Most Forms of the Argument From Evil Are Incoherent

_{Barry Arrington
December 9, 2013

Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a comment to another post StephenB noted that atheists often argue as follows: “evil exists; therefore God does not exist.” That is true. Yet, the incoherence of the argument should be immediately obvious. Let’s see why.

The argument to which Stephen alluded is an abbreviation of a more formal argument that goes like this:

Major Premise: If an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being (i.e., God) existed, he would not allow evil to exist.

Minor Premise: Evil exists

Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

The problem with the argument is in the word “evil.” What does it mean? If metaphysical naturalism is true – if particles in motion are the only things that exist – then the word “evil” must necessarily have no “objective” meaning. In other words, if there is no transcendent moral lawgiver, there is no transcendent moral law. It follows that all moral choices are inherently subjective, choices that we choose because evolution has conditioned us to do so. Therefore, for the atheist, the word “evil” means “that which I personally do not prefer because evolution has conditioned me not to prefer it.”

Now, let’s reexamine the argument, but instead of using the word “evil” let us amplify it by using the definition.

Major Premise: If an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being (i.e., God) existed, he would not allow that which I personally do not prefer because evolution has conditioned me not to prefer it to exist.

Minor Premise: That which I personally do not prefer because evolution has conditioned me not to prefer it exists.

Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

The argument in this form is plainly blithering nonsense.

We see then that the atheist makes an illogical leap. His argument is true only if it is false. The word “evil” has objective meaning only if God exists. Therefore, when the atheist is making his argument from the existence of evil he is necessarily doing one of two things:

1. Arguing in the nonsensical manner I illustrated; or

2. Judging the non-existence of God using a standard that does not exist unless God in fact exists.

Either way, the argument fails.

More problematic for the theist (at least theists who believe God is omnibenevolent) is Ivan Karamazov. Readers will remember that Ivan’s argument took the following form:

Definition: We will call the “omnipotent being” God

Major Premise: If God is omnibenevolent he would not allow evil to exist.

Minor Premise: Evil exists

Conclusion: Therefore, God is not omnibenevolent.

Keep in mind the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument. A valid argument is an argument in which the conclusion follows logically from the premises. Valid arguments do not necessarily result in true conclusions. They result in logical conclusions. An argument is said to be “sound” when it is valid AND its premises are true. A sound argument results in conclusions that are both logical and true.

The first argument that I set forth is not even valid. Ivan’s argument is a better argument in this sense – it is valid, meaning the conclusion at least has the virtue of following from the premises.

But is Ivan’s argument sound? That is another question altogether, the answer to which is beyond the scope of this post. Suffice at this point to say that Christians believe Ivan’s major premise is not true. They believe an omnibenevolent God might allow evil to exist in order to give the gift of free will to the beings he creates.

Comments

This is an example of why humanity should be wiped off the face of the earth. We can't agree on ANYTHING. We constantly bicker back and forth. We debate endlessly and spend all our time arguing. I'm an advocate for human extinction. We had our chance and we can't make it work so exterminate us an let some other animal evolve to take over. Maybe they can do a better job.JLAfan2001_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

