There is an argument used against objective idealism that is by far the worst objection I have ever heard. Not all materialist make this objection but the majority of them do. You will hear this objection every time there is any science that conflicts with the materialist worldview. The materialist will say “That’s just quantum woo” without explaining why its some type of pseudoscience. The reason why quantum woo is called “woo” is because it’s a type of pseudoscience in physics that is promoted by quantum mysticism. In objective idealism the universe is seen as a simulation and not as mysticism. If materialist want to argue that idealism is pseudoscience then they need to show why it is. Materialist are excellent at showing why flat earth theory is pseudoscience and why young earth creationism is pseudoscience and they provide arguments and evidence for why its pseudoscience but when it comes to idealism they make no real argument and just repeat the phrase “It’s just quantum woo” without explaining why its pseudoscience. It’s analogous to saying “I don’t like the science, therefore its pseudoscience” it’s just a terrible argument that refutes nothing idealism says. Now its more often an objection against consciousness causing collapse however consciousness causing collapse is one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics mainly the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation. However this can be extended to the Copenhagen interpretation and information based-information theoretical interpretations (Copenhagen 2.0).

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse. In other words particles are in a state of superposition prior to collapse and what collapses it are observers. Now materialist will object that “observers” can be anything even unconscious things which is true however all physical objects are part of the same universal wave function. In other words everything is in a superposition and so whatever causes final collapse cannot be material or physical. This is when we get a von Neumann chain where each particle is needed to collapse the next one. This is the basis for consciousness causing collapse basically consciousness causing collapse is not where consciousness collapses a specific particle but rather it’s needed to start the collapse of the entire chain of particles like a chain reaction.  This is why the orthodox interpretations logically conclude to consciousness causing collapse. Whenever I show the von neumann chain argument materialist have no response and just run away and say there are other interpretations of quantum mechanics. Well then if materialist want to do that then they have just admitted that consciousness causing collapse is not pseudoscience and in fact is supported by the Copenhagen interpretation and information based interpretations. So then idealism wouldn’t be “quantum woo” like they often try to argue. Now since I don’t want to forget this some will also object that decoherence can fully explain collapse without the need of consciousness and that it can solve the measurement problem. However this is completely false as I will link below (1).

And this does not even account for the other evidence that we live in a simulation and how the universe acts like a virtual reality something that is predicted in idealism. (2) I could go on and on about the overwhelming evidence in support of idealism but I will save that for future blog post. The point here is that arguing idealism is somehow “quantum woo” is a terrible argument and doesn’t refute any of the evidence for idealism much less provide a good counter argument. Its like materialist have no argument and so they try to call it “woo” when it’s not. Anyways I hope my readers can understand why its the worst argument against idealism and that materialist need to stop using it if they want to have a rational debate.

Sources:

(1) http://cds.cern.ch/record/531385/files/0112095.pdf

(2) https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

 

 

Note: This is a response to parts 1-3 on chocolate hats video series I will do a response to part 4 on a separate blog post since Chocolate Hat is taking too long to upload part 4 of his series

(This blog is a response to this video series http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIvP4w6TgOtE9vcvX2aIK84fa_GUGlkrS )

So recently there is a new youtuber that has decided to respond to IP on quantum mechanics debunking materialism. And as you will find out the objections he uses are weak and are mostly objections that IP has already dealt with in his blog responses (1). Chocolate Hat is not the first youtuber to respond to IPs video there are many others that have used similar objections. I will respond when an objection is made to IP and when Chocolate Hat uses phrases like “woo woo” as an objection those are ad hominem at best and I won’t make a response to them. So to keep this simple I will divide this response into 4 separate parts and each part will be responding to each video since there are 4 videos that respond to IPs video. Also I will label Chocolate Hat as “CH” so that I don’t have to keep on repeating his name. So let’s get started with the response.

(1) https://inspiringphilosophy.wordpress.com/

 

Part 1

So the video starts off with IP original video (keep in mind much of CH response are clips of different videos). Objections don’t start until (8:05-8:55) in which CH says

“The argument that there is an ultimate cosmic consciousness that observes everything is an argument of infinite regress. The cosmic consciousness is either a characteristic of the universe that is not detectable or measurable or it is detectable and measurable and can be said to exist within the universe. If a supposed consciousness has no detectable interactions with matter and no way to falsify it then it cannot be seen as an entity in its own right. In this case it becomes irrelevant to our investigation not only that but you could argue that as we have not found any definable entity that we could call the source of consciousness we have to assume there is something else outside of it giving the necessary conditions for the existence of the universe thus infinite regress so then it must have properties that we can define and measure”

 

The objection that CH has presented is a misunderstanding of what our position is. Yes God would be beyond the universe he created he wouldn’t be a part of it. Our viewpoint is that God’s mind simulates the universe just like a computer simulating a universe but that God can also interact with the universe to produce miracles. So there is no infinite regress if the universe is a simulation within the mind of God so the objection that CH presents is a huge misunderstanding of our position. The cosmic consciousness doesn’t have to be part of the universe if it’s what simulates the universe in the first place. We should also remember the need for a source of first cause would infer this source is necessary. This is just basic contingency arguments which avoid an infinite regress. Furthermore, not being measured would be to assume God is a physical being, which he could not be by definition. If he was, he would just be another physical thing that needs observed. The source of consciousness would not be physical and therefore not measured. This should have been pretty obvious in the reasoning itself. So ultimately CH objection fails.

 

(8:55-9:00) “So far consciousness has been observed to be emergent from brain activity”

 

No that is false there is zero reason to believe the mind emerges from the brain. Supposedly objective material brains do not have subjective mental properties and not anything that epistemologically relates to subjective mental properties. Therefor minds emerging from brains do not explain minds, and they need to if one is to posit that the mind emerges from the brain. The fact that strong emergence does not posit an explanation puts it right up with magic and the argument from ignorance. This also assumes your conclusion true aka materialism being true so CH is already assuming materialism without providing a good argument for it. And saying brain damage proves the mind is emergent is also wrong because that would only show correlations between mind and brain not the mind emerging from the brain.

 

(9:00-9:05) “There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness comes from a field or anywhere else outside the central nervous system”

 

This is actually not true at all. Donald D. Hoffman conscious agent dynamics makes consciousness fundamental to reality and not emergent from brain activity.

 

“We have proposed that consciousness, not space-time and physics, is fundamental and that consciousness can be formally modeled by dynamical systems of conscious agents” .

 

You can check out the papers (1) (2) but it shows how the mind is fundamental to reality and not emergent from brain activity. And IP actually did a series on the case for the soul showing that a dual aspect idealism model of the mind can account for all the scientific evidence of what we know from neuroscience, quantum biology and near death experiences (3).  

 

(9:20-10:30)  There have been studies of self-awareness in other animals…the further away from humans you go the more you have to expand the definition of consciousness to fit the observation so much until the word becomes meaningless”

 

Ok so how does that show mind is emergent from brains? It doesn’t and I don’t remember us having to change the definition of consciousness. Animals have consciousness like we do and this is not a problem for idealism at all

 

At (9:48-10:30 and 11:30-11:40) CH makes the argument of infinite regress which i have already responded too so i don’t need to repeat myself.

 

So for the rest of the video he just plays IPs original video and says that in part 2 he will explain why quantum physics doesn’t debunk materialism. So then since this is the case then we are going to respond to part 2 of his series in the next part of this response

Sources for part 1:

1. http://cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/HoffmanTime.pdf
2. http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/PhysicsFromConsciousness.pdf
3. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TX_4LthrdGqACsqIWKd2gs-

 

Part 2

This is part 2 of defending idealism against CH. This will respond to CH part 2 response to IP. Objections don’t start until 7:40-11:30 in which CH says

 

“Particles are not aware if they are being observed by a conscious being or not. The use of a blinking eye to represent a particle detector adds to this particular deception. There is no credible evidence to suggest consciousness or awareness has anything to do with the way particles behave. To say this is the case as it is claimed in the film is false entirely disingenuous. What the experiment does is…demonstrate the measurement problem…and IP mistake is taking one interpretation of quantum mechanics (The Copenhagen interpretation) and claiming it debunks materialism.”

 

Note: To the readers I had to paraphrase what he said because he took a clip from another video explaining the measurement problem.

 

Ok so this is probably the foundation of CH response to IP that there are other interpretations of QM and therefore QM does not debunk materialism. Well this objection is really bad and i will explain later in this document but the first claim that “No credible evidence for consciousness causing collapse” is entirely false. According to the Copenhagen interpretation particles are in a state of superposition in the wave function and don’t reach definite collapse until an observer makes a measurement. Now since this is true then whatever causes final collapse cannot be something governed by the same material laws since all particles are in the form of a superposition including measuring apparatuses. This is known as a von Neumann chain where each particle is connected in a chain and the particles in the chain are all in a state of superposition. So whatever causes the whole physical system to collapse (The chain) is something beyond the physical and material and this is argued to be a conscious observer (the mind). So CH objection does not work.

 

At (17:20-19:05) CH takes a clip from Sean Carroll in which he says that the many worlds interpretation requires the fewest equations and since the equations predict many worlds than therefore it’s not a violation of Occam’s razor since all you need is the least amount of evidence to show this interpretation is accurate.

 

There are several problems with CH objection to MWI violating Occam’s razor. First simply by arguing for the parsimony of equations, the universe is then having googleplexes of universes with every milliseconds of time. It’s not a simple fact of having the fewest equations but that in other universes every possibility happens and so the possible equations themselves get multiplied beyond necessity because each universe is described by its own unique equations. That’s why the MWI violates occam’s razor however that is the least of the problems for the MWI. The MWI fails in deriving the born rule of QM and there are other criticisms you can check out in IP video that gives a critique of the MWI (1). So CH defense of the MWI is misunderstanding the point we are making regarding occam’s razor and CH completely ignores the bigger problems for the MWI of QM which rule out that interpretation.

 

(20:00-20:42) “Bohemian mechanics… debunks IP”

 

That is basically CH objection is that since we have Bohemian mechanics (BM for short) then therefore QM does not debunk materialism. Throughout the video series he uses BM as his strongest objection against IPs video and he repeats this objection many times throughout the video series. Well here i will provide a criticism of BM to show that it’s just as bad or probably even worse as the many worlds interpretation of QM.

 

A critique of Bohemian mechanics: The First problem with BM is that one of the central concepts of BM the “quantum potential” was recently falsified by an experiment (2). Most of BM formalisms have the quantum potential but now that it has been falsified the vast majority of BM formalisms are completely wrong. There are some formalisms that don’t include the quantum potential but they are riddled with issues as well such as faster than light hidden variables because of non-locality. Now of course supporters of BM will object that QM itself is incompatible with relativity, which is true, but if we want a successful quantum gravity theory non-local hidden variables will not allow it to be compatible with relativity since it will violate causality and thus no hidden variables theory can work for quantum gravity. That’s why information-theoretic interpretations are far more successful in creating a quantum gravity theory and information-theoretic interpretations are nicknamed “Copenhagen 2.0” since it has the same metaphysical implications of consciousness causing collapse as the original Copenhagen interpretation does. The only difference with “Copenhagen 2.0” is that it can deal with the objections that are raised against the original copenhagen interpretation since it faces much less problems. So then BM is ultimately an ad hoc theory that tries to save realism and any model of BM that can somehow fix the problems associated with it will still not be good candidate theories for an ultimate quantum gravity theory. This is one of the main reasons why BM is rejected by the vast majority of physicist despite the claims made by BM supporters the interpretation is just severely ad voc and no more different from the MWI when it comes to its problems. So just like the MWI the BM interpretation cannot compete with idealistic interpretations like copenhagen and/or information-theoretic interpretations (Copenhagen 2.0). If you would like more information of the problems associated with BM you can check these out (3) (4).

 

(21:30-22-55) CH takes a clip from another video that shows droplets moving like a wave and that this would be evidence for BM.

 

However as I will quote this experiment is not good evidence for BM since it can be used in any other interpretation as well.

