 Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for coming out tonight. We've got an interesting discussion between Skyler fiction and reform Christian apologist. We're gonna be talking about the problem of evil tonight. It's gonna be a very basic format, 10 minute openings, 10 minute rebuttals, and then we'll have a 15 minute cross examination for both sides, followed by the Q&A. So make sure and tag myself, converse contender in the live chat with your questions and not modern day debate. That way I'll be able to see them and I'll get them written down to ask at the end. All right, so we're gonna get started. I just wanna mention that this channel tries to be as bipartisan as possible. We wanna make sure that everybody feels welcome here without having to worry about being ridiculed or having to deal with a bunch of BS on here. So if you, let's be our friendly selves in the chat and just try to keep it clean and we'll go ahead and get started. We're gonna start with Skyler with the affirmative. We're gonna start with your 10 minute opening. Awesome, what is up everybody? I'm glad to be here tonight. And I appreciate you guys waiting patiently with us in the beginning. We had a little bit of technical issues, but we're here with you. Let me thank RC Apologists really quick for, I'm just getting a couple things ready. For, first of all, taking on a tough subject, man. This is not an easy topic for Christian to have to kind of debate. And he's an old friend from back in the day, the old great debate community. So I appreciate what he's doing here. Where do we start? So let's start with talking about what the problem of evil is. And this is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It's the epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that make it unreasonable to believe in the existence of God. There's other ways you can say it. It doesn't, someone might argue if they're using the logical problem of evil to argue that it's not even logically possible for evil to exist and for God to exist. Someone could be doing the evidential problem of evil, which is to say that by looking at the world around us by the evidence, we see that the amount of suffering most likely makes it the case that there would be no God, at least in the way that typical, what I would say Christians would describe. Now, obviously, I should, before I continue going on here, we should talk a little bit about that there's all different types of God concepts. And the problem of evil doesn't deal with every type of God concept. In fact, it doesn't apply to many of them. Like a deistic creator God may not have the same characteristics that make it contradictory within its nature. How would I say this? Yeah, because of a deist type God may just be a creator. It may not have morality. It may be evil. It may not have anything to do with, it may have no plans for humans. It could be just some corporate creator. But what we're really talking about is specific types of gods that have specific traits, right? But before I go on to that, let me name one more type of problem of evil, which is the evil of animal suffering. That's not something I'm gonna touch on tonight, but it is just another example. This isn't gonna be my specific argument tonight. I have a specific one I've put together. But I do wanna put like, just gonna give you a basic idea of like a logical form of what this argument looks like, right? So one might say something like, if God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Premise two, if God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. Premise four, if God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. Premise five, evil still exists. Premise six, if evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore, God doesn't exist. It's because of these certain attributes that the Christian, and why I'm focusing this on Christianity as my opponent is a Christian. So my arguments are gonna be geared towards their particular beliefs on God. Now, this one should be kind of interesting. I'm gonna be honest with you, because I don't think I've ever had a talk with a Calvinist or someone of the reform belief system about the problem of evil. Well, let me say this. This is what I usually get when I have this debate. The number one reason God allows evil or there is evil is just the simple, just theist will say morally justified reasons. That's fine. If you wanna make that argument, there's morally justified reasons, I'm gonna ask you what those morally justified reasons are. And if you have no type of answer for those, I'm simply going to wave them away. Because if you can't explain what the morally justified reasons are, but you wanna claim their morally justified reasons for why he allows evil and why he does evil, I would argue that will be a point of contention. But another reason often what people will do in order to win this debate is make God impotent. All of a sudden, him being all powerful goes away and he becomes very, very limited by the things that he does. By, you know, that he no longer can make, well, what would seem to be rational decisions anymore. And I can go through various examples of that through the biblical text of God having desires. Well, let's say this is where it might actually change because I don't know with Calvinist, you know, they kind of, depending on the kind of Calvinist you are, you kind of believe God preordained everything with his decreed of will. So, I mean, you might even use, I'll just throw this out, this is, you know, from another popular reformed apologist, Matt Slick. You know, he would say that predestination is the doctrine that God has ordained all things that will come to pass. Yet he is not, so that's predestination. Affordination is the same as predestination, which means that God ordains what will happen in history and in salvation. And then also under Calvinism, they're gonna believe that, you know, there's elect people elect. He elects who's gonna be saved. But I say all this, the reason I bring these things up is because under a Calvinist worldview, God plans out everything. So the things that people would typically call evil, right? God planned out from the very beginning for humans to do. Humans cannot go against God's will. And God has already, with his decreed of will, decided from the very beginning, what's gonna happen. So I think this will be super, I think very complicated when you get into the problem of evil, when I go through, and I start mentioning possible evils in the Bible, if I choose to go that route. I don't know how you're gonna argue that evil, which I typically, when I talk to Christians, it means the opposite of God's nature. Like God is the morally good foundation, right? That is opposite of him is bad, wrong, immoral. The reason it's moral to lie is because God is not a liar. Lying goes against God's nature. The odd thing's gonna be is, I don't know how you're gonna argue that certain things go against God's nature. When God pre-ordains that these things are gonna happen. I don't know, I don't have too much time left, but I wanted to touch on one more thing. Well, I got a couple of minutes. The other thing that I'll tend to hear, as kind of like answers to this problem, is that God has the authority to do whatever he pleases, right? And then what also kind of comes with this is that things that we would typically say are evil. I could fill in examples of slavery, genocide, child killing, whatever from the Bible. God seems to, well, here's what happens, is that the Christian ends up saying that when God does something, it's not evil. They'll say if a human was to do a particular action, it would be evil, but if God does it, it's not immoral. But the problem with that is the foundation of morality comes from God. What makes it immoral is that it goes against God's nature. But then how could a being who's nature says, hey, you can't do this action, but he could still do the action? It gets really complicated. Let me see what else I want to hit on for my opening. I have more stuff for my rebuttal. I'm gonna let, one of the things I'm gonna do is when we get to the cross examination is I'm gonna allow RC to choose one of two debates that I have prepared or two arguments is what I should say. Both are problem of evil. Just keep in mind, I've already kind of explained what the problem of evil is. I'm just going to go on specific evils in order to best show my point. So when we get there, we'll get there. Dun-duh, you know what? I think that's good. I think I've said a lot of what I want to say. Let me make sure there's one more thing, nothing else. I will say that one of the big things I want to focus on is just remember that what's gonna end up happening is either we're just gonna say that things that, I would say the majority of people's consciousness would say is evil, isn't evil, to justify this is argument. But who knows? We'll see. All right, I'm good. I'm glad you're waiting for his opening. All right, thanks so much for that opening, Schuyler. Now we'll kick it over to R.C. Apologists for your 10-minute opener. All righty then. Thanks to Schuyler for accepting the debate on this particular topic. This is, like he said, a tough one to go over from, I think, not just particularly my perspective, but as well as for his, and again, thanks for modern day debate, for hosting this, as well as for Converse, for being able to fill in for Thursday's moderation. Now, I want to go over some points regarding what this debate is about. In this debate, it will certainly be my job to make a defense and to defend the notion that in light of the facts we have in the Christian worldview, there indeed is no problem of evil for the Christian, but rather we can give a defense for the fact of what kind of evil is out there and why it exists. But not only is there a problem of evil format or question for the Christian to then answer or give a defense or a justification on, but there is also one that is for the atheist. So I will certainly have the burden of proof during the opening statements, but it will likewise be my opponent's job to not only refute the case I have during the rebuttal period, but that with the time that he has to be able to justify in his own worldview in the opposite since he has to then make a claim and defend what will then replace the Christian notion for the defense regarding problem of evil. Now, I will not be arguing from the defense of free will like most of the opponents that my opponent had debated, but instead I will be arguing from the tri-perspectival argument as proposed by John M. Frame in his systematic theology book and in his books on apologetics. So we're going to get into that if I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen regarding what is called the triad triangle by John Frame regarding