Problem of Evil Guy Tries Again

[00:00:00][music] >> stand what a contradiction is like philosophically.

[00:00:11]And I think it seems like that's why you kind of think the logical problem of evil is is a good argument cuz it just doesn't seem like you understand like philosophical philoso whatever it's called. That word. It doesn't seem like you know what a contradiction is.

[00:00:24]>> Wait, did I talk to you last week? Are you the guy that said it has to be it has to be in the same sense?

[00:00:31]>> Yeah, that was me.

[00:00:32]>> Okay. Well, we already did this. So, we're going to go around in circles.

[00:00:37]You're going to say it's fine for uh God can't even murder because every single time God kills somebody, it doesn't count as murder.

[00:00:45]Uh and I'm going to disagree. So, what make So, in order for it to not be murder, it has to be an unjust killing.

[00:00:54]So, what makes what makes it when God kills babies just?

[00:00:59]Your answer is because because it's God.

[00:01:02]That's not a reason.

[00:01:04]>> Well, yeah. I I don't really want to talk about like I think we should have I rewatched our our debate and it seemed like we were using bad words. We probably should not have been using the word murder because that has like a a morally loaded um like content to it. We should have been using the word killing.

[00:01:21]Um but I don't I don't even really necessarily want to talk about the problem of evil. I mainly just want to talk about like the philosophically what a what a contradiction is.

[00:01:31]And how it it it and I I came up with an analogy that I think will kind of help clear the confusion. Um so, it seems as though you were saying that the contradiction in the Christian worldview is that murder is bad and murder is not bad.

[00:01:45]Is that what you were kind of getting at?

[00:01:48]>> Yeah, because you call unjust killings good when God does them and not good when somebody else does them.

[00:01:55]>> Well, let's let's use the word let's use the word just killings. Let's not use like unjust killings. Let's just use the word killing. Like the the the contradiction you were drawing was it's it's wrong for us to kill or you were saying the the Christian worldview says it's wrong to kill and it's not wrong to kill. And that's a contradiction. That kind of seems like what you were saying last time. Right?

[00:02:15]>> We pretty much always used the word kill cuz I said kill a baby, kill and eat a baby. But actually it would be murder.

[00:02:22]So >> Yeah, what makes it wrong is that it's murder.

[00:02:26]>> Yeah. Yeah, but what what I'm getting at is I'm not really trying to get at whether it's wrong or right. I'm trying to get at the the idea of a contradiction and try and explain that explain shine light on what a contradiction actually is and hopefully that will help you better understand the problem of evil or at least the logical problem of evil.

[00:02:46]Is that okay?

[00:02:49]>> I guess.

[00:02:50]>> [snorts] >> Okay, so let me give you like the the issue that I was saying in the way in in our conversation is it it seemed like you were saying it's a contradiction a statement and its negation at the same time, but the problem is the reference was two different reference.

[00:03:12]And in order for it to be a contradiction philosophically and logically it can't be different reference because then it's it's no longer a contradiction.

[00:03:19]Um so in one it was it was referencing God and in the other it was referencing us. And and even you gave an example you said here's a contradiction. You said it would be wrong for me to kill somebody but it would not be wrong for you to kill somebody. And you're like that's a contradiction. And then I'm like no no that's not a contradiction, but the reason it's not a contradiction is because it's two separate reference.

[00:03:39]And I I came up with an analogy that I hope will help.

[00:03:41]>> [laughter] >> The referent The referent is the person being killed. That's the referent. Murder is an unjust killing.

[00:03:49]Murder is not when somebody other than God kills somebody. That's not the definition of murder at all. The referent is the innocent life being taken. When an innocent life is taken, it's murder.

[00:04:03]God kills babies for the supposed crime of Pharaoh not letting Moses go.

[00:04:11]Those babies didn't do anything.

[00:04:13]Uh so it's an unjust killing. It's a murder.

[00:04:18]>> Yeah, so when I'm saying the referent, I'm talking about the referent of the statement it's wrong for that you made last time. It's wrong for me to kill.

[00:04:28]And it's not wrong for you to kill.

[00:04:30]>> Yeah, the referent is the person being killed. Action >> Well, there is no person being the referent in that in that in those in those concepts would be you and me.