 

“Recently, experiments have been made with water droplets surfing on the

waves produced by the Faraday instability on the surface of an oscillating tank filled with a fluid [21]. The motion of these droplets mimics the sug-

gestion of de Broigle and of Bohm that elementary particles are likewise “pi-

loted” by the ψfunction of wave mechanics. In particular, it is claimed that

when the waves propagate through two slits, or are confined in a “corral”, the

droplets satisfy statistics that are similar to those observed for particles in

quantum mechanics [22]. But such experiments only demonstrate the univer-

sality of wave propagation, and the associated pathlines, whether governed

by the equations of fluid mechanics, quantum mechanics, or of other sources

of waves in physics.” (5)

 

So in other words this experiment could work for idealist interpretations as well such as Copenhagen or information-theoretic interpretations (Copenhagen 2.0). So CH evidence is not good evidence for BM. So for the rest of CH video it is just clips of BM experiments which as pointed out before is not good evidence for BM. Also even if BM was an accurate theory there are versions of it that can work in an idealist paradigm. The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation is very like that of idealism, with the vital difference that the “pilot wave” in the system is mental, not physical. It collapses everywhere at once because it is not in space and time at all but in the mental domain. A mental pilot wave guides a physical body – exactly as a mental pilot guides a human body! As above, so below. The mind-body relationship is ingrained in the fabric of the cosmos. What is our mind? – a superposition of possible futures from which we select one. As soon as we do so, a new superposition develops and again we have to choose … and we keep choosing until the day we die. We are exactly the same as quantum systems. Our body is the “physical particle” and our mind is where the superposition of possible futures is generated. Our mind continually collapses our personal wave function to create a definite physical state in time and space, then instantaneously generates a brand new superposition of possible futures.

 

What is free will? It’s the ability to freely choose between the different possible futures that we generate. In quantum systems, lacking consciousness, a much more automatic process takes place. Consciousness is the only fundamental difference between human beings and quantum systems. So there are versions of BM that are fully compatible with idealism so if CH wants to defend BM he will inevitably defend idealism unless he can find a model of BM that saves realism and avoids all the problems associated with BM and can be a good candidate for quantum gravity but as I’ve pointed out before that would be completely ad hoc and not going where the evidence leads. You don’t start with a metaphysical conclusion and find evidence for that conclusion you start with the evidence and go where the evidence points too to find the best conclusion. So CH appealing to other interpretations of QM is ad hoc and not going where the evidence leads.

 

So that would conclude part 2 of this response to CH we will work on part 3 next.

Sources for part 2

1. https://youtu.be/_42skzOHjtA
2. https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.2014
3. https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0001011.pdf
4. http://settheory.net/Bohm
5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261952950_Is_Bohm%27s_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics_consistent

 

Part 3

This is part 3 of a defense of idealism against CH. So at this point in the series CH has already made his strongest objections against IP so then the rest of these responses we will just be responding to new objections that CH uses. Since we already dealt with many worlds and bohemian mechanics i will not respond to CH when he brings it up since I’ve already shown why they are both ad hoc interpretations and cannot compete with idealist interpretations. So since i’ve made that point clear let’s get started with part 3.

 

(3:00-5:15) “If matter is dependent on conscious observation then two observers taking two separate measurements at the same particle for example a particle before ever meeting each other two observers would due to their own separations would create two different states of reality. When they meet to compare results they would disagree on what they’re measurement was and since this never happens then consciousness causing collapse is either false or hard metaphysical solipsism is true…even if proponents of conscious observation creates matter can satisfactory answer this contradiction the fact is that whenever we do test measurements and compare them there is only one consistent answer thus i propose one consistent reality this means there is a difficulty in asserting reality is dependent on observation and this idealistic approach is rendered irrelevant and thus is not meaningful in science…one huge problem for consciousness causes collapse is we never see detectors measuring two different results symoteniesly”

 

This objection against consciousness causing collapse is not a good objection against our position of objective idealism. CH objection could work against other versions of idealism such as subjective idealism but in objective idealism reality is still objective thus when separate measurements look at the same particle they get the same result. CH didn’t pay attention to IP original video. We only participate in nature, we do not determine it. Reality is still objective. We ask with the Heisenberg choice and nature returns an answer, known as a Dirac choice. So nature determines where the particle is, we do not. So two observers would not disagree because nature is still objective. So ultimately CH objection against IPs video is a complete straw man. Once a particle is measured another observer cannot change that fact about the universe.

 

So that is the only new objection that CH uses in his video response to IP. The rest of the video he just talks about Bohiem mechanics and as I’ve said before I’m not going to repeat myself about it since i’ve already addressed BM and MWI. So we will look at part 4 next which concludes CH response to IP in a seperate blog post

 

I have had permission from masked apologist to put his response to underlings on my blog so i will do that here. Note that some of the arguments in this post are somewhat outdated and I am saying this because masked apologist at this time has better revised arguments against underlings so in future blogs we may be responding to specific objections that underlings uses rather than his entire series. This post responds to each video that underlings has made in the original series but we have left out the summarizing part since its not necessary to include it.  Hope you enjoy reading 🙂

 

Introduction

Before i start my response i want to let you know what underlings video series is. It’s a series of videos that underlings has made on his youtube channel that attempt to prove that the christian god is evil. His main attack is what he likes to call the “Christian fundamentals” that believe in the literal truth of the bible. Now just so i’m clear i will be defining a “christian fundamental” as a bible literalist because i don’t think that “christian fundamental” is the correct term to use. Now before i start on his first video i want to first address the things that i actually agree with him on. First i agree with him that interpreting the bible as literal has many problems with it. Many scholars have pointed out that the creation account is more like a poem than a literal historical event. I also agree with underlings that young earth creationism is a pseudo-science. And i also agree that many christians have not read the entire bible from cover to cover. I myself have not read the entire bible but that doesn’t mean that i can’t respond to the arguments he uses. His series has 18 videos in it and i will list them below and give you the time for each one.

1. Introduction: the case for an evil god {Time:1:05}
2. Biblical evidence proving that god is evil (Part 1) {Time: 7:42}
3. Biblical evidence proving that god is evil (Part 2) {Time: 9:33}
4. Biblical evidence proving that god is evil (Part 3) {Time: 9:48}
5. Biblical evidence proving that god is evil (part 4) {Time: 9:57}
6. What the ultimate evil god would be like {Time 8:00}
7. The observable evidence that god is evil {Time: 10:05}
8. What was god thinking? {Time: 7:45}
9. Christianity’s problem with free will {Time: 10:55}
10. Revisiting christianity’s problem with free will {Time: 6:31}
11. What the followers of an evil god would be like {Time: 8:10}
12. The evidence god is good {Time: 12:55}
13. In defense of god {Time: 18:29}
14. “Out of context” {Time: 7:33}
15. God is good {Time: 4:51}
16. Pope francis says that god is evil {Time:2:03}
17. Why i make videos against god {Time: 6:29}
18. Summarizing the proof god is evil {Time: 21:12}

 

His total series time is 2 hours and 43 minutes in my opinion that is really long but i want to let you know that i won’t be quoting him every second of the series instead i will only give you the argument that he uses then i will refute the argument. I might not go over every single argument he uses but i will definitely go over the main arguments he uses to support his case. One final thought before i begin some of the videos in his series are not really arguments against god they are just against young earth creationism so i will only refute the argument he uses that attempt to show why god is evil. Some of the replies to some of his videos will say “response” meaning that he doesn’t really use arguments in that video whereas others will say “refutation” where i refute the arguments he makes in those videos. Since underlings also thinks that this a game and that he is the prosecutor and that god is on trial i will be god’s defense attorney and representing my defense of god to show why the prosecution has failed to show why god is evil. I may also provide links in my refutations. And i’m dealing with each video as its claims make so i might repeat some of the arguments so that people don’t have to always scroll up to read why underlings claims are wrong. So now that i have made that clear let’s begin our response and refutation of his case for an evil god.

 

 

Response: “Introduction: The case for an evil god”

 

His first video is the introduction to his case where he talks about the old testament and how there are many bad things about it. He claims that christians will skip over the bad parts and only go over the good ones and that we christians don’t ever look into the real meaning of the text. This claim is false since there is something called christian scholarship that figures out the literal passages and the metaphorical ones so you can already see that his first argument is just plain wrong. Then he goes talking about how he made a series that explores some of the passages in the old testament. Then he also explains how his series does not argue against the existence of god but rather he is trying to show how if the god of the bible exist then he is necessarily evil. Well here i will show why almost all his arguments fail and i will refute his case for an evil god.

 

Refutation: “Biblical evidence proving that god is evil (Part 1)”

 

To start off he says that christians fundamentals believe in an all powerful and knowing all good god and believe in the literal truth of the bible which is true. He tries to show why biblical literalism is incompatible with a good god. This claim is false since the actual definition of “literal” means what the original authors meant to say this is important since we have a way of doing that it’s called christian scholarship where we figure out the original meaning of text and find out which passages are literal history and others that are just metaphorical. So now that we have that understood let’s see what underlings has to say about that. Then he claims that he will use the bible to prove without a reasonable doubt that the god of the bible is evil and not just evil but the ultimate evil god. He says the main purpose of his series is to convince “fence sitters” who are thinking of becoming christian fundamentalist not to waste their time, money and energy on a religion rooted in evil. Then he says to write down a list of evil acts and claims that the god of the bible commits every single one of these. Since no one will take his word for it he will be citing the bible (translations he uses KJV and NIV) then he says to read the entire chapter to make sure he is not taking anything out of context. So now he begins his arguments. (Murder and Genocide) Genesis 7:18-23. He claims that god is evil since he flooded mankind and killed innocent children and babies however the problem with this argument is that the children could have gone into the boat with noah but of course no one in that time believed that there was going to be a massive flood. Then he claims that god failed to get rid of evil and that there was no need for him to kill of mankind however again god flooded the earth because of mankind’s wickedness. God could have warned mankind thousands of times before the flood to stop acting wicked but of course they continued to be bad. Its not gods fault that mankind was wicked it was mankind’s fault for that. Now underlings uses his omniscience and omnipotence argument which i want to make clear is not only his #1 argument but is also the foundation for his case of an evil god. That’s because he repeats this arguments many times in his series now just so i’m clear i won’t be dealing with that argument right now but i will refute his omniscience and omnipotence argument when i refute his video called “out of context” so for now i will only deal with the biblical passages. Then he claims that god could have begin creation with noah instead of adam however again like i said before mankind didn’t have to be destroyed it was necessary to renew the wicked world so the argument is irrelevant. Then he claims that god could have made mankind good instead of evil however that means that god would have to make robots and thus there would be no love at all. Then he claims that god is more interested in killing people than enforcing justice this argument is so far the stupidest argument he has made so far because if god didn’t drown mankind then he would have never served justice in the first place thus underlings argument is self refuting. The flood happened precisely on account of the issues you raise. More specifically, it debunks the premises on which those issues are founded.

As Christians living thousands of years later with only a short Scriptural account to go on, we can really only speculate about how the people of Noah’s day must have reasoned with themselves. However it seems likely based on their recorded reactions and God’s action that their presuppositions were similar to the ones you have made. They were wrong and the flood was God’s way of setting the record straight.