this particular perspective. So for those that are watching on the live screen, what you essentially have are three different points, but in order to understand that, we must understand that the top point is engaging in what we call the, and these are different perspectives in tri-perspectivalism. The normative perspective, which deals with norms and standards, the situational perspective, which deals with the facts and the history of what we're dealing with in these situations, and then the existential. I'm sorry, can you hit, it's not your screen isn't shared. If you could hit share screen, and I'll have to add it in. Okay, yeah, sure, let me. Sorry to interrupt. No, no, no, you're good, man. Let me just make sure it's out there. So yes. So you have in the top part, you have the normative defense, which deals with the issue of the norms or standards. And in this case, the defense is that God sets the standards for what is right and what is wrong, in accordance with his law. And then you have the situational defense, which is the greater good. That is, and again, using the terms defined in light of how John Frayman has it in his book on systematic theology, page 111,140, the defense that God promises us that he will bring good out of evil. And then there is the new heart defense, which is the existential defense, which is essentially saying that the defense that regeneration being born again, and our eventual glorification change our values and our presupposition so that we lose the inclination to charge God with wrongdoing. And so not only are these three different defenses or arguments, but the fact that they're involved in the tri-perspectable argument, meaning that in order for one argument to be valid, they must be verified and cross-checked with the other defenses. So in other words, God sets the standards and we can see this demonstrated in the fact that the standards bring about a greater good as well as through our existential experience with the new heart, we can see and observe these and then vice versa and vice versa when we cross-check the others. And so that is my particular argument regarding the tri-perspectful defense for the problem of evil. So keeping that in mind as we continue, we have to then realize that this is a biblical answer because with the biblical defense, Romans 828 says that we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. And then we have in Romans chapter nine, verses 19 through 23, which I'm gonna head over there real quick, Romans chapter nine, verses 19 through 23. Thou will say unto me, why doth he yet find fault for who hath resisted his will? Nay, but oh man, who art thou that replies against God? This is referring to the normative perspective that is that God sets the standards. Shall the thing form say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Has not the potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel into honor and another unto dishonor? What of God willing to show his wrath and to make his power known in dirt with much long severing the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he had afford prepared unto glory? So we have that passage regarding a defense of the God setting his own standard and that he provides the norms and therefore cannot give from the Christian worldview an objection against God in that regards and that God does indeed determine all things as Proverbs 1633 says, where the lot is cast into the lap but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord. So we could hold that evil must certainly be necessary in God's plan if we especially look to the cross since Acts says that Christ's atonement was a predetermined event, an evil act by men to crucify an innocent person and it was used to bring about the good of salvation and redemption unto the human race under the new covenant. So I certainly have no problem with the fact that evil is out there and God can certainly use evil for his own glory for his own purposes, especially in the redemption of human beings. So that would be my particular defense on the issue of the problem of evil. But in light of this, I would like to also again remind my opponent that tonight's thesis is going to not just place the burden of proof on me but also on him so that we provide both our answers and then a defense to the problem of evil that exists in both of our worldviews. But this is indeed not just a plague of a problem regarding the theist, especially the Christian theist but it is also an issue for those who do not affirm the existence of God. For indeed in atheism or agnosticism, we have an issue regarding the status of evil in the world. How then can we determine and know that something is evil from that perspective? Richard Dawkins in his book, River out of Eden, I'm not sure if my opponent will agree with this particular statement from Dawkins in his book but he states, in a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. If my opponent affirms that there is no evil like Dawkins does, then there isn't much hope that can really be provided as we must act as if there is no such thing as evil, let alone good since he said not just the no evil but that there is no good, just blind, pitiless indifference. These are merely just our emotional responses to what we see and what we observe and we are our own measurement devices regarding the standard of what is right or wrong. So the question that I propose for my opponent is this, that even if we grant the position that I could be wrong and that there is therefore no Christian God in the argument, this then does not negate or remove the fact that evil exists and we still must wrestle with this issue not just from theistic perspectives but from the perspective of even the atheistic, agnostic, naturalistic worldview that suggests that there is no God but yet there is suffering, there is cancer, there is shootings. And so there has to be a reconciliation of evil in how we understand that we are against it or if we are for it, these questions must be answered not just from the issue of my perspective in worldview which I will hopefully I think I've done well in doing so in the opening statement that I'll leave that up to Skyler to respond to in the rebuttal but likewise these questions must also be answered by Skyler and so with that I end my time. All right, thanks so much for that opening statement RCA now we'll move to 10 minute rebuttal from Skyler. All right, so I got a lot to say about what's been said so far. I just like to keep my own little timer so I know what's going on, I keep track of myself. Okay, so let's start with this. God is, RCA apologize claims God sets the standards. God doesn't set the standards, he is the standard. Unless you're trying to say like the standard is separate from God has nothing to do with his nature which would be a weird theological position to take or you're trying to use some kind of divine command to this where you're just saying what God says is moral or immoral, evil are good with whatever words you wanna throw on to this kind of thing. Interesting enough I had a conversation we all thought about this and you agreed with me you agreed that he is the standard so I don't understand some weird way of phrasing it saying that he creates the standard he doesn't create the standard he is the standard. The reason why it's a moral lie is because God is not a liar. God is not an adulterer, God is not a murderer. These are things that are rooted in God's nature. God's supposedly honest and truthful, right? So this part kind of I think fails pretty heavy. You kind of made this idea that this good will come from the evil idea like this idea of like what do you call this? Moral progression in a sense. Once again this kind of argument is really what I would say when you make God kind of impotent once again because like God can't create a world where people can freely choose them and I don't argue in free will but a world where people can freely choose them where they can still grow spiritually without all the suffering that's here. I mean anything you could all the disease, volcanoes I mean there's all types of these things with the problem of evil. It's talking about a lot of different concepts. So I don't understand how a child being born with a debilitating painful disease that will die in a day or two soul grows or learns anything from the situation, right? What is that baby soul go to heaven and all of a sudden we're growing in heaven continuously? And if not, I mean listen, I don't understand why we would also have people born with a deficiency. Perhaps if you're God make people in a way to where they don't have to go through so much suffering to grow. This is what I'm talking about. The idea you're limiting God's abilities and powers in order to justify the suffering. You kind of read about things happening for God's purpose. This is the irony where you listed off like these bad things, right? I forgot the individual bad things you listed off but these were all preplanned by God. God wanted these things to happen. He foreordained it from the beginning of the earth. He planned out who was gonna be saved, what you were gonna do. I don't even, frankly I don't know how any Calvinists can even argue free will. I don't know if you are a free will believing Calvinist off the escalator, but it's certainly if God foreordains like I said, I read the definition earlier and I'll read it one more time because you are reformed. You are in the Calvinist persuasion. Let's read some of these definitions again because I slicked a really great, Matt Slick says he's studied a long time so I'm trusting Matt Slick here. Matt Slick told me that he's studied for 20 years so I'm gonna assume these definitions are correct. Feel free to disagree with them if you don't want to. Predestination is the doctrine that God has foreordained all things which come to pass yet he is, what else we got? That's a key point to keep reading. I don't need any of that. Foreignation is the same as predestination which means that God ordains that the will, that what will happen in history and in salvation. So he plans all this stuff. The stuff that you call evil, he plans out. And the fact that like he always saves, one might argue and I don't know if I would make this argument, but one might argue that the actually, let me not even go there. Let me continue with the notes I had made with you. Oh, it's gotta be said. And I once again, I don't, I don't, I warned you about bring this up in the office chat. I thought we'd work this out. Is the problem of evil does not apply to non-believers in a religion? I'm a little worried that you don't know what the problem of evil is after like fraying it like that. There is no actual evil. I explained this to you offline. I don't believe there is actual evil. What I'm doing with your worldviews, I'm