Well, if he were real, he is and he does.

好吧，如果他是真的，那他就是，而且他確實是。

Now, one quick objection might be, well, if he has perfect foreknowledge, he can't be a gambler because he's going to know the outcome of every scenario.

現在，有一種快速的反對意見可能會說，好吧，如果他有完美的預知能力，他就不可能是一個賭徒，因為他會知道每種情況的結果。

And if you want to go with that, that's fine.

如果你想這麼做，那也沒問題。

That produces way more problems than I'm even going to produce in this video.

這產生的問題比我在本視頻中要講的還要多。

Look at the biblical examples, many of times which don't show this God, by the way, to have omniscience, as he is constantly, at least in the Old Testament, surprised, regretful, and angered all of a sudden.

看看《聖經》中的例子吧，順便說一句，很多時候這些例子並不能說明這位上帝是全知全能的，因為至少在《舊約》中，他總是突然感到驚訝、後悔和憤怒。

But regardless, the thing that got me thinking about this were my own children.

但無論如何，讓我思考這個問題的是我自己的孩子。

They're getting to the age where there are necessary risks that they need to take for their own autonomy and growth.

他們已經到了為了自己的自主和成長而需要承擔必要風險的年齡。

As a parent, it's important to figure out where to draw those lines.

作為父母，弄清楚如何劃定這些界限非常重要。

Now, I don't have perfect foreknowledge, but there are some things that I can assume with certainty.

現在，我沒有完美的預知能力，但有些事情我可以肯定地假設。

Let me give you a quick example and we'll dive into all of the biblical examples.

讓我舉一個簡單的例子，然後我們再深入研究聖經中的所有例子。

If we lived next to an interstate and the ball rolled out into the street, it would simply be a never.

如果我們住在州際公路旁邊，而球滾到了街上，那就根本不可能了。

You cannot get the ball. It's gone.

你拿不到球球不見了

I don't know for a fact that they're going to get hit, but the level of risk is so high that it is simply not worth it.

我不知道他們是否會被擊中，但風險如此之高，根本不值得。

Now, if we lived on a really quiet cul-de-sac where there was hardly ever any traffic, and I taught them very carefully to look left and then right, double check, and then go and get your ball.

現在，如果我們住在一個非常安靜的死衚衕裡，那裡幾乎沒有車輛，我就會非常仔細地教他們先看左邊，再看右邊，仔細檢查，然後去拿你的球。

That, to me, would be an appropriate amount of risk.

在我看來，這樣的風險是適當的。

So, when I compare my own parenting, which is flawed, I'm not a perfect parent, to the perfect God of the Bible, who is supposed to be the example of the Good Father,

是以，當我把自己有缺陷的養育方式（我不是一個完美的父母）與《聖經》中完美的上帝（他應該是好父親的典範）進行比較時，我就會發現自己的養育方式是有缺陷的、

I see so many problems, to the degree of which I have to say this God is simply willing to gamble with his creation, his children's well-being, their lives, and worse, their souls.

我看到了如此多的問題，以至於我不得不說，這位上帝根本就是在拿他的創造物、他的孩子們的福祉、他們的生命，甚至是他們的靈魂做賭注。

And so, that's what I want to cover with you today, and we're going to go through a ton of these gambles.

所以，這就是我今天要和大家討論的內容，我們將討論一大堆這樣的賭局。

And by the way, we're going to start out with some obvious ones.

順便說一下，我們將從一些顯而易見的問題開始。

Please stick with me to the end of this video.

請跟我一起看完這段視頻。

I don't usually ask for that, but I know that I'm going to cover so much here that I think is so fundamentally important in understanding why this God simply doesn't work.

我通常不會問這個問題，但我知道，我在這裡要講的很多東西，我認為對於理解為什麼這個上帝根本不起作用是非常重要的。

And also, right now, I'll just ask, go ahead and subscribe, like, share, comment, do all the things on this particular video.