There is no such thing as “probably innocent”. The fallen nature of all humans since Adam means that we are guilty and deserving of condemnation from the womb on. That God could wipe out all humanity in the way he did helps us understands God’s disposition towards sin and gives us a reference point for man’s sinful nature. The NT echoes this as it affirms that there are NONE righteous on their own apart from God’s intervention. The pre-flood people of earth are used as a reminder of this and the flood stands of a warning of the future judgement we will all face.
It wasn’t God’s mistake in the first place that he would need to “fix his error”. The error lies with man – who chose to rebel rather than obey – but the solution cannot come from man, it must be directed by God. It was God that preserved Noah. It is God that will preserve some men (those who by faith in Him come under his saving grace).
God didn’t mess up that would need to start over, it was always his plan to redeem creation. He knew what would happen to it, but entered into a covenant with himself – God the Son agreeing to be the ransom, the redeemer to purchase a people out from God the Father’s righteous judgement. The concept of redemption was always part of the plan. Likewise we look forward to a new heavens and a new earth — not a different creation entirely but a re-creation — a redemption of creation itself on the day where he will make all things new (after he finally judges those who do not have faith in him).
Other species are not innocent. All of creation was subjected to the fall. The caretaker of creation – the priest whose job it was to mediate between God and creation – the one who was charged with naming and caring for all the species – fell down on the job. He left his job unfinished. As a result of his failure, not only was he himself cursed but everything in his domain was cursed as well. The ground brought forth weeds and thorns. The animal kingdom was subjected to the same futility that mankind was now under.
The exact “why” if many of God’s choices is not fully revealed to us, but Christians use God’s actions in the past to help shape their understanding of the present. The flood helps reset our understanding of what guilt and innocence mean in relation to a holy God. It teaches us significant lessons about the nature of man, creation and God himself. It warns us against evil and points us toward salvation. (Job 9:22) he cites this as evidence however the issue is that he doesn’t even understand what the book of job is even about so the citation is irrelevant and for a better explanation i will link this explaining the book of job. https://youtu.be/kZKuixGmiMw

(Exodus 12:29) he uses this to show how god killed all the firstborn children in egypt and argues that this is evidence for god being evil. However the problem with this argument is that pharaoh was warned about this it was his choice to let the israelites go or not but he continued to be stubborn and as judgement all the firstborn was killed. After being warned 9 times he still refused which means that desperate times call for desperate measures. And if you want a better refutation of underlings argument you can check this out http://christianthinktank.com/killheir.html

(Exodus 32:27-29) he cites this as evidence and argues that god commended the people to kill there own family members. Ok first of all if god tells someone to kill someone else there is probably a good reason for it. However the biggest problem with his argument is that he is taking it out of context let’s read exodus chapter 31-33

Exodus 31

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah:

3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,

4 To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass,

5 And in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship.

6 And I, behold, I have given with him Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan: and in the hearts of all that are wise hearted I have put wisdom, that they may make all that I have commanded thee;

7 The tabernacle of the congregation, and the ark of the testimony, and the mercy seat that is thereupon, and all the furniture of the tabernacle,

8 And the table and his furniture, and the pure candlestick with all his furniture, and the altar of incense,

9 And the altar of burnt offering with all his furniture, and the laver and his foot,

10 And the cloths of service, and the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, to minister in the priest’s office,

11 And the anointing oil, and sweet incense for the holy place: according to all that I have commanded thee shall they do.

12 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.

14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Exodus 32

And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.

3 And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.

4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the Lord.

6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.

7 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:

8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

9 And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:

10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

11 And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?

12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.

13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

14 And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.

16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.

17 And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.

18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.

19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

20 And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.

21 And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them?

22 And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief.

23 For they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

24 And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.

25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:)

26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord‘s side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

29 For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves today to the Lord, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the Lord; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.

31 And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.

32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin–; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.

33 And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

34 Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them.

35 And the Lord plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.

Exodus 33

And the Lord said unto Moses, Depart, and go up hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it:

2 And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:

3 Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way.

4 And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned: and no man did put on him his ornaments.

5 For the Lord had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked people: I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee.

6 And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb.

7 And Moses took the tabernacle, and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the congregation. And it came to pass, that every one which sought the Lord went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation, which was without the camp.

8 And it came to pass, when Moses went out unto the tabernacle, that all the people rose up, and stood every man at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he was gone into the tabernacle.

9 And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses.

10 And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door.

11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

12 And Moses said unto the Lord, See, thou sayest unto me, Bring up this people: and thou hast not let me know whom thou wilt send with me. Yet thou hast said, I know thee by name, and thou hast also found grace in my sight.

13 Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people.

14 And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.

15 And he said unto him, If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence.

16 For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth.

17 And the Lord said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.

18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.

19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

21 And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

 

If you read the context it says why they were punished it was because of the great sin they committed once properly understood this refutes underlings argument.

(Deuteronomy 13:6-11) he argues that this passages says that god ordered anyone worshiping false gods to be killed however the problem with this argument is that back in biblical times if someone is worshiping other gods then they are dangerous since they can turn against the israelites and cause a civil war and they needed to keep israel united so that they can go into the promised land. Then he claims that the US keeps freedom of religion which is true however this was not the case in biblical times and it would have caused chaos so most societies during that time were not “freedom of religion” so the argument fails. (Numbers 31:17) he claims that this is also evidence however again we see here that they were worshiping false gods. Just so that i dont make this too long i will leave these sources https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/why-would-god-order-destruction-women-and-children

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=763

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/why-were-only-virgins-left-alive-among-midianites

Then after this the video ends and we have seen so far that all of his arguments fail. Now don’t worry this only refutes the video “biblical evidence for an evil god (part 1)” we still need to look at his other arguments which i will address next. Final note if underlings wants to do a response to my refutation he will have to understand that christian scholarship has already dealt with these issues and so we can see that underlings arguments have failed. And any arguments i didn’t address is because i will be dealing with those later but for now i will be focused on biblical passages them later more into free will and god’s omniscience and omnipotence.

 

Refutation: “Biblical evidence proving god is evil (Part 2)”

(Animal and human sacrifice) (Exodus 20:24) (Hebrews 9:22) (Leviticus 1:9)  he uses to show why god is evil however despite this argument he needs to first understand why god allowed animal sacrifice in biblical times. It should first be noted that while it is true that god is all powerful it is also true that he is a righteous judge this is important because underlings claims that god is all powerful and thus can just forgive anyone however that’s not how it works. Let’s say for example if you were in a courtroom and there was someone who did something bad and the judge just says “i will forgive you without any punishment” wouldn’t you think that people would want that judge fired yes that’s because there still has to be a way for sins to be punished this is true in both jesus sacrifice and animal sacrifice since god had to have some way of punishing the sin. http://www.gotquestions.org/animal-sacrifices.html

http://www.reasons.org/articles/animal-sacrifices

If god didn’t have someway of paying the penalty of sins then someone could argue that god is unjust but of course this is not the case.

(Judges 1:30-39) underlings argues that this is proof that god is evil since he allowed human sacrifice however there is something that underlings doesnt know about this passage its that christian scholarship has already dealt with this issue and if you dont believe me then you can check these sources  https://youtu.be/OpPk4WLBcTM

https://youtu.be/b6QZOmMy0Bg. Once again we see that christian scholarship has demolished the claims made by fundy atheist like underlings. (Hebrews 10:10) underlings argues that since god is all powerful then he could just forgive sins however like i said before if god made no punishment for sins then he wouldn’t be a righteous judge. I also want to add that omnipotence doesn’t mean god can do the logically impossible it just means he can do anything logically possible within his nature.

(Torture)

(Revelation 9:5-6) (Revelation 20:10-15) underlings argues that since hell is considered to be eternal torture then he is evil since doing that much harm is bad and there is no reason for it to happen. However there are problems with this argument first of all the people that get sent to hell are there because they rejected christ and also many scholars have pointed out that hell is not literal burning fire if you don’t believe me then you can watch this video. https://youtu.be/-q5vGcpx1sY

(child abuse) (Genesis 22:2-10) this underlings claims is undeniable proof for god abusing children however once again christian scholarship has already dealt with this issue. Here is a video on it https://youtu.be/aP0E87LEkRM

(Exodus 12:29) underlings argues that its child abuse since god killed the first born son however again we have already refuted this before but for the purpose i will leave this link http://christianthinktank.com/killheir.html

(2 Samuel 12:15-18) underlings argues that god was using child abuse since it took the child a week to die. However again this argument also fails and its too long to explain so i will provide this https://bible.org/seriespage/13-death-david-s-son-2-samuel-1214-31

(2 kings 2:23-24) underlings argue that god is evil since he killed boys for telling elijah he was bald however christian scholars and apologists have already dealt with this passage. https://carm.org/why-did-god-kill-42-lads-merely-saying-elisha-was-bald

(animal abuse) (Joshua 11:6) (Genesis 7:18-23) underlings argue that this is evidence god is evil because he killed animals during the flood and in biblical times however this argument fails since if god would have only killed the humans then the animals would overpopulate and take over the earth and humans couldn’t rebuild society. But the biggest problem with this argument is back in biblical times animals were only seen as food or labors even today we still have countries that don’t care for animals so the argument is irrelevant. After this argument the video ends so we can see how all of his arguments once again fail and if he wants to do a response he needs to understand why his arguments fail instead of creating straw man and he also needs to realize that scholarship has dealt with these passages so it’s really pointless in him even doing a response.  

Refutation: “Biblical evidence proving god is evil (Part 3)”

(Theft) (Deuteronomy 20:13-14) (Luke 19:30-35) underlings argues that jesus committed a sin since he told the disciples to grab a colt however the problem with this argument is back in biblical times the people would borrow the colts and bring them back later so the argument is irrelevant. Also deuteronomy is not evidence because many scholars have pointed out that they needed the supplies to help the israelites grow so once again the argument fails. (slavery), (Leviticus 25:44-46), (Exodus 21:7),  (1 Peter 2:18) (Ephesians 6:5,7) (Exodus 21:20-21) underlings have used these passages to say that god is evil since he allowed slavery however this argument fails since there has been much scholarly work on this topic and it has been dealt with accordiantly if you dont believe me then you can watch this playlist on the topic it destroys the entire slavery argument https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLapIcULLvveczKsgd1WtVaOoQRyjPXDIT

(pedophilia) (numbers 31:17-18) (Exodus 21:7-11) although underlings does not use these passages in his video he puts them in his description so i’m putting them here. He argues that pedophilia was in the bible and therefore god is evil since he allowed it however in biblical times there was no such thing as dating and getting to know someone most marriages were already arranged so the argument is irrelevant. (Rape) (Numbers 31:17-18) underlings claim that this is evidence for an evil god since he made the men marry the virgin girls however again this arguments gets destroyed since most marriages were arranged so the argument fails. (Genesis 19:8)(2 Peter 2:7-8) underlings argues since lot let his daughters get gang raped that god is evil well many apologist have responded to this so underlings argument fails once again. http://www.gotquestions.org/Lots-daughters.html

(2 Samuel 12:11) underlings argue that its evidence for an evil god however apologist have responded so the argument fails. https://www.quora.com/Can-a-true-god-say-as-it-is-said-in-2-Samuel-12-11-I-will-raise-up-evil-against-you-from-your-own-household-I-will-even-take-your-wives-before-your-eyes-and-give-them-to-your-companion-and-he-will-lie-with-your-wives-in-broad-daylight

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29) he argues that god is evil since he makes women marry there own rapist however this argument is obliterated by scholarship and also the fact that it’s not even talking about rape in the KJV but sexual intercource and the fact that it says “found” meaning that it was a voluntary act http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/how-could-the-bible-command-a-rape-victim-to-marry-her-rapist/

http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html

https://youtu.be/1A6P7Yl2UU8

(incest) he argues that adam and eve were the first humans and that there was no other humans on earth however this argument fails http://www.religioustolerance.org/pers01.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

(cannibalism) (jeremiah 19:9) (Deuteronomy 28:53) (Leviticus 26:27-29) (John 6:47) he uses these passages as evidence for an evil god however there are problems with it for one he allowed it because people were worshiping false gods and couldn’t have the israelites rebel. And also here is a link that refutes the entire cannibalism argument http://www.rationalchristianity.net/cannibal.html

http://www.tektonics.org/af/cannib.php

After this the video ends so now again we see how all his arguments fail. Now i provide links in my defense for god to not waste too much space and to show better refutations of atheist claims. So we all know that underlings arguments have failed.

Refutation: “Biblical evidence proving god is evil (Part 4)”

(Betrayal) (John 13:21) (Hebrews 10:9-10) underlings argues that god made someone betray jesus so that he can be murdered however there is no evidence for this all it means is that god knew that someone would betray him not that god had to have someone betray him. (Exodus 10:1) underlings argues that god heartened the heart of pharoph thus making god evil since pharoph couldnt make his own choice however scholars have responded to this and say that the original meaning is not what underlings think it is http://www.gotquestions.org/God-harden-Pharaoh-heart.html

http://christianthinktank.com/hharden.html

http://christianthinktank.com/moharden.html

(genesis 2:16-17) (genesis 3:4-5) (genesis 3:22)

Then underlings claims that god is evil because god set up for adam and eve to fail but this argument has already been refuted http://christianthinktank.com/gutripper.html

(1 Peter 5:8) (john 8:44) underlings argue that since god allows satan to deceive the world that god is evil since he won’t stop it. However the problem with this argument is that first of all satan has dominion over the earth. Second the devil is finite meaning he is only at one place at one time and can’t deceive everyone on earth because that would mean that no one would be christians. So when the passage says he deceived the world it’s talking only about certain places not that satan is all powerful and deceive everyone.