doing internal critiques. I'm stepping out of my worldview and showing you the logical problem. Well, and I'm gonna have two arguments once I get into the next part because I'm gonna lay my argument out for you and go through the premises. And with my portion of the cross examination, you can answer if you agree with those premises and we can deal with them. So I'll let you choose which argument, but there is no problem of evil. We don't like the reason why there's a problem of evil is because one stuff, the stuff I went over earlier God being omniscient, God being omnipotent, God supposedly being all loving and caring. If there's no, God, there's no ultimate purpose in that sense, human. I believe human beings create their own purpose. So I don't, it's not gonna make any sense. You can try to hold me accountable to it all you like, but it really within the topic of this debate, it's not relevant, but it certainly doesn't make any sense. What do I wanna say last? The last thing is, if we're basically gonna break down this argument that God just does what he wants, right? And like he has the authority therefore he can do what he wants because that's a lot of what you were saying was just God does what he wants to do, right? You weren't, it didn't sound like you were rooting God's morality and his nature. You were saying that God sets a standard which I don't think is correct under most Christians beliefs at least. I don't even know biblically how you would argue something different, but anyways, I'm good. I think I'm good to go from there. We can jump into the back and forth. All right, thanks so much. Thanks so much for that, Schuyler. Now we'll kick it over for 10 minutes to over to RCA. Yep. Oh, this one's 15, yeah. No, this is the 10 minutes. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. So first of all, to respond to the, to help explain further regarding the first point of the tri-perspective argument that is of the God sets his own standard, frame himself defines this to be specifically meaning, quote, human beings have no right to bring accusations against him in light of what some of the scriptures stated. I mentioned Romans chapter nine, which states one of these particular objections. We see this likewise within Job chapter 38 to 42 where when Job makes an accusation, God then responds, then who are you to judge against man or to judge against God? So that's the particular kind of definition that frame provides. But even then God is certainly the standards as he is the one who defines the law and establishes it as the judge and lawmaker regarding the covenant that he has established with the human race. So that is the thing that we must consider is the fact that in Christian theology, if we're examining the issue of the problem of the deal for the Christian, the theology therefore suggests that there's the creator creature distinction that God is distinct from the creation, from his creatures. And so if he decides to establish a covenant with them, he has the ability to establish a law and thus he is the standard in that sense. And if we wanna say that he is the standard because or that he sets the standard because he is the ultimate standard, then again, we're just pointing to the fact that God is able to do as he pleases, including laying out what the law is and then place it into the hearts, thus why I believe from my worldview that me and Skyler are able to know what is right and wrong because God has placed that law into our hearts in accordance with Romans chapter two verses 14 to 15. You asked how that you don't know if I affirm the idea of free will, but I did say at the very beginning in the opening statements that I am against the free will defense. So that's just sort of give a little issue of where I sort of stand that with the issue of free will that I am against the free will defense. I only affirm free will in the sense of choice by the compatibilist sense, but that's not necessarily defined as free will that much these days in certain conversations. But that would be the only thing that would be close to free will that I would affirm as a compatibilist as a Calvinist. Now God indeed does determine all things, but again, I don't have to go to Matt Slick as if he is somehow my Pope for Calvinism. Proverbs 1633, like I cited earlier where it says that the law is cast, but the Lord disposes all things. When we find that in several other passages where we see that God determines all things as I even stated in Acts that even the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was determined that it was determined for the men to crucify Christ on the cross and that through that act that was determined human beings would be redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. So indeed, I do affirm that there is a termism. I don't have to go to Matt Slick for this. I just simply go straight to the Bible itself. Now my opponent claims that there is no problem of evil for the non-believer. And again, I took your warning and took your heed but at the same time, while there is again a recognition as I admitted for the problem of evil for the Christian like myself, there is likewise when we speculate and investigate further, there is a question for that. I can certainly understand internal critique and I still must answer certain questions that you have in your critique of my belief. But I likewise must also ask certain questions. Like I said in the opening statement, if Christianity or any other religion, if it's not true, if that is the possibility and that is true, then how then do we wrestle with evil if the only thing that exists as the coherent philosophical worldview is atheism or agnosticism? If somebody asked the question that, in this world, why does evil exist? Should we then say, well, that's not for us to answer. Let's ignore the question since this isn't our burden of proof. We don't answer these questions when we examine this. There is a problem of evil for Christians. I am willing to admit that we have the issue of the problem of evil that we must answer either in a sense of a defense or in a theodicy. But likewise, I would suggest that upon further examining the issue and the topic of evil and of suffering, this problem is not exclusive to just those who affirm the belief in the existence of God. But this also proposes the issue regarding the topic for the non-believer. For indeed, there are various different ways people struggle with it. There are people that are emotivists that say that there is no such thing as evil as merely a expression or a word that we utilize. And then there are some people who are completely subjected to the point like I encountered in Arkansas where they said that morality is completely subjective and it's only upon the person. And so if a rapist wants to rape somebody, who are you to tell him he is wrong? Because it's his own ideas, it's his world. You telling him it's wrong is basically like telling a gay person, hey, you can't be gay because that's my opinion, you shouldn't be. So people have different ways of trying to go about how things are determined to be right and wrong. And then furthermore, how then do we know what is right or wrong? And if there is evil in the world, why does it exist? Especially from a naturalistic perspective. So these are questions that is again, not just limited to the perspective of the Christian. Because like I said, I'm recognizing those issues and I'm trying to do my best to answer any question that Skyler will bring forward to the table. But he has to recognize that even in his view, unless he wants to deny that there is evil, then there is a problem that has to then be involved. And some people have a different approach to it. I need to know what his approach is and what his solution is. And I think the audience would like to know what that answer is from his perspective. Because if I'm wrong in this debate, he has to provide the alternative for them to be convinced of. And with that, I end my time. All right, well, thanks so much for that. We'll jump straight into the 15 minute cross-examination period. Do you want to start first, Skyler? I can go first if he wants, it doesn't matter to me. All right, are we, you guys- You ready to go first, Steve? You guys want to do 15 minutes a piece? Or just- Yeah, he can go first if he wants. Or just a full 15 minutes back and forth. No, you're just like 15 minutes each. And I'd say the light him go first. Okay, again- Since he went first in the beginning. All right, let's start it up here. Okay, tell me, RC, what is evil? What is evil? Well, that would depend on what you would define it. I wouldn't say that there is two kinds of evil. There is moral evils and then there is natural evils. What is a moral evil? A moral evil would basically be anything in which a human being as the agent is acting upon their desires and as a result, they violate the law of God. That was what I would define as a moral evil. Acting upon one's desires is evil? In terms of the way that they violate God's laws was I tried to clarify in the statement there. Oh, okay, so what's evil is that that violates God's laws? Correct, in terms of the moral law. Sure, where is the moral law rooted in God's nature? Why is something right or wrong according to God's nature? Something is right or wrong according to- Moral and moral, if you want to use those words instead. Right, and it's according to based on God's law. Well, his law comes from his nature, right? You said earlier that, I mean, I didn't use the issue that it comes from his nature. So is the law separate from God? The law is from God, but I don't think that therefore it necessitates that because therefore of his nature, that means that that is the ultimate standard because if that's the case, we can go to multiple things besides just simply his nature, but various other different attributes that are then involved as well as the examples I gave that he would be someone who is the creator of all things, including that of just being the lawmaker and the creator of human beings in establishing a covenant with them. So basically what God says is moral. What God's law, it basically, because you're not, you're not rooting it in his nature. You're just saying whatever God says is moral then. So God could basically- I root it in God in general. Uh-huh, I'm sorry? I root it in God in general. I don't just limit it down to just- Sure, but it's God made a rule saying like don't kill babies, right? Where would that, would that be a moral, would that be something rooted in his nature? In the sense that he was, have that in the law that he establishes for us and that he is not one who is going to tell us to contradict a law that he establishes for us. But the law changes though. So a law might at one point, it might be okay for him to tell us