Rosenberg, 'The Atheist's guide to reality', Ch.5:
Even correctly understood, there seem to be serious reasons to abstain from nihilism if we can. Here are three: First, nihilism can’t condemn Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or those who fomented the Armenian genocide or the Rwandan one. If there is no such thing as “morally forbidden,” then what Mohamed Atta did on September 11, 2001, was not morally forbidden. Of course, it was not permitted either. But still, don’t we want to have grounds to condemn these monsters? Nihilism seems to cut that ground out from under us. Second, if we admit to being nihilists, then people won’t trust us. We won’t be left alone when there is loose change around. We won’t be relied on to be sure small children stay out of trouble. Third, and worst of all, if nihilism gets any traction, society will be destroyed. We will find ourselves back in Thomas Hobbes’s famous state of nature, where “the life of man is solitary, mean, nasty, brutish and short.” Surely, we don’t want to be nihilists if we can possibly avoid it. (Or at least, we don’t want the other people around us to be nihilists.) Scientism can’t avoid nihilism. We need to make the best of it. For our own self-respect, we need to show that nihilism doesn’t have the three problems just mentioned—no grounds to condemn Hitler, lots of reasons for other people to distrust us, and even reasons why no one should trust anyone else. We need to be convinced that these unacceptable outcomes are not ones that atheism and scientism are committed to. Such outcomes would be more than merely a public relations nightmare for scientism. They might prevent us from swallowing nihilism ourselves, and that would start unraveling scientism. To avoid these outcomes, people have been searching for scientifically respectable justification of morality for least a century and a half. The trouble is that over the same 150 years or so, the reasons for nihilism have continued to mount. Both the failure to find an ethics that everyone can agree on and the scientific explanation of the origin and persistence of moral norms have made nihilism more and more plausible while remaining just as unappetizing.
Box_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

@ CannuckianYankee @18
I’m not certain what you meant by this. Did you mean to say “arguing the non-existence of God from evil is ridiculous?” I think the existence of evil makes God’s existence quite apparent, and that’s what makes the argument from evil “ridiculous.”
Right. I can see how my phrasing may be unclear. I'm stating that the "argument from evil" with regard to the non-existence of God, is ridiculous as the argument assumes a full understanding of God. The problem is one is assuming the nature of God, and from that, concluding the question of existence. However, if one assumes a different nature, or understanding, of God the argument fails. So, any way you cut it, the "argument from evil" is not a good argument for the non-existence of God.TSErik_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT}

Barry
Mark, One of us is certainly confused. You assert there is a difference between “the degree of suffering and whether it is necessary.” And what is the difference? You assert that “I am only talking about the amount of suffering . . .” But what does “degree of suffering” mean if not “amount of suffering”? So your argument is perfectly incoherent.
Degree of suffering does mean amount of suffering. But the amount of suffering is unrelated to whether that suffering is necessary. A tooth extraction of a bad tooth may involve a lot of suffering but is necessary. A tooth extraction of a perfectly healthy tooth (by accident perhaps) involves the same degree of suffering but is unnecessary. Do you seriously not understand the difference?Mark Frank_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

Barry
Why do the vast majority of people strongly believe an action or event it wrong? The materialist must say that there is no reason other than that evolution conditioned them not to prefer that action or event. So, your argument amounts to “whatever evolution has conditioned people not to prefer, God would believe is morally wrong and prevent it from happening. Since he does not, he does not exist.” The argument is absurd on its face and needs no refutation.
I don't have to say that at all. In these debates about morality you continually confuse the cause of our moral attitudes and the justification. I believe the cause is a result of evolution and cultural conditioning just as the cause of our finding Chaplin funny is some combination of the two. But actually it doesn’t matter. The cause could have been that the designer made us that way – it would not affect the argument. Evolution doesn’t come into this. The justification is things like – decreases suffering. I don’t know why you struggle with this – VJ, for example, has no problem understanding the difference. Let’s try a slightly expanded version of the argument that makes the role of suffering clearer. A) By “evil” events, actions and people a subjectivist means those events, actions and people which they along with the vast majority of people strongly (but subjectively) feel to be morally wrong. These include increasing suffering. B) A benevolent God would share those subjective assessments C) An omnipotent God would prevent evil events, actions and people happening. D) But evil events, actions and people do happen. E) Therefore there is no benevolent, omnipotent God I know you don’t accept A and B. But it is a coherent argument. Even if you find that unconvincing there is still a major problem with theodicy using the theist’s own assumptions. One of these has got to be wrong: * Evil exists * An omnipotent and omnibenevolent being would not allow evil to exist. * There is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being Which one do you reject?Mark Frank_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

