![](https://christianworldviewinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/1712243614_maxresdefault.jpg)
A Response to Genetically Modified Skeptic Part 2 — Stand to Reason Podcast
Greg Koukl and Jon Noyes respond to a video by @GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic (Drew McCoy) that critiques one of Greg’s STR U courses.
0:00 Introduction
2:33 The Bump of Bad
6:52 Greg responds to, “The Problem of Evil is a critique of the internal consistency of Christian theology”
14:30 Do transcendent laws point to God’s existence or social evolution?
32:26 Greg responds to Drew’s criticisms of Greg’s character
35:11 The Bump of Me, what grounds human value, and the soul
50:06 A case for unique, transcendent human value
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity #Worldviews
————— MENTIONED ON THIS SHOW —————
Genetically Modified Skeptic’s video responding to Greg’s STR U course: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsw-lSp3rq8
STR U Online Training: https://training.str.org/
————— CALL IN TO THE SHOW —————
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl, live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time, at (855) 243-9975.
————— SUBMIT YOUR QUESTION —————
If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time for the broadcast, or if you’d like to submit a question for the #STRask podcast, fill out our form at https://www.str.org/training/broadcast.
————— FIND MORE FREE TRAINING —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
————— CONNECT —————
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
![](http://christianworldviewinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/nehemiah-reset-550-ad-blue.png)
I know that Dr. Sean McDowell had a conversation with Drew, but I would definitely like to see one with Greg and his application of Columbo 🙂
Darwinist arguments are a priori: this exists, so this is how it must have been developed. They presume the conclusion, then fit the evidence into that conclusion; its bad reasoning and bad science. But ultimately this man's arguments are heinous and terrifying: he's rejecting morality entirely, he's claiming that there is no actual good or evil — the basis of almost all the evils of the 20th century. And yes, the moral relativist is almost without exception inconsistent: they live and act as if morality is objective and absolute but protest that it is not.
Internet atheists like to construe the problem of evil as a contradiction that is internal to theism.
Internet/pop level apologists like to construe the problem of evil either as a deductive challenge (because they think they can refute that) or as a challenge borrowing from the atheist’s metaethics (so they can change the subject and talk about how to ground moral facts.)
As far as I can tell, most actual scholars contributing to philosophy of religion use the evidential problem of evil to indicate the presence of probabilistic tension internal to theism. There are exceptions (Oppy, Smith, Sobel) but I think they are just exceptions.
It’s funny how close both the internet atheist and the pop level apologist can get to the problem of evil as presented in its most robust form without ever actually understanding it’s full force.
47:28 if you want to talk about two different manifestations of images (physical and non-physical), this is a good time to set the definition of image you are using.
35:47 a definition of soul is needed, using positive attributes (existing ones). Which are the attributes of a soul?
9:09 the problem of evil is human in nature only if we assume the inexistence of God. If God exists, there must be an answer to the existence of evil in the world that can be traced back to the Creator of everything. It doesn't matter if people believe in God or not, as long as there is a God, because the whole universe and people in it are considered His creation. The exclusions to this are:
-God is not omnipotent,
-God is not omniscient,
-God is not infinitely benevolent,
-God has no ultimate goal in mind, or
-there is an objective justification for the existence of evil.
Assuming God's attributes are really those mentioned, the fourth possibility makes evil a necessity and as such, its existence is desirable.
Are you suggesting God IS NOT omniscient, omnipotent, or infinitely benevolent?
Greg is a master or his craft.
It seems to me that evil in the world conflicts with Christian understanding of God, only if evil serves no purpose in God's economy.
In case you missed it, here is part 1: https://youtu.be/tiiuofV45EA.