to do something, but at another point, it's not okay. So depending on what God says at the time, that's what makes something moral. Not necessarily. Well, I mean, you would have to with that example that you gave because in the Old Testament, he's ordered people to kill babies. And then what you're saying is now he's saying, don't do that. So the law is now, I would imagine you're gonna argue not to kill babies. He's ordered human beings to not commit murder against particular human beings. God has the ability- I didn't use murder. I didn't use murder. Right, and the law says murder. It doesn't just simply say a basic kill. Perfect, so killing babies isn't a moral. It's what the context is that makes it a moral. And God has the right to take the life, yeah. Well, he has the right to tell people to take the life. Because he's not actually taking the life, he's actually using somebody else. So is the act of killing a baby evil? Is the act of murdering a baby when this case- No, no, no, dude, stop changing my words. I said- I'm not because the issue is- No, no, no, you're supposed to be answering honestly and directly. All you have to say is that it's not a moral to kill babies. Okay, that's all you have to say. And then you're actually answering the question. But if you don't believe, so is it immoral? Does it go against God's nature? I don't know. Is it a moral to kill babies? Is it immoral to kill babies? Yes, because the only context would be murder since a baby is not gonna pick up an AK-47 and try to attack you in this issue where you have to defend yourself. For God, then God orders people to commit immoral actions that he orders people to commit immoral actions. By what standard? Is that true? By his own standard. You said it was immoral to kill a baby. You just said it would be murder to kill a baby. And then you use this justification that they can't defend themselves. But God has ordered people to kill babies. Whereas he ordered people to kill babies. You know this. Are we really gonna make me go scripture through scripture, RC? Come on, man. Well, if you're gonna make the claim- First annual 15 is one of them. First annual 15 is one of them. Right, and that is using hyperbolic- That's just genuine honesty. We'll have a good conversation. And again, this is hyperbolic war language used by the ancient in the East. Will you let me- Pause, pause, I'll ask you a question. I'll pause you because it's my turn to guess questions. This is your claim that it's hyperbolic war language. Right. This is, hold on, can you be quiet while I speak just for a minute because I can't keep my thought with you. So here's the deal. This is a particular view that this was, you would have to actually justify that, right? A lot of times when you're using hyperbolic language in the Bible, it's from people, not necessarily God. And with that particular scripture, he's very detailed about what specifically happened. And in fact, they get punished for not committing to killing the king initially and saving some of the livestock. But I wanna go over to the actual argument I've put forth and we can go through these premises and then we'll go through. Tell me a premise one. You tell me which premise you disagree with. God desires come from his nature. You agree with that one? Well, God desires comes from his nature. Yeah. What God desires comes from God. Again, I don't limit it to a specific thing. Okay, do you think God has a nature? Yes, but I don't say he desires only because of the nature. Okay, what would be outside of God's nature that is God? I'd say the entirety of God is God. I don't just limit it to his nature. And all his nature though, the entirety of God is his nature. And I would involve the entirety of his attributes, which is not just simply limited to his nature, but everything that is involving him. So do you agree with the premise at all or no? Am I gonna have to stop here? I would add on to the premise and therefore say everything that is of God. That's fine, premise two. God desires to save the maximum amount of souls possible. I would disagree with that particular statement. Well, and why is that? Well, actually, let me ask you this. What is the criteria in which God chooses, in order to choose who's gonna be elect, the one he's gonna offer grace to? What is the criteria? Yeah, what's the criteria? Before, you know, obviously he chose people before they were even born, whether they're gonna be saved or not. He elected them, he offered them grace so that they could come to him. What's the criteria? Merely his own grace, his own standards. He doesn't reveal what exactly the specific criteria other than the fact that we are believers. What's the standard? Okay, well, they're not believers yet. He has to offer grace before they become believers. Correct, exactly. And that's why I say before that is ultimately just grace and his own decision that is the standard. He doesn't reveal what the list is in Scripture. Therefore, it's completely and only up to him. And he is the standard criteria. Well, it's obviously not any actions anybody's chosen or done because it shows them before they're even born. So basically he just picks and chooses people who's gonna be saved and who's not gonna be saved, right? Okay. And you believe in eternal hellfire, internal torture? I believe in eternal torment, but I don't believe it in the sense of that's been traditionally described with regard to the fire. I believe it's a pure eternal darkness since there is darkness language that is utilized within the text of Scripture. Okay, so you believe that there's no contradiction with God choosing before someone's even born whether to go into eternal torment for no actions of their own? It would be because of actions on their own due to the fact that when they are indeed determined, they are still at that same point sinning in this world. And as a result of their sin, they transgress against God's law and they're deserving the wrath of God. That's what they did in their own time. But they sinned because God made them sin. God has created the scenario in which they would sin. That's part of his decreed of will. Everything that happens according to Calvinism happens because of God's will. God willed that they would sin. And in the last school Calvinist position, there is compatibilism, which is the determinism that indeed affirmed by Scripture as I even admitted and stated. But there is the fact that we still have the ability to make decisions, even though these decisions we make are not based off some autonomous will, but it is based off of decisions. You can't, can you go against God's will? No. Can you go against God's decree? No. Then you have no decision. We do. If you can explain, if you wanna articulate how you have a choice about something, if God says, hey, I'm going to do X and you're saying that I have a choice on whether I'm gonna do X, you need to explain how I have a choice there because that's a straight up contradiction. Not necessarily, because again, the issue is about what is the will itself? Is it completely freely autonomous, which I reject or is it limited? And that's what I was trying to explain before being interrupted is the issue that when we have the issue of the will being debated here, is it autonomous or is it limited? I affirm it is limited based on the fact that God determines certain actions based off of our limited and finite nature which desires certain things. Does God will that children will be abused? Does God will that children will be abused? You're one of his wills, any of his wills. Does he will and into existence that children will be abused? In the Decreative sense, yes. So God decrees child abuse. Rape, he decrees that also. He decrees all that. Whatever God decrees, it has to come into reality. That's what Proverbs 16, 33, and verse of the passage of state, yes. Sure, and rape is evil. Rape is an action that indeed is immoral, yes. Yes, but God decrees that people will do it. Why? For like I said earlier, for his own purpose and for his own glory. For his own pleasure, right? So tell me what that means. So God has somebody rape somebody with his Decreative will and he does it for his own, what was the word you use? Wasn't, I use pleasure for his own glory. So how is it bringing glory to God when he has somebody rape a woman? As he states in the passage and not just in Romans nine but elsewhere within especially Romans three that he uses so to demonstrate the wrath of God upon the sinner, upon the wicked who do these particular acts so that his justice may be seen upon those who act upon sin and then to give grace to the others. So in order to show people how powerful he is he's going to have people rape people so that he could punish the people who can't go against what he's decreed. Yeah, you think this sounds reasonable? From the Christian worldview it is the only thing that can be reasonable versus all the other different worldviews out there, yes. Well, no, you can believe in just the deist God and it would be perfectly reasonable that God wouldn't make people, that kind of God would make people do things like that. But okay, so basically this is what folks and this is where you're going to have to make your decision for yourselves out there, right? You've heard RC now say that with God's Decreative will which people cannot go against that he planned from the very beginning that he would have people rape people which they can't stop. They don't have the ability to do otherwise. And then after they rape somebody because God made them rape somebody with his Decreative will, he punishes them to show everybody how powerful he is and how awful sin is even though he made the people do the sinful actions that he's against. Is that about right? That he decrees all things. Yeah, I mean he's literally he decreed that Adolf Hitler would kill seven million Jews to show his power, his glory. I mean, it's weird to me, but you figure at some point like a God would be able to show how powerful he is and how awful sin is without having to make people, rape people or cause Adolf Hitler to kill seven million Jews in the Holocaust. Doesn't seem problematic to you? Not in the Christian world, do you? Because God, no matter what God's the ultimate authority God is always good. This is what I was talking about earlier in my opening. In the end, all that's gonna happen is the feast. Like Cal, this is just gonna have to argue these things aren't evil. All right, about 30 seconds. Yeah, that's good. I'm good to go on. Thank you, my man. I appreciate your time. Thank you for answering my questions, RC. All right, RC, you got 15 minutes. All right. So would you identify yourself as an emotivist in light of your worldview regarding the question of certain actions being good or evil? I'm open to emotivism. I like it. I think