Mark, One of us is certainly confused. You assert there is a difference between “the degree of suffering and whether it is necessary.” And what is the difference? You assert that “I am only talking about the amount of suffering . . .” But what does “degree of suffering” mean if not “amount of suffering”? So your argument is perfectly incoherent.Barry Arrington_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

Barry – I sometimes worry about you. I write:
You are confused about the difference between the degree of suffering and whether it is necessary.
And go to some lengths to explain the difference. You respond:
Let’s focus on your assertion that the “amount of suffering” is the measure between “unnecessary” and “not unnecessary.”
Mark Frank_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
“Unnecessary suffering” seems to me an objective description not a value judgment.
Barry:
Wow Mark. You argue until you are blue in the face that all moral questions are subjective. Then when it suits you, you turn right around and argue that your assessment of whether certain suffering you observe in the world is unnecessary or not unnecessary — an essentially moral assessment — is based upon some objective standard. Staggering.
Barry:
Where, exactly is the line between unnecessary suffering and suffering that is not unnecessary? You claim to have access to an objective description of that line. Tell us where it is.
Mark:
I am only talking about the amount of suffering – something that could in theory be measured by a computer.
I will set aside the idiotic notion that a computer algorithm could measure suffering. Let's focus on your assertion that the "amount of suffering" is the measure between "unnecessary" and "not unnecessary." So, if in your opinion there has been “a lot of suffering” it is unnecessary. And if in your opinion there has been, “not that much suffering” it was not unnecessary. Nothing subjective about that determination, no sir.
But anyway there are other ways of phrasing the argument.
I suppose there are, and if the example you give is any indication, each is more facile than the last.
* By “evil” events, actions and people a subjectivist means those events, actions and people which they along with the vast majority of people strongly (but subjectively) feel to be morally wrong. * A benevolent God would share those subjective assessments. * An omnipotent God would prevent evil events, actions and people happening. * But evil events, actions and people do happen. * Therefore there is no benevolent, omnipotent God
Why do the vast majority of people strongly believe an action or event it wrong? The materialist must say that there is no reason other than that evolution conditioned them not to prefer that action or event. So, your argument amounts to “whatever evolution has conditioned people not to prefer, God would believe is morally wrong and prevent it from happening. Since he does not, he does not exist.” The argument is absurd on its face and needs no refutation.Barry Arrington_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

Graham2
This is your god-given ‘higher moral code’ or whatever you call it, at work in the real world. This isnt theory, this is how it works in practice. Charming.
No, it isn't the God-given higher moral code at work. It is a violation of the God-given higher moral code at work. But thank you for showing us that you do not know the difference.StephenB_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

G2: BA is of course dead right to highlight the worldview foundation level crack in your argument. Apart from the incoherence of failing to ground the ought at the root of your evident moral outrage in a worldview foundational is, it is in order to say a few words on the context of your lashing the whipping boy of the Catholic hierarchy. So, I ask: do you object to the in-progress homosexualisation of the boy scout movement? Military units? Schools? Etc? Also, the increasingly clear trend to push women into particularly ground combat units? [If so, where is the balancing outrage at this process and at those who are aiding and abetting such? (And, there is the additional concern that women are physically very vulnerable in ground combat circumstances and men are instinctively programmed to react to threats by doing anything possible at almost any cost to protect women and children.)] If you don't object to such at least as vociferously, with all due respect, I must put it to you that you too are enabling the setting up of precisely the kind of abuses that happened. If you do object [silence on related matters notwithstanding . . . ], then you are in a position to understand that when a nest of pederasts secretly infiltrates an organisation, then it is first extremely hard to detect and realise there is a systemic problem, then it becomes a major challenge to deal with the magnitude. And in the face of a hostile climate, it is going to be hard to sound reasonable. (Just think what would happen if the much higher incidence of sexual misbehaviour and bullying in and around schooling were subject to similar headlined inquisitions globally in front of rolling TV cameras etc. Would head teachers, education officers and ministers of education come off well? I rather doubt it.) I hold no brief for the Catholic hierarchy, but I do at least understand their problem in light of the now politically extremely incorrect fact that classically, homosexual behaviour particularly targets youth and boys. (This can be seen for illustrative instances from the discussion of love in The Republic, from the classic story of Jupiter and Ganymede, from the lives of the Caesars, and more, much more. Including Buggery Laws.) And so, I think we can use this context to return focus to the pivotal issue for this thread, the incoherence of ever so much arguing from evils against God. KFkairosfocus_{December 10, 2013
December
12
Dec
10
10
2013
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