(Lying) (genesis 22:2) underlings claim that this is evidence that god was lying however god never lied to abraham all he did was tell him to do something then god stopped him at the last second.  (Genesis 8:21) (2 peter 3:10-11) underlings claims that this is proof that god lied since he said he would never destroy the earth but scholars say that he will never destroy the earth with a flood. Now underlings responds to this argument by saying that it’s meaningless since it’s like saying that a husband won’t beat his wife again then later cut her with a knife. However this argument is fallacious since when god destroyed the earth and will destroy the earth with fire he is doing it to destroy man’s wickedness so the argument is false. (1 kings 22:23) (2 thessalonians 2:11) (ezekiel 14:9) he claims that this proves that the bible is filled with falsehoods and proves that god lies. However this argument has been refuted http://christianthinktank.com/godlies.html

Then after this he stops making his biblical arguments he says that his evidence is far from complete. Well even if he gave all his citations i’m sure scholarship has already dealt with it. Then he claims that god is guilty of committing evil and gives a list of evil acts. He then says this should be evidence of any rational person that god is evil. Then he says it should be evident to anyone who reads the bible without rose tinted glasses. Then he says this will not convince a fanatic someone who believes god is good no matter what even if there is evidence to the contrary. Then he claims that we twist and reinterpret what the bible says to be something other than evil. He uses this excuse as if it’s an argument but it’s not. It’s fallacious since like i said before the real definition of literal means what the original authors meant to say and if someone wants to be serious about the bible then they should study christian scholarship so that you can learn the difference between literal and metaphorical passages. Then he claims that there are contradictions in the bible even tho thats been refuted. Then he says how fanatics are irrational by definition (bible literalist). He says the video was not made for them but for christians capable of critical thinking. Then he said he wants us to think twice about if god is good then near the end of the video he list all the things that god supposedly did. Then he claimed that by our own standards god is immoral even tho i’ve refuted all his so called “evidence for an evil god”. Then near the very end of the video he asks us this question “what acts would god have to commit for you to consider him evil?” my response is that for him to be considered evil he would have to make everyone robots and worship him without their choice. Then he says how absolute power corrupts absolutely even tho that term is only for humans and not god so the argument is irrelevant. At the very end of his video he quotes (isaiah 45:7) to show why god is evil but apologist have responded to this so it’s irrelevant http://www.gotquestions.org/Isaiah-45-7.html

So there we have it i have refuted all the arguments underlings has made so far. The first 5 of his videos were the most difficult ones to refute since those ones required a lot of research on scholarship. If you want to check out the links i provided you might have to copy and paste the links to get access to the information. Now of course i am not done defending god since now we are moving into his other videos where he does not cite scripture but instead provides a few arguments to defend his case. This includes free will and god’s omniscience and omnipotence arguments which i will deal with soon but not right here. For now we have seen why all of underlings biblical evidence does NOT prove that god is evil but instead provides an explanation of what most scholars agree on. Now if underlings wants to respond to my refutation that’s fine but he will have to use what i like to call “rejecting scholarship”. For more information on the social concepts of the bible i will provide a source https://youtu.be/8qhB_8ge88o?list=PL709C4687FD9E7653

For those atheist out there that think that i have not refuted the first 5 videos underlings made consider this. Have you ever even read a scholarly book or did any research yourself or are you just assuming that a bible literalist position is the only one that christians hold to. Well it’s not and if people really want to take the bible seriously then they should study christian scholarship to figure out the original meaning of words and passages and find out which ones are history and which ones are metaphors. One final thing before I deal with underlings next video. I challenge underlings and all of the atheist fundamentals out their to read books related to Christian scholarship books that include the social world of the old and New Testament, books on the reliability of the old and New Testament, books on the historical Jesus etc. I challenge you atheist because it seems most of them are uneducated on the topic which results in atheist like underlings to use debunked arguments. If you want to know what the reading challenge is I will leave a link.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7B94AC84D13230DB

Response: “What the ultimate evil god would be like”

Now that we have dealt with underlings biblical passages we are going to have a look at underlings video titled “what the ultimate evil god would be like”. He first says about the biblical passages he mentioned earlier and talks about his arguments (which so far have been refuted). The main point of his video is that he is trying to get the viewers to imagine what the most evil being would be like. He says a being like this would want people to suffer, have the capacity to experience real pain, and then inflict all manner of suffering upon them. He says how an evil god would give his creation a life of goodness and then take it all away. Then he says an evil god would want to be worshiped by his creations. Ok i want to say this before we continue with what he has to say it’s not a fact of worshiping god directly it’s about having a relationship with jesus christ. So now that i’ve made that point clear let’s continue with what underlings has to say. Then he argues that god wouldn’t want salvation easy for his creations. Well this is just a baseless claim since salvation is a free gift then after someone is saved they have to “work out” their faith and grow in jesus christ so we can see that underlings argument is just wrong. Then he argues that god would give a set of rules then give us lots of sin and making us break those rules. Well the problem with this argument if first of all god is omnibenevolent so we would expect a good god to give us rules to follow and second we don’t have to work for the free gift of salvation since jesus already died on the cross to pay the punishment of our sins now after someone is saved they can lose their salvation if they don’t grow in the faith but they don’t have to work before salvation so underlings argument is irrelevant. Then underlings argues that god would hide from his creation so they never see any direct evidence for his existence and that we base our beliefs on faith instead of evidence which would soon allow thousands of religions to develop. Now from the start this seems like a good argument however there are many problems with this argument first of all there is evidence for god’s existence once someone understands what this evidence would be like and there is much evidence for the resurrection of jesus and evidence that the bible is historically reliable i will leave the sources below.   https://youtu.be/XbLJtxn_OCo

https://youtu.be/-ErnJF_nwBk?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUYymBPce08oyuhnHLLkR_B

https://youtu.be/rml5Cif01g4?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY

Also according to mathematics everyone has faith http://cosmicfingerprints.com/incompleteness/

Faith is the fundamental source of all knowledge without faith we cannot know anything is true. So now that we have demolished that argument let’s continue with underlings arguments. He talks about young earth creationism which i said before i will not be addressing so i will pass on that one. Then he says how the vast majority of mankind will burn in hell even tho hell is not literal burning fire so the argument is irrelevant.https://youtu.be/-q5vGcpx1sY

Then again he makes a baseless claim that god will send all christians to hell even tho god wouldn’t go that since there sins are punished and forgiven so again his argument is false. Then he makes the main argument in his video that the christian god fits his “ultimate evil god model”. Well his main argument only works if his previous arguments work meaning that his whole video is wrong since i’ve refuted all his arguments. Then he asks us a question “what would the ultimate good god be like” and tries to argue that a god like this wouldn’t be the christian god. Then he repeats his #1 argument which i call the omniscience and omnipotence argument which i will address later. Then repeats all the arguments he used before which we should know that i have refuted all of them so it’s irrelevant. Then he says how god is evil since he allows many false religions to flourish. Well this again is false since they followed the wrong religion on there own so it’s irrelevant. Then he argues that god sends people to hell if they didn’t follow him no matter how good they were. Well if god is omnibenevolent then we should expect god to send people to hell because of their sins well this is exactly what we see in the bible that’s because everyone sins and everyone is guilty of sin. God doesn’t send people to hell for following the wrong religion he sends them to hell because of sin once properly understood this destroys underlings argument. Then at the end of the video he says how christians follow the same god that is evil but this is false. We have seen how his video titled “what the ultimate evil god would be like” fails to prove how the christian god is the ultimate evil god. The christian god is the ultimate good god not an evil one.

Refutation: “The observable evidence that god is evil”

Now that we have refuted his previous video we will look into underlings video titled “the observable evidence that god is evil” he basically tries to argue that god is evil because of all the evil we see in the world. So let’s get started with his video. His first argument is that there are many starving children in the world then goes saying how there is much other evil in the world therefore god is evil. However there are massive problems with this first god already gave us the tools we need to end world hunger he gave us all the food on the planet which is enough to feed everyone and he gave us a brain to think so that we can feed everyone also it would cost around 30 billion dollars per year to end world hunger now compare that to how much money americans alone lost from gambling in 2013 its 119 billion dollars so we are perfectly capable of ending world hunger and god gave us what we need to end it. If underlings really worries about starving children then i suggest he donates his money to help feed those starving kids. Now underlings main argument is that god is evil since god won’t do anything to help destroy the evil we see in the world. However this argument fails since if god was to come down right now and stop all the evil he would not only stop the evil you think is bad he would also destroy the evil he thinks is bad and since no one on this planet is perfect then god would have to destroy all of mankind and if god simply made everyone perfect then he would have to destroy their free will. So underlings argument gets utterly destroyed since if god stopped evil right now he would have to destroy mankind with it since by god’s perfect moral standards everyone has sinned and thus is guilty of sin and punishment. Then underlings argues that since god doesn’t answer peoples prayers that he is evil. However once again this argument gets obliterated by scholarship since that’s not how prayer works. https://youtu.be/biCHnUZNaio?list=PLapIcULLvvedsT3DeqepdzM0EgcWYGbeF

https://youtu.be/9FI8ckNontw

Then he starts talking about what happens to dead babies and if they go to heaven or not well the answer is yes and christians have already dealt with this. https://youtu.be/d6k0lMqXWds

Then underlings argues from original sin but this argument fails https://youtu.be/QQxwMzMkngw

The next underlings argument is so out of whack that i have to address it he argues that if it’s true that babies go to heaven right after they die then we christians should be pro-abortion and kill all the little kids and babies since they will automatically go to heaven. This argument is by far the most absurd argument he has made in his case because it’s NOT god’s will that people just go to heaven it’s his will that people FREELY CHOSE to follow him and have a relationship with him then go to heaven. Now underlings next argument is a bit more complicated to explain so this might be longer. He argues that god could make a world where people still have the freedom to choose god but also make it where people can’t negatively harm others. However there are many problems with this argument. First god gave us the ability to NOT harm others so it stands to reason that it’s our fault for hurting others. Second if god didn’t allow his creation to do harm against each other then Lucifer couldn’t have rebelled against god since he wouldn’t be kicked out of heaven if he can’t fight god. Also sin is by definition an immoral act considered to be transgression against divine law. meaning that anything that is evil and we all know that killing is evil. god is omnipotent but that doesn’t mean he can do the logically impossible. so the bottom line is that god can’t change something that is against his nature into something not against his nature. sin entered the world and in sin is killing. therefor killing is a part of sin and free will. sin is basically everything against god’s nature and god can’t change his nature and god can’t change sin into something it’s not. And finally if god didn’t allow humans to do harm against each other then jesus would have never payed the penalty of the sins we do to harm ourselves since crucifying someone requires that humans do harm against each other. And no one would want to reject god since you have no reasons for rejecting him since no one can do harm against you. Once you properly understand this refutes underlings argument. Underlings then argues that belief is not a choice and claims that believing in god is like believing in santa claus or the tooth fairy well first of all these are straw man fallacies since god is NOT the tooth fairy or santa claus next he claims that there is no evidence for god even tho ive already refuted this claim before i will just leave links below https://youtu.be/rml5Cif01g4?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY

https://youtu.be/XbLJtxn_OCo

https://youtu.be/-ErnJF_nwBk?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUYymBPce08oyuhnHLLkR_B

https://youtu.be/v2Xsp4FRgas?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1qCi4vlURpBMTC5NQtgRBlWrg1uRHw0J

Now to make matters worse for underlings it turns out even atheist believe in god subconsciously even if they claim that no god exist and if you don’t believe me then you can watch this video on the subject. https://youtu.be/_Ii-bsrHB0o

So there we have just some sources that have evidence that the bible is reliable and what we christians DON’T HAVE BLIND FAITH. Now before i continue if atheist still think that there is “no evidence” for god then i have a question for you. What theory do you have that can explain the universe that doesn’t involve a god? What i mean is that almost all the evidence for gods exist comes from science and what i mean is that god is the only thing that can explain the data. And no i’m not creating a god of the gaps argument what i’m saying is that the god theory is the only thing that can explain all the data and no other theory even comes close. This is important since science uses this same method it makes a hypothesis collects data finds evidence and figures out which hypothesis best fits the data then the hypothesis that can explain most or all the data becomes a theory. Atheist always try to find holes in the god theory but they never seem to have an opposing theory that can explain the data better than the god theory can. So my point stands there is evidence for god’s existence. And for those atheist out there that still think that we only base our beliefs on blind faith and not evidence then you can check the link below because everyone even atheist themselves rely on faith http://cosmicfingerprints.com/incompleteness/

And also if you really think about it underlings argument is irrelevant since its having a relationship with god that gets you saved meaning that love is a choice and if you don’t believe me then you can read this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-adam-smith/real-love-is-a-choice_b_6039412.html

So as we can see underlings arguments once again fail. Then he claims that christians best responses are “god works in mysterious ways” when i have not once said that in my defense of the christian god so it’s irrelevant. Then he says that another christian response is that “god has sovereignty over his creation” when again i have not even said that in my defense. After that the video ends and once again we have seen how every single one of underlings arguments and claims have failed or are just irrelevant.  

