoning.  The fact that you disagree with it does not nullify that purpose.  The fact that you think Alex shouldn't be questioning your and the bishop's beliefs is telling.

Alex hoped to learn nothing

The same could be said of the bishop.

Alex had logic on his side.  The bishop had belief, non-answers, and ad hom.

I never mentioned any suffering four year old, to be precise, until now.

Oh come on, I applied your position that 'suffering is to learn' to my example of the four year old.   Are you going to play games or are you going to engage in a serious conversation?

That is a rather crude hypothetical. In the abstract, "working hard" of itself is a type of suffering (hardship), yes?

So now you equivocate 'suffering' to include 'working hard'?    Why does God require good people to work hard?   This is the question now?

Moving goalposts.

Do you not understand the purpose of two opposing viewpoints discussing a proposition?

Alex made a category mistake!

You are just tossing out nonsense now.    

Alex should not be querying a Bishop about suffering, believers, or God. As according to Alex's worldview there is no God to be 'studied'!

Alex can query a Bishop anytime he can find a Bishop who will engage him.   Alex is challenging the existence of God.   You get that, right?

I did not mention "flogging" in my answer.

No, I did.    I make an example showing unnecessary punishment that involves suffering and you ignore what I wrote and obtusely note that you never mentioned flogging.

A synonym for "action" is "experience." And you see no value in suffering. . . .

And, as noted, you are equivocating.   Fine, we are no longer talking only about true suffering (as in the suffering of those sickened by COVID-19 prior to their death).  Then the original discussion is over.

At this point my patience is gone and we are done.

At the end of the day, this is not a contest that I must win.

Good night. I wish all of NT good meditative dreams.

"There is always tomorrow"  ~ CB

There is a point in his response where the bishop says "from a purely logical standpoint, the argument (that human suffering is evidence that there is no God) is not that compelling"  , and he's right. We can't explain suffering from the point of view that God has a reason for it, because we can't obtain God's perspective. I know you dont like that response and you think it is a cop out, but he's right. 

You and Tig would disagree with him no matter what he said. We all know that. 

The bishop had belief, non-answers, and ad hom.

That is just ridiculous Sandy. The bishop has likely answered this question many times before and he explained himself very well. 

I would have went at it slightly differently but there was nothing illogical about what he said. 

-

What would this existence be like if there was no suffering? You dont even know if YOU would like it because without suffering you would not experience joy or exhilaration or relief because there would be nothing to contrast them to. 

This existence is utterly predicated on opposites , up, down, left, right, in, out and these attributes pervade every instant of existence. As does relativity.  Without the opposite of happiness or comfort in existence we could not experience the good stuff. 

Maybe THAT is the reason God allows suffering, but we cant be sure because we cant obtain God's perspective. 

Should we have an entirely different experience of existence in order to get rid of suffering? No one knows nor will ever know. 

God supposedly tried that with the Garden of Eden. But by the reasoning that being happy all the time would have no meaning, is that not the state of being in Heaven? So being happy in Heaven (for eternity) would have no meaning.

You want to compare something that applies to the earthly living with something that applies to the non material so called afterlife. 

I see no way to make such a comparison. 

You're merely making a declaration, John.  You are not supporting that declaration.  Same as he is.  That's not how things work, from a purely logical standpoint.

The bishop has likely answered this question many times before and he explained himself very well. 

No, he hasn't.  He has declared the existence of evidence he can't produce, and called the questioning of this evidence emotional and arrogant.  It's an unsupported assertion that we're just expected to accept.  There is no reason to accept unsupported assertions.

You and Tig would disagree with him no matter what he said. We all know that. 

Why would I disagree with him no matter what he said?    That implies that I would disagree with him because he is religious.   Wrong.   Don't presume.   I disagree based on facts and reason.   

The Bishop is speculating.   He is trying to provide an answer for a seeming contradiction.   He is not channeling God, he is simply a human being doing his best to rationalize his beliefs.

His answer, as I have noted, nets down to:  "God works in mysterious ways".   That is a non-answer.   The Bishop does not have an answer.   And I do not blame him for that.   The only entity that could explain why suffering exists would be God and He does not seem to be communicating.

I guess we are at a standstill. You are misrepresenting the bishop's position. All he said is that we can't use suffering to disprove the existence of God because we can't obtain God's perspective. There is nothing wrong with his statement from a logical standpoint. 

If there were no suffering we would have an entirely different existence. You would not even know whether you were happy or not because there would be nothing to contrast it to. Would that be preferable? 

If God is all powerful why doesnt he make Trump's nose grow a foot every time he tells a lie?  Since God does not do that even though He presumably could, that must mean that there is no God. After all, punishing Trump like that would indicate God is just. If God is not just then there must be no God. 

Why don't all rapists get caught and punished? Or better yet, why is there any rape at all?  God could prevent it. 