Well Graham, at least you recognize that there is such a thing as sin. No one claims Christians are immune to sin. And to the extent that you are right, these people will have to answer to God for their actions. Claiming that some church leaders molest children is no new revelation. Sin is din no matter who does it. Either it is din or it isn't. Either it is evil or it isn't. Christians say it is both evil and din because it violates God's standard of moral purity and His command to love your neighbor as yourself. It harms others (unloving) and is a selfish act(unloving). You, God, and everyone else have every right to be angry about that. I hope you are just as angry at what the MBLA stands for and at the impurity and sin in your own heart.tjguy_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

F/N: It is time to outline the free will defense (as opposed to a theodicy). I use the summary here: ______________ As a preliminary, Dembski on the twin problem, good vs evil: >>In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” Boethius contrasts the problem that evil poses for theism with the problem that good poses for atheism. The problem of good does not receive nearly as much attention as the problem evil, but it is the more basic problem. That’s because evil always presupposes a good that has been subverted. All our words for evil make this plain: the New Testament word for sin (Greek hamartia) presupposes a target that’s been missed; deviation presupposes a way (Latin via) from which we’ve departed; injustice presupposes justice; etc. So let’s ask, who’s got the worse problem, the theist or the atheist? Start with the theist. God is the source of all being and purpose. Given God’s existence, what sense does it make to deny God’s goodness? None . . . . The problem of evil still confronts theists, though not as a logical or philosophical problem, but instead as a psychological and existential one [--> as was addressed first in the linked] . . . . The problem of good as it faces the atheist is this: nature, which is nuts-and-bolts reality for the atheist, has no values and thus can offer no grounding for good and evil. As nineteenth century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll used to say, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are consequences.” More recently, Richard Dawkins made the same point: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” ["Prepared Remarks for the Dembski-Hitchens Debate," Uncommon Descent Blog, Nov 22, 2010]>> Next, outlining Plantinga on the free will defense (as opposed to theodicy . . . the logically possible suffices to show coherence): >> Plantinga's free-will defense, in a skeletal form, allows us to effectively address the problem. For, it is claimed that the following set of theistic beliefs embed an unresolvable contradiction:
1. God exists 2. God is omnipotent – all powerful 3. God is omniscient – all-knowing 4. God is omni-benevolent – all-good 5. God created the world 6. The world contains evil To do so, there is an implicit claim that, (2a) if he exists, God is omnipotent and so capable of -- but obviously does not eliminate -- evil. So, at least one of 2 – 5 should be surrendered. But all of these claims are central to the notion of God, so it is held that the problem is actually 1. Therefore, NOT-1: God does not exist.
However, it has been pointed out by Plantinga and others that:
2a is not consistent with what theists actually believe: if the elimination of some evil would lead to a worse evil, or prevent the emergence of a greater good, then God might have a good reason to permit some evil in the cosmos. Specifically, what if “many evils result from human free will or from the fact that our universe operates under natural laws or from the fact that humans exist in a setting that fosters soul-making . . . [and that such a world] contains more good than a world that does not” ? In this case, Theists propose that 2a should be revised: 2b: “A good, omnipotent God will eliminate evil as far as he can without either losing a greater good or bringing about a greater evil.” But, once this is done, the alleged contradiction collapses.
Further, Alvin Plantinga – through his free will defense -- was able to show that the theistic set is actually consistent. He did this by augmenting the set with a further proposition that is logically possible (as opposed to seeming plausible to one who may be committed to another worldview) and which makes the consistency clear. That proposition, skeletally, is 5a: “God created a world (potentially) containing evil; and has a good reason for doing so.” Propositions 1, 2b, 3, 4, and 5a are plainly consistent, and entail 6. The essence of that defense is:
a: “A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures . . . God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For . . . then they aren’t significantly free after all . . . He could only have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.” [NB: This assumes that moral good reflects the power of choice: if we are merely robots carrying out programs, then we cannot actually love, be truthful, etc.] [From: Clark, Kelley James. Return to Reason. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 69 – 70, citing Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, (Eerdmans, 1974), p. 30.] b: Nor is the possible world known as heaven a good counter-example. For, heaven would exist as a world in which the results of choices made to live by the truth in love across a lifetime have culminated in their eternal reward. This we may see from an argument made by the apostle Paul:
Rom 2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 78 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [NIV]
c: Anticipating the onward response that in at least some possible worlds [--> he here deploys the force of logical possibility], there are free creatures, all of whom freely do what is right, Plantinga asserts a further possibility: trans-world depravity. That is, in all worlds God could create in which a certain person, say Johnny, exists; then that person would have freely gone wrong at least once. And, what if it is further possible that this holds for every class of created, morally capable being? (Then, there would be no possible worlds in which moral good is possible but in which moral evil would not in fact occur. So the benefit of moral good would entail that the world would contain transworld depraved creatures.) d: Moreover, Plantinga proposes that there is a possible state of affairs in which God and natural evil can exist. For instance, if all natural evils are the result of the actions of significantly free creatures such as Satan and his minions, then since it is logically possible that God could not have created a world with a greater balance of good over evil if it did not contain such creatures, God and natural evil are compatible. e: At this point, albeit grudgingly, leading atheologians (Such as Mackie and Williams) concede that the deductive form of the problem of evil stands overturned. Thus, a new question is put on the table. f: It is: But what if the world seems to contain too much evil, and evil that is apparently pointless, i.e. gratuitous? First, the greater good “absorbs” at least some of the evils. To this, the Christian Theist further responds that there are goods in the world that are left out of the account so far; especially, that the fall of mankind led to the greatest good of all: that God loved the world and gave his Son, setting in motion the programme of redemption as a supreme good that absorbs all evils. That is, it is rational for a Christian to believe there are no unabsorbed evils, even though the atheologian may beg to differ with the Christian’s beliefs. g: However, it should be noted that there is an existential or pastoral form of the problem of evil (as we saw above): where the overwhelming force of evil and pain brings us to doubt God. To that, no mere rational argument will suffice; for it is a life-challenge we face, as did Job. And, as a perusal of Job 23:1 – 7, 38:1 – 7, 40:1 – 8, 42:1 – 6, God may be more interested in exposing our underlying motives and calling for willingness to trust him even where we cannot trace him, than in satisfying our queries and rebutting our pained accusations. That is, it is at least possible that God is primarily in the business of soul-making.
Where then does the problem of evil stand today? On balance, it is rational to believe that God exists, but obviously there are many deep, even painful questions to which we have no answers. And, those who choose to believe in God will have a radically different evaluation of evil than those who reject him. >> ______________ In short, the first problem, is that evil raises the issue of good, and of the objectivity of a moral -- real, abstract -- order. Linked to this, the question entails whether we wish a world in which choice, free will, free reason, and love [queen of the virtues] are possible. Real freedom to think, love and decide comes with the price tag of being able to choose otherwise. Once that is in the backdrop, we can highlight that evil presupposes good, which then is a major challenge to those whose views are amoral. Thirdly, as the accusation "contradiction" is so stringent, we may shift to a logically possible worlds argument to show it is not so. Thus Plantinga first renders the theistic set more accurate to what theists would recognise as actual premises of theism, then uses logically possible worlds argumentation to augment the set and show it coherent once the augmentation is added. But if S = {p1, p2, . . . pn} is coherent when a possible explanation ei of e1, e2 . . . en are added, then S must be coherent even without augmentation. Fourth, when these are borne in mind, the logically possible act of redemptive intervention transforms the picture of the inductive (and even natural) problems. Fifth, the most serious challenge is one for pastoral intervention and counselling support, especially of signs of serious melancholy are present. I trust these help. KFkairosfocus_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

