THE PROBLEM OF EVIL and the fallacy of equivocation

[RomansGalatians]

"unbelievers find an omnipotent God repulsive. That is all this argument really proves."

God, I love that so much. Who wrote that? Was that Clark, or was that the guy who did this video. That is just brilliant. I am so happy to have discovered this truth. Thanks, dude, for posting this vid.

[RomansGalatians]

Evil is what someone wills to do against God (I'm not saying free will, just will). Evil is not a storm killing someone.

Evil is a sentient being sinning against God.

How can God disobey Himself?

[RomansGalatians]

"unbelievers find an omnipotent God repulsive. That is all this argument really proves."

Awww, man. That's so great.

Of course unbelievers have a subjective definition of morality! "What's right for me is right for me." LOL. So, when they define "evil", in the problem of evil, their definition is SUBJECTIVE to THEM, RATHER THAN SUBJECTIVE TO GOD.

Also, evil is not something that rocks do. It is something that thinking beings do with their wills to which they are accountable to God.

[vidfreak56]

Man can judge god. Why? Because man was granted intellect. It may be only that man can judge god based on mans desires, and not an independent standard, but the same can be said about god(a god creating a moral standard would do so in its desire to judge others). Even though god created everything, humans have the intellect to minimally perceive this and to therefore use our intellect to judge god. This is true even though the judgement is meaningless.

[Blogrich55]

@vidfreak56 It is not a question of whether or not man judges God. Obviously some men do.The question is whether or not man can JUSTLY judge God. If man cannot appeal to superior principles of right and wrong then all he has is his own subjective likes and dislikes. The point of the video is that there are no superior standards that man can appeal to by which to judge God. Thus any attempt to do so is totally subjective. It really just amounts to a man's personal likes and dislikes.

[vidfreak56]

@Blogrich55 But who or what says morals are "superior"? I agree that its a matter of subjectivity, but remember that god granted man this subjectivity.

[rasputinbot]

So you are saying that "God is good" is only meant in the same sense that we could say that a baseball player who beats his wife could also be "good" - at baseball. By so casually casting aside the moral component of "good" you have essentially conceded to the argument of evil on all but semantic grounds. Certainly if there is a basis for right and wrong in this universe it applies to the most powerful being above all else.

[Blogrich55]

@rasputinbot says "So you are saying that "God is good" is only meant in the same sense that..."

You have missed the point of the video. What we are saying is that there are no independent standards of morality by which we may judge God. And those who insist on judging God are deluding themselves. Their ideas of right and wrong really amount to their own likes and dislikes.

The desire to be as gods knowing good from evil was man's 1st temptation.Man simply cannot sit in judgment of God.

[Blogrich55]

@rasputinbot says also "Certainly if there is a basis for right and wrong in this universe it applies to the most powerful being above all else."

This is a false assertion. To say that there are moral standards that God must obey is inconsistent with the sovereignty of God. Please see our video DID GOD CREATE MORALITY as well as the exchange between Lightspeed52 and crazypills2 in the comment section of our video GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT.

[Blogrich55]

@rasputinbot Bow wow wow, whose sock are thou? Your account looks VERY suspicious. It seems either an atheist has hacked into an old account not being used OR has, as a coward, opened a sock account to argue with so he won't lose face by arguing from his REAL account. Typical atheist cowardice ROFLOL

[rasputinbot]

@Blogrich55 Wow, you really need to get out more. Or at least consider that not everyone is as devoted to their youtube account as you are.

[Blogrich55]

@rasputinbot ROFLOL

[TheFlanker35]

@1:46,

It proves that God is not bound by His own law. That doesn't have anything to do with people claiming that God has commanded that which contradicts the law. The Bible says that God commanded men to break the law that God gave man. It is also impossible to ordain something that one despises, if one can ordain everything so God could not have complete control over Esau if He hated Him.

[Blogrich55]

@TheFlanker35

1. "It proves that God is not bound by His own law." Precisely and that is why He can give the command to Abraham to sacrifice his son. This shows that it is NOT the moral law which is supreme but rather God Himself.

QUESTION: Do you find such a God repulsive?

2. "t is also impossible to ordain something that one despises," That is a false statement. According to the Bible, God ordained the murder of His Own Son. See

Acts 4:27-28

[TheFlanker35]

@Blogrich55,

No, I don't find such a God repulsive. I simply find it false. It is logically impossible for God to command a person to disobey Him. If God were to command Abraham to kill his son Isaac, He could not have ordained murder to be wrong.

Acts 4:27-28 simply shows that God must have wanted His Own Son to be murdered, so He must have loved it. You can't want something and hate it in the same sense.

[Blogrich55]

@TheFlanker35

"t is logically impossible for God to command a person to disobey Him."