that right now my moral opinions are based on, I believe they're subjective based on my opinion and emotions. So for the audience out there, could you then give an explanation of this position that you are sort of leaning to when you say you sort of lean towards emotivism? Well, emotivism is the view that basically, I do wanna say I'm gonna answer this, but this is not at all, this is not part of the problem of evil debate. I'm gonna answer these questions, but this is so not the problem of evil what you're arguing today against me. But let's continue. So emotivism would be basically the idea that when people are expressing a moral opinion or something like saying, I think stealing's wrong. It's like, ew, I don't like stealing, right? Or yeah, that's good. Like it's just a way of expressing a feeling and saying when you say something's wrong, you're not really saying it's wrong. You're saying I don't like this. This isn't my preference. Okay, so if someone, so the statement is out there that rape is, would you say that this is true or that the state false from your worldview? Do I think rape is wrong under my moral system? Yes. In your worldview, do you think that rape is evil? Do you think that this is an actual evil thing? Evil, okay, if you mean evil as if a thing that's not inside of my mind, like not a description of something, no, I don't think there's this evil thing, which I think I told you off air, but okay. Right, I'm just asking for clarification. Let's see our conversation off air. So it's not relevant, really this part is there is no problem of evil for atheists. Go ahead. Well, that's where we got the other questions because I got like about seven other ones. So would you say that ultimately we are merely just giving our emotions or opinions when expressing on moral issue in your worldview? Yes. Okay, so if that's the case, ought we to follow our emotions? This is nothing to do with the problem of evil. I thought we were having a talking about probably like to me, I follow my emotions, you don't have to follow them. Right, I don't have to follow them because the Bible does, I could comment on it, but from your worldview, how do you reconcile with this? Do you think ought to follow our emotions? Do you, are you talking about other people or me just referring to how I think I should follow my emotions? If in the world- People should do what they feel, I don't know, that's a big question and I don't know how to answer it. People should do what they feel is best for them. Okay. First, I have other opinions, but I mean it'd be kind of pointless for me just to state how I think people should live their lives. And it's not relevant. Yeah. So if that's the case, okay, I guess I'll just move on to the next one. So if there is no such thing as evil, it's just merely an expression of how we view things, then what would be a factor that lets us consider that this evil is non-existent in the actual sense? Like what would be something that would, let's say lack there that causes this to not be existent versus other things that we know exist? What? I don't, it isn't my job to prove that evil exists here. So there is- Why would I make an argument for, like there's no evidence for it. I don't see the evidence. Maybe there is evidence. I haven't heard it tonight, so. Well, there was the shooting that happened at the mall in Arizona. Do you think that that was evil or not? Well, if you're asking my moral opinion, my subjective moral opinion, obviously I don't think that's good, but that doesn't make morals real. Any question you ask me about morality doesn't make morals real. Okay. I told you not to do this. I told you this is not a good way to go. I warned you. The matter is- There's nothing to do with the topic. All right, what can I say? I've answered them, I've answered every one of them. So if our own response toward is what causes something to be viewed as right or wrong, at least for ourselves in that case. So it's as you stated, you can't speak for somebody else or tell someone that your view of right or wrong is good. If the rapist justified more whenever he thinks and acts in such a way for himself. At this point, I'm gonna have to ask for moderation because this is not on topic. This is that we're not having a debate on moral principles, moral objective versus subject morality. We're having a debate on the problem of evil. I warned you before the show that this was off topic. I mean, if you think that this is on topic converse, I'll continue it, but honestly, I don't think this is on topic at the debate. How about this, R.C., why don't you break down why you believe this is relevant to this topic and then you can ask him your next question from there. Because as I explained in the opening and in the rebuttal period, that if and either the religions are wrong, and therefore that results to atheism, having to provide the explanation otherwise at this point, it's if someone asks why does exist, the only other solution then it seems to be is, well, we don't like to talk about evil. Let's ignore talking about, we don't bring it up. We don't ask the evil. I don't believe that evil existing, that's the problem. You're asking me to account for something wide exists when I don't believe it exists. And I would suggest that based off of how you behave and how you criticize certain things and rightly so in some point. Sure, a different argument, brother, not the point. You do affirm and believe that evil exists and that's my point. Different argument, that's fine. You can claim that, you should just say that. That don't ask me a question that doesn't, you just make that claim. It's empty, but once again, this has nothing to do with the problem of evil. I don't believe in evil. There is no problem. The problem of evil has to do with what I laid out. I gave you the Stanford philosophy encyclopedia definition or what it explains. This has nothing to do with your argument moral subjectivism versus objectivism at this point. Right, because I do believe that indeed it's not just simply limited to the issue of the religious belief. I don't just simply go by what Stanford encyclopedia says regarding this issue. I observe reality and look at reality and then ask these particular questions. And that's, I think, how most philosophers should even start doing is not just simply relying on dictionaries, is to observe reality and then ponder upon it and ask these questions and enhance the questions I'm asking and in your view, how would you wrestle with it even if you though claim that there is no such thing as evil? Keep asking questions, man. Okay. Well, certainly do so. So, again, repeating my question, from your perspective, is the rapist justified morally when he thinks an ax in such a way? No, I don't personally think so. Okay, so you don't personally think so, but as you said, you can't force that, but on him himself, that's why you used is the rapist justified in of himself? Well, does he feel justified? I mean, justified under what standard are you repealing to? I don't know what you say justified, I don't know what standard you're repealing to. He may be the emotivist. Well, no, I already told you the answer then. Under my standard, no. So you had the answer, so why are you talking about his standard now? So on emotivism, even though he feels that this would be right for him, he's wrong. No, I didn't, you're asking my opinion. When you ask me a moral question, you're asking my opinion, opinions aren't right or wrong in that sense. This is why it doesn't make sense what you're arguing, man. I'm gonna repeat that again then because the issue is not trying to focus merely on just your particular opinion, but on the perspective of emotivism. That's what I meant by your own view. I'm not an emotives. I'm not necessarily that position. Why do you keep bringing that up? I thought you said that you lean toward that. I said I'm a moral subjectivist. But that is a form of moral subjectivism. No, that's one form, but I'm not saying I end that, that other emotivism. I'm not there yet. I'm still open. My moral position's open. If you want, not that it's relevant, any of my moral position to this argument, none of it's relevant, my man, but I can tell you my moral definition if you like. Which one do you lean to then? Since you said earlier, you lean towards. I say I'm a moral subjectivist. I've told you before. I'll explain what that is if you need me. I don't, I'm not gonna go a step further because it's not relevant to this debate. You know what moral subjectivism is, correct? I've been a moral come from us based on emotions and opinions. And you likewise stated, not just in the whole thing on Twitter, regarding certain comments that are literally word for word, what emotivism says, but you even said yourself that you start leaning towards that particular position. Now, if there's a different view that you have in mind, then I will be glally to appropriately call you and go you by what standard you go by. Just call me moral subjectivist, that's good. Okay, moral subjectivist, we'll just use that then. So let's just go ahead and go to question five since I don't think that one's gonna get started on. So if evil doesn't exist, because I remember I asked if you would wanna be doing this debate, so why would, why do you even agree to do the debate if you don't believe that there is such thing as evil? It's called an internal critique set in the beginning. So it's only the internal critique that you would be focused on in the spot. All you ask me to do debate is why I chose to do this debate, but as being friendly. But when I do, I'm not, my argument isn't based on my opinions and my emotions. It's based on an internal critique. Right. Okay. I do it to show how God's illogical if you want to lie. And I do appreciate the fact that you propose these tough questions, because that needs to get people thinking more about their particular face in religions that they get involved with. Because not a lot of people think about these questions in the church these days. But regarding then the issue, if you, since I do affirm that evil exists at least, but you would say that it doesn't, if you stand at the gates of Auschwitz or at the scene of a school that was the victim of a mass shooting, are you only able to say that this is wrong? This is on topic. I'm sorry. This is not on topic, RC. This isn't a moral debate. You really should keep, we should be on the topic of the debate, which is the problem of evil. So the one question- In fact, the problem with this question is if you already know the answer, there are no, I don't believe in objective moral facts. And you can go through every scenario you want and simply just say, so you're not gonna say this is really wrong. You're not gonna say this is really wrong, right? But you, the person who believes