Response “What was god thinking?”

Now underlings starts off with mentioning his omniscience and omnipotence argument which i said before is his #1 argument and is also the foundation of his case but like i said before i will address this argument when i refute his “Out of context” video because i want to save his best argument for last. So the “what was god thinking?”video is basically taking the whole story of the bible and making it into a monologue. He starts off with lucifer then goes to adam and eve, then noah, abraham, moses the rest of the old testament, then to jesus then goes all the way to the end times events. The only argument he uses in this video is the omniscience and omnipotence argument but like i’ve said many times i will address it later. Now this response is short compared to my other responses but i want to give you 2 main problems with the video. The first problem is that god does not predetermine things to happen. He may predetermine some things like when he chose israel to give rise to the messiah or when he wants an eternal plan for mankind. But god doesn’t cause people to do things. The second problem is that god is timeless so he wasn’t sitting around one day deciding to create a universe instead he views all time at once. So we can see how underlings video is giving a false analogy.

Refutation: “Christianity’s problem with free will”

This next video he titled “christianity’s problem with free will” all the video does is attempt to prove that free will doesn’t exist well i’m going to show why his arguments fail so let’s get started. First he talks about free will and why it’s important to responding to the problem of evil which he is right. Then he claims that there are many arguments against free will (which i will refute here). His first argument is that belief is not a choice. Well i’ve already refuted this argument but just so that those that are reading this don’t have to scroll up i will quote what i said before. “ Underlings then argues that belief is not a choice and claims that believing in god is like believing in santa claus or the tooth fairy well first of all these are straw man fallacies since god is NOT the tooth fairy or santa claus next he claims that there is no evidence for god even tho ive already refuted this claim before i will just leave links below https://youtu.be/rml5Cif01g4?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY

https://youtu.be/XbLJtxn_OCo

https://youtu.be/-ErnJF_nwBk?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUYymBPce08oyuhnHLLkR_B

https://youtu.be/v2Xsp4FRgas?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1qCi4vlURpBMTC5NQtgRBlWrg1uRHw0J

Now to make matters worse for underlings it turns out even atheist believe in god subconsciously even if they claim that no god exist and if you don’t believe me then you can watch this video on the subject. https://youtu.be/_Ii-bsrHB0o

So there we have just some sources that have evidence that the bible is reliable and what we christians DON’T HAVE BLIND FAITH. Now before i continue if atheist still think that there is “no evidence” for god then i have a question for you. What theory do you have that can explain the universe that doesn’t involve a god? What i mean is that almost all the evidence for gods exist comes from science and what i mean is that god is the only thing that can explain the data. And no i’m not creating a god of the gaps argument what i’m saying is that the god theory is the only thing that can explain all the data and no other theory even comes close. This is important since science uses this same method it makes a hypothesis collects data finds evidence and figures out which hypothesis best fits the data then the hypothesis that can explain most or all the data becomes a theory. Atheist always try to find holes in the god theory but they never seem to have an opposing theory that can explain the data better than the god theory can. So my point stands there is evidence for god’s existence. And for those atheist out there that still think that we only base our beliefs on blind faith and not evidence then you can check the link below because everyone even atheist themselves rely on faith http://cosmicfingerprints.com/incompleteness/

And also if you really think about it underlings argument is irrelevant since its having a relationship with god that gets you saved meaning that love is a choice and if you don’t believe me then you can read this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-adam-smith/real-love-is-a-choice_b_6039412.html”

Now that i’ve obliterated the “belief is not a choice” argument let’s move on. His next argument is that love is not a choice however science and psychology refute this argument. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-adam-smith/real-love-is-a-choice_b_6039412.html

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2015/07/20/love-is-a-choice-more-than-a-feeling/

http://elitedaily.com/dating/love-find-choice-make/1284936/

So now that we have so far seen his arguments are wrong let’s move on. Then he argues that we are punished for what we believe and how we feel according to the bible however those only apply to bad things not good things so the argument is irrelevant. Then he repeats his #1 argument again but like i’ve said before i will address it later. Then underlings argues that the bible supports predestination. Now there are 2 ways to refute this for one no one believes that god causes things to happen even calvinist which hold to the viewpoint of absolute sovereignty don’t believe in determinism but in compatibilism so his argument is irrelevant. Another way i like to refute this is that many scholars have pointed out that the word “predestination” means which country god chose to give rise to the messiah which was isreal. So it’s irrelevant and therefore his argument fails. Then underlings argues that since god is omniscient then he must know everything he himself will ever do thus he can’t be all powerful. Well there are several problems with this first of all omnipotence doesn’t mean god can do the logically impossible it just means he can do whatever is logically possible within his nature. The biggest problem with this argument is that omniscience means that he knows all possible decisions and all possible outcomes and also the fact that god’s mind is perfect from the very moment it existed once properly understood this refutes underlings argument. Then he claims that god does not have free will well this claim is self refuting since if god was determined then anything determining him would be greater than god and thus god would not be god at all since he can’t control himself and also a god is by definition the ultimate being so this refutes underlings argument. Then he claims that nowhere in the bible does it say we have free will. Well this argument is also wrong. 2 Corinthians 8:3: For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves; John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Those are just a few biblical passages that show why the bible supports free will. now since im not interested in the Calvinism vs Armenian debate i will just cite a book i read on the topic called “chosen but free” https://www.amazon.com/Chosen-But-Free-Balanced-Sovereignty/dp/0764208446

So once again we see how underlings argument fails again. Then he argues that most scientist believe that free will is an illusion however his argument is committing the appeal to popularity fallacy. There was a time when most scientist believed the universe was eternal but now we know that has been proven false by science. Then he argues that the brain makes a decision 7 seconds before the actual choice was made this he argues is proof that free will doesn’t exist. while i’m not going against the experiment itself there have been many scientist that have criticized this experiment. And also it seems that many atheist like underlings have misrepresented the experiment just check the sources below. http://www.bethinking.org/human-life/the-libet-experiment-and-its-implications-for-conscious-will http://www.cognethic.org/cm/cmv3i2_DePietro.pdf

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/do_benjamin_lib081171.html

http://www.centenary.edu/attachments/philosophy/aizawa/courses/intros2009/libetjcs1999.pdf

http://www.christianity.com/j-warner-wallace/do-neurological-studies-prove-free-agency-is-an-illusion.html?p=0

So we see that underlings failed to prove free will doesn’t exist. Now if you watch the video he first argues against the libertarian argument from quantum mechanics then uses the libet experiments to show why free will doesn’t exist. But i’ve switched the arguments where i refute his libet experiment argument then i address his argument against our quantum mechanics argument. So now that i’ve made that clear let’s continue. He then argues that our argument from quantum mechanics does not work since if events are truly random then our choices were caused by random events thus we are still not free however this argument that underlings is using is a straw man fallacy since that’s not even what the argument says. What the argument actually says is that the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics speaks of our ability to not know an outcome until an observer makes a measurement, not that random events are causing everything. Things are still determined this may become a big surprise to those determinist out their but libertarians never say things are not determined we just say they are determined by the choices of agents which causally affect other things and this is what quantum mechanics tells us. This proves why underlings argument fails. Here are sources below for understanding free will https://youtu.be/TMp30Q8OGOE

https://youtu.be/xCwY36a19aQ?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TWRHJHy3UMWCkOzhDBW_fjn

The sources above will prove that free will exist and debunks determinism. Then afterwards underlings doesn’t make any more arguments and all he does for the rest of the video is talk about evolution which is irrelevant to my defense. So we have seen why every single underlings arguments against free will have failed.

Refutation: “Revisiting christianity’s problem with free will”

Now that we have shown why all of underlings arguments against free will fail we are going to watch his next video titled “Revisiting christianity’s problem with free will” where he tries to show why if free will exist it does not solve the problem of evil and he tries to show the problems for christianity if free will exist. Well i’m going to show you why all his arguments fail so let’s get started. His first argument is that god could make a world where humans can still chose to follow god but make it where no one can do harm against others. However ive already refuted this argument before so i will just quote what i said before. “Now underlings next argument is a bit more complicated to explain so this might be longer. He argues that god could make a world where people still have the freedom to choose god but also make it where people can’t negatively harm others. However there are many problems with this argument. First god gave us the ability to NOT harm others so it stands to reason that it’s our fault for hurting others. Second if god didn’t allow his creation to do harm against each other then Lucifer couldn’t have rebelled against god since he wouldn’t be kicked out of heaven if he can’t fight god. Also sin is by definition an immoral act considered to be transgression against divine law. meaning that anything that is evil and we all know that killing is evil. god is omnipotent but that doesn’t mean he can do the logically impossible. so the bottom line is that god can’t change something that is against his nature into something not against his nature. sin entered the world and in sin is killing. therefor killing is a part of sin and free will. sin is basically everything against god’s nature and god can’t change his nature and god can’t change sin into something it’s not. And finally if god didn’t allow humans to do harm against each other then jesus would have never payed the penalty of the sins we do to harm ourselves since crucifying someone requires that humans do harm against each other. And no one would want to reject god since you have no reasons for rejecting him since no one can do harm against you. Once you properly understand this refutes underlings argument.” so now that we have debunked that argument let’s move on. Then underlings argues that god can create a world with humans that are by nature sinless without giving them the choice to follow god. However there are massive problems with this first of all rejecting god is by definition a sin meaning that if people have the ability to chose to follow god then they are still sinful. Now underlings could modify his argument saying that the only sin people can commit is choosing not to follow god. However if god was all good then he would allow those people that rejected god to have another chance in their earthly life to repent. And we know the only way for god to punish that sin without the person going to hell would be to have jesus die on the cross which requires people do harm against each other. No matter how you look at underlings argument the argument itself fails.

Underlings last argument in his video is his omniscience and omnipotence argument. Now in this video he calls it the (Infinite options problem) but its basicly the same thing as his #1 argument. But i will address some of it since i need to clarify my position. First of all i’ve said many times i will deal with his omniscience and omnipotence argument when i refute his video titled “out of context”. So for this i will quote what he says “If god’s knowledge and power are infinite then he had an infinite variety of universes to select from including an infinite variety of this universe in which we live” now first of all he seems to have a misunderstanding of divine omniscience since god DID NOT select one universe out of infinity. That’s because god does not determine things from the past so we can see how underlings is giving a false analogy. Then he argues that god could have chosen certain things to not happen such as no rebellion of lucifer or no adam and eve. But the argument fails since they chose to do those things so it’s irrelevant. Now i will continue to quote him so we can understand his central point. “God could have chosen to create one of the universes where nobody used their free will to sin” this argument is self refuting since that would mean that god determines things to happen but we all know that omniscience does not equal determinism so it refutes itself. Now before i end here i want to let you know that this would be a “foreshadowing” of when i refute his omniscience and omnipotence argument. Now i will get in more detail later but as we can see his (infinite options problem) fails since it’s a misrepresentation of divine omniscience. Then underlings mentions heaven and asked if there is free will in heaven. Well christians have already dealt with this question. http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-true-love-free-will-and-heaven/

Then underlings says at the end of the video that whether or not free will exist god is still responsible for the evil in the world. Well this line of reasoning is false since we have shown that all of underlings arguments have been refuted. He says that christians worship evil and that we can’t think about our god. Well we have and it seems underlings arguments are false and he still seems to think that our best responses are “god works in mysterious ways” when i have never used that in my defense so it’s irrelevant.