Why don't we all find 100 dollar bills every time we walk down the street? That would be no problem for God to arrange. 

What would this existence be like if there was no suffering?

You are simply speculating.    

What is not speculation is the observation that suffering takes place in our reality and there does not appear to be any reason for it.  

One can invent reasons (e.g. 'God has a reason for suffering ... maybe to get us to better understand happiness') but this speculation does not get us closer to truth.

However, when one puts forth claims such as 'a loving God', that claim is fair for scrutiny.   And based on the meaning of 'love', suffering seems like a contradiction.  Especially when we look at specific examples such as the suffering by terminal COVID-19 victims.   The bishop, trying to make sense of his faith, would have us accept that God purposely engineered a reality where innocent people can get infected by a deadly virus for some greater purpose.   

Well these tortured explanations are not very persuasive.   I personally am more persuaded by the speculation that nature (reality) is an indifferent force.   That seems to match reality nicely without the need to invent exotic explanations.

The Bishop is speculating. 

Saying  "why would a loving God allow suffering?" is also speculating. Because, as you say, God has not weighed in lately on the subject. 

If God is all powerful why doesnt he make Trump's nose grow a foot every time he tells a lie?  Since God does not do that even though He presumably could, that must mean that there is no God. After all, punishing Trump like that would indicate God is just. If God is not just then there must be no God. 

Why don't all rapists get caught and punished? Or better yet, why is there any rape at all?  God could prevent it. 

Why don't we all find 100 dollar bills every time we walk down the street? That would be no problem for God to arrange. 

If reality is an impartial force would we expect Trump's nose to grow when he lies?   Would we expect rapists to all be caught and punished?   Would we expect rape to just stop?  Would we be surprised that $100 bills do not appear as we walk?

Go with the evidence and reason (as far as that takes us).   There is no way we can know everything and thus most of reality will defy explanation.   Inserting an imagined explanation does not get us closer to the truth.

Shit happens.   There seems to be no reason for it other than the natural dynamics of an unfolding reality.   There might not be a human-perceived purpose for everything.

However, when one puts forth claims such as 'a loving God', that claim is fair for scrutiny. 

You are reaching. Parents who absolutely love their children do things that cause the child to suffer. Maybe not physically, but certainly temporarily suffer for a greater good down the line.

Instead of just saying that we dont know and cant know why God might allow suffering, atheists want to use that not knowing as evidence there is no God. It doesnt fly. 

I make these points to show that there are things we cannot know. Our lack of knowledge of them is not proof God doesnt exist. They just arent. 

You are reaching. Parents who absolutely love their children do things that cause the child to suffer. Maybe not physically, but certainly temporarily suffer for a greater good down the line.

You are equivocating on 'suffering' just like CB.     If you now dilute the meaning of 'suffering' to include parental discipline then this discussion has completely unraveled.

Instead of just saying that we dont know and cant know why God might allow suffering, atheists want to use that not knowing as evidence there is no God. It doesnt fly. 

No, wrong, that is NOT the argument.   Where do you see anyone arguing that our inability to explain everything (our lack of knowledge) is evidence there is no God?   You equivocate on 'suffering' and now change the argument.   

What is the point in that?

As TiG said, the bishop is speculating.  And he attempts to prevent Alex from pointing out that he's speculating by accusing him (politely) of arrogance and emotional thinking.  Alex is the boy pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.  The bishop is the crowd trying to shush him, because they know the emperor can't handle a challenge.

Saying  "why would a loving God allow suffering?" is also speculating. Because, as you say, God has not weighed in lately on the subject. 

Yes that question can be called speculation if you wish because Alex does not know there is no loving God.   Who said it is not?   

But that question is asked in response to the assertion that a loving God exists.   It is a response.   It is not the claim.   

The claim itself is speculation.

I make these points to show that there are things we cannot know. Our lack of knowledge of them is not proof God doesnt exist. They just arent. 

When you make true statements and portray them as if they were a rebuttal, you are misrepresenting positions.

Nobody has asserted that a lack of knowledge is proof that God does not exist.

You are rebutting an argument that nobody here has made!    Why?

You are equivocating on 'suffering' just like CB.     If you now dilute the meaning of 'suffering' to include parental discipline then this discussion has completely unraveled.

I'm glad you made this point. In his comments Bishop Barron says that we cant reach a fair conclusion about suffering because we cant obtain God's perspective on the topic. Barron says that God is presumably in charge of all of this existence across vast and uncounted galaxies and dimensions. His attention on one human life to the extent that He would not permit ( because He is benevolent) the working of nature to inflict suffering on that life at some point is unknowable. Perhaps one human life is BOTH a cog in the wheel and a unique individual child of God, to the all pervasive God. 