It is NOT logically impossible. You need to see our video DOES GOD HAVE 2 WILLS? Eph 1:11

God's commandment to Abraham was a specific command to him and NOT to all of mankind. The point, however, is that God is NOT limited by the 10 commandments.

"You can't want something and hate it in the same sense."

Who said it WAS in the same sense? God decreed Christ's death but did NOT approve of the Jews' perfidy!

[TheFlanker35]

@Blogrich55,

God wanted the Jews to be unfaithful. Therefore, He must have loved the Jews' perfidy.

[Blogrich55]

@TheFlanker35 says "God wanted the Jews to be unfaithful. Therefore, He must have loved the Jews' perfidy." ROFLOL

Once more you either jokingly or foolishly confuse the preceptive will of God with His decretive will.

[Blogrich55]

@TheFlanker35 You wrote, "No, I don't find such a God repulsive."

But you also wrote on your channel page concerning God that He is "...a cruel monster that encourages rape and slavery..."

Do you NOW deny what you wrote on your channel page?

[TheFlanker35]

@Blogrich55,

I didn't write that God was a cruel monster. I wrote that the god of the Reconstructionists "encourages rape and slavery". There's a big difference. It appears that your god also encourages rape and slavery. There is no way God could have said some of the things that He says in the Bible because God speaks to us through the conscience. The Bible itself says that God speaks to us through the conscience(Romans 2:15). How would Abraham know that God is speaking to Him?

[Blogrich55]

@TheFlanker35

Do you or do you NOT find the God of the Bible repulsive?

[TheFlanker35]

@Blogrich55,

I don't find the God of the Bible repulsive in it's true meaning, to make people good. I find this idol of this interpretation of the Bible to be repulsive because it isn't an honest interpretation. The real Bible says that God told Abraham to pretend to sacrifice his son.  He said "offer him(Isaac) there for a burnt offering" in Genesis 22. He never commanded Abraham to burn Isaac.

[MrMk1G]

"The word 'good' does not always refer to morality" & people equivocate on it.

Fair enough - so you should have defined 'good' when setting out the 'problem of evil' argument.

I understand 'good' to mean 'the opposite of evil' in this argument. E.g. one who would actively avoid perpetrating evil acts, would actively try to prevent evil acts, etc. Do you?

With that definition - the arg stands, doesn't it?

Have never heard anyone claim 'good' here as in 'good pizza'. That is equivocating.

[Blogrich55]

@MrMk1G It is impossible to cover every aspect of a subject on a short video. We have defined good from evil in a previous video entitled DID GOD CREATE ETHICS AND MORALITY? Please see the url in the more info box above. You might also want to check out the video GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT . All of our videos are connected.

[Blogrich55]

@FatGermanBastard It sounds as if you agree with the video. Thank you for making our point for us. Logical Positivists, for example, by asserting there is no universal moral standard effectively destroy the classic argument about the problem of evil. For if all morals are just personal likes and dislikes, how can one judge God or accuse God of being immoral? Atheists, moral nihilists, and logical positivists have NO basis for judging God at all. We DO believe God exists HE RULES AS HE SEES FIT.

[Blogrich55]

@FatGermanBastard So then, are you saying you don't believe in oughts? It is not clear from rereading you first post which position you take. I realize you do not believe in any absolute morality. However, the question must be why? If so, it must be okay with you when Big Brother aka Uncle Sam rips you off with excessive taxation. Or when someone steals you car or kills your dog. But then, maybe you just don't believe in moral absolutes But STILL dislike bad things done against you? thoughts?

[Blogrich55]

@FatGermanBastard No, my young freund, you are not explaining you are pontificating and you are wrong. How do you know any of this? You say of course that is false using a dangling modifier but I will assume you are referring to the phrase morality is true.This is an issue in itself. How do you know it isn't true? How do you know oughts exist? What are they and who or what defines them? You have much explaining to do if you want any but fellow atheists to take you seriously.

[vickmackey24]

So absolute morality and omnibenevolence is defined by whatever God does or decrees, and we're in no position to disagree because...? Because we're not as powerful? That would be a pretty lame argument. What exactly precludes God from being malevolent besides some HYPOTHETICAL higher purpose? What if there IS no higher purpose and He really IS nothing more than a galactic mob boss who is evil, deceitful and megalomaniacal? The Bible depicts more of a malevolent God than a benevolent one.

[Blogrich55]

@ vickmackey24 so are you saying such a God would be repulsive to you?

[gusb232]

@vickmackey24 "So absolute morality and omnibenevolence is defined by whatever God does or decrees'

Im actually willing to entertain divine command theory, Problem still is how do we decide YHWH is this loving-hateful god , and that other gods cant be apologized for using the same excuses.

[Blogrich55]

@ fulekkei Care to elaborate?

