Christian Audience Member Vs Alex O'Connor

[00:00:00]When this session started all those units of time ago, >> [laughter] >> I thought Alex O'Connor was going to give us arguments against the existence of God. And it seems to me that what he has said is a loving God could not allow human suffering. A loving God could not allow animal suffering. I'm sorry, animal suffering or human suffering is not evidence for the existence of God one way or another. What you do start with a proposition, is it more likely that God exists or not? And speaking for myself and for the reason in which Dr. Craig advanced, I think the balance balance of the argument God exists. And if we then try and say, "Why does he do this? Why does he do that?" I don't know. I'm not God, and neither does Alex O'Connor.

[00:00:39]>> Alex.

[00:00:41]Was >> [applause] >> Was that a question?

[00:00:45]>> [laughter] >> Joining in the debate at this point.

[00:00:49]>> Well, if I might just make a comment on that.

[00:00:52]>> Go on.

[00:00:53]>> The questioner I think is actually making a very good point. It's been said that one man's modus tollens is another man's modus ponens.

[00:01:02]>> That's right.

[00:01:02]>> Uh that is to say, the theist can agree that if God exists, then gratuitous, that is unnecessary, purposeless suffering does not exist. If God does not exist, uh or rather if God exists, I'm sorry, if God exists, then gratuitous suffering does not exist. But then the theist can say we have very good arguments and evidence that God exists. And therefore it follows that gratuitous suffering does not exist.

[00:01:32]That's the logical consequence. And so Dan Howard Snyder in his anthology on the problem of evil says, "The problem of evil is really only a problem for theists who have lousy grounds for theism. But if you've got good grounds for theism, the problem of evil isn't a problem." As the questioner said, "We don't know why God permits >> We spent most >> uh the suffering in the world.

[00:01:58]>> But that's irrelevant to the fact that if we have good grounds for believing God exists, then that gives good grounds for thinking that the suffering in the world really isn't gratuitous, but serves some greater good.

[00:02:11]>> We spent most of our time this evening discussing one premise of the Kalam cosmological argument, which I I don't think is sound.

[00:02:16]Um I think that there are lots of very good arguments for the existence of God.

[00:02:19]That's why I'm an agnostic. I think there are good reasons to believe in God. I think there are good reasons to doubt those reasons. I think there are There's good reason to doubt that we can even fully understand what we mean when we use a word like God. It would depend on what you mean. We've been talking about the Kalam. I found it unsound.

[00:02:32]That's all. I gave you one reason to suspect that the God that William Lane Craig is suggesting, which is an all-loving God, which by the way many arguments for the existence of God conclude that God must be loving.

[00:02:45]And so in the case of those arguments, the problem of evil does actually provide a good reason not to believe in that God. Of course, we haven't had time to get into that. And when it comes to talking about even this one argument, which I don't even think is the strongest argument, by the way. I just think it's probably the most popular.

[00:02:59]I feel as though I I I It It's up to you to decide if you think that I've even had the time to explain my case properly, but of course we didn't. It was 10 minutes long. We didn't even begin to talk about the concept of animal suffering. And I think that if you if you want to just sort of dismiss that as, "Well, I know God exists, so God must have some kind of reason." Then fine, but that's not the conversation we're having over here.

[00:03:17]>> Yeah, the conversation we're having here is >> It's coming back.

[00:03:21]>> Suffering with animals exists. If suffering is meaningless >> Can we get Can we get a microphone Can he just take his reply back? Can you keep your reply brief? And then Alex with the reply. I'm going to jump over here for what might be our final question if this is >> The point that you've been making is that animal suffering and human suffering is evidence against the existence of a creator God. What I am saying is it's neither evidence for or evidence against. A creator God is decided on other criteria completely.

[00:03:47]>> So would you say that the existence the existence of suffering is more or less expected on the hypothesis theism or atheism. Or do you think they're genuinely equal?

[00:03:56]>> Expected by whom?

[00:03:57]>> What do you mean expected by you?

[00:03:58]>> It is irrelevant.

[00:04:00]>> Expected by you.

[00:04:01]>> That's like saying I believe in Father Christmas because he's a nice man and he brings my kids presents, but I don't believe in God because he allows suffering in animals. I mean, that just doesn't make sense. The two arguments are completely different.

[00:04:10]>> Tell me what you think you would expect to find if there were a God who were invigilating?

[00:04:16]>> I I am not God, and neither are you.

[00:04:19]You're going about the wrong way. The first thing you've got to say to yourself, what is the evidence for a creator God? And as you've been fairly conceded just now, there are arguments for and against. But the idea that suffering in animals >> All right.

[00:04:31]>> doesn't even We're going to move to a question over here cuz you have three replies.

[00:04:34]>> That's fine. If your If your vision of God If your vision of God >> We're not No, we're not doing this.

[00:04:39]We're not doing this.

[00:04:41]>> If your vision of God If your vision of God is some kind of impersonal entity which creates the universe at some first moment in time due to the impossibility of an actual infinite regress, and then just doesn't give a squat about suffering. If that's the God that you believe in, then then fine.

[00:04:57]>> Don't give a >> not the God that most people are worshipping in church. That's not the God who supposedly resurrects Jesus from the dead for the purpose, by the way, of human salvation. Meaning that actually, at least in the case of human beings, their mental states do actually matter quite a bit. Which I mean which means that if there is some unexpected aspect of that mental existence, that needs to be explained and is less expected on the hypothesis of theism. Of course, Christian theism. Of course, Christian theism. Then it is on naturalism, which is not to say >> We're going to take We're going to take this question over here from the gentleman in the >> Which is not to say that naturalism is true.

[00:05:31]>> state your question briefly, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[00:05:36]>> You don't get to respond >> microphone away from that.

[00:05:38]>> get to shout >> It's going to be a bloody night.

[00:05:40]>> Jesus.

[00:05:41]>> You don't get to respond by shouting out, and then when I respond to you, point over there for the next question. That's not how this works.

[00:05:49]That's not how this works.

[00:05:51]If >> [applause] >> If you want to keep shout- If you want to keep shouting responses, that's fine. If you want to keep shouting responses, that is absolutely fine. I'm going to do the same thing.

[00:06:01]Are we done now?

[00:06:02]>> Don't let the one shouting Your question, please. Thank you.

[00:06:06]>> [laughter] >> Yes, sir.