"Nature" will produce physical suffering to its creatures, every one of them, at some point. That is the way it is. It is the way it is if there is not a God and if there is a God. If there is a God and it is the way it is then we have to assume God allows it.  Saying that means there is thus no God is a very tiny perspective in a vast and endless universe. 

All religious belief as expressed on earth is a human creation. That doesnt mean those beliefs are "wrong", it means that they are not necessarily God's actual perspective. 

The comparison is apt, regardless of the setting. In either circumstance, we would be happy all the time. Per you, that happiness would have no meaning. 

Saying that means there is thus no God is a very tiny perspective in a vast and endless universe. 

Alex's argument is that (pointless) suffering contradicts the human-deemed quality of a loving God.   The bishop explains that suffering might have a purpose but it is known only to God.    In essence, the bishop is saying that what we understand to be a 'loving God' is not what God considers 'loving'.

Well that is just great.   So basically we cannot go with the meaning of words as we know them when religious contradictions occur.   Instead we are to hold that 'loving' does not really mean 'loving' as we understand the word — its true meaning is something we cannot understand.   Tortured semantics is a key tool in the religious toolkit.

Again, 'God works in mysterious ways' is a cop-out.

All religious belief as expressed on earth is a human creation. That doesnt mean those beliefs are "wrong", it means that they are not necessarily God's actual perspective.

When religious beliefs contradict each other — and especially when they contradict themselves — that does mean matters are wrong at the points of contradiction.

John, you are not addressing my rebuttals; you seem to be ignoring most of them.   So I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.   

No one is claiming (or should not be claiming) that the lack of knowledge  (or evidence/proof) is proof god does not exist. On the other hand, no one should claim or infer god exists because we lack knowledge or understanding of something.

Good, because the bishop did not claim God exists because we lack knowledge or understanding of something. 

That is a rather strange polemic. I used the word "suffering" intending it in all its 'glory.'  Sandy, really, It's not something on which to build an 'argument.' We are online where brevity and somethings should, must, be understood handily.  That is, stated on the fly. Or, in passing. I will not be able to address every comment about the meaning of —words. As I can get nothing else done and the videos themselves would go wanting!

That is good. Although, I have heard some theists make such claims before, usually along the lines of "God did it." Such claims are intellectually dishonest and lazy.

Brevity is not furthered by playing word games, CB.  That is what you've been doing.

Tig, you are not addressing my rebuttals; you seem to be ignoring most of them.   So I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.   

Alex is uttering a polemic against God. He is laying a 'charge' at God's 'feet.'

Whereas,at the last, the Bishop is asking that we should make allowances for what we do not know about the larger scheme of suffering. That is reasonable open-minded thinking.

In essence, the bishop is saying that what we understand to be a 'loving God' is not what God considers 'loving'.

No, what he is saying is that we cant know what God's purpose in allowing suffering is. And he's right. Since you cant use "suffering" to prove God doesnt exist, why do you keep trying?

Alex doesn't believe God exists, so he's not charging him with anything.  You seem to keep missing that point.

The bishop asks for allowances for things we don't know, but does not admit equal allowances for the possibility that he might be entirely wrong.  God may very well not have a justification for allowing suffering, because God may not be benevolent, or may not even exist.  When the bishop allows those possibilities, then he will be open-minded.  He does not, and therefore is not.

Since you cant use "suffering" to prove God doesnt exist, why do you keep trying?

Nobody's trying to prove God doesn't exist, because that logically can't be done.

Although it is not exactly what the bishop was saying, I say that suffering exists for an unknown reason related to the fact that a world without "suffering" would also be a world without joy, because we live in an existence predicated on the presence of opposites and relativity. 

Why did God create this existence in this way ? That is what we cant know. 

I did not expect you to pull the Pee Wee Herman bit.

You can see how my comments quote your points and address them.    You make a point and I address it.   You cannot say the same.

You seem to always revert back to the idea that people cant keep up with you. You can say a hundred times that the bishop "copped out" but that doesnt mean he did. His point was very logical. We cant use "suffering" to disprove the existence of God because we cannot read God's mind on the subject. Does it ever occur to you that there could be an explanation that surpasses human understanding?  Especially given the virtually limitless expanses of the universe and all that it may encompass? 

No, what he is saying is that we cant know what God's purpose in allowing suffering is. And he's right. Since you cant use "suffering" to prove God doesnt exist, why do you keep trying?

Where do you see me arguing that suffering means God does not exist?    I know it is easier to make up an argument for your interlocutor and then rebut it, but to what end?   

I have explained this repeatedly.   Once more.   The argument is in response to a positive claim that a loving God exists and cares for us.   Alex has noted that the existence of suffering in the world is not consistent with a loving God but it is consistent with a reality in which there is no God or that God is indifferent to suffering.