Graham2, Always amusing to be addressed in a tone of moral outrage by someone who believes that “immoral” means nothing more than “I personally disagree strongly because evolution has conditioned me to do so.” Barry Arrington_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT}

Im witnessing a royal commission (Im in Oz) into child abuse at the hands of the Catholic church, and what a spectacle it is. Priests being cross-examined by laywers (with the power to require answers), so they cant give the usual sanctimonious waffle, they have to actually tell the truth. And the truth is that the church has been abusing children for decades, and when absolutely forced to act, refuse to apologize (legal reasons), pay the victims a pittance, and wrap them up in legal agreements that are designed to protect the church. And its not just here of course, throw something at a map and it will hit a country where the priests have their hands on little boys. This is your god-given 'higher moral code' or whatever you call it, at work in the real world. This isnt theory, this is how it works in practice. Charming.Graham2_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

#38 Barry
just because somebody recognizes that morality is subjective, it doesn’t mean we don’t think the Golden Rule is not the best morality.
What's wrong with that? Many people subjectively think the Golden Rule is the best morality.Mark Frank_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

#8 Barry
Wow Mark. You argue until you are blue in the face that all moral questions are subjective. Then when it suits you, you turn right around and argue that your assessment of whether certain suffering you observe in the world is unnecessary or not unnecessary — an essentially moral assessment — is based upon some objective standard. Staggering. Let’s test this. The phrase “unnecessary suffering” implies that there is some level of suffering that is not unnecessary. Pray tell us the objective criterion you have used to distinguish between the two. Perhaps an example will help as you ponder the question. I take it you believe the Sandy Hook shootings involved “unnecessary suffering.” I take it you would also believe that the disappointment I felt when I realized at about age 18 that I would probably never play football for the Dallas Cowboys was not unnecessary suffering. Where, exactly is the line between unnecessary suffering and suffering that is not unnecessary? You claim to have access to an objective description of that line. Tell us where it is.
You are confused about the difference between the degree of suffering and whether it is necessary. Sandy Hook involved a lot more suffering then your failure to play football. Furthermore it seems that if Sandy Hook had never happened there would not have been consequences anything like in proportion to the suffering. Had you had your dream then I suspect Dallas Cowboys management and fans might have suffered more than you did by missing out – so you could argue it was necessary. If it had been possible for you to play with no impact on anyone else (or limiting your opportunities do even more satisfying things like banning people from debates) then a benevolent God should have let you have your dream. There is nothing subjective (or indeed moral) in that comparison. I am only talking about the amount of suffering - something that could in theory be measured by a computer. But anyway there are other ways of phrasing the argument. * By “evil” events, actions and people a subjectivist means those events, actions and people which they along with the vast majority of people strongly (but subjectively) feel to be morally wrong. * A benevolent God would share those subjective assessments. * An omnipotent God would prevent evil events, actions and people happening. * But evil events, actions and people do happen. * Therefore there is no benevolent, omnipotent God.Mark Frank_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Many wonder why God doesn't put a stop to all evil. God's ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts higher than ours so we never be able to fully answer this question until we get to heaven and can see things from His perspective or ask Him, but here are some further things to consider. I agree that the fact that "evil" bothers atheists is strong evidence that God exists. JLAFan seems to be the only consistent atheist here. But his belief in nihilism does not make it true. What if God were to wipe out everything evil in this world? That wouldn't work too well as there would be no humans left. I know of no one who has never caused others to suffer. No one! In fact the Bible says we are all sinners. Pride negatively effects our action, words, relationships, and motives, as does selfishness and personal desires for wealth, fame, happiness, comfort, and power. Some of the suffering