另外，現在，我只想請大家繼續訂閱、喜歡、分享、評論，做這個視頻上的所有事情。

But let's dive in.

不過，讓我們深入瞭解一下吧。

We're going to try to go in chronological order, biblically speaking, best that we can.

我們將盡量按照聖經上的時間順序進行。

So, pre-flood, I've got about six or seven here.

所以，洪水前，我這裡大概有六七個。

First is the imperfect creation gamble.

首先是不完美的創造賭博。

Maybe the biggest gamble of all.

也許這才是最大的賭博。

God didn't have to.

上帝不必這樣做。

In fact, if you believe his word, his original plan was perfection.

事實上，如果你相信他的話，他最初的計劃就是完美的。

But yet, here we are in a world with disease, with flaws, with terrors.

然而，我們身處的這個世界充滿疾病、缺陷和恐懼。

You can see this video if you'd like to get more into depth with all of that.

如果您想更深入地瞭解這一切，可以觀看這段視頻。

But the gamble here is that his creation would still find him to be a perfect creator despite his very flawed creation.

但這裡的賭注是，儘管他的創造物有很多缺陷，但他的創造物仍然會認為他是一個完美的創造者。

That's a pretty big risk.

這是一個相當大的風險。

And for many of us, it has been a huge swing and a miss.

對我們中的許多人來說，這是一次巨大的搖擺和失誤。

We could look at the free will experiment.

我們可以看看自由意志實驗。

Again, people often just put God in a box.

同樣，人們往往只是把上帝放在一個盒子裡。

Well, he had to give us free will because he didn't want robots.

他不得不賦予我們自由意志，因為他不想要機器人。

Well, heaven already messes that idea up.

上天已經把這個想法打亂了。

But let's not forget, this is an all-powerful God.

但我們不要忘記，這是一個無所不能的上帝。

He can do whatever he wants, and he chose to create a system with free will.

他可以為所欲為，他選擇創造一個具有自由意志的系統。

This is truly probably the biggest bet that God is going to place, risking that his children will have the option to choose sin and death and hell, supposedly.

這可能真的是上帝要下的最大賭注，冒著他的孩子們會選擇罪惡、死亡和地獄的風險，據說是這樣。

And kind of in between these first two bets is the Eden setup.

介於前兩個賭局之間的是伊甸園賭局。

This is going to be bet number three for us, where God places a literal test for the first two beings that he creates.

這將是我們的第三個賭注，在這裡，上帝對他創造的前兩個生命進行了字面測試。

Everything is perfect.

一切都很完美。

That's how God supposedly wants it.

據說上帝就是這麼想的。

And he's going to give them the opportunity to fail.

他要給他們失敗的機會。

But he didn't just allow this one test to exist.

但他並不只允許這一次測試的存在。

He stacked the odds by allowing whatever the serpent is supposed to be, something there to further the temptation, the ease of access to this tree, the labeling of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

他設置了重重障礙，允許蛇的存在，允許它進一步引誘我們，允許我們輕易地接近這棵樹，允許我們在善惡樹上貼上標籤。

Is knowledge so wrong?

知識是錯的嗎？

Even the fact that he didn't give them the knowledge of good and evil before, thus eliminating their actual awareness of what was at stake.

甚至他之前沒有給他們善惡的知識，從而消除了他們對利害關係的實際認識。

There's a thousand other ways that God could have tested his creation without creating the fall of man.

上帝還有無數種方法可以測試他的創造物，而不用製造人類的墮落。

It's so obviously just a mythological story.

這顯然只是一個神話故事。

But if you're going to take it as literal truth, and its implications for today that we are still broken creatures in need of a savior, you first have to answer for why would this God risk so much?

但是，如果你要把它當作字面真理，以及它對今天的影響，即我們仍然是需要救世主的殘缺生物，你首先必須回答，為什麼這位上帝要冒這麼大的風險？

Keep in mind, there's been about 117 billion Homo sapiens that have existed.