Refutation: “What the followers of an evil god would be like”

The basic argument that underlings tries to make is that christianity is evil, bad for society and needs to go away for the benefit of humanity. Well it seems that not only is that claim false but that there is a mountain of evidence proving why christianity has helped society. I don’t know if underlings is ignorant on this or if he is purposefully trying to lie and spread his anti-religious agenda but it seems that underlings video titled “what the followers of an evil god would be like” is completely misleading and deceptive. Now you have noticed that i have this response is short that’s because i will link you another video that utterly destroys every atheist argument when it comes to religion and society. https://youtu.be/dgESPmh-TxY

The video above will prove without any reasonable doubt that christianity is NOT evil and that atheist like underlings are deceptive when it comes to christianity being bad for society. Now that we have destroyed that video let’s move on into underlings next video.

Refutation: “The evidence god is good”

Now before i start underlings never gives evidence that god is good all he does in the video is respond to our reasons why we think god is good. So let’s start with the video. First underlings ask us to list all the things that a good person would do. Then he claims that anyone that hides themselves so that thousands of religions can develop and someone that communicates with mankind through a holy book that can be easily misunderstood and mistranslated and then torture people with no hope of redemption except for those that end up believing in the right religion is said to not be a good person. Well first of all the bible can be misinterpreted by some like the young earth creationist but for those that actually look into the original meaning of the text like biblical scholars can actually figure out the original meaning. So we see how that argument is wrong. Another thing is the torture, well most scholars agree that hell is not literal torture so that argument doesn’t work. Then the deathblow of underlings argument would be that god DOESN’T send people to hell because they followed the wrong religion it’s because of their sin. So we see how underlings entire argument fails. Then underlings argues that jesus sacrificed himself so that he can forgive for sins he created us incapable avoiding. Well this argument fails since in order for us to have true love with god then he had to give us the choice to follow him or not. And i’ve already dealt with underlings previous argument about people doing harm against each other so it’s irrelevant. So see how underlings argument once again fails. Then underlings argues that god is omnipotent making our gift no more generous than a billionaire giving a homeless man a dollar. Well what does underlings want god to give us? God made lucifer the most powerful angle then later lucifer rebelled meaning that god can’t give us too much stuff because then we would want to be god and we would rebel at the end making underlings argument sound absurd and stupid. “God is good because he created us” underlings responds by saying “If god created us in order to torment us…then creating us wouldn’t be an act of goodness at all”. Underlings response fails since first of all hell is not literal torment https://youtu.be/-q5vGcpx1sY

And also it’s obvious that god does not torment us the moment we are born it’s the humans that do that. “God is good because the bible says he is” underlings response “If the bible is the word of god and god is evil would you expect him to tell the truth about him being evil” underlings response fails since he has not shown why god is evil. “God is good because why would he say he was good if he were evil? It’s not like we could do anything about it” underlings response “An evil god would surely would delight in deceiving people building up their hopes and dreams and then crushing them after all mental abuse can be even more cruel than physical abuse” this response fails since again underlings has not shown why god is evil so the argument is irrelevant. “God is good because he sacrificed his only son for us” underlings response “an evil god would have no problem killing his own son and as i mentioned earlier resurrection sacrifice negates the point of a sacrifice”. Underlings response fails since for one jesus is god according to the bible and the trinity and two if jesus would have never resurrected then we would still have to pay the penalty of our sins and no one could be saved. “God is good because he keeps his promises” underlings response “there is no way of knowing if god keeps his promises until after you die for example he could send everyone to hell” underlings response fails since if god is good then he would not send those saved souls to hell since there sin was punished on the cross. “God is good because he gives us plenty of opportunities to expand our list of good deeds so we can achieve salvation” underlings response “you can just as easily claim that god gives us the opportunity to expand our list of evil deeds so we will be dammed”. Underlings response is irrelevant since it’s our choice to do evil. “God is good because he could have prevented you from being in a car accident today. You don’t know” underlings response “if there is no way to know then there is no evidence thus making this an argument from ignorance fallacy and if you were in an accident wouldn’t that mean that god is evil since he caused the accident” underlings response is irrelevant since he has shown no evidence that god did cause the accident. “God is good because i prayed to him and survived an accident/disease that i had almost no chance of surviving” underlings response “almost means that some people do survive and christians don’t have any better survival rates than atheist” underlings response is irrelevant since it’s a misrepresentation of prayer, just check the sources below https://youtu.be/biCHnUZNaio?list=PLapIcULLvvedsT3DeqepdzM0EgcWYGbeF

https://youtu.be/9FI8ckNontw

“God is good because he doesn’t immediately kill us when we sin” underlings response “One would use the same argument for why god is evil after all is it good for someone to freely commit atrocities his entire life only to have him turn to christ in the end and be absolved all his sins”. Underlings response fails since we all sin and like underlings said earlier shouldn’t people have the right to change their ways and follow christ after all before paul became a christian he was a psychopath persecuting christians until he got a revelation from jesus and turned to him then later became a disciple. “God is good because there is beauty in the world” underlings response “there is ugliness in the world too which would be evidence for god being evil” underlings response fails because most of the ugliness in the world is caused by humans not by god. “God is good, and therefore there must be an ultimate standard of goodness, which is god”. Underlings response “someone can say that evil exist therefore there is an ultimate standard of evil which is god” underlings response fails since it’s a straw man fallacy. Christians say there is an ultimate standard of morality not good so it’s irrelevant. “God is good because love exist” underlings response “one can say that hate exist therefore god is evil also wouldn’t a truly evil god want to maximize our torment by giving us loving relationships and then tearing us from one another in torment for all eternity” i’ve already refuted this because like i said before HELL IS NOT LITERAL TORTURE so the argument is irrelevant. “God is good because just like darkness is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat evil is the absence of good thus evil is the absence of god” underlings response “Measurable physical properties do not equate to moral ethical philosophy” now i will explore this topic later but it seems that underlings does not understand what that concept even is. I will address this after i refute the video but for now let’s continue. The next quote is the same as the last one so i will skip it. “God knows more than we do thus we cannot judge his actions” underlings responds “we cannot judge someone by what we don’t know only what we do know and that’s an appeal to ignorance fallacy” i will deal with this argument later so for now i will skip it and address it later. “God is good because he defines good so anything he does is good” Underlings response “God is evil because he defines evil” this response is irrelevant since it doesn’t prove god is evil. The next 2 quotes i will skip because they are irrelevant. “God is good because i’ve personally experienced his love” underlings response “That’s an unfalsifiable claim and thus not evidence” underlings response is false since christianity is the most falsifiable religion on the earth and one way to disprove christianity is to show why the resurrection of jesus never occurred but we all know there is no evidence for that so it’s irrelevant. The next 2 quotes i will skip because they are irrelevant.  Then underlings stops giving quotes and claims that the fundamental problem with theist is that they have no evidence that god exist. Well ive already refuted this argument so i will just leave the sources below https://youtu.be/rml5Cif01g4?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY

https://youtu.be/XbLJtxn_OCo

https://youtu.be/-ErnJF_nwBk?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUYymBPce08oyuhnHLLkR_B

https://youtu.be/v2Xsp4FRgas?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1qCi4vlURpBMTC5NQtgRBlWrg1uRHw0J

Then underlings says that christians have no evidence that god is good and that there is much evidence for an evil god. Now i’ve refuted this claim since we have seen through this defense that GOD IS NOT EVIL. Then underlings argues that if god is evil then the biblical examples of him being good is not evidence since an evil god could lie. Then underlings makes this argument “if god is good then he wouldn’t put lies in the bible and thus his behavior is as evil as the bible describes which would make him evil either way god is evil” this argument only works if underlings biblical evidence was valid however i refuted underlings videos titled “biblical evidence proving god is evil (Part 1-4)” so the argument fails. “The only way god can actually be good is if all those evil acts he condoned or commits only appears as atrocities but actually aren’t which is what apologist claim except that means the bible is deceptive and you can’t trust what it actually says and that’s not something that would make sense coming from an all powerful god” this argument gets obliterated by scholarship because there is a way that christians figure out the true meaning of the text it’s called {Christian scholarship} where we figure out the original meaning of text. Then underlings claim that we can chose to say that god is evil or the bible isn’t true and claims that most people chose to become atheist because of this. Well again this argument is fallacious since in order for the argument to work his other arguments would have to be valid which we know they are not. After this the video ends and we see how almost all of underlings arguments fail. Now since underlings expect christians to show proof for a good god then i will present an argument that proves that if god exist then he is necessarily good. And i will be dealing with objections afterwards so here is the argument

PROOF FOR A GOOD GOD

P1: Evil is the absence of good

P2: If evil is the absence of good then evil is “spoiled goodness”

P3: If evil is “spoiled goodness” then god must have been good in the beginning

P4: If god was good in the beginning then god must always be good

P5: If god is always good then god is morally perfect

Conclusion: Therefore god is morally perfect

 

In this defense “spoiled goodness” simply means that good must come before evil since evil is always a perversion of good. Now most of the objections are going to be against the first premise so i will explain the first premise of the argument. It is logically impossible for someone to be evil just for the sake of being evil in reality we have no experience of someone being evil just to be evil the closest we can get is cruelty but in reality people are only cruel to gain something. Such as power, pleasure or safety but these are not evil they are good to have the evil comes from pursuing them in the wrong motives or in the wrong way. When you examine it evil is nothing more than the pursuit of something good in the wrong way. Now unlike evil you can be good just for the sake of being good you can do a kind act even if it gives you no pleasure simply because it is the right thing to do but no one can be cruel just for being cruel or be cruel without gaining something good. Let’s have C.S. lewis explain “In other words, badness cannot succeed even in being bad in the same way in which goodness is good… Goodness is so to speak itself: badness is only spoiled goodness. And there must be something good first before it can be spoiled.” -C.S. Lewis. He points out that the creator of the universe must be morally perfect because evil cannot exist on its own and is always a perversion of good therefore god must be a god of love for him to even exist or create anything. This proves that not only is evil the absence of good but that premises 1,2,3 are undeniably correct. Now i will deal with objections

 

Objection #1: P4 is false because god can change from good to bad

 

This objection fails since god is outside of time and can’t change his mind. From the very moment that god existed his mind was completely perfect and cannot change so if god was good in the beginning then god is logically always good because he is eternal and unchanging.

 

Objection #2: God is evil since he pursued in making the universe in the wrong way because he made us incapable of not sinning

 

This objection fails because for one god already had good things such as omniscience, omnipotence etc, so there was nothing for god to gain and he is a triune god so he has the ability to love himself and doesn’t require to create angles or humans or any other creature. God could have chosen to not create anything but he created things because it’s the right thing to do. In order for god to allow his creatures to have true love he gave them the ability to accept or reject them by their own free will so that they may have a chance of eternal love. And in order for mankind to reject god sin has to exist and in order for god to forgive mankind of the sins they do to hurt themselves jesus had to die on that cross and rise from the dead. So god has to logically allow people to harm others otherwise god couldnt forgive people of their sins.

 

Objection #3: Love is an action that is between two people and god is the only being that existed by himself unaccompanied so god is either a god of many gods or has no love at all since there was a time and place where there was nobody to love and love also requires that there is an environment of fear so therefore god cannot be all good and all loving.

 

Now i don’t know how other religions explain this but i know in christianity god is a triune god one being that is 3 persons coexisting together therefore the trinitarian god of the bible can be a god of love because each member of the trinity loves and needs one another. And since god is all powerful he can create his own goldy environment that can allow love between each members of the trinity. So it is necessary that god is a all good god.