in evil, I say, is killing Davey's evil? Nope. Like I go to all these, I go to any scripture thing and say, hey, is it evil to tell people to own people's property? Nope. Genocide evil? Nope. Like this is- Okay. So the fact of the matter- It's not on topic. So the fact that you're saying that the topic of someone getting shot or getting murdered is not a moral issue when that's literally what I was asking you. Secondly, what kind of questions do you- What I was saying- What questions do you even expect me to ask then if I can't question then your particular perspective and you've already gone through the- Let me answer that. I'll tell you what. I tried to tell you this story before to do this. First of all, you're the one who chose to do this cross. You chose the format. I just tried to limit the minutes because it was too long. Right? You wanted these cross-examination things. I'm not your life coach, bro. You gotta choose what you're gonna do and you can do, but it's gotta be based on the topic, right? Usually what I do when I'm in the other position like this is what I do is I ask questions regarding their arguments that they made in order to show how their argument isn't consistent or doesn't work. You could have done anything, but talking about my moral positions and just constantly asking me questions about what I find to be moral is not relevant to a problem of evil debate. And it makes me think that you don't know what the problem of evil is. I know what the problem of evil is is I've been answering the questions that you have been asking regarding that, but I propose that there is a problem of evil for even the non-believer, hence why I'm going the step further with it. And again, the issue here is when I ask these questions, I don't know the answer to your whole thing because as I thought earlier, I thought you were a emotivist. Apparently I was wrong. So I still need to learn more and ask these questions because it's not just about for the sake of me knowing these things. It's the audience that is watching that may also be either on the atheist side or the Christian side that is trying to understand your perspective and wants to know what your justification is regarding some of these things. And again, it's not just about your opinion and it's not just about your opinion that I'm asking. Yeah, but it's not irrelevant. You don't get to make up this new problem of evil that you came up with in your mind and be like, hey, I'm gonna bring that and debate that tonight. It isn't what the problem of evil is. You've just made up something that wasn't part of the philosophical problem of evil that we agreed to debate on. And I warned you before the show and yet you still did it. Hey guys, let me jump in here real quick. R.C., you got about two more minutes. I do just want to jump in because I'm looking at the chat here. I know that William Lane Craig actually makes a similar argument where he says like, when he debates the problem of evil where he'll say like, well, I believe the problem of evil is actually a problem for the other side because evil, what is evil, right? So anyway, I was just, I was thinking that maybe he was trying to do something like that. You got about two more minutes. If you wanna develop that any further or if you wanna just move on to your next point. You can do that in an extra minute because I interrupted you a couple of times. And I don't understand what the issue is either because when I've seen people that are in these debates the atheists will take on and acknowledge that they then have to deal with it. Hence why they go with the justification from if people who are adopt their worldview, they would be able to remove this particular problem and thus responding to Christian allegations at that point. Why I'm trying to allow you to have that opportunity, not simply just to justify, quote. I get it. But you're gonna have to demonstrate evil exists then because I'm not going to accept your assertion evil exists. Okay, then. So then I have no problem of evil if I don't believe there is evil. If you wanna claim evil exists then you need to demonstrate it exists. All right, so then let me go with this then since you did mention babies a lot throughout this whole debate. I would like to quote the agnostic philosopher from Yale, Arthur Allen Leff who in his article, Economic Analysis of Law, Some Realism About Nominalism, he states, there is today no way of proving that napalming babies is bad except by asserting it in a louder and louder voice. Would you agree with him on that statement that there is no way to prove that it is bad to napalm babies or burn babies? Yes, it's a moral and a my moral position to napalm babies. But we're talking about proving that it is bad. Not just simply state having it. I don't prove opinions. Do you know what subjective morality is? Yes, I do know it's subjective. Well then why would you ask me to prove an opinion? Because I asked if you agree with the statement. I didn't say prove it because he's just simply saying. I'm saying when I say something's wrong it's based on my opinion. So then when you say prove that that's wrong you'd be saying prove my opinion. This doesn't make any sense. I'm just simply saying, do you agree with the statement that he says where he says there is no way to prove this is the case? I just simply asked if that is what you're saying. I'm going to say that there is no way to prove what is the case. The name palming babies is wrong? Correct, he says there is no. It depends on how you define morality. Well, if you define it as your emotions and opinions then yeah, but if you're saying like if it's objectively wrong there's no way to prove it. Like if it's, I don't know how you would do it in an objective way to prove it. Like if it was rooted in God's nature I don't know how you would prove that. Right, and the only exception he said is he says there is no way to prove that it is bad except by asserting it in a louder and louder voice. All right, thanks so much for that. I don't know what this is going to be. Well, we'll end it with that. So R.C. got the last word and we will move on to the Q and A section. I did get a lot of super chats and some questions from the audience while we still have room for more. So if you want to tag me at Converse Contender I'll get your question and I'll fire it at the contenders here. All right, with that, let's jump straight into the Q and A. We have a, first of all, we have a super chat from Durand Manus. Two dollars super chat, thanks so much for that. Unfortunately, he didn't have a message. He had another one though, later on. I'll go ahead and jump to that one. Another two dollars says, Isaiah 45.7. God created evil, blame falls on God. I guess that's for you, R.C.A. Yep, and that's why I've made earlier the distinction when Skyler asked about does God involve, you know, regarding the question of evil, does it exist? I believe that there's the more evil in the natural evil and that is what the natural evil is because the term that is used there in the Hebrew refers to calamity, disaster. So things like hurricanes, earthquakes, all these things, these would be considered the natural evils that indeed God does cause. And so I would indeed affirm that and that again just proves my position that indeed there is evil and that the Bible supports this notion. All right, created evil is decreed of will. I mean, that's pretty, God planned it out from the beginning, there would be evil. He made evil, that he made people rape people, as you would say. So yeah, he created evil, he's responsible too. He makes more people be more evil, yeah. Just so that R.C.A. gets the last word on that because the question was for him. Yeah. Go ahead, do you wanna add anything to it? Yeah, not just that the fact again that again, not just the moral evil, but even the natural evil, which again has been my point in the thing, so I don't know what response there necessarily needed. Thanks so much. Robert Luscombe, $2 says, has James fully screened these interlocutors? I think that was just kind of a jab at you guys. Not so much a question. We have Michael, the Canadian atheist. Thank you for your $2 says, newsflash, God doesn't exist. Thanks so much for that, Michael. Robert Luscombe again, $5 says, R.C.A., hello from absolute atheism. Nice to see you again. Hey, what's up, man? It's been a while. All right, perfect. We just had a couple more come in. So let me just grab those real quick. We had a question from Sean Kelly says, question for R.C.A., which would technically be more evil? A, creating all the evil in existence or B, torturing a single human for eternity? I would say that torturing a single human for eternity and that would be on the context that it would be the human that is torturing a single human for eternity because they believe that human beings do not have obligation or power to do so regarding the issue of what God has ordained in terms of his prescriptive will, in terms of what the law has established and we are to go by what he has taught us and that is that we are to repent of our sin, to get right with God and to strive to live in holiness, not to try to torture people. All right, thanks so much for that. Mark Ash says, hey, R.C.A., is faith a reasonable path to truth? I would certainly think so. It depends, of course, what kind of faith you have. I don't try to go by blind faith and I wouldn't very much discourage anyone from trying to take a simple position of just saying, I believe just because I believe that I would think that there has to be justification for that particular belief that they hold to and I think we can have that with regards to the history for Jesus, the resurrection, the crucifixion and all these other things. All right, thanks so much. Michael, the Canadian atheist, thanks so much for your other $5 Super Chat. It says, appealing to an undemonstrated standard bearer and quoting a book we know is wrong, super convincing. Taking a true shot there, I don't know if you wanna say anything about that or not. I wouldn't say that. Just move on. I would say that indeed he has just proven the Bible correctly and true with some of the statements that he has even just made in that particular statement. I mean, I would say that, you know, the fool says in his heart, there is no God and I believe it was him that sent the Super Chat earlier regarding that statement. So I would say that particular passage has proven true. And then there were the other passages I quoted. So I think again, we claim that the Bible is wrong, then we have had it demonstrated to be true based on the actions of this particular atheist. All right, thanks so much. We got one for Schuyler here. Praise I am that I am. Thank you so much for your question says, my question for Schuyler is, will you accept a debate on this