[00:04:40]The distinction in the referent.

[00:04:41]>> No, it's not. Murder is something that happens to a subject.

[00:04:46]>> [clears throat] >> When I murder somebody, nothing's happening to me.

[00:04:51]Murder is the unjust killing of a subject. We don't have to have you, me, or grandma, or anybody in there.

[00:04:57]Murder is the unjust killing of a person, I guess. Maybe some people think you can murder a horse, whatever.

[00:05:05]That's it.

[00:05:08]>> So let's let's let me see if I can do it this way, right?

[00:05:11]So I have a statement, right? And my statement is it is not wrong for me to kill Donald Trump.

[00:05:18]And your statement is it is wrong for you to kill Donald Trump.

[00:05:23]>> Okay.

[00:05:23]>> There's two different people >> again, please.

[00:05:26]>> [laughter] >> Okay, my bad. My bad. My bad. You you get the idea, right? You get the idea.

[00:05:31]>> Yeah.

[00:05:31]>> There's two the Yeah, that's a good way to get kicked off the internet. Um but there's two re- the the person being killed is the same person, so that referent is the same, but the referent in the first statement of I am one of the referents in the first statement and you are one of the reference in the second statement. If you have like a statement doesn't necessarily only have one reference.

[00:05:56]>> No, it's un Murder is the unjust killing. Justice doesn't come from who am I?

[00:06:06]That's not That's not what justice comes from. These These words, the the sense of whether or not it's right or wrong is What does it stand in causal relationship to? So, an example I use a lot is um you know, if I were rock climbing and you know, you have to be tethered to somebody often times when you're rock climbing.

[00:06:28]Well, if the person I'm tethered to starts to all of a sudden like have a seizure and they pass out and they're just dead weight, well, I think that I am justified in cutting the rope and they would tragically fall to their death. I didn't murder that person. I killed them. Now, why does nobody think that this is murder? Because I'm preserving life by doing this. By By I didn't do anything wrong. Uh there'd be no justice in me also dying uh in in this. It wouldn't be It wouldn't be unjust for me to live and them die an inevitable death but somehow just for the two of us to die together.

[00:07:12]So, when we're talking about in what sense is this murder or not, it's How does the action of causing this death stand in relation to what is good or what is bad?

[00:07:28]And so, it doesn't matter who the extra subject is.

[00:07:33]It's murder when it's an unjust killing.

[00:07:38]>> Okay, so it does seem like you're really trying to push it in the in the direction of like a moral argument or like even a problem of evil argument, but I really kind of want to get like we already had that discussion and I think we can go in circles on that discussion, but I kind of want to get into a different discussion on what a contradiction actually is. And so let's let's just remove killing and murder completely out of it. Let's say this, right?

[00:08:01]Let's say I make the statement I'm a pretty pink princess, right?

[00:08:06]And then you also make the statement I am not a pretty pink princess.

[00:08:11]Those two things are not contradictions because the reference in those two statements, while the if you actually look at the individual words they are a statement and then it's statements negation literally is what they are, but the reference that the that the statement is referring to in one case is me and the other case it is you. And so in order for something to be a contradiction logically or philosophically, you have to be pointing towards the same reference at the same time. And so it's not even a contradiction for me to say it's wrong or it's I'm a pretty pink princess, you're not a pretty pink princess. That's not a contradiction. Those are just two different statements about two different reference.

[00:08:56]And you the the example you gave was you're like, "Okay, here's the contradiction. It's wrong for me to kill and it's not wrong for you to kill." And you're like, "That's a contradiction."

[00:09:04]I'm like, "No, that's not a contradiction." This is what we had last This is what we talked about last time because there's two different reference in a statement.

[00:09:11]And so if you're trying to draw >> You have This is just This is fantastically wrong.

[00:09:16]Um This is what you've given I I shortened it. Me, you're a princess. You, I am a princess.

[00:09:24]>> you off? Can I cut you off?

[00:09:26]This [snorts] the statement would not be you're not a pretty princess. It would be I am not a pretty princess. So it would be just the exact negation. Yeah, the top one would just be I am not a pretty princess. And the bottom one would be I am a pretty princess.

