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.