subject with me on this channel? Probably not. No, I don't know if I do debates when people threaten to kill people. Fun air. I did, I was going to tell everybody SchuylerFictionShortGmail.com. People are asking if they want to have a debate with me. You can email me, we'll set something up. I'm happy to do it. All right, thanks so much for that. Duran Manus, thanks again for your $5 Super Chat says, RC, if God asked you to sacrifice your child, would you, if not, debate is over. If yes, please reconsider. If in the question there is if, then sure, but the question for the fact that the matter is that God will not do such things being light of the fact that this would go against law and the fact that if we test the spirits, because as members of the Bible says, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits. So even Paul says during the issue of the gospel, even if it comes from an angel, if it does not conform to what has been passed down and originally taught, then that gospel and the person proclaimed thereof is anathema. So we must always test these certain claims that are made. And the same thing goes for supposedly, if someone is saying they hear the voice of God, because there are people that say they hear God telling them that black people are the true Israelites. There is a Joseph Smith who claimed he had a similar kind of revelation regarding this thing. So you'll have all kinds of people making claims, but we have to test these claims that are then made. And I don't think that in today's world, in light of the new covenant with humanity, that this would happen. All right, thanks so much for that. I would say in the Bible, it probably tells, as more times God tells you to kill children and babies than it does, it tells you not to kill children and babies. I don't think even, I can't remember a specific verse, besides do not murder, but I can't think of one specific time told you not to kill the babies and the children. Anyways, seems like it's more aligned with his nature to kill babies and children. He's done it multiple times. Okay, you want to say something else, R.C., feel free. No, I was done. All right. Thanks so much for that. I'm gonna try to split them up. So we got one for Skyler says, from James Labrador. Thanks for your $5 Super Chat says, Skyler fiction, hey, as an agnostic, how do you substantiate the claim that evil doesn't exist? You have the burden of proof. Same with saying God's exist. Listen, I don't have the burden of proof to show you that evil doesn't exist, right? Show me Superman doesn't exist. Show me aliens don't exist. Yeah, I mean, show me that raptor Jesus doesn't exist. Like this is logic, 101 folks. This is it, logic, 101. We're our moderator left. Even realized how silly that question was. Anyways, go ahead. All right. Thanks so much for that answer there. We'll move on. We have a $5 Super Chat from intoxicated, outspoken anti-theist. Question for RCA. When God ordered people to eat their own children, what was that a good thing? Leviticus 26, 29, Ezekiel 5, 10, and Jeremiah 19, nine. All right. What was the first one in Leviticus? 26, 29. Okay, 26, 29. And you shall eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. So keep in mind, in light of just simply taking these passages by themselves. Leviticus, chapter 26, is part of a list of curses that starts in verse 14, where it says, if you will not hearken unto me and will not do all these commandments, then these things happen. And so it's not just simply these issues. It's the fact that he will give them over to their enemies and it will get to the point that within that passage, the context is that they will become so hungry that they will start to feast on their own children. So it's not a good thing by any means. The Bible says that these are curses that are being punishments unto people if they choose to disobey. And there have been cases where this has happened and as they disobeyed, they then give in and do what the Bible says, which is, you know, these curses. And the Bible does say that eating of flesh is immoral because life begins in the blood. So there is the passages that condemns that. So again, these passages that are usually referenced to, because it's not just here, it's also in Deuteronomy 28, which the Black Keeper Israelites like to use for their justification that the transatlantic slave trade was the fulfillment of prophecy of Israel that essentially it has the same kind of curse that people would be eating their children. But it's only in the context that if they disobey God's law under the Mosaic Covenant, that this would happen. If they disobeyed, they would be given over to these curses. But they disobeyed because the gods decreed if will because God made them disobey. So God made them disobey these actions. And as a punishment, he made them eat their children with curses. Just want to be clear on what happened. All right, thanks so much for that. We have a two-dollar sub-chat from Stupid Horror Energy. She says, I think that that was kind of like a shot at RCA because when Skyler was talking, he was saying, like after you were making points or whatever, but we'll just move on because it was just kind of a troll. But next we have a five-dollar sub-chat. Thanks so much, David Neff says, RCA, do you believe slavery is morally permissible? If not, why does the Bible say it's okay? First of all, to respond to the first in the state that regarding what Stupid Horror Energy had stated, I say mm-hmm and various other things because that's just a part of my speech growing up. I didn't have much of a good issue with my speech and had to even go to speech classes in elementary school to work on that. And even to this day, it still has some defects. That's why I'm still trying to work on it. So yeah, then regarding the question here, sorry about that, repeat that again. Yeah, sure. Do you believe slavery is morally permissible? If not, why does the Bible say that it's okay? So I don't believe it is morally permissible and I don't believe that the Bible does condone it. I know that Skyler is obviously gonna have a disagreement with me here in light of the scholarship with Dr. Bowen on the matter on the book, which I still need to get a chance to try to read and order that book from my own library. But I do believe that the Hebrew usage of it is in terms of servitude, even though it's certainly a lot different in terms of what kind that we would even have today would be considered harsh even by our own standards of what a servant would be. And then the New Testament, I don't believe condones it. In fact, it even says in, believe it's in first Corinthians or first Timothy that says that people who go and capture slaves, that these people, unless they repent of that particular act, they will not inherit the kingdom of God. So there is even a condemnation of slavery by the New Testament authors. Yeah, those first Timothy. All right, we'll move on. We got a $5 Super Chat from Citibate of Surabia. Thanks so much for that. We have at Schuyler, if you can at least identify evil in the Bible, why doesn't it then exist objectively? If it's subjective, how is your argument viable? That's a good question. I get what he's saying. I get what he's saying. So that's why in my argument, I usually go through and I ask questions to find out if the theist believes something's evil, right? Like for instance, I would say, this is why I was asking RC, is it evil to kill a baby, right? Because I'm not gonna use my personal judgments during this argument. I need to see if he's gonna say it's evil. And as I predicted, like in the very beginning is that what happens in these debates is the Calvinists, especially Calvinists, they're just willing to, they'll just say these things aren't evil. Baby killing, he has a different opinion on slavery. So we'll leave that out. But you could, any of these things, killing children, genocide, whatever action I wanna point to in the Bible that would seem violent and atrocious to most people. They're just gonna say it's not evil. So I don't know, when I talk to theist, I don't know what they actually think is evil because when I say things like baby killing and genocide, those things aren't. So it's a mystery to me. All right, thanks so much for that. We have another super chat from Marty Kamaho. Thanks so much for your $5 super chat. RCA, what would you tell a woman in your life if they were sexually assaulted? Would you brush it under the rug like you're doing here? No, I wouldn't brush the rug like I'm doing here because I'm not doing any brushing the rug here. I would console the person just like I have in the past whenever I have experienced that there are people in high school that I've been with that have been dealing with these particular issues of sexual assault either by boyfriends that they've had or even in some cases by the teachers themselves that it happens and they can't do anything about it because influence within the community and in the school system. So I've been able to console these people and I believe it is my God given duty and right to do such a thing. So I can ask you a question and I don't care if you ask me a question back just so it's fair. But would you consider it a moral thing if say one of these people told you they were raped, right? And then you said, hey, listen, in the end it's all for God's good glory. Would that be a moral thing to say? You think you would be comfortable and it's honest. It's what you believe that the reason she got raped was for God's glory. So would you be willing to say that to a rape victim? No, because I don't believe that there is a time that that's the time and the place to do so. The Bible says there was a time and a place for everything and in that particular moment the time and the place is to console the person through what they are still going through and what they are suffering through. But how does not telling them the truth because like you don't want to be truthful with them? You can be truthful with some people but again, you have to choose a time and a place to tell some people like that. Like I'm sure that if you're having a conversation with somebody in that particular thing you wouldn't just say that there is no such thing as evil that evil doesn't exist. You would have to conceal that person and I wouldn't blame you when you do so and you wouldn't be necessarily lying or trying to negate some idea of truth that you would hope to. So likewise in the same setting. It wouldn't cause a problem for me like it would you. Like there's no problem for me. Like there's no, like telling somebody there's no evil isn't a problem. Like, but when you have to tell somebody that the reason they got raped was for God's glory. Which I don't have to know that. Well, you don't have to but that's what you believe