[00:09:39]>> Yeah, but I'm >> I Yeah, but your means you. You are I'm talking to you when I say this.

[00:09:46]>> No, I know, but but that would make the reference to the same and that would be a contradiction if those two statements were true at the same time.

[00:09:53]But I'm trying to show you that the reference is different.

[00:09:56]>> not at all that's not what I thought you meant. So, forget everything I was about to say because apparently I misunderstood.

[00:10:06]>> Yeah, so let's just let's do let's do it in like in like variables, right? If I make this statement, X is a pretty princess.

[00:10:15]And I also make statement, Y is not a pretty princess.

[00:10:20]That's not a contradiction even though those are statements and it's a negation, but the reason it's not a contradiction is because it's two different reference.

[00:10:30]So, when we were talking about problem of evil, you were saying >> There's actually might There's actually might be a contradiction because princess isn't defined yet.

[00:10:41]You're just You're just saying >> How could it be a contradiction if there's two separate reference?

[00:10:45]>> Because it depends on what a princess is.

[00:10:52]>> I'm confused. How could How does it How does the How does it being a contradiction or not depend on princess? We could use any word. We could use salamander. We could use whatever We could just use another variable. We could just say V. X is not V.

[00:11:04]Y is V.

[00:11:06]We could It could be any statement. The point I'm trying to make is >> great because it really won't require very much work for us to discuss this.

[00:11:13]Um these obviously are contradictory statements because we know what a salamander is.

[00:11:19]>> Yeah, those are contradictions.

[00:11:21]>> Yeah, so what what what I'm saying here is true uh and what you're saying is not true because we know what you and I are.

[00:11:33]Uh you're a different subject than me, but that does not allow for you to be a salamander.

[00:11:40]Cuz we know what salamanders are. The Venn diagram of humans and salamanders does not overlap Well, it it I mean it technically it overlaps cuz we're both vertebrates, like in that sense, but we'll just say the Venn diagram of human and salamander uh does not overlap. We we can just say it that way.

[00:11:58]So um this like this this is a contradiction.

[00:12:06]Well, to say Well, the contradiction the contradiction would actually be both these statements are true.

[00:12:14]That's the contradiction.

[00:12:19]>> A this would just be a in a correct statement and two incorrect statements. This isn't philosophically or logically a contradiction.

[00:12:29]What would be So so let me let me What would be So a contradiction would be like P as a as a variable for a a statement and then not P both existing at the same time in the same sense or towards the same referent.

[00:12:43]So what would be P in this case?

[00:12:47]In the salamander example.

[00:12:49]>> Um >> Go go go back Could you go back to the note notepad that you had?

[00:12:54]>> That This is This is the weirdest thing that I've ever done possibly. Well, I know actually not even close, but whatever.

[00:13:02]Um P I I would actually say salamander is Q and then you and I are different Ps.

[00:13:11]Because if we ran Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal uh I could replace you with Socrates.

[00:13:19]Socrates is P mortality is Q.

[00:13:23]So it it would be it would be So in in both of these uh you you and me are P equals humans.

[00:13:36]Let me uh >> So, P in this case would just be the entire statement.

[00:13:43]So, I'm not asking you to pick out individual reference in the statements.

[00:13:47]I'm asking you to give a statement and then qualify that statement as P. P is right there is you're just assigning to you and me. I want you to assign the entire statement as a variable and assign that P.

[00:14:01]So, the whole statement I am not a salamander is P.

[00:14:08]And then you would need the next statement to be I am I am a salamander, which would be the negation of that statement.

[00:14:13]>> how this works at all.

[00:14:18]>> So, because >> Because we know what a salamander and a human are. Like, these aren't >> Yeah.

[00:14:23]>> You you don't get to treat these You don't get to treat I'm not a salamander as a as a as a singular premise.

[00:14:33]I mean, it's a claim.

[00:14:35]But, embedded within it, you have to we know it has it has two different nouns in here, I and salamander. And so, I don't think you I don't think you get to >> I jump in real quick?