 

Objection #4: P1 is false since i can say that good is the absence of evil making your argument’s conclusion that god is evil

 

This objection fails since like i said before “ It is logically impossible for someone to be evil just for the sake of being evil in reality we have no experience of someone being evil just to be evil the closest we can get is cruelty but in reality people are only cruel to gain something. Such as power, pleasure or safety but these are not evil they are good to have the evil comes from pursuing them in the wrong motives or in the wrong way. When you examine it evil is nothing more than the pursuit of something good in the wrong way. Now unlike evil you can be good just for the sake of being good you can do a kind act even if it gives you no pleasure simply because it is the right thing to do but no one can be cruel just for being cruel or be cruel without gaining something good. Let’s have C.S. lewis explain “In other words, badness cannot succeed even in being bad in the same way in which goodness is good… Goodness is so to speak itself: badness is only spoiled goodness. And there must be something good first before it can be spoiled.” -C.S. Lewis. He points out that the creator of the universe must be morally perfect because evil cannot exist on its own and is always a perversion of good therefore god must be a god of love for him to even exist or create anything.” so it logically follows that evil is the absence of good.

 

Objection #5: P5 does not logically follow since there are people that are always good but not morally perfect.

 

That may work with people that can change their minds but god doesn’t change his mind because from the very moment god existed it was completely perfect making him a morally perfect being. And since we have shown that evil is a perversion of good then from the moment god existed he was good and since god can’t change his mind he will always stay good and will always be morally perfect.

 

Objection #6: P3 is false since we can say that god was evil in the beginning making god evil

 

This objection fails since i’ve already explained that evil is always a perversion of good and that there must be something good first before evil and since god can’t change his mind then that logically follows that god was morally perfect in the beginning and will always be morally perfect for all eternity.

 

Final objection (#7): If god can’t change his mind then he is not all powerful since that’s something he can’t do

 

Omnipotence doesn’t mean one can do the logically impossible it just means he is all powerful and can do anything logically possible within his nature. Changing your mind is a process that is the manipulation of knowledge that results in a different outcome asking if god can change his mind is the same as asking can a being that knows everything learn something new. God’s knowledge does not change over time because from the very moment it exist it’s completely perfect. Which implies the definition of omniscience so the objection fails.

The argument i presented proves that if the god of the bible exist then he is necessarily good. Once someone properly understands the argument it is impossible to refute therefore proving that god is good. So there we have it proof that god is good and that underlings argument that christians have no proof for a good god is wrong.

Refutation: “In defence of god”

Now before i start i want to let you know that underlings never “gives a defense of god” instead what he does is respond to the primary arguments that some bible literalist have used in responding to underlings case for an evil god. So let’s get started with the video. He first says how when he made his case for an evil god he spent a lot of time studying the bible and researching his claims. I agree with his first point that he DID spend a lot of time studying the bible obviously anyone that comes up with a list of bible verses you know that they have been studying but i disagree with his the second part of his claim that he did research and that he tried to seek out arguments that contradicted his arguments because it seems that he didn’t do any research on scholarship issues but that’s just my opinion i don’t know since like i said in the introduction of my defense for the christian god he is only attacking the bible literalist not others viewpoints on how christians interpret the bible so i want to make that point clear. Then he claims that theist have not been able find flaws in his arguments now that may be true for bible literalist but not for christians like me that are more educated in christians scholarship. Now i myself am NOT a scholar but i find the scholarship way of interpreting the bible the best way since you have experts that look into the original meaning of the text. But anyways lets move on. This is underlings list of what christians best defenses are and he will respond to each defense

Defense #1: What the bible says isn’t accurate

Defense #2: I’m interpreting the bible incorrectly

Defense #3: God has sovereignty over his creation

Defense #4: God knows more than we do

Defense #5: God has to permit evil

Defense #6: God has to commit evil

 

We will respond to each of his arguments to show why most of them are wrong or just irrelevant. “Defense #1: What the bible says isn’t accurate…because:

1. It’s not meant to be taken literally
2. It’s corrupted
3. Text from other religions say something different from what the bible says”

Now (b) and (c) are irrelevant because i don’t believe the bible is corrupted and i don’t care what text from other religions say. Now the one i will address is (a) so let’s begin. Now underlings claim that they are irrelevant to his videos because his main attack is on the bible literalist which is true they are but the point that i’m trying to make is this

1. Most christians don’t hold to the young earth creationist viewpoint so underlings is not “attacking” the christian god at all since if someone studies their christian scholarship they would understand what the bible actually is saying instead of using their own reasoning to figure out the text.
2. Young earth creationism is a not only a pseudo-science it’s also a pseudo-scholarship since for 1 there is many independent sources from science proving that the earth and universe are billions of years old and how life evolved through natural selection. And how scholars (those that study the original meaning of ancient text) see young earth creationism as utterly false since it contracts what we know about how the creation account was written and how noah’s flood and tower of babel occurred.
3. The young earth creationist viewpoint is much newer compared to other viewpoint making it not what the church fathers taught and not what the original apostles taught.

Those are the 3 points that i wanted to make for now so underlings can understand that his case is irrelevant to the true christian god. If underlings wants to “attack” the bible literalist that’s fine too i have no problem with that and also i myself used to interpret the bible literally before i found out about christian scholarship but that’s another topic so let’s continue. “Defense #2: I’m interpreting the bible incorrectly

1. Elsewhere in the bible it says the opposite of that i claim
2. I’ve taken passages out of context
3. I’m using the face-value interpretation instead of the most benign interpretation”

First underlings claims that the bible contains contradictions he cites Psalms 145:9 and Revelation 20:10 contract well this is false since what psalms is talking about is that he loves all of mankind and wants them to be saved and revelation is speaking about the wicked that get sent to hell. Also psalms if you read that chapter is a poem that expresses god’s goodness so it’s not a contraction. Christian scholarship has refuted all alleged contradictions. http://www.tektonics.org/lp/packham02.php

Then underlings claims that we should not twist the meaning of passages to make them appear good well i’ve already dealt with this when i refuted underlings first 5 videos so the argument is wrong.  Then he says how actions speak louder than words well again i have already shown why his biblical arguments are false. The fundamental problem with underlings videos about biblical passages is that underlings has no idea that scholars have already dealt with all the issues and there are thousands of books that underlings can read on scholarship.  I will a link to some of them below when it comes to the old testament http://www.tektonics.org/books/otbooks.php

Dont worry that list is not even scratching the surface but anyways now that we have seen that underlings has no idea what he is talking about let’s move on. Then underlings repeats some of the same arguments that we have already refuted the underlings repeats his omniscience and omnipotence argument which like i said before i will address later. Then he cites Ephesians as proof that god causes things to happen well christians have responded to this so it’s irrelevant.   http://www.academia.edu/3673095/Does_Ephesians_1_teach_individual_predestination_to_eternal_salvation

Underlings then argues that god could have put all the information people needed in their minds without having to study scholarship. However this would mean that people would already know that god exist so the argument is irrelevant. If someone wants to know how scholars interpret the bible then i say they should start doing their homework and read books on christian scholarship but of course we all know most atheist are not going to do that since once they do they will see how all their arguments against the bible fail.

“Defense #3: God has sovereignty over his creation”

i never used this defense so underlings response is irrelevant.

“Defense #4: God knows more than we do”

I agree god knows more than we do in fact he knows everything that he can logically know. But underlings response is irrelevant since i don’t use this defense.

“Defense #5: God has to permit evil

1. It allows us to learn from our mistakes
2. It’s necessary in order for us to have free will”

1. Is irrelevant since i don’t use that defense but i will address (b) so let’s do that.

He cites his other video titled “christianity’s problem with free will” but i have already refuted that video so his argument fails. Then he says that we don’t have total freedom which is true since i dont have the freedom to jump 1000 feet into the air with my bare feet but that’s not what free will even is. That idea is called maximal autonomy and not even christians hold to that viewpoint so it’s irrelevant. “We are capable of committing atrocities therefore god wants atrocities to occur” i’ve already debunked this argument so i will quote what i said before “He argues that god could make a world where people still have the freedom to choose god but also make it where people can’t negatively harm others. However there are many problems with this argument. First god gave us the ability to NOT harm others so it stands to reason that it’s our fault for hurting others. Second if god didn’t allow his creation to do harm against each other then Lucifer couldn’t have rebelled against god since he wouldn’t be kicked out of heaven if he can’t fight god. Also sin is by definition an immoral act considered to be transgression against divine law. meaning that anything that is evil and we all know that killing is evil. god is omnipotent but that doesn’t mean he can do the logically impossible. so the bottom line is that god can’t change something that is against his nature into something not against his nature. sin entered the world and in sin is killing. therefor killing is a part of sin and free will. sin is basically everything against god’s nature and god can’t change his nature and god can’t change sin into something it’s not. And finally if god didn’t allow humans to do harm against each other then jesus would have never payed the penalty of the sins we do to harm ourselves since crucifying someone requires that humans do harm against each other. And no one would want to reject god since you have no reasons for rejecting him since no one can do harm against you.” then underlings uses his omniscience and omnipotence argument which i will address later. Then he says how god can’t be all powerful without violating his omniscience well i’ve already refuted this argument so i will quote what i said before. “Then underlings argues that since god is omniscient then he must know everything he himself will ever do thus he can’t be all powerful. Well there are several problems with this first of all omnipotence doesn’t mean god can do the logically impossible it just means he can do whatever is logically possible within his nature. The biggest problem with this argument is that omniscience means that he knows all possible decisions and all possible outcomes and also the fact that god’s mind is perfect from the very moment it existed once properly understood this refutes underlings argument. Then he claims that god does not have free will well this claim is self refuting since if god was determined then anything determining him would be greater than god and thus god would not be god at all since he can’t control himself and also a god is by definition the ultimate being so this refutes underlings argument.” Then underlings says that the bible doesn’t teach free will even tho i’ve refuted this argument before. “Then he claims that nowhere in the bible does it say we have free will. Well this argument is also wrong. 2 Corinthians 8:3: For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves; John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Those are just a few biblical passages that show why the bible supports free will. now since im not interested in the Calvinism vs Armenian debate i will just cite a book i read on the topic called “chosen but free” https://www.amazon.com/Chosen-But-Free-Balanced-Sovereignty/dp/0764208446”

“Defense #6: God has to commit evil in order to serve the greater good”

Then underlings again repeats his #1 argument which is the omniscience and omnipotence argument and again i will address this later. He says how all the apologetic defenses fail when you take into account god’s omniscience and omnipotence which is underlings #1 argument and is the foundation of his case. That’s because if underlings omniscience and omnipotence argument fails then his entire case for an evil god gets obliterated and destroyed and collapses on itself. Its because that argument is what holds the entire case together and even if all of underlings arguments fail as long as his omniscience and omnipotence argument works the case itself stands. Then underlings says that god is guilty (assuming that he is the judge) which is stupid since in a courtroom the prosecutor is never the judge same goes with the defense. For the rest of the video i agree with him that bible literalist have caused many problems in society and even christians should agree with underlings on this issue. As a former bible literalist myself i have seen how they ignore both science and scholarship i would even argue that young earth creationism is a pseudo-christianity since they are ignoring with what the original meaning of the text says. But sadly even christian scholarship wont convince them. I may personally give you my story on why i left young earth creationism but that’s something for another topic. Then the video ends and we see how his arguments fail or how we have already refuted the arguments before.

Refutation: “Out of context”

Underlings video titled “out of context” is a video that uses the omniscience and omnipotence argument. It is underlings #1 argument in his case for an evil god series and is also the foundation for his entire case. That’s because if his omniscience and omnipotence argument fails then his entire case for an evil god gets destroyed and collapses on itself. That’s because all the arguments he uses in his series depend on the omniscience and omnipotence argument. Underlings claims that omniscience and omnipotence is absolute proof for an evil god. Well i refute underlings omniscience and omnipotence argument but first i must explain what the argument is so let’s get started.

Refuting underlings omniscience and omnipotence argument

(Infinite options problem).