To attempt to explain how suffering is consistent with a loving God, the bishop speculates that there is a divine purpose for suffering, but it is beyond our ability to grasp.   So the bishop could not offer a sound reason for why suffering would exist given a loving God other than to claim that the reason really is there (somewhere).   

Further speculation now goes into 'without suffering there can be no joy' which is simply an unprovable claim.   I would contend that to appreciate the good there must be bad (to make a relative comparison) but why must there be the extreme?   Why suffering such as that endured by an innocent pre-school child dying of cancer?    To what end?   On one hand we have denial by parents of ice-cream for being bad.   Sure, okay.   On the other hand we have suffering which typically means intense psychological / physical pain.   Yeah, God works in mysterious ways.

One could hold to the pure speculation by the bishop.   One could also note, as Alex does, that suffering is consistent with the reality we observe.   It is only when one introduces the claim of a loving God that we have problems.   Sans a loving God suffering is no mystery.   With a loving God there now needs to be an explanation to resolve the apparent contradiction.

It always ends up this way too.   

Every time.

And all the time it seems.

You seem to always revert back to the idea that people cant keep up with you.

No John, I am noting that you are ignoring my rebuttals.   Personally I do not think it has anything to do with you being unable to keep up.   Not at all.

You can say a hundred times that the bishop "copped out" but that doesnt mean he did. His point was very logical.

Is that all you got from my comments?    His speculation that God works in mysterious ways is logical but it also offers nothing.   It is simply an eloquent (albeit now a platitude) way of saying:  'I do not know but I trust God'.

We cant use "suffering" to disprove the existence of God because we cannot read God's mind on the subject.

Who is doing this??   Alex is not even doing this.   Again you rebut that which has never been argued.   Do you think nobody can see this?

Does it ever occur to you that there could be an explanation that surpasses human understanding? 

Of course.   Science has shown what was beyond human understanding in the past.   Clearly there is far more that is beyond contemporary human understanding and I suspect most knowledge will perpetually be beyond human understanding.

Now, where I have I suggested otherwise?   Answer:  nowhere.    So other than just dropping shit into a comment, what do you hope to accomplish with this strawman question?

Same tactics too.   Ignore rebuttals, strawman arguments, equivocation on semantics, etc.    I have mentioned to Gordy many times that these discussions / debates are like panning for gold.   One must endure plenty of nonsense to find a nugget or two of value.

Tig, the concept of GOD encompasses the resolution of all contradictions. We dont know and cannot know why God might allow suffering. We dont know and cant know if it means God is or is not loving. 

You pooh pooh the notion that one extreme is necessary to the experience of the opposite. I find that unreasonable on your part. Bad things exist as the necessary counterpart to "good things". Not as the un happy counterpart, but the necessary counterpart in order for us to experience good. Its just the way this experience unfolds , every day. Every second of every day for that matter. It is the way of the world. 

Doesnt prove or disprove the existence of God. 

Tig, the concept of GOD encompasses the resolution of all contradictions.

John, this is also a cop-out.

Tig, you and Sandy both say , of course, that it "always ends up this way", which seems to be true. If something always keeps happening to you maybe it is because , in part, related to something that you and Sandy are doing. 

Tig, the concept of GOD encompasses the resolution of all contradictions. We dont know and cannot know why God might allow suffering. We dont know and cant know if it means God is or is not loving. 

Yeah John I am quite aware of that claim.    God works in mysterious ways.    Just because we do not understand something does not mean that it is inconsistent with God.   Yeah,  I doubt anyone in this thread is unaware of that position.    And my comments certainly have not suggested otherwise so why do you offer this obvious statement?

Bad things exist as the necessary counterpart to "good things". Not as the un happy counterpart, but the necessary counterpart in order for us to experience good. Its just the way this experience unfolds , every day. Every second of every day for that matter. It is the way of the world. 

Okay John I am going to quote myself directly from the comment you just replied to just to illustrate what you have been doing:

TiG @3.1.133 ☞ Further speculation now goes into 'without suffering there can be no joy' which is simply an unprovable claim.   I would contend that to appreciate the good there must be bad (to make a relative comparison) but why must there be the extreme?   Why suffering such as that endured by an innocent pre-school child dying of cancer?    To what end?   On one hand we have denial by parents of ice-cream for being bad.   Sure, okay.   On the other hand we have suffering which typically means intense psychological / physical pain.   Yeah, God works in mysterious ways.

You reply noting that bad things exist as the necessary counterpart to good things yet I had just offered that in blue.    I have stated this several times with examples such as getting bad grades on a test, being disciplined by parents, parking tickets, getting fired, etc.   Then, on the other hand, we have suffering.   People clearly appreciate good things without having to literally suffer.    I am not convinced that human beings are unable to experience joy without suffering.