in this world comes about due to our own sin as well. For example, we get our girlfriend pregnant and wonder why God allowed it. Or we speed and cause an accident maybe even killing someone. Why didn't God stop us from speeding or protect the other person? At what point do you want God to intervene? Do you want Him to make it impossible to speed? Or do you want Him to allow you freedom to drive irresponsibly and then protect you and others? Do you want Him to prevent you from having premarital sex so your girlfriend doesn't get pregnant? Or do you want Him to allow immorality and cover you so she doesn't get pregnant? God cannot condone sin. He wants us to understand that our actions have consequences both in this world and the next. Do you want Him to cut out your tongue so you never offend anyone - or give everyone such a thick skin that nothing you could say would offend or hurt others? But then positive encouraging complimentary words would also become meaningless because of our thick skin. You can't jump off a building and blame God for not saving you. But in essence, that is what most atheists want. They want to live life their own way, no matter if it is right or wrong, and they expect God to bless them. Then when He doesn't, it's all his fault. God gives us free will but with it comes personal responsibility. This is as it should be. What a bunch of spoiled little brats we would be if God gave us complete freedom to live however we want to while shielding us and others from the consequences of our actions! God's goodness, grace, and love are magnified in the presence of evil. If there were no such thing as evil, we would not need God. Nor would we be able to understand His greatness, glory, or goodness. I don't know if that translates as a valid reason for the existence or if that is one reason He allows it to persist, but evil does magnify God's goodness. When atheists wish God would not allow evil, they are in essence wishing for God's judgment on themselves. I guess they really only wish He would do away with certain kinds of evil - natural evil(calamities, sickness, etc.) But even sickness is a judgment for original sin as is the stress of hard work. They fail to realize that there is no such thing as a totally innocent person - outside of Jesus who willingly entered our world, suffered for our sins, died in our place to eventually do away with all evil, sin, and suffering. The judgment against evil they wish for already took place on the cross and the consequences of Jesus' victory over Satan will one day be completely realized. Evil and all sin including their sin will one day be finally and completely be judged much to their chagrin. They will realize just what they were wishing for at that time, but it will be too late. Jesus offered to take the penalty for their sin, but they rejected the offer. Freedom to choose brings responsibility for our choices.tjguy_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

Central Scrutinizer at 8:ll p.m.:
Only might makes right. I’ll fight you, and if me and my fellow travelers have enough power, we will overcome you.
Central Scrutinizer at 8:34 p.ml:
...just because somebody recognizes that morality is subjective, it doesn’t mean we don’t think the Golden Rule is not the best morality.
Does it get any better than that?StephenB_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

Central Scrutinizer
There is no absolute standard you and demonstrate objectively. Only might makes right.
Unfortunately, your first sentence is incomprehensible, but your second sentence solves the riddle. Your idea of morality is to overpower and silence those who disagree with you. Thank you for giving me a straight answer to a straight question.
I’ll fight you, and if me and my fellow travelers have enough power, we will overcome you, (you sadist.)
Yes, and although I am not a sadist, I appreciate the fact that you know we are in a culture war and that you have chosen to side with the barbarians. Those who cannot compete in the arena of ideas or persuade others with reasoned arguments will always try to improve their odds in other ways, either by waging a campaign of dishonesty or by resorting to physical force. Many here pretend that these conversations are just for passing the time away. You, on the other hand, seem to understand that reason is at war with atheism. Knowing that atheism will always lose in a debate, as your experience on this blog makes clear, you also realize that you must overpower your adversaries by the force of unjust laws or even violence in order to win. The good news for you is that the barbarians are winning. The government school system continues to crank out young skulls of mush who think just like you do. They can't argue their way out of a paper bag, but they sure can vote.StephenB_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