though. Okay. Okay, anyways, we should keep going. I just want to be clear to the audience what you believe and what Calvinists believe. And I also believe that there is a time and a place for everything as is what the Bible says. Yes, there's a time and a place for telling somebody that they got raped for God's glory. I got it. All right, thanks so much for that. Brian Stevens has a Patreon question. Says, how can we know God isn't actively controlling what we believe? Couldn't a strong delusion make you think that you're a follower of God? Second Thessalonians 2.11? And I wouldn't just argue there. I would say in 2 Corinthians 4.4 though some Christians would disagree with my interpretation of who is the God of this world or the God of this age. But I did have a debate with G-Man on that for those who want to reference to that particular debate and the case made there. But in regards to how would I know if I'm not being manipulated to believing something that is a lie? I just simply go with the fact that to notice the standard thereof we go with what is being revealed as truth. And the truth of the matter is that whoever believes in Christ as is stated in the standard we have, shall be saved unless someone can demonstrate by some means of some standard that we are being deceived. I'd have no reason to believe otherwise. And if we are being deceived at that point then that's the case. We are being deceived and there's out of our control at that point. All right, thanks so much for that. Well, we have another $5 super chat from Philip Servijek. I always say that and wonder, am I saying that right? Because it's spelled like a foreign name. All right, it says, thanks for your $5 super chat, RC. I know you said God does not desire to save everybody but what is God's problem with saving everybody? I don't think it's necessarily a problem he has with saving everybody. It's just the fact that he just doesn't desire for all people to be saved as we go with what the scriptures had stated that he has chosen some people and that this is what he wants and what he desires. He doesn't give some detailed explanation as to why this is the case. He just simply states it as it is. It's just, you know, the alternative is, you know, those people. I think about it, I just want folks you guys to think about this. Imagine you had the ability to where you could save them or you could allow them to go to eternal suffering. What would you choose? What would you consider evil? Which option if someone chose would you consider evil, right? Especially for, and then add on to the fact that like God made you do it because with his decree to follow, you had no way that you could go against what God wanted. He's punishing you for the very actions that he decreed, it makes no logical sense. Get rid of Calvinism folks, sorry. All right, thanks so much for that. The undead Christian says, Skyler, thanks so much for your $5 Super Chat, by the way. Says, Skyler, you say you don't believe in God, but do you hate God as a character from the Bible? No, I mean, as much as I hate Voldemort or something from like Harry Potter. I mean, the way he's described is quite vicious. He's like a mafia boss, but no, I don't hate him. All right, thanks so much. I just didn't believe him. Thanks so much for that, Dan. Dan Dan, thanks so much for your five CAs, whatever that is, I guess Canadian, whatever. He's, it says, he's arguing that by theist's own standard, slavery, killing children is evil. So the position is incoherent if God orders it. Internal critique is simple. Yeah, I agree, this is what I was saying is R.C. is not gonna say killing babies is evil. He's gonna say the context is what makes it evil. God, I mean, maybe you have something different, R.C. Well, that was what I was trying to explain and then I got interrupted during the explanation of that. Yes, because the issue is that in the context of human beings doing so, it is always going to be murder if they do it because a baby does not have the ability to use some sort of weapon and try to make an assault or anything like that. A baby isn't capable of doing such a thing. It's for God orders people to do that but you said it's always evil for humans to do it but God makes people do an evil action. And again, I tried to explain the passage that you cited but you wouldn't let me finish in getting into there. So you know, your claim was first Samuel 15 is hyperbolic. So you're saying nowhere in the Bible that God has ever ordered anybody to kill kids. Nowhere in the Bible that actually has happened. Well, there was the issue within Abraham. So he has ordered people to kill children. He has made that order but it never went through because it was the test of Abraham. All right. What about when he tells it, what about Deuteronomy where he tells you to kill all the little boys and keep the virgins? You're ignoring those scriptures too? Deuteronomy what? And plus of? Never mind. No, I'm, dude, read your Bible, bro. The fact that you don't know these scriptures. I read the entire Bible, dude. Well, then you're telling me that there's no examples besides Abraham. I literally gave you examples. There's literally at least 15 examples of God ordering people to kill children. Do you really want me to give you the scripture? I have it up. I can pull it up and give it to you. Well, we have the other questions at this point. All right, let's move on. If you don't, if you guys don't mind. R.C., you should know this stuff. All right. Thanks so much, Nathan Artwork for your $5 super chat says R.J. Maybe this is supposed to say R.C. R.C., please use logic and explain how can God be all moral and yet do immoral things. Make it make sense and don't beg the question. Okay. And I would say that the fact that in order to utilize logic that the Christian worldview is the only necessary precondition to utilize logic. And so therefore in using that to explain how God can be moral and yet doing moral things. I don't think that there is anywhere where God would be doing immoral things if God is the standard at that point in utilizing that particular logic. If we're trying to say that he is doing immoral things then the only way that we can even try to do so is by utilizing another standard that is not within the Christian worldview that is not by God's standards at all. So this would therefore be illogical trying to utilize different standards for interpreting certain things. That's like me trying to interpret and say that Skyler's statements must conform to the objective moral view worldview. And I don't think that would be good in examining his particular critique or examining his worldview since I need to do an internal critique much in the same way that he's done an internal critique of mine. So not begging the question or trying to escape using logic though. The fact of the logic is that if we utilize God as the standard then God is not doing immoral things that go outside the fact that he is moral. We see that he does things that are moral under his standard. Numbers 31, now therefore kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman that have known a man by lying with him. Which you don't think is objectively evil? All right, thanks so much for that. We both don't think it's objectively evil to kill children. Isn't that the case? Because you don't think it's objectively wrong. You only think it's wrong sometimes depending on if it's God's opinion to kill somebody. But I just want to be clear. That was a scripture for some reason you didn't recognize from all your study in the Bible. I mean, I think you knew it was in there but you played a little game and you pretended like you didn't know that there are scriptures where God orders people to kill babies in order to play the game. I did not play anything at all. And you lost it because now I read you the scripture and now the whole audience sees that you were at least being a little bit evasive. Not really. Can we please let him continue with the questions? All right, thanks so much. You're cutting them off. You're dishonest though, go ahead. All right, thanks so much for that. It looks like we've got two more questions or two more Super Chats. Talasand Oberlander, I may be mispronouncing that. Thanks for your $2 Super Chat. Says, Skyler babies are evil because they're selfish. And then the last one is from the undead Christian again. Thanks so much for your other $5 Super Chat. Says, Skyler, if you don't hate the God of the Bible, why does it sound like you hold a fictional character with like you hold a fictional character with atrocities? Yeah. Well, the reason why this topic is important to me is the power Christians have in our American society. I mean, listen, people were spreading the coronaviruses because they thought Jesus was gonna stop them from getting the virus. And they were going and ignoring warnings from the state telling you not to gather in large groups. And I mean, depending on the move again, it seems like to try to limit the rights of gay people and ban gay marriage again. So that's why I get so passionate and I just go for the throat. So I just go for the topics that just so clearly cut, show how incoherent the Christian religion is. All right, thanks so much for that. Looks like we are done unless either you guys wanna say anything else before we take off. That's all the questions. That was fun, thank you for having it. All right, awesome, Marcy, you good too? Yeah, I'm good. All right, perfect. Thanks so much. I think both of you guys are coming out and doing this because a lot of people, they're not willing to put their, you know, theirself out there to do these types of things. We do have a lot of people, but this is a touchy topic and the other thing is that it's hard in a short period of time to get to the bottom of things like this. So there could have been some good responses or things in there that, you know, we could have got if we sat down and hammered it all out for a while. So I appreciate RC for be willing to do this and Skyler for willing to come on as well. And also thanks everybody out there for all the super chats and questions. It's people like you who help this channel grow and we're looking at doing some really interesting debates here in the next couple of months. So stay tuned for that. If you haven't hit the subscribe button, let me just suggest that you go ahead and do it because you know you're gonna do it anyway. You've been thinking about it. And also hit the like button on this video if you do enjoy these types of discussions that'll help us, that'll help us with our, when we're trying to pick future debates, whether you guys like this or not. All right, and with that being said, thanks to everybody in the audience for coming out tonight on a Thursday evening. And as usual, keep sifting the reasonable from the unreasonable.