But this is somewhat off the point.   The point is that suffering is consistent with a disinterested reality and flies in the face of the notion of a loving God.   One need not invent anything to explain suffering in reality.   But one must engage in tortured speculation to correlate a loving God with the suffering of a pre-school child dying of cancer.

Doesnt prove or disprove the existence of God. 

You are clearly inserting strawman arguments like this on purpose since I have lost count how many times I have noted that neither side seeks to prove or disprove the existence of God in this debate.

Well when one side of the argument resorts to tactics and the other side does not and basically spends the majority of its time swatting the flies, what do you suggest the other side do differently?

maybe it is because , in part, related to something that you and Sandy are doing. 

Keeping the goalposts where they are is the problem?

You began this debate by claiming that the bishops answer is a "cop out".  I dont see the basis for your assertion, as his answer is completely logical. You dont have to agree with him, and he may be wrong, but his answer is not a cop out. As far as I can see, every reply you made after the beginning just kept up with the cop out theme. 

I'm beginning to think any gold nuggets we do find is just fools gold.

I dont see the basis for your assertion, as his answer is completely logical.

As I noted earlier, the bishop's speculation is perfectly logical.   He does not know but he believes God is perfect and knows the we are imperfect.   

⛬    (per the bishop) There must be a reason but only God knows.

In short, 'God works in mysterious ways'.

In short,  'I do not know'.

Cop-out.   Non-answer.

John, if I told you that Donald Trump is really a great guy, but acts like an incompetent asshole for a very good but top-secret reason, but refuse to give any details and just tell you that it's all too complicated for you to understand, and also tell you I don't know the reason, but trust that it's a good one, you'd rightly call me either a liar, brainwashed sycophant, or troll.

You'd call my non-answer a cop-out, because that's what it would be.

Same deal with the bishop.

I'm beginning to think any gold nuggets we do find is just fools gold.

You guys have been doing this exact same bit for at least 10 years. 

Get back to me when someone sincerely ascribes to Donald Trump the attributes of God (with a straight face) . 

So, you don't acknowledge that Trump might have some mysterious but benevolent reason for acting like an incompetent asshole?  Even though I've assured you that he does, and it's just too complicated for us non-president folks to comprehend?

Welcome to the dark side, John.

I guess anything is possible.  Maybe he is a secret Marvel superhero, Fat Man. 

Alex is faulting a non-existent God (to his understanding) for suffering and 100,000 deaths due to the Coronavirus in Britain. Moreover, he is not willing to accept that Bishops can not explain (answer) for all the dynamics of this Earth any more than science and logic can. However, as has been pointed out repeatedly God is not proven to not exist simply because of mere deaths in a specific time and space.  This world is full of a spectrum of life and death!

Where is this "ad hom" from the Bishop (upon Alex or the host) 'spell' it out clearly - please. I am interested to listen or read about it.

Are you being condescending, TiG? If so, why? How is it helpful to this discussion? I am being civil with you to ask and respond appropriately. Why is that not sufficient?

Then you haven't been paying attention. 

That's untrue. And I think you know it. Finally, I am going to ask you to stop addressing me personally and confine our mutual sharing to the videos and their "attendees." As I am trying to focus on that material.

I can think of certain NT members who practically do just that.

Where is this "ad hom" from the Bishop

I have spelled it out clearly several times.  I'll do so one more time, and that's it.

He said questioning whether God has a moral justification for allowing the suffering of Covid was arrogant and emotional.  Clearly, he knew that was Alex's position (a rhetorical position, as, yet again, Alex isn't actually accusing a God he doesn't believe exists of anything), and was accusing Alex of arrogance and emotional rather than rational thinking.

He was polite about it, but it's there.

An endless stream of invented claims.   You refuse to stick with what Alex has presented and instead spin your own version.   For example, nobody has suggested that COVID-19 deaths are proof that there is no God.   That is your invention.   

If you cannot discuss without changing the facts, that should give you pause on your position.  Why change the facts if your position is solid?

Yeah I know you will just deny what you are doing.

That's untrue.

Anybody following the conversation can see otherwise.

Finally, I am going to ask you to stop addressing me personally and confine our mutual sharing to the videos and their "attendees."

My responses have been direct replies to your comments.  If you engage in such tactics as straw men, moving goalposts, and indignance over debate partners debating ("Alex shouldn't be querying the bishop."), I will call it out.  If you don't want such tactics called out, don't engage in them.

Okay. Done then. Moving back into the stream of discussion. . . .

It seems these religious discussions are a "must win" desperation for some commenters. I am not picking on anybody either. (Though I will likely be so accused.) However, there is just no room for compromise and it's an honest to goodness big disappointment too. I want more from these discussions than this constant descent into bickering and 'piling on.' We are all adults here.

Nobody is "piling on".

[W]ithout suffering you would not experience joy or exhilaration or relief because there would be nothing to contrast them to. 

Emphatically. The instance joy appeared on the spectrum of emotions, sorrow entered in. Similarly with ease and pleasure came pain and suffering.

I would like to try to answer this one, but alas I'd better leave it for another article or 'day.'

This is all just too much. You are accusing me of equivocating:

We're talking pass one another. I will wait for the next change to talk 'face to face.'

Why is suffering and learning through it such a hard concept? We all have suffered and shall suffer more. In its own way; this article is a shared suffering experience.

I even used a simple analogy of a tooth ache and improvement afterwards as a 'trigger' for someone I think informed us of being a dentist or at the least working in a dental setting. It became so much 'fodder' and was unceremoniously ignored. Trampled on. And argument for its own sake (against suffering) continued.

Actually, at that point in the video there is a back and forth about suffering in general and in specific (to Alex's comment) to Covid both. To which the Bishop states, it is arrogant on both sides, atheistic and theistic, to try to know what the larger scheme of suffering is without having been formally explained.

It is not a put-down of Alex (ad hominem attack).

Why is suffering and learning through it such a hard concept?

Another straw man.  Nobody said it was.

Why is it so difficult to accept that while one can learn through suffering, suffering isn't necessary to learning?  It was not ignored.  It was dismissed, because some people take care of their teeth without ever having had a toothache - no suffering involved.

(a rhetorical position, as, yet again, Alex isn't actually accusing a God he doesn't believe exists of anything

"Isn't actually" - what do you mean? Is Alex doing so or not?

I have no need to defend my comments against tirades. Stick to the topic of the videos. I am not the focus of any of this (and I won't make this about you). BTW, I think we are done (if this is the level we're on).

To which the Bishop states, it is arrogant on both sides, atheistic and theistic, to try to know what the larger scheme of suffering is without having been formally explained.

Who's to do the explaining, CB?  God seems pretty quiet on the subject.  The bishop claims to know there's a scheme, but doesn't know any details of said scheme, so why take him at his word?

He said "Who are you or anyone to say?" - implying that anybody who even questioned his mercy was stepping above their place.  He likened it to Job asking God why he suffered so much.  Yeah, he included himself in the "Who are you or I to ask" bit, but only one is doing the asking, and that was Alex.

Telling or implying that somebody is stepping out of their appointed place is an attack on that person, however nicely worded.  Telling them they shouldn't question is an attempt to shut down discussion.

It's a lot like watching a video of what one knows is a debate, and expecting silence from one of the debaters.

"Isn't actually" - what do you mean? Is Alex doing so or not?

Um, "isn't actually" means he's not.  That's plain English.

You understand that Alex doesn't believe God exists, right?  So why would he accuse him of anything?  He is stating that the lack of action to prevent suffering does not support the notion of a benevolent God.

I have no need to defend my comments against tirades.

Nobody is on any tirade.

Sandy! Okay: YOU WIN! Good grief!

Ignoring your series of meta crap, but I will comment on this one point:

Noting someone's equivocation (especially when it is plain as day) is not, in any way, a personal attack.    So cut the drama and no I will not agree to be silent if you or anyone else engages in equivocation.

You  win! Good Grief!!

John, this video has a much longer (informative) version.  (Smile.)

I have to revisit this comment, because something occurred during the flurry of chattering comments that was just plain wrong .

Tig, you wrote:

@ 3.1.48 TᵢG replied to CB @ 3.1.45   3 days ago

Would such a proposition be equivalent to getting a ' degree ' in life without every going to any proper ' schools '? What has been ' learned '?

No, I said nothing about having a free ride to a reward.    [1] You are trying to equate suffering with learning .   I continue to explain why I find that to be wrong.
[2] One does not need to suffer to learn.    The four year old child suffering with leukemia is, per you, doing so in order to learn.   So she dies at four having learned suffering.   

A degree is a goal.   Having to [3] work hard to achieve a goal is a good thing ( for character).   Would you think things improved if the student is required to undergo floggings if they get a score less than a B?

The high school student Christians offered questions that while sometimes making good points, were not as aware of what the counter argument would end up being as an adult would be. Which is expected since they are kids. 

Correct. We have a trained and scholarly (atheist) debater masquerading as a Philosopher PH.d employing tactics and well-honed statements from his encounters with established atheists. Add to it (as McDowell stated) how McDowell took liberties in expressing "I think" in a form that appeared more as "I believe" and we can expose presumptions shot through his Q & A lecture.

... employing tactics ...

What tactics did Sean employ during this Q & A?

Add to it (as McDowell stated) how McDowell took liberties in expressing "I think" in a form that appeared more as "I believe" and we can expose presumptions shot through his Q & A lecture.

But he would typically state that what he 'believed' was based on evidence and that his 'belief' was not of certain truth but rather that it was the best supported hypothesis (supported by facts and reason).

One tactic is to intermingle Josephus statements about Jesus' crucifixion into a discussion about 'multiple common Jesus' name usage of the time' and imply (or flat out) state that we do not know which of the Jesus' was being pulled out of the line. (Josephus is clear he is speaking of the Jesus (called "the Christ" and who had followers and that Jesus was crucified).

Is their 'proof' of a multiverse or multiverses? Material evidence? No. Yet, there is a 'certain' matter of fact-ness to atheists repeating the theory as if it stands on its own - though they know  it can be removed later.

Josephus is clear he is speaking of the Jesus (called "the Christ" and who had followers and that Jesus was crucified).

That was simply how he chose to present it.   I was surprised that he did not mention that Josephus wrote about 60 years after the death of Jesus.   

You might disagree with his interpretation but a different interpretation is not a 'tactic'.

Is their 'proof' of a multiverse or multiverses? Material evidence? No. Yet, there is a 'certain' matter of fact-ness to atheists repeating the theory as if it stands on its own - though they know  it can be removed later.

The multiverse is simply theoretical physics.   There is no proof nor is there any evidence.   It is a consequence, however, of well-founded physics that is indeed based on evidence.   So consider it a very-well-educated extrapolation.    And Sean did not claim this was even evidenced.   He was honest about it.

I am curious how you got evidence (much less proof) from what Sean stated.

And Sean did not claim this was even evidenced.   He was honest about it. I am curious how you got evidence (much less proof) from what Sean state

Not really sure of what you are asking me to "evidence" since I stated this:

Yet, there is a 'certain' matter of fact-ness to atheists repeating the theory as if it stands on its own - though they know  it can be removed later.

Listen in the uppermost video to these timestamp sections about multiverse:

@8:40

@15:20 - 1600

@1:03:00  Sean mentions 'using the multiverse card.'

Not really sure of what you are asking me to "evidence" since I stated this:

I am saying that Sean did not claim that the multiverse is evidenced.

Listen in the uppermost video to these timestamp sections about multiverse:

He simply characterized the multiverse as a tactic while operating as his true Christian self.   But noting the multiverse hypothesis as theoretical physics is not a tactic.    He did not state that the multiverse is necessarily true.   The multiverse notion brings up the possibility that our universe emerged from a greater reality.   This is actually quite consistent with known physics and the obvious notion that something (e.g. our known universe) cannot emerge from literal nothing.

I am saying that Sean did not claim that the multiverse is evidenced.

Where have I 'uttered' that Sean claims that the multiverse is evidenced? Point it out plainly, please.

The multiverse is simply theoretical physics.   There is no proof nor is there any evidence. ~TiG.

Is their 'proof' of a multiverse or multiverses? Material evidence? No. Yet, there is a 'certain' matter of fact-ness to atheists repeating the theory as if it stands on its own - though they know  it can be removed later. ~ CB.

I feel ready to move back into the regular stream of discussion any time now. Let's agree or agree to disagree and move on, please.

Then I do not know what you meant by this if you did not mean to claim that the multiverse theory is used as a tactic where an atheist asserts certainty:

Yet, there is a 'certain' matter of fact-ness to atheists repeating the theory as if it stands on its own - though they know  it can be removed later.

Frankly, I do not care to deal with the 'where did I say this' nonsense.  If that is not what you mean then fine.

I feel ready to move back into the regular stream of discussion any time now.

No problem.   

Because I framed my sentence appropriately, it is not nonsense. And you can reframe it as you deign to, but that will be you doing so. Now, I can move on. (Smile.) There is much more to be discussed on this 'hot' topic. I hope we have. . . time.

I watched it through. I found it kind of disturbing.

I watched it through. I found it kind of disturbing.

In what way?

It seemed deceptive.

I've had time to think about it. Last night I couldn't put my finger on it.

Its that he came off very, very logical when he was "atheist role playing" and his responses to the students were thorough and sharp. And then after 45 minutes he casually says (basically) "just kidding, that's not me at all, I'm the opposite". There's something disturbing about that to me.

I understand the point was to show the students that they shouldn't prejudge atheists and non-believers. That they should be open-minded and courteous to non-christians. I'm not sure this was the best way to go about it.

It certainly will be memorable for the students actually listening. Lots of 'energetic movement' in those young people; did they all engage with the speaker?

did they all engage with the speaker?

No. I don't know how many were in the class but I'd say 70 to 100. I think about a third were actually engaged, a few asked questions, others listened and made non verbal sounds of either approval or disapproval.

The rest were bored and chatting among themselves. Not unusual for an audience of that age.

Yes. (Smile.) The first video had some interesting moments too!

I wasn’t that impressed either.  Fact is that some people are just born with no capacity to accept religious faith and some are born with no capacity to reject the religious faith that has been imposed on them.  No amount of philosophizing or psychological trickery will change that.