[00:14:47]>> You're going to You're going to have to explain to me how you're allowed to say that it's true that a human isn't a salamander, but if you claim that a human is a salamander, it's not always a contradiction. That makes no sense to me.

[00:15:02]>> So, it seems like you're conflating the word kind of seems like you think that a contradiction and something being false are are are identical.

[00:15:14]Um just because those statements that you laid out may be false, cuz we're both not salamanders, it doesn't mean that they're contradictory. Contradiction would definitionally be just a statement and that statement's negation both being true at the same time in the same sense.

[00:15:30]So, when I say a statement P, P needs to be true and P needs to be not true at the same time and in the same sense or towards the same referent in the same way.

[00:15:43]>> Okay.

[00:15:44]>> So, your it seems like you're just trying to decide whether or not statements which they're >> Are both of these statements true?

[00:15:53]>> Uh let me They would probably one of them would be true and one of them would be false.

[00:15:59]And then the bottom statement would be false.

[00:16:01]But it it it's kind of the the truth or or falseness of these statements is kind of irrelevant.

[00:16:05]>> true, then they're not equal to each other.

[00:16:10]>> I agree, yeah.

[00:16:11]>> Well, then it has to be a contradiction.

[00:16:15]>> Well, a contradiction doesn't just mean false. Contradiction means a statement and its negation both being true at the same time.

[00:16:21]In the same sense.

[00:16:22]>> these statements You just said that one of these statements is P and one of them is not P.

[00:16:28]Cuz you said one of them is false.

[00:16:30]>> Yeah, so let's say this. P would be I am a salamander. That's P.

[00:16:36]Not P would be I am not a salamander.

[00:16:40]It would be a contradiction or yeah, just go ahead write that out if you could.

[00:16:44]>> Uh Yeah, so that's that's P. This is not I can't do the sideways R, so >> Yeah, that's fine. So, the bottom one is I'm a salamander. That's P, right?

[00:16:57]The negation of P would be I am not a salamander, right?

[00:17:00]Okay, so in order for something to be contradictory, it has to be or can you Sorry, can you change the first word to me to you and not me?

[00:17:10]Cuz it needs to be the same referent.

[00:17:12]Yeah. Or just say X. Just do put both of them as Y or whatever. That's fine.

[00:17:16]We'll just say you is referring to me.

[00:17:18]Like Luke Wiggins. Luke Wiggins is not a salamander, but we get it, right? So, the P would be I'm a salamander.

[00:17:25]P's negation would be I am not a salamander.

[00:17:29]Those two statements being true, both being true at the same time in the same sense would be a contradiction. And contradictions are always false, right?

[00:17:40]They don't They They don't exist in the real world. Like But individually analyzing each one of those statements, individually analyzing P and not P as true or false, really doesn't like We can try and break down to see which one is per true or false, but that doesn't really Let's say Let's say they're both false. That doesn't make it a contradiction. That would just be a violation of a different law of logic.

[00:18:04]But a contradiction is a statement and its negation being true and not true at the same time in the same sense.

[00:18:10]And it seemed as though you were saying like back to the the um problem of evil argument, you were saying it's wrong to murder and it's not wrong to murder.

[00:18:18]Where Where the Where your P and not P.

[00:18:20]And the But the problem is they're in two different senses or with two different reference. The first reference would be God. It's not wrong for God to murder. Or let's say kill. It's not wrong for God to kill. And then the second reference would be me.

[00:18:33]It's It is wrong for me to kill. In order for it to be contra- contradictory, you would need to find >> Murder?

[00:18:41]Do you believe that um How do I want to say this?

[00:18:49]The claim Like Like by definition, murder is an unjust killing.

[00:18:55]That's objectively true. Meaning it's true in all cases.

[00:18:59]Yeah. Meaning it doesn't mean who the subject engaging in the action is.

[00:19:03]>> I agree. Yeah. But But That's why >> for God to murder.

[00:19:08]>> Yes. It would It would It would just be in contradiction. Even if God and I did two identical things, >> [clears throat] >> then it's murder when I do it and it's not got murder when God does it, uh which is just >> Hey, can I jump in real quick?

[00:19:24]>> It's special pleading, I guess is what we're going to call it.

[00:19:28]>> why this is why I didn't want to use the word murder.

[00:19:30]>> going to call it a contradiction, then we're going to call it special pleading.

[00:19:34]>> Can I jump in?

[00:19:36]>> Yeah.

[00:19:37]>> So, the reason why I didn't want to use the word murder is because murder by definition is an unjustified killing and the Christian worldview holds that nothing God does is unjustifiable just definitionally. So, let's just throw out the word murder and let's use the word kill.

[00:19:54]>> Why should anybody think that that's true?

[00:19:57]>> It it's it's not a whether or not you should think it's true. It's just if you're doing an internal critique of a worldview, you adopt all premises in that worldview.

[00:20:10]And so, this this is where we're getting into >> murder? Then you have to justify you have to justify your belief. Why can't God murder?

[00:20:18]>> Because it's it's incoherent.

[00:20:20]Like it it'd just be it would definitionally be like saying P and not P at the same time. It's it's incoherent.

[00:20:27]>> What's the definition of murder?

[00:20:29]>> The definition of murder would be an unjustified killing.

[00:20:33]Um justified by definition would be that which goes >> God incapable of doing that?

[00:20:40]>> It it would be definitionally asserted inside the Christian worldview.

[00:20:44]>> If it's just true by definition, then it's arbitrary. This is the Euthyphro dilemma.

[00:20:49]>> No, no, but but when we're doing an internal critique, we adopt the entire the worldview in its entirety and look for contradictions.

[00:20:55]>> don't just get to say my worldview is that my worldview is true. You justify >> with that. I agree with that. Well, Well, we can get into >> I can claim that under my worldview, there are square circles.

[00:21:08]>> [snorts] >> And if you're going to tell me you can't have a square circle, I don't get to say, "Well, look, but you have to adopt my worldview, and my worldview affirms that there are square circles."

[00:21:21]>> Let me do that. Let me do that real quick, right? So, what in your world what in your worldview is defined as a square?

[00:21:28]>> I Well, I don't believe in square circles, and so I don't think I would actually be able to defend it.

[00:21:33]>> but the worldview that you just the worldview that you just that you just hypothesized real quick.

[00:21:38]Like the worldview that you just made up. Adopt that worldview and I'll do an internal critique of that worldview to show you how it works.

[00:21:44]>> I I I will try. I I firmly believe that I will fail.

[00:21:50]>> What's a what's a a square? Like what would be defined as a square?

[00:21:54]>> That which is a circle.

[00:21:57]>> Well, no, no. You're you're misunderstanding me. So, what I want you to do is Okay, so I I honestly I I didn't present that properly. But here's what a an internal critique would be. An internal critique would be like let's say I address the worldview that there are square circles and this worldview X defines square as something with four corners and four equal sides.

[00:22:21]And it defines circle as something that has no corners and is the max area for the minimum amount of of perimeter, right?

[00:22:31]And this worldview also >> There's a formula for a squirrel. A squirrel a circle. I can't >> [laughter] >> I said square and circle at the same time. There's a formula for a circle.

[00:22:42]It's the ax1 >> Yeah, yeah.

[00:22:44]>> something something I don't remember.

[00:22:46]>> I'm I dropped out of I dropped out of college and I was homeschooled, so I don't really know any of that.

[00:22:50]>> Well, I said squirrel, so >> Um yeah, yeah. So, you're way worse than me. Um but it would be like if I adopt if I would look at that that worldview, right? And I I go, "Okay, so a square is defined as something that has corners and a circle is defined as something that does not have corners." And then I would look at this idea that that worldview X has of a square circle and I could go and the referent in the in that proposition would be that one single shape, it would be the identical shape that both has corners and not has and does not have corners. So that would be a contradiction in that worldview that I found by accepting all the premises inside the worldview. So sure >> Sure, so what you did there, well, my example wasn't good enough because it was actually incomplete cuz what you did there was you told me what the definition of a square is and what the definition of a circle is and showed me that they're contradictory.

[00:23:47]What I've been doing with you is telling you what the different definition of murder is and then we haven't been doing an alternative definition, but we we've sort of been defining I guess what not a murder is.

[00:23:59]Um what we're actually saying is that God cannot do murder. So I will say in my worldview I can draw square circles.