Since i know everyone reading this has noticed that i have not addressed his omniscience and omnipotence argument i will refute the argument here. First let me explain what i’m talking about. I saved underlings best argument for last because this argument is the very foundation for his case of an evil god. That’s because if this argument fails then his entire case fails with it since each of his other arguments and claims are connected to this one argument. So now that i’ve made that clear let’s take a look at underlings omniscience and omnipotence argument and refute it. The argument goes like this (In his own words) “If god is omniscient then by definition he knows everything that will happen not only that he knew everything that will happen before he even created the universe, and if god is omnipotent then he is capable of anything that can be done including setting up the conditions that will lead to the outcome he desires, more than anything else those two characteristics reveal god’s moral nature through his actions” so that’s underlings #1 argument is that since god is omniscient and omnipotent then he knew what would happen before he created everything and thus he is evil since he predestined evil and is the cause of all the evil in the world. Well there are several ways to refute this but i will give you my refutation to prove that underlings omniscience and omnipotence argument fails. First his argument is a limited view of omniscience god doesn’t simply know the future, god knows every future in other words god’s knows every choice we will have and every possible decision we would make and every possible future that can result from every possible decision but he leaves the freedom to us to decide which possibility is actualized. However a better way to refute underlings argument is that it results from a bad understanding of god’s foreknowledge and divine omniscience. God does not predict the future from the past but rather post-dicts from the future so to speak, god is not bound by time so god wasn’t sitting around one day and decided to create the universe and determine everything by already knowing what would happen rather god existing outside of time actualizes all time at once it can be said like this the past is already known the future is something that is unknown but has an infinite number of possibilities and the present is the eliminator of those possibilities god knowing the future does NOT determine it as his knowledge is not a determining process from the past but rather is a knowledge that exist presently and is actualized by free will. The future for us exist as a web of possibilities whose outcome is known by god but NOT predictively from the past but rather post-dictively from the present and future. The problem with underlings argument is that it confuses man’s understanding of his actions with the knowledge possessed by the divine being since the two are not the same. The thing we need to remember god being outside of time is not bound by it like we are since his omniscience transcends a state of time and is not stuck in the past. Another thing we need to understand is that Foreknowledge does not equal foreordination that’s because the very fact that god knows something will happen does not mean that humans don’t have free will. The foreknowledge does not determine the free decisions rather the free decisions determine the foreknowledge. For example let’s say if i like football and one sunday i’m away from home but i record the game and let’s suppose that when i’m coming home that night and my friend text me the score to the game and now i know the score and then i get home and i watch the game that i know what the score will be does that mean the football players don’t have free will because i know the outcome? Of course not. Similarly god is outside of time so from his perspective everything has already happened but from our perspective it has not happened. Since we are in time and god is outside of time so gods knows the end from the beginning that’s how he can do prophecy but just because it’s already happened in his mind doesn’t mean that he is causing us to do it directly we still have free will. Just because god knows what’s going to happen doesn’t mean we don’t have free will. For a better refutation of underlings argument i will leave links below that go more in-depth into this topic but we have seen how underlings omniscience and omnipotence argument has failed.

Part 1: http://christianthinktank.com/gr5part1.html#_Now,_with_all

Part 2: http://christianthinktank.com/gr5part2.html

Part 3: http://christianthinktank.com/gr5part3.html

Part 4: http://christianthinktank.com/gr5part4.html

Part 5: http://christianthinktank.com/gr5part5.html

Part 6: http://christianthinktank.com/gr5part6.html

Part 7: http://christianthinktank.com/gr5part7.html

 

If underlings wants to respond he will have to show why omniscience means that god causes things to occur but of course we know he will fail since that’s not the definition of omniscience in the first place. So now we have seen how underlings #1 argument has failed and that his entire case fails with it. Now of course i still have a few videos of his that i still need to address and i also need to do a summary of this defence for the christian god. But i hope that underlings and anyone else reading this understands that underlings omniscience and omnipotence argument fails since it’s a complete misunderstanding of divine omniscience.

Response: “God is Good!”

Now this video makes no arguments since it’s just some music video that underlings made. Meaning that this video is completely irrelevant so i won’t be refuting any of its claims because it doesn’t have any arguments. All it does is repeat underlings “biblical evidence for an evil god” but we have already refuted that so i won’t be addressing it here.  

Refutation: “Pope francis says god is evil”

Now if you watched underlings series all of his videos has a quote from some person or group that says how god is evil or how christianity is evil. Now any of you reading this has noticed that i have not addressed any of those quotes well that’s because they are irrelevant however this one i think is relevant so i will address it. “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here” -Inscription on the gate of hell, Dante’s Inferno. This is underlings quote however i’m addressing it because of those two last words “Dante’s Inferno” that’s because if you look that up it’s what underlings thinks hell is which is literal burning fire however dante’s inferno is the origin of the idea of hell being literal fire. Which is proof that the idea of hell being literal fire is not from the bible and if you don’t believe me then you can watch this video. https://youtu.be/-q5vGcpx1sY

He says how pope francis says that all necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope then pope francis says that god is evil since god doesn’t give those people in hell a second chance. Well underlings reasoning is flawed let me explain. First of all there is an assumption that everyone wants to go to heaven well this is wrong their are people running from jesus their entire lives they don’t want to be with jesus he’s in heaven. Jesus can’t force people to love him and if you don’t love jesus then he will give you up to your own selfish desires. When you die there are only two possible places one would be heaven where you live with god for eternity or hell where you’re serving your own self desires. In luke chapter 16 you notice lazareth and the rich man now the rich man is in hell and notice he is not complaining about how he needs to get out of hell he just wants lazareth to serve him and make him feel better. He doesn’t say i dont deserve to be in hell he just says to go tell his brother about the resurrection. Hell is a separation from god and there will be levels of punishment of hell based on shame and levels of reward in heaven based on honor. People go to hell because they never got their sins forgiven and for those that reject jesus they will be in hell because they don’t want jesus and so they will be in hell filling their own self desires. If god is good whatever happens in the afterlife will be completely good so nobody will be complaining. So once you understand this important fact you will understand why underlings argument gets destroyed. People in prison are there because they did something bad now of course they don’t want to be their but hell is different since people that are in hell are there because they want to be there.So once again we have seen how underlings argument fails. Now before i move on into underlings next video there was another video titled “What will heaven be like?” and tries to argue that heaven is no more different than hell. Now i’m not going to make a new outline for that video since it’s not a part of his case for an evil god. But if anyone wants to see a good refutation of underlings claims in that video just watch this video which explains what heaven and hell will be like and will debunk objections to the afterlife.  https://youtu.be/RsmF5s2IrdU

Response: “Why i make videos against god”

Underlings video titled “Why i make videos against god” is my favorite out of all his videos. Why you ask? Well it’s because i agree with most of his points and these are the points i agree with him on

1. Young earth creationism is a pseudo-science
2. Young earth creationist reject all scientific and historical evidence that contradicts their narrow interpretation of genesis 1
3. Young earth creationist should NOT be removing evolution from biology classes
4. Young earth creationism should NOT be taught in the science classrooms
5. Young earth creationist always use debunked arguments
6. Young earth creationist are uneducated enough to use critical thinking
7. Young earth creationist always ignore refutations of their claims

Now these are the points i disagree with and i will address them

1. Apologetic defenses fail
2. God is evil

Yes those are the only two things i disagree with underlings on that’s because as we have seen in this defense almost all of underlings claims and arguments fail. The only ones that are valid is when underlings attacks young earth creationism other than that all his arguments fail. I think that underlings doesn’t realize is that apologist have better defenses than “god works in mysterious ways”. If you go to the links i put in this defense of the christian god it explains in detail why each verse underlings uses fails to show why god is unjust. Anyways after that the video ends and those are the only points that i wanted to bring up. Now before i go to underlings final video i want to prove why it is logically impossible for god to be evil yes that’s right i want to show why it’s impossible for god to be evil. So let’s begin with my argument.

The Logical impossibility of an evil god

(Proof for a good god #2)

This argument is a going to prove that it’s logically impossible for god to be evil and will build on to my other argument called “PROOF FOR A GOOD GOD” and i will refute objections after i explain the argument

P1: It is logically impossible someone to be evil just for the sake of being evil

P2: If it’s logically impossible for someone to be evil just for the sake of being evil then it’s logically impossible for evil to exist on its own

P3: If it’s logically impossible for evil to exist on its own then evil is a perversion of good

P4: God is changeless

P5: Since god is changeless and since evil is a perversion of good then god can’t change from good to evil

Conclusion: Therefore it is logically impossible for god to be evil and its logically necessary that god is good

 

We should all agree that the first premise is true since i have already proven this point before so i will just quote with what i said before “ It is logically impossible for someone to be evil just for the sake of being evil in reality we have no experience of someone being evil just to be evil the closest we can get is cruelty but in reality people are only cruel to gain something. Such as power, pleasure or safety but these are not evil they are good to have the evil comes from pursuing them in the wrong motives or in the wrong way. When you examine it evil is nothing more than the pursuit of something good in the wrong way. Now unlike evil you can be good just for the sake of being good you can do a kind act even if it gives you no pleasure simply because it is the right thing to do but no one can be cruel just for being cruel or be cruel without gaining something good. Let’s have C.S. lewis explain “In other words, badness cannot succeed even in being bad in the same way in which goodness is good… Goodness is so to speak itself: badness is only spoiled goodness. And there must be something good first before it can be spoiled.” -C.S. Lewis.” so we can see that the first premise is true and to argue otherwise will result in logical absurdities. Premise 2 is also correct since we have proven that it’s logically impossible for someone to be evil just for the sake of being evil thus it follows that it’s logically impossible for evil to exist on its own. Premise 3 is correct since if premise 1,2 are true then evil is always a perversion of good. Premise 4 is true since god is changeless. Now premise 5 is the one with the most objections it’s questionable if god is good to start but we have proven that good CAN exist on its own without the need for evil. And since evil is a perversion of good and since god is changeless then it logically follows that god was good before evil and since god is changeless then he can’t change from good to evil. This is irrefutable proof that it’s logically impossible for god to be evil and that it’s necessary that god is good. Thus this is even stronger proof that god is good. Now i will refute the objections

 

Objection #1: The conclusion if false since god doesn’t necessarily have to be good or evil instead he can just be neutral.

 

This objection fails since if god is just neutral then good and evil cannot logically exist either since their must be something good first before evil but if god is neutral then good and evil cannot exist. And if good and evil don’t exist then underlings case for an evil god series fails since you can’t make a case that someone is evil if evil itself does not exist it would make underlings case self-refuting.  

 

Objection #2: Evil is not a perversion of good since i can say that both good and evil depend on each other to exist.

 

There are flaws in this objection for one their is not a single example of someone being good to get evil things out of it. Second like i said before if good and evil depended on each other then god would have to be neutral but if god was neutral then good and evil cannot logically exist in the first place. Thus the objection is self-refuting

 

Objection #3: The argument fails since morality is based on evolutionary processes and not god

 

Well the whole “evolution argument” fails since evolution is a process that is determined by the species environment through random mutation which means that morality would be completely random. Which would logically follow that good and evil would be constantly changing so that means that in the future slavery could one day come back. But just because some evolutionary process makes slavery good does not make it good. So the entire “evolution determines morality” argument falls apart once you think about it. Also even if the objection was correct it still logically follows that god is necessarily good.  

Objection #4: If god is good then is something good because god wills it or does god will something because it’s good. If it’s the first thing then god could make murder good and it will be good thus morality would be subjective. If god wills something because it’s good then good and god are separate.

 

This objection is also an objection to the moral argument but it’s easy to refute since GOD IS THE GOOD. Let me explain god wills something because god is the good. Thats right god is the standard of moral values just as a live musical performance is the standard for recording the more the recording sounds like the original the better it is likewise the more closely moral actions forms to god’s nature the better it is. And since we have proven that evil is the perversion of good then evil is the absence of good thus evil is the absence of god. This refutes the objection since god and good are not separate they are the same thing.  

 

Once you properly understand this argument it is impossible to refute and is an irrefutable argument. Since we know the argument is valid this not only proves that it is logically necessary that god is good but that it is logically impossible for god to be evil which refutes underlings entire case for an evil god. So even if we are to interpret the bible LITERALLY as underlings claims it’s still logically impossible for god to be evil and its logically necessary that god is good. So i’m NOT straw manning underlings case. This only concludes that god is NOT evil but that he is necessarily good.

This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.