Back at 'daylight.' (Smile.)

Well John, the first video is interesting. I wonder if I have 'room' left for more punches to land. /sarc.

The opposite of anything is its absence ... with Love as with Hate, it is Apathy and just maybe God is playing with infinitely faceted dice.

... moving on, great minds do not think alike, that's an attribute of mediocre minds. 

I go sleep now.

Is there anything good about God, an atheist would like to share?

Good news is as God doesn't exist neither does Hell!

I can see that; unless Hell exist apart from God's existence. We could say this place has places we can designate as Hell. (Smile.)

Or we can return to a discussion with God's existence, and unfortunately Hell would be a probability again!

There is zero probability that God or Hell exist!

I can just hear the refrain: "That's nice, prove it!" Quaint, how it picks it moments to appear on 'the scene.'

Is there anything good about God, an atheist would like to share?

Sure ... about once a year He/She can make for an interesting discourse ... this is not one of them.

Good day, Hallux! Apparently, there is time set aside for "interesting" snark, I see. (Smile.)

Now then, when it comes to suffering and pain, two points:

1. Pop culture: Spock says, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Captain Kirk answers, “Or the one.”
2. Pain and suffering is a 'given' to having a body made of fleshly material.

1. Pain and suffering is a 'given' to having a body made of fleshly material.

Which would indicate that "god" would be unable to take away pain and suffering since it's a "given"?

Why would God be unable to take away pain and suffering? After all, it is a given that our bodies are "given" to decay. Just remove those properties of decay. . . .

Moreover, humanity can and does dispense pain and suffering upon one another and remove it too!

Surely, in life, you have experiences of pain and suffering that you have "gotten over," yes?

Why would God be unable to take away pain and suffering? After all, it is a given that our bodies are "given" to decay. Just remove those properties of decay.

I don't know, I was trying to understand that part..

Moreover, humanity can and does dispense pain and suffering upon one another and remove it too!

Absolutely, I was just trying to figure out where god came in.

Hi Ozzwald. This discussion of suffering and God (role in suffering) stems from a video posted @3.1.  A debate between Alex O'Connor, an atheist, and a Bishop Barron. Have you watched already or do you have the time to do so? Especially the opening two minutes of it where Alex O'Connor laids the question 'bare'?

Have you watched already or do you have the time to do so?

I've watched parts, but alas have not had time for the entire video. Hour and 12 minutes is a very long video to sit through, for that type.  I have tried skipping forward, but must admit that I have more than likely missed a very large chunk of it.

It's not the article video. It is the video @3.1.

That one is only nine minutes thereabouts.  Also, one of the tools of Youtube videos, there is a settings "wheel" in the status area with playback speeds. When I am in a hurry, I can advance the speed to a 'safe' 1.75 and still glean meaning. (Smile.)

Also, one of the tools of Youtube videos, there is a settings "wheel" in the status area with playback speeds. When I am in a hurry, I can advance the speed to a 'safe' 1.75 and still glean meaning.

You're better than I am, I just get flashbacks to watching Alvin and the Chipmunks.

I had a flashback too:

But, don't hate it! (Smile.) Use the settings wheel with caution!

There is so much that can be discussed on the subject of suffering and God. . .that it is a shame that it falls into bombasti-ness.

As to the second video, I have been reading up on Justin Brierley, the moderator, between Bishop Barron and Alex O'Connor above. He is a marvelous host in the sense that in the full over one hour debate, he is able to keep the two "forces" from falling into bombastic treatment of each other. Indeed, the host, executes his job with a pleasant attitude that makes his guests 'want' to come back into the forum repeatedly to engage complex subject matter.

I 'rise' up this morning to discuss further (with the indulgence of the seeder):

1. I have just been reading up on Justin Brierley  the host of Unbelieveable?  (the second video above). In 2017, he published a book entitled:

Unbelievable?: Why after ten years of talking with atheists, I'm still a Christian

I find this interesting for many reasons, but the one I want to focus on here is. . . the video/podcast itself. Mr. Brierley, though a confirmed Christian, runs a pretty good set of debate shows bringing together atheists, Christians, Catholics, Muslims, and other faith models—without the bombastic treatment of either opposing side. It is routine for his guest debaters to feel respected and able to speak their truths in the one hour (or so) allotments. Host Justin Brierley is a Christian, yet he is not a partisan. He is doing something right!

Might we consider what that 'something' is and imitate it in our discussion model?

2. In the second video above (Unbelievable?) timestamp 3:00 thereabouts Bishop states, and I paraphrase: 'If God is infinitely good then there can be no infinite evil.'

This makes sense if the 'scale' heads to infinity in one direction. But, how about if the scale is a spectrum of extremes of opposite points? We find opposite extremes in 99.99 percent of our universe.