[00:24:11]>> Okay, but but then I would just adopt that worldview and look at what the definition in your worldview of a square is and what a circle is and then I would show the contradiction in that statement from your own worldview.

[00:24:22]>> Yeah, but it's not in the same sense.

[00:24:23]It's not in the same sense.

[00:24:24]>> worldview.

[00:24:27]Yeah, but you but the referent is the same so it is in the same sense.

[00:24:30]>> Okay, the referent is um a baby killed for no reason in both senses.

[00:24:36]>> Okay, so the oh the referent would be a baby killed for no reason. Okay. I don't think that a baby >> is.

[00:24:43]>> Yeah, yeah, that would be well, murder would just be an unjustified killing.

[00:24:46]But let's say God kills a baby for no reason.

[00:24:51]>> Yeah, but but we don't but the Christian worldview inside the Christian worldview we don't believe God kills people reason. Reasons, Yeah, but but we don't we don't believe that God kills for no reason in the Christian world view.

[00:25:03]>> Yeah, you can have Yeah, so I that actually was I shouldn't have said that I because you can have unjust reasons.

[00:25:11]>> We Okay, we don't believe that God kills unjustifiably ever.

[00:25:17]>> Okay, why should anybody think that other than you claim it? Why is it true?

[00:25:22]>> But see, it seems Look, I'm not making I haven't made an argument for Christianity. I'm not I haven't made any claims. I have not Well, I mean I have made a claim.

[00:25:31]>> I'm just asking you why is what you just said true?

[00:25:34]>> [snorts] >> Well, I'm not arguing for the truth of of my statement.

[00:25:40]That's not what I'm doing. I'm asking if you can show a contradiction in my statement. That's what an internal critique is. If you go and do an internal critique, I don't have to justify my world view towards an internal critique. You You accept all of the premises in my world view. You grant that my world view is true.

[00:25:58]>> God and then show It's my claim that God unjustly murdered all the firstborn children in Egypt. That's the contradiction.

[00:26:05]>> but that but that would be an external critique. That would be you coming from your own making your own claims and showing why your own claims are better than our claims. That's an external critique.

[00:26:14]>> world view, my world view is true.

[00:26:17]>> No, that's not what I'm saying.

[00:26:18]>> Yes, you are.

[00:26:19]>> What I'm saying is No, no. I'm saying I haven't made an argument for Christianity. I'm just saying that if you I'm basically just trying to define what an internal critique is. And what it could Just look up the definition of an internal critique.

[00:26:33]>> I I understand it perfectly well, but every time I try to um criticize it, you say, "Yeah, but we don't believe that." So, you're just saying according to my belief, my beliefs are true.

[00:26:45]>> So, it It doesn't seem like you do understand what what an internal critique is because what I what I Let me try and explain it, right? An internal critique is when you adopt every single thing that I say as if I'm the authority on all like let's say I'm got like I've just treat what I say as what as as truth. That's what an internal critique is. You accept every single um proposition that I make blindly. You just accept it to be true. You grant my whole world my whole world view.

[00:27:15]And then you show a contradiction on my own world view that you have just granted to me. What you're doing is you're not granting my world view and then trying to show a contradiction from your own statement. You are the one who's made who's made the statement that God has murdered.

[00:27:32]That's not a a a a a a >> there's no justification behind it.

[00:27:36]>> Sure, but I don't need to justify my claims in an internal critique. You just adopt them as true and show a contradiction.

[00:27:43]I'm not I don't have to do that.

[00:27:44]>> that it's not justified.

[00:27:46]>> Is that my claim?

[00:27:48]>> Where in the Bible is the Where in the Bible is the justification?

[00:27:54]>> Well, now we're kind of getting into Sola Scriptura. I don't hold to Sola Scriptura. I don't think all the Bible has all truths.

[00:28:02]So, I wouldn't just look to the Bible for for my um theology.

[00:28:06]>> I just I don't want >> and and philosophy.

[00:28:10]>> I just not interesting to me.

[00:28:12]>> Get a free book, two free audio books, and ad-free videos by becoming a Patreon member.

[00:28:21]>> [music] [music]