請記住，已經有大約 1 170 億智人存在過。

If we believe that each of them are imbued with the soul, and each of them was born with this sinful nature damning them to hell from birth, unless they properly somehow find and do and believe just the right thing, then that first bet with the tree in the Garden of Eden becomes the most disgusting gamble of all time.

如果我們相信，他們每個人都被賦予了靈魂，每個人生來就帶著這種罪性，從一出生就註定要下地獄，除非他們以某種方式找到、做到並相信正確的事情，那麼伊甸園裡與樹的第一次打賭就成了有史以來最令人厭惡的賭博。

And if you're a young earth creationist, that's still 15 billion people, and the vast majority that will be burning in hell.

如果你是年輕的地球創世論者，那也有 150 億人，而且絕大多數都將在地獄中燃燒。

So we're taking a lot of time on these first three, and we're probably at four, because I think allowing the serpent adds kind of a fourth gamble there.

是以，我們在前三個問題上花了很多時間，可能已經到了第四個問題，因為我覺得允許大蛇進入還增加了第四個賭注。

The fifth one is what all of this leads to, which is the problem of evil.

第五個是所有這一切導致的問題，即邪惡問題。

God allows a world of evil and suffering to exist, and still hopes that people can find their way to believing that he is a good God, which is necessary for people to worship him and follow him and put trust in him.

上帝允許一個充滿邪惡和苦難的世界存在，但仍然希望人們能夠找到相信他是一位善神的途徑，這也是人們崇拜他、追隨他、信任他的必要條件。

Many people, myself included, are more than willing to accept that there could be a God out there.

包括我在內的許多人都非常願意接受上帝存在的事實。

And many people, like myself, immediately remove this God from the possibility of that, because he is either not the good God he says he is, thus refuting his claims in the Bible and making himself falsifiable, or he's straight up evil and not worthy of my worship, or not trustworthy of my devotion.

而很多人，比如我自己，會立即將這位上帝從這種可能性中排除，因為他要麼不是他所說的好上帝，從而駁斥了他在《聖經》中的說法，使自己成為可證偽的；要麼他就是徹頭徹尾的惡魔，不值得我崇拜，也不值得我奉獻。

So, now we've covered the problem of original sin, free will, and the problem of suffering, all bets that have not gone well for God and make no sense for a good father.

所以，現在我們已經討論了原罪問題、自由意志和苦難問題，所有這些對上帝來說都不順利，對一個好父親來說也毫無意義。

But what's his next string of bets?

但他的下一串賭注是什麼呢？

Maybe he moves on to a different table game, and this one is going to be the flood wager.

也許他又換了一種賭桌遊戲，而這種遊戲將成為洪水賭注。

Things got away from him.

事情離他越來越遠。

He regretted the creation that he made, even though it was made exactly how he intended it to be, with his perfect foreknowledge, if we're going to again attribute these things to God.

如果我們要再次把這些事情歸咎於上帝，那麼他就會對他所創造的一切感到遺憾，儘管這一切是他完全按照自己的預想所創造的。

That's problematic in and of itself, but the bet is that the world would be better, that humanity 2.0 would somehow get it right.

這本身就有問題，但我們的賭注是，世界會變得更好，人類 2.0 會以某種方式變得正確。

And he lost that bet immediately, in the sense that Noah sinned almost as soon as you could sin, as well as his sons.

諾亞和他的兒子們幾乎都犯了罪，從這個意義上說，他馬上就輸掉了這場賭注。

And from there, it simply did not get any better.

從那以後，情況就再也沒有好轉過。

So, all that genocide, all that murder, all that suffering, all those animals, all those babies, all those women, all those people who were collectively not horrible and evil, paid an awfully hefty price for God's 2.0 gamble that failed as absolutely soon as it could.

是以，所有的種族滅絕、所有的謀殺、所有的苦難、所有的動物、所有的嬰兒、所有的婦女、所有那些統稱為不可怕、不邪惡的人，都為上帝的 2.0 賭局付出了沉重的代價，而這場賭局一開始就徹底失敗了。

This moves us straight into our next gamble, which is the tower of Babel risk.

這樣，我們就直接進入了下一個賭局，即巴別塔風險。

God, who claims himself to be not the author of confusion, purposely confuses people, creating new languages and scattering them around the earth.

上帝自稱不是混亂的製造者，卻故意混淆人們的視聽，創造新的語言，並將它們散佈到世界各地。

And what is the bet here?

這裡的賭注是什麼？

The bet is that these people will still be able to find him, even though he's not going to appear to most of the places on earth for a very, very long time, if at all.

賭注是這些人仍然能夠找到他，儘管他在很長很長時間內都不會出現在地球上的大多數地方。

And that he's only going to give his holy scriptures in three of the many thousands of languages, relying on humans to be able to translate them and spread them around this large globe.

而且，他只會用成千上萬種語言中的三種語言來傳授他的聖典，依靠人類來翻譯它們，並將它們傳播到全球各地。

Keep in mind, he didn't provide for anything that would be necessary to overcome these odds.

請記住，他沒有提供克服這些困難所需的任何東西。

We didn't get the printing press for millennia, nor did we cross the oceans.

幾千年來，我們沒有印刷機，也沒有橫渡大洋。

There was simply no hope for the vast majority of all people who have ever lived because of this decision, this bet from God.

因為這個決定，因為上帝的這個賭注，有史以來絕大多數人都沒有了希望。

I hope that you're seeing failure after failure after failure.

我希望你們看到的是一次又一次的失敗。

And the best thing you can do, especially if you're a parent, is just compare yourself.

你能做的最好的事情，尤其是如果你是父母，就是比較自己。

Really, compare yourself with God.

真的，把自己與上帝相比。

I don't care how bad of a parent you think you are.

我不管你認為自己是多麼糟糕的父母。

I can almost guarantee you, you are miles above this God.

我幾乎可以向你保證，你比這位上帝高出數英里。

If you had just two children, and they were going to be 100% dependent off of you for their survival and their eternal fate, would you raise them each with their own language so that they could not communicate or work together?

如果你只有兩個孩子，而他們的生存和永恆的命運將百分之百地依賴於你，你會用各自的語言撫養他們，讓他們無法溝通或合作嗎？

And then would you provide them the instructions for how to live life and find you in a different language than those two with simply no way to access it?

然後，你是否會向他們提供如何生活的指導，並用與那兩個人不同的語言找到你，而他們卻根本無法獲取？

Because that's what God did for billions of people on this planet.

因為這就是上帝為這個星球上數十億人所做的。

So again, try to put yourself in these situations and see if you would ever do anything that resembles any of these gambles at all.

所以，還是那句話，試著把自己置身於這些情況中，看看你是否會做任何類似於這些賭博的事情。

Here's an interesting one I almost didn't include because of the obvious objection, but the Abraham-Isaac bet.

這裡有一個有趣的故事，因為反對意見很明顯，我差點沒把它寫進去，但亞伯拉罕和以撒的賭約還是寫進去了。

God risking that Abraham would kill his own son if allowed to go so far, or worse, what if Abraham wasn't willing?

如果讓亞伯拉罕走得太遠，上帝會冒著亞伯拉罕會殺死自己兒子的風險，或者更糟的是，如果亞伯拉罕不願意呢？

God would have to break this covenant.

上帝不得不毀約。

It would completely erase all of the plans this God supposedly has.

這將完全抹殺這位上帝所謂的所有計劃。

And if you have a little objection going off in your head, you're 100% right.

如果你腦子裡出現了反對意見，那你就是對的。

And I want to take a second to explain this.

我想花點時間解釋一下。

The only way that this actually works is for God to both know that Abraham would make the right choice, which is being willing to murder your own child, again, good father material, and that God would be able to stop him in time.

唯一可行的辦法是，上帝知道亞伯拉罕會做出正確的選擇，也就是願意謀殺自己的孩子，這又是一個好父親的標準，而且上帝能夠及時阻止他。

Only under those two conditions do we literally get everything else that we have in the Bible and in history, supposedly.

只有在這兩個條件下，我們才能真正得到《聖經》和歷史上所謂的其他一切。

And that requires God to be doing two things, to be knowing everything that will happen and to be willing to interfere.

這就需要上帝做兩件事：知道將要發生的一切，並願意幹預。

So again, if you don't like my earlier gambles about the problem of suffering or free will, that's fine.

所以還是那句話，如果你不喜歡我之前關於痛苦或自由意志問題的賭注，那也沒關係。

But then you have to admit that people don't really have free will because God is only putting people in situations where he knows the outcome and he is interfering physically in the world to create those outcomes.

但這樣一來，你就不得不承認，人們其實並沒有自由意志，因為上帝只是將人們置於他知道結果的環境中，並對世界進行實際干預，從而創造出這些結果。

This is a lose-lose for apologetics.

這對辯護學來說是兩敗俱傷。

Here's a big one.

這是一個大問題。

What about the Sodom and Gomorrah gamble?

索多瑪和蛾摩拉的賭博又是怎麼回事？

God allows Abraham to negotiate with him, literally gambling with the lives of the people based off Abraham's ability to wear God down.

上帝允許亞伯拉罕與他談判，根據亞伯拉罕拖垮上帝的能力，他簡直是在拿人們的生命做賭注。

And ultimately, this failed anyways because God still destroys the cities.

而最終，這一切還是失敗了，因為上帝還是摧毀了城市。

But somewhere in there is a scenario for that bet where some people are saved, but others aren't.

但在這個賭局中，有些人得救了，有些人卻沒有。

Or where potentially, if Abraham had been able to negotiate himself all the way down to just Lot to spare the cities,

或者說，如果亞伯拉罕能夠通過談判，只讓羅得放過這些城市，那也是有可能的、

God wouldn't have destroyed anyone at all.

上帝根本不會毀滅任何人。

While we're on the same story, we could talk about the gamble of Lot's wife.

說到這裡，我們可以談談羅得妻子的賭博。

What could possibly be the point here?

這有什麼意義呢？

And I actually do understand from kind of a meta-truth, moral teaching standpoint, you could pull something out of this.

實際上，我也明白，從一種元真理、道德教育的角度來看，你可以從中得到一些東西。

But again, one must believe that this is literal, that these were actual people.

但是，人們又必須相信這是字面意思，相信這些人是真實存在的。

Because Lot's wife is dead, because she loses the gamble, by the way, he's then in a position where his daughters rape him.

因為羅得的妻子死了，因為她賭輸了，順便說一句，他就陷入了女兒們強姦他的境地。

But that's 100% required to get us to Jesus, by the way, from a genealogy standpoint.

不過，順便說一句，從家譜的角度來看，這對我們找到耶穌是百分之百必要的。

So this can't just be some meta-truth about turning fully from destruction and not looking back or whatever you want to try to extrapolate from this.

是以，這不可能僅僅是某種元真理，即從毀滅中徹底轉身，不再回頭，或者你想從中推斷出的任何東西。

And by the way, I'm willing to be wrong on that.

順便說一句，我願意在這一點上出錯。

If someone can show me something different,

如果有人能告訴我一些不同的東西、

I will correct myself.

我會改正的。

But my understanding is that Lot's eldest daughter, with Lot, has a son named Moab, the ancestor of the Moabites, where we get Ruth.

但我的理解是，羅得的長女與羅得有一個兒子，名叫摩押，摩押人的祖先就是路得。

And Ruth and Boaz are the great-grandparents of King David.

路得和波阿斯是大衛王的曾祖父母。

And we know through King David, we get the lineage of Jesus.

通過大衛王，我們知道了耶穌的血統。

So if I'm understanding everything correctly,

所以，如果我的理解沒錯的話、

Jesus is 100% a descendant from this incestual rape.

耶穌百分之百是亂倫強姦的後裔。

Again, bringing forth the literal nature of these stories instead of some metaphorical moral truth.

再次，提出這些故事的字面性質，而不是一些隱喻的道德真理。

But let's keep going.

但讓我們繼續前進。

You know what else is a gamble?

你知道還有什麼是賭博嗎？

Having favorites.

有最愛

If I choose between my two children to bless one and curse the other, love one and hate the other, provide for one but not the other,

如果我在兩個孩子之間做出選擇，祝福一個而詛咒另一個，愛一個而恨另一個，供養一個而不供養另一個、

I risk, especially with the one I'm hating, them not loving me back, them not following me.

我冒著風險，尤其是對我討厭的人，他們不愛我，他們不追隨我。

I'm also risking their children and future generations saying, hey, what's up with that?

我還冒著讓他們的孩子和後代說 "嘿，這是怎麼回事？"的風險。

This can't be a good father, a good grandfather.

這不可能是一個好父親，一個好祖父。

And yet time after time with these early patriarch families, we see exactly just that from God.

然而，在這些早期的族長家族中，我們一次又一次地從上帝那裡看到了這一點。

Whether it's Cain and Abel.

無論是該隱和亞伯。

In this case, we have God favoring Abel's offering over Cain's, which leads, by the way, to our first murder.

在這種情況下，上帝偏愛亞伯的祭品而不是該隱的祭品，這就導致了我們的第一起謀殺案。

We have Isaac favored over Ishmael, which the implications of that deserve their own video.

我們讓以撒勝過以實瑪利，這其中的含義值得我們自己製作視頻。

It's multifaceted, but that's definitely a major contention for the differences and the infighting between Islam and Judaism, or now Christianity.

這是多方面的，但這絕對是伊斯蘭教與猶太教或現在的基督教之間的分歧和內訌的主要爭論點。

Also Jacob and Esau.

還有雅各布和以掃。

God favored Jacob over Esau even before they were born.

甚至在他們出生之前，上帝就偏愛雅各而不是以掃。

God set up Esau and his descendants, Edom, the Edomites, to be enemies, essentially, forever.

上帝讓以掃和他的後代以東人永遠為敵。

And Joseph and his brothers.

還有約瑟和他的兄弟們

Again, all of those deserve a lot more time and attention than we're going to be able to give them here.

同樣，所有這些都值得我們花更多的時間和精力來關注，而我們在這裡無法給予它們。

But you can see the gamble of playing favorites does not pay off.

但你可以看到，"偏愛 "的賭注並沒有得到回報。

Unless, and by the way, this is maybe one thing that is worth pointing out.

除非，順便說一句，這也許是值得指出的一點。

Unless God isn't a good father.

除非上帝不是一個好父親。

Unless his goal isn't to have everyone saved.

除非他的目標不是拯救所有人。

Unless he doesn't care about all the collateral damage along the way.

除非他不在乎一路上所有的附帶損害。

And this is really the two camps that one has to fall into.

這實際上是一個人必須分屬的兩個陣營。

You either actually believe what God and Jesus say about themselves.

你要麼真的相信上帝和耶穌對自己的評價。

Both of them, in different parts of the Bible, say they desire that none should be lost.

他們都在《聖經》的不同部分中說，他們希望沒有人迷失。

Well, then all these gambles so far directly fly in the face of that.

那麼，迄今為止的這些賭博行為就直接違背了這一點。

Or you're forced through the actions of God that actually happen despite his words to say, oh, he's not a good father.

或者，你不得不通過上帝的行動，儘管他說了一些話，但實際上還是發生了，你不得不說，哦，他不是一個好父親。

He doesn't care to save everyone.

他不在乎拯救所有人。

He doesn't love everyone.

他並不愛每一個人。

He's sovereign.

他是主宰。