[gusb232]

If YHWH desires evil to exist he is not good. '

This is true objectivly since I dont need to appeal to my personal likes or dislikes to say it is true.

isaiah 45:7

[Blogrich55]

@ gusb232 So, uhhhh, did you even watch the video?

[gusb232]

@Blogrich55 Yes, But it makes no sense to me to say a being can do All the evil he likes but still be all good.

There is no evil no matter how disgusting your god could do that would actualy be evil. So Why say anything is good or evil?

How then can you judge YHWH or anything to be good or evil.

[Blogrich55]

@gusb232 Nature is red with tooth and claw and can have no morality. No moral oughts can be deduced from descriptive observations. Can you please produce for me the moral standards you are using to sit in judgment of a Being who is omniscient and omnipotent and has created and ordered all that is? Can you tell me who He is to answer to if He breaks these moral standards? GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT!

You claim God is evil for His actions. Some might find nature's cruelty evil or aging deplorable!

[gusb232]

@Blogrich55 Im sorry you are plain wrong.

If a doctor does not want to do harm,

the he 'ought' not give a patient a harmful poison.

All moral oughts are based on an actual (or perceived) state of a real world.

I sit in judgement same as you, are you saying you have not jugded YHWH to this omni-everthing creator?

If we cant judge for ourselfs what we believe is true, who does your believing for you? is YHWH=god an arbitrary belief?

[Blogrich55]

@ gusb232 you say, "All moral oughts are based on actual (or perceived) state of a real world." To which I must simply ask, How so? You can not get an ought from the observation of what is. Saying I believe YHWH to be "this omni-everything creator" is NOT judging Him as to His moral or ethical state. This is NOT what we mean when we say to judge God almighty. You have equivocated on the use of the word judge here.

The point of the video remains unaddressed. How can you "judge...what is true?"

[gusb232]

@Blogrich55 "This is NOT what we mean when we say to judge God almighty. You have equivocated on the use of the word judge here."

So your saying we cant judge YHWH to be God, he just is.

Still By judge i mean Decide/reason this idea to be true by your own judgment.

And Our own judgment id all we have to decide where be believe YHWH is god Or not.

Are you saying we can know if YHWH is god or not?

[Blogrich55]

@ gusb232 Your comment is off topic and hence irrelevant to the video at hand. We are NOT talking about judging pizza to be the most delicious food, watermellon to be the best fruit, chocolate to be the best candy or any other bit of Tom Foolery you can come up with. THAT is NOT the way this video is using the word judging when it refers to God. It is talking about judging of His moral state or qualities. Quit dancing around the issue please or quit wasting my time. Thank you.

[gusb232]

@Blogrich55

Well We are talking about how we judge that YHWH (the god of the bible, and his moral character) is in fact god or not?

This is not the topic?

I think you may have a problem with the word judge or passing judgment as necessarily pejorative.

But Agian my meaning stems from that we all use our own (inter-subjective) judgment when decideing what we believe about anything we are convinced is true and what standards or reason and evidence we will acept or reject.

?Obvious? no

[Blogrich55]

The Arminian who is actually a humanist using Christian terms has a problem accepting a God who is in control. To me it seems a lack of trust. Yet we who have been saved by His grace rely on Him for everything. He is our comfort and in Him we move and breath and have our being. God bless you Bianca!

We must keep on fighting for the truth even though those we love most and have always looked to for support desert us. God will never leave us or desert us.

[Blogrich55]

Thanks Brother Paul, God bless you.

[brainouty]

A better answer is that God is TRUTH. God will not shave Truth. The truth is, some things are evil, and some things are good. Good is relative to an Absolute Good, which only God is.

If God did not ordain FREEDOM, then TRUTH would be shaved. He'll never do that. He'd rather PAY for freedom, and let truth freely be what it is, good truth, bad truth, any truth, BECAUSE truth.

This truth is what Arminians, Pelegians, their modern counterparts, and all Calvinists, perennially fail to grasp.

[brainouty]

Another truth is, free will has no merit. The merit only resides in the object. Hence belief has NO merit, but rather remains dependent on the OBJECT of belief, whether belief that brushing your teeth is good, or belief Christ paid for your sins. If I believe gasoline is good to drink & I thus drink it, I die. If I always believe Christ didn't pay for my sins, I go to hell.

At all times my belief is dependent on the OBJECT's merit. Calvies don't get that truth, neither do Arminians, etc.

[Blogrich55]

It is NOT that a Christian's belief is dependent on the OBJECT'S merit but, more correctly, that the belief or faith of a Christian is useless in and of itself. Saving faith differs from other species of faith by it's object. Only God can give one saving faith. It is NOT the act of believing in and of itself that saves but the object of our faith. Of course this is standard Calvinism as expressed in the Bible and summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith.

WHAT do we fail to understand?

[brainouty]

Calvinists fail to understand that free will is the operating system of the soul. So it has no merit at all. It is NOT true that God gave you saving faith, no Bible verse anywhere says that. Calvies twist scripture to make the claim. The Westminster Confession is not the Bible, so carries no weight whatsoever. Calvies always deify what's outside the Bible. That's why they fail to grasp that God ordains TRUTH FREE, for God is Truth and God is free. Therefore free will has NO merit.

[Blogrich55]

You obviously are an Arminian or worse in a state of denial. I realize logic has no meaning to you or you wouldn't write some of the foolish things you do. I also realize you will not watch or pay attention to my video on the subject. Calvinists teach, biblically, that man is born spiritually dead. Pelagius taught man was born spiritually alive. Arminianism has always chosen some sort of middle ground which is illogical. Now maybe YOU can enlighten us as to a 4th logical alternative? I'm waiting

[Blogrich55]

Do you even understand the philosophical charge leveled at God by John Stuart Mills dealt with on this video? That God is TRUTH does NOT address the issue at all. He could be TRUTH and still be charged with being evil by atheists and God haters.

As to God ordaining freedom, NOTHING lies outside the boundaries of His predestined plan for reality. Everything happens according to His will. But then you claim you are neither fish nor fowl theologically. YOU fail to grasp the basics it would seem.

[brainouty]

Yes, I understand the philosophical charge, Blogrich. It's a classic lawyer's trick of posing the wrong question so you can deflect attention from the right question.

The right question is, WHY does God allow FREEDOM, and God Himself answered all that in Isaiah 45. When He ordained freedom (a necessary composite of Truth), then in that sense He ordained the evil one (who freely rejected God), Hebrew of Isaiah 45:7. (Continued)

[brainouty]

From (Continued)

Just as He did not create the universe tohu wa bohu but it freely BECAME that way due to the Angelic Conflict between Gen 1:1 & 1:2 (2 uses tohu wa bohu, just as Isa45:18-19).

[Blogrich55]

PUH-LEEZ don't waste my comment space with that 5th rate theological tripe we all chuckled over in Bible school. It is THEORY. Get it? Got it? Good!

[brainouty]

It's not Theory, it's Bible, Blogrich. I just quoted Bible.

[Blogrich55]

I don't know about lawyer's tricks but I do know what the fallacy of equivocation is. It involves using a word in more than one way in the same context. You have every right to address the other question if you choose. The topic of FREEDOM is not under discussion but the charge that God is evil if He is omnipotent or not omnipotent and pathetically undeserving of our worship. The other is undboubtedly related but not our immediate concern. God ordains whatsoever comes to pass.

[brainouty]

FREEDOM is the reason why evil exists. The Bible verses I quoted to you are about that freedom.

You know, I like you very much and don't want to quarrel. So I'll leave now.

[Blogrich55]

I happen to be very fond of you as well :) we will let it drop for now. God bless you.

[CalvinistChurch]

Hey chump, why don't you cite an indicative verse or two which teaches that man has a will free from God's determination?

[brainouty]

Hey, CalvinistChurch, why don't you go look at my TWO PLAYLISTS of verses on why Calvinism is wrong? I like Blogrich55, and will not comment further here.

[CalvinistChurch]

If I want some practice identifying formal or informal logical mistakes, then I will have to take a look at your goofy playlists.

Are you going to chicken out like all the rest of the Arminians? Are you going to choke when asked to provide just one indicative verse teaching human free will? You would think such an important dogma would be all through the Bible, but then we both know you've added your humanistic thought to the Scriptures.

Your secular philosophy is no match for Calvinism.

[October31st1517]

5 Stars Hermano.

[Blogrich55]

Gracias Hermano Dios te bendiga.

[1689Baptist]

Good video,I have read God And Evil Problem Solved by Clark I think 4 times Great book.

[Blogrich55]

God bless. The rest of the book is good too.

[1689Baptist]

All I have is the small paper back I need to buy the rest!

[CalvinistChurch]

If more Christians would read Gordon H. Clark's book "Religin, Reason, and Revelation," then they would know the correct answer to the so-called problem of evil.

[Blogrich55]

I would especially suggest this to Brainouty. Her comments above are practically gobbledegook and pretentious. She is not Arminian, Calvinist, Pelagian. What is she LOL?

[FillTheirVoid]

Yes, how dare the omnipotent God defy my creaturely desires!! *cries and whines*

[Blogrich55]

Yes LOL at the very least He could offer you some cheese and cracker with your whine. God bless.

[EdotRich]

Thanks for this video. It is a hard thing to stomach for me (I am deprogramming from Arminianism to Calvinism), but the Bible supports this.

[Blogrich55]

It is never an easy switch but the Holy Spirit and biblical honesty compels us who have made it. God bless.

[Blogrich55]

Thank you brother Riley and God bless you!