Collin @ 21: 1. If there is God, there must be no evil. 2. There are things in the world that, if there were a God, would be defined as evil. 3. Therefore, there is no God. I don't know that an atheist would accept this. Your conclusion (3) contradicts premise 2. 2 says that there are some things that can be defined as evil only if there is a God. 3 concludes there is no God but as a result there would also be a no things that can be defined as evil. This would then make premise 1 true by default.lpadron_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

And Barry, just because somebody recognizes that morality is subjective, it doesn't mean we don't think the Golden Rule is not the best morality. But the fact that we think so is a fact of intuition. I.e., neural programming.CentralScrutinizer_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

Barry, I'm not an atheist. Just a guy who recognizes the fact that morality is subjective.CentralScrutinizer_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

Central joins the (small) list of atheists whom I respect for following their premises to their conclusions. See comment 14 for another. I respect both of you, but, frankly, I wouldn't want to play poker with either of you. :-)Barry Arrington_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

StephenB: The basis of your ought is, “I don’t want to suffer.”
Yes.
The basis of the sadist ought is, “I want you to suffer.”
Yes.
By what standard should your ought prevail?
By my own standard, until the day I die. Duh. There is no absolute standard you and demonstrate objectively. Only might makes right. I'll fight you, and if me and my fellow travelers have enough power, we will overcome you, (you sadist.) What else is there.CentralScrutinizer_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Barry: Now it may be that you agree with me that the atheist argument from the existence of evil is incoherent. If you do, just saying so would be nice.
Oh, you betcha. The atheist argument against God is, well, B.S., IF they assume that "God" must refer to the classical definition of God. But jettison the classic definition and atheism and any other ism is just as valid as another. The bottom line is, practically speaking, we all judge evil by our own concept of suffering.CentralScrutinizer_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington noted
Changing the subject is not an effective way to response to an argument.
Oh, but it's usually very effective. ;-) ----------------- If there was justice, crime would be punished. It takes time to punish criminals. Justice delayed is justice denied. Therefore, there is no justice. ----------------- Love conquers all. The are some people and nations that remain unconquered. Therefore, love does not exist. ----------------- Time is money. I have plenty of time. Therefore I must have plenty of money. (I don't have much money, therefore I must not have much time.) ----------------- Or how about Evil exists, therefore God is evil--better not make him mad! :o
Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’ “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.“‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ - From Matthew 25 (NIV)
-QQuerius_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

Random thoughts while waiting for Central Scrutinizer to answer Barry's question about the OP: Central Scrutinizer:
The basis for the ought is “I don’t want to suffer.”
The basis of your ought is, "I don't want to suffer." The basis of the sadist ought is, "I want you to suffer." By what standard should your ought prevail?StephenB_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Central asks “refute what exactly”? Well, the answer should be obvious – refute the argument made in the OP if you can. I will try to explain it for you. In the OP I argued that the atheist argument from evil is incoherent. In response, you say, “Give up the classical notion of God and the theodicy problem vanishes.” Well, perhaps it does. But I hope you can see that the statement “Give up the classical notion of God and the theodicy problem vanishes” is not a response to “the atheist argument from evil is incoherent.” Now it may be that you agree with me that the atheist argument from the existence of evil is incoherent. If you do, just saying so would be nice. If you don’t, then perhaps you could favor us with the reasons you disagree. Changing the subject is not an effective way to response to an argument.Barry Arrington_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

Barry, Refute what exactly? If you jettison the notion of a classical god there is no need to justify the notion of the classic god. Duh. Namely, no need to defend an incoherent theodicy. Elementary, my dear Barry.CentralScrutinizer_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer @ 24: I notice that you did not address, far less refute, the argument in the OP. I assume that if you could refute it you would. Therefore, I will accept your unwillingness to take the argument on as an admission that you cannot refute it. Merry Christmas.Barry Arrington_{December 9, 2013
December
12
Dec
9
09
2013
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply