CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is "The Problem of Evil" a valid argument against the existence of God?
To fellow atheists,
What I have created here is a different form of the "God debate", by inviting you to debate on whether "The Problem of Evil" has any force as an argument against the existence of God.
To theists,
While you are invited to debate as well, please refrain from pointless ad hominems and engage in the rigour of logical and intellectual debate with the atheists.
A skeleton outline:
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. (As defined by Christian theologians and philosophers.) 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to elimiate all evil. 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. 5. Evil exists. 6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God does not have the power to eliminate all evil, or does not know when evil exists, or does not have the desire to eliminate all evil. Conclusion: Therefore, God doesn't exist.
(Taken from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
It is valid in the sense that if all the premises are true the conclusion must follow, but from experience most Christians who argue against this would argue that all the premises aren't true particularly number 4. Many Christians will argue that God doesn't want to remove all evil, that humans create evil and God allows it to exist as some sort of lesson to mankind.
The question then becomes, would a benevolent God allow evil to exist as a lesson to mankind?
I absolutely agree on this proposition. Basically, even if God doesn't exist as a humankind, it's still the Christians' responsibility to do such Evil Acts. But it doesn't mean that God is really nonexistent.
Theists will redefine god for a specific situation, so this won't really sway most.
As Bohemian stated, the smarter theists understand the inherent contradiction and use the "testing humans" loophole. Or the smarter ones still realize even the "testing humans" scenario is flawed because as a test god would swoop in at the last second and save say innocent victims of his "test." So they will say in order to ensure free will, the greater good, sometimes he must allow humans to do evil.
Where it falls apart is though (if it has not already, in my mind it has but the theist will cling to one of the above excuses), it falls apart with the concept of eternal damnation and equally eternal damnation regardless of offense.
Our knowledge and ability for evil are limited, a fair and just god realizing this would be less extreme in his vengence.
The non-fire and brimstone theists say it is not fire and all that for eternity, but just a separation from god. It still falls apart because according to these religions picking the wrong god is as worthy of eternal separation as mass murder.
I think your point that God gives people free will itself might be a logical argument against God, though it challenges a slightly different contention. The argument I am about to make challenges the idea that God is time-less (or outside of time), as postulated by Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis.
Let me try to make the argument as succinct as possible. Suppose God timelessly knows a person's choice (let's call this "choice A") and He knows that a human could (and would) claim to have made "choice A" freely. Philosophically, if "choice A" is in the timeless realm, then it must follow that it is, therefore, now-necessary that "choice A" exists. However, if it is now-necessary that "choice A" is made, then "choice A" cannot be otherwise (by definition of the term "necessary"). What this means is that there are no actual "possibilities" due to the predestination of "choice A". According to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, if the person cannot do otherwise when he/she acts, he/she cannot be said to have acted "freely". Therefore, when a person makes a choice, he/she will not do it freely, if we grant that a timeless God exists.
By extension, if the above argument holds water (and I would argue that it does), then we can grant that God does not exist. Why? This is because a major criticism of the Kalam Cosmological Argument would then be a logical criticism.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is as follows:
Premise 1.: Everything that begins to exist, has to have a cause.
Premise 2.: The universe began to exist.
Premise 3.: The universe has a cause.
Premise 4.: And that cause is God.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
Theists often justify Premise 4 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument by saying that if the beginning of the universe is the beginning of space and time, then the cause of the beginning of the universe must be beyond space and time. And the only entity that fulfill such conditions is a maximally powerful and good, timeless and space-less God.
What the argument I have laid out does would then challenge the idea of a timeless God. If God is not timeless, that means He also began to exist. And if He indeed did begin to exist, He must have a cause (for if any theist would argue to the contrary, he/she would immediately be refuting the theistic Kalam Cosmological Argument and, indeed, other forms of the cosmological argument altogether). What we would have here would turn out to be an infinite regress where the question "Who/what created God?" would be a logically acceptable question. Both philosophically and mathematically, an actual infinity is impossible. For example, if we were to ask, "What is infinite minus infinite?", we would get self-contradictory answers. Therefore, it follows that with the impossibility of an infinite regress, then the cosmological argument falls short because its assumption that God is timeless is false. Furthermore, if God was created, then the idea that He is omnipotent simply does not hold true because He could not have created Himself. Hence, an omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect God cannot exist.
I agree with your conclusion 100%. I also believe the debate argument is a valid one for a god fitting all of the description and if I'm accepting the premises laid out.
On to your reply, I find the most interesting jump that everyone ignores is Premise 2:
What makes us think the Universe must have "began" to exist?
Why couldn't it simply always have been?
Most would say "we observe everything around us begins and ends, therefore it is logical to assume there is a very good chance even the things we cannot observe, or have not been around long enough to observe, must begin and end."
I disagree though.
What if the natural state of everything is simply existence? And the state of existence is determined by the various forces, atoms, chemicals etc all around us?
Sure a human dies, but their body decomposes and is used for other things. Stars explode but dust moves on to something else.
I think nothing actually ever "ends" completely, it just changes. You literally cannot get rid of stuff, put it on a rocket ship to the center of the sun and it just becomes part of that sun until it explodes with that sun and moves on to other places in the Universe, always there though, in pieces, different, but there. If "things" cannot actually really "end" why must things "begin"? I would say beginning and ending are a myth, something made up by man because our particular state right now, consciousness has a measurable beginning and end. So I would say the premise is wrong.
Oops. I was not meant to dispute your argument. I was supposed to support it. I think I clicked the wrong button.
Anyway, with regards to your reply, I think that the common theist reply to the second premise is that the universe has a beginning. The most commonly quoted astrophysics research is some thing called the "cosmic inflation", a theorem formulated by cosmologists Arvin Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin (I've linked the actual research paper below). Other theologians have also argued that on both philosophical and mathematical grounds, an actual infinite history of the Universe is impossible. The most prominent theologian I can think of that argues using astrophysics, philosophy and mathematics is Professor William Lane Craig. I don't know if you've heard him debate or not.
However, I don't readily accept his arguments. I tend to your position that the basic elements may reorganise themselves such that we might not actually "create" something in the sense that it "begins" to exist. However, as I am not trained in philosophy of science, I can't readily provide good answers to such questions.
Another way I would argue is to quote David Hume, the father of modern philosophy. David Hume posited a powerful argument called the "Bundle Theory". To put is simply, Hume argues that since every thing is made up of a bundle of properties or characteristics, our sense data merely affirms such bundles of properties. Therefore, the only real things that exist are the properties and not the things themselves. It might seem abstract, but let me contextualise it. Suppose we take a sliver of transparent glass. Now, we might describe it to possess a bundle of characteristics such as sharp, transparent, brittle and even it's chemical properties etc. But the can't say, "the piece of transparent glass exists." We can, however, affirm that the characteristics do exist in a particular bundle that we are holding.
Hume's "Bundle Theory" is widely accepted because there simply isn't anything without a property, and I dare anyone to dispute that. This is largely in opposition to the French philosopher Rene Descartes' argument "cogito ergo sum" (or "I think, therefore I am").
Yes, it definitely is a very valid argument. It shows the contradiction of the idea of God. If one is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and benevolent (all-loving), ideally, that person, or in this case, deity, is perfect and will have perfection.
God is described as having all of these qualities, and because of this, His existence is disproved for many reasons.
For example, one could bring up the topic of natural disasters. God is benevolent, meaning that He would not want people to be harmed by these disasters. Seeing that He is omnipotent and omniscient, He knows that they will occur and has the power to prevent them, or to not create them in the first place. But why do they still occur? For natural disasters to occur, He has to have an absence of one of those qualities. He could be both omnipotent and benevolent, and just not know when they will occur. Or He could be benevolent and omniscient, and not have any power over the disasters. Or He could be omniscient and omnipotent, and not feel any remorse for those that die in those disasters.
This is just one example as to why "The Problem of Evil" is a valid argument. It can be applied to many aspects of life. If need be, I can post other examples to show how, in other ways, it is a good argument.
Finally, someone who recognises that the word "evil" also refers to natural disasters as well, and not "moral evil" per se. This is because although natural disasters are not inherently morally evil, the failure to act on our part to help fellow Homo sapiens is a moral evil. Why do you think that so many unfortunate people are suffering and dying of AIDS and famine in Africa?
Glad to hear your perspective on the argument. I would add that this view seems closest to those of the world's foremost utilitarian philosopher Prof. Peter Singer (from Princeton University).
I don't agree that the word 'evil' refers to natural disasters as well. Evil is a religious connotation to what is morally wrong. I would even go as far as to say that there really is no such thing as evil because the concept denotes an absolute wrong, and there are no absolutes on the topic of ethics where subjectivity is such a huge factor.
Yes, people die in natural disasters, but the unwillingness of humankind to help their fellow species in need is not a measure of ‘evil’ on the part of the natural disaster, it is a measure of morals on the individual who possess them, or lacks them whatever the case may be.
Evil is a religious connotation to what is morally wrong.
The religious do not have a monopoly over ethics and morals. You can be a person without a religion and still be ethical or moral. According to the OED, the word 'evil' means "To do evil to; to harm or injure; to ill-treat; to affect with disease." That is definition. Thus, since natural hazards (a better word than 'disasters', since hazards refer to situations that harm human lives and property) literally harm and injure, they can be considered "natural evils".
the unwillingness of humankind to help their fellow species in need is not a measure of ‘evil’ on the part of the natural disaster, it is a measure of morals on the individual who possess them, or lacks them whatever the case may be.
Which was exactly what I was saying. The question of to what extent one should help others in need is a deep ethical question. One of the most influential philosophers Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University argues very strongly that we should help to the fullest extent of our abilities as long as there are no moral or ethical costs to ourselves. Thus, if you take the utilitarian and/or consequentialists perspective, an inability to help is literally evil.
Omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence follow from infinite perfection (the only necessary trait for a god figure), not the other way 'round. One can deny the necessity of ascribing these qualities to a perfect entity by denying the existence of objective knowledge, power and morality, respectively.
The argument does not ascribe qualities to a perfect entity. It merely states that a perfect entity (such as God) exhibit such characteristics (as seen from the first premiss).
I absolutely agree. If God existed and was omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and benevolent (all-loving), then we obviously wouldn't even be having this debate!
You can't argue that (in his omniscience and benevolence) he gives us choice and free will and that's where evil originates, because that immediately means that he is either not omnipotent or that he is omnipotent only within some laws of the universe.
Add to this our obviously evolved need to believe in a god / gods and our fantastic and now scientifically documented ability to self-deceive for our own (psychological & other) benefit and it is clear where "god" comes from:
Our own minds and those who have for millenia, and still do profit from "him" for the better and worse of man-kind.
It is in NO WAY a valid argument against the existence of a God in general.
I agree with your statement in general, but I disagree with it in this context. Read the debate question again. It says, "Is "The Problem of Evil" a valid argument against the existence of God". Not "a God", but "God". So, your comment would be attacking straw man, since the argument laid out is very clear that it is an argument against the Judeo-Christian God.
the argument laid out is very clear that it is an argument against the Judeo-Christian God
Is it? Because the question does not specify that it is a Judeo-Christian god. It says "the existence of God." To say that implies that it is a Judeo-Christian god means that you accept that the only God that could possibly exist is the Judeo-Christian god. That is a premise I reject.
I am not attacking a straw man. The question very clearly states, "a valid argument against the existence of God?" That is quite a broad statement for such a specific counter-argument.
Look at premise 1. It states categorically that, "If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect." Thus, the God (specifically in this context) refers to the Judeo-Christian God.
To say that implies that it is a Judeo-Christian god means that you accept that the only God that could possibly exist is the Judeo-Christian god.
This is attacking straw man because I have never said (neither have I implied) that "the only God that could possibly exist is the Judeo-Christian god". However, it seems to me that since most deities in history have been "discarded", so to speak, there are very few deities we could possibly postulate does exist. This argument would thus be specific only to the Judeo-Chrisitan God, or any deity with the characteristics laid out in the first premise. If you are not familiar with philosophy of religion, I suggest you do some background reading before attacking straw man again.
Wow. It is premise 1, yes, OF WHAT? The counter-argument. This is a very simple concept. The counter-arguments disproves (or attempts to) the existence of a JUDEO-CHRISTIAN god. The question, however, does not specify what God.
The counter-argument is a straw man.
The question is asking whether it is a valid argument against the existence of a nonspecific God. The counter-argument only disproves the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect Judeo-Christian God as described by Abrahamic texts.
You are citing the counter-argument. Why? It is completely unrelated to the God in the question. Thus, for the very reason you pointed out, the argument is not valid.
And i'm glad to see you have resorted to down-voting my comments because you (falsely) disagree.
I think your question of whether or not the God in question refers to the Judeo-Christian God has already been answered in another reply I wrote.
The counter-argument is a straw man.
First, you have not established a good argument for why the Problem of Evil is a straw man. Second, I don't even think you understand what a straw man is.
The counter-argument only disproves the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect Judeo-Christian God as described by Abrahamic texts.
No, it does not only disprove the Judeo-Christian God. It disproves the existence of any God that can be described as omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect.
It is completely unrelated to the God in the question.
So what do you think is "the God in the question"? Your very comment contradicts yourself. First, you say that the question "does not specify what God", next you say that there is, apparently, "the God in the question". Note, not a God, but the God. So, what do you think is the God in the question?
And i'm glad to see you have resorted to down-voting my comments because you (falsely) disagree.
I think your question of whether or not the God in question refers to the Judeo-Christian God has already been answered in another reply I wrote.
Really? Because the question is very nonspecific. Where in the question is there any mention of Judeo-Christianity? It doesn't. I am answering the question, and the question say "God" not "any God that can be described as omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect."
First, you have not established a good argument for why the Problem of Evil is a straw man. Second, I don't even think you understand what a straw man is.
I actually have. The question asks if it a valid argument against any God. The argument disproves the existence of omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect Judeo-Christian god.
Let me make this simple:
If asked for you to disprove the existence of fruits and you only disproved the existence of oranges, have you disproved the existence of all fruits? No.
It disproves the existence of any God that can be described as omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect.
Fine. Let's accept that. Even accepting that, you are wrong. The question asks if it disproves God. You disprove the existence of an "omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect" god.
So what do you think is "the God in the question"? Your very comment contradicts yourself. First, you say that the question "does not specify what God", next you say that there is, apparently, "the God in the question". Note, not a God, but the God. So, what do you think is the God in the question?
the question say "God" not "any God that can be described as omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect."
If you accept the current academic literature on theology in general, you would see that what you have said is an unlettered statement. One example would be from Princeton (link below).
The question asks if it a valid argument against any God.
No. Again, it says "against the existence of God". And not "against the existence of any God". You still have not answered my question. In your reply prior to your unintelligible rebuttal, you have stated that the "Problem of Evil" does not disprove "the God in the question". Now, are you assuming that there is a specific God you are subscribing to for the sake of argument?
Finally, your ignorance is appalling. Perhaps you're the typical "village atheists" that the theists are so fond of stereotyping. First, you clearly have no idea what a straw man argument is. Next, you can't even recognise the epistemological term "red herring". You obviously need to study epistemology and familiarise yourself with the terms.
If you accept the current academic literature on theology in general, you would see that what you have said is an unlettered statement. One example would be from Princeton (link below).
I went to that link. It describes "God" as "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force."
Just a helpful tip: Don't cite evidence that disproves your point.
against the existence of God
Using the evidence YOU gave, God is not by definition omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect. You have disproved your own point. Congratulations.
Finally, your ignorance is appalling. Perhaps you're the typical "village atheists" that the theists are so fond of stereotyping. First, you clearly have no idea what a straw man argument is. Next, you can't even recognise the epistemological term "red herring". You obviously need to study epistemology and familiarise yourself with the terms.
Whatever you say...
And I know what a red herring is, I just don't think you do.
Just a helpful tip: Don't cite evidence that disproves your point.
Now that is a straw man. If you are to argue against my point, you need to cite all of the site and not only part of it. This is the sort of cherry picking I would only expect from the less rational theists. Furthermore, that definition actually proves that God can be described or characterised as omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. According to the OED, "supernatural" refers to "That is above nature; belonging to a higher realm or system than that of nature; transcending the powers or the ordinary course of nature." Since in the natural world, beings are powerful, but not all-powerful (the same is true for knowledge and morality), it is perfectly plausible to think that a supernatural being is all-knowing, all-powerfully and morally perfect. And just in case you accuse me of cherry-picking, here is the supporting definition from the OED, "Relating to, dealing with, or characterized by what is above nature."
You have disproved your own point. Congratulations.
See above.
And I know what a red herring is, I just don't think you do.
Certainly I do. I have studied the specific branch of philosophy called "epistemology" for over 2 years now. I do understand what logical fallacies are.
If god is not omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect, why would people worship him and consider him divine? Then, it can be considered that since he only have the characteristics and abilities of a normal human. Thus, the divine rank can be merged with the human rank in the hierarchical list of organisms. It would be the same as worshiping a human, here on Earth. And since the definition of god prohibits so, it can be stated that god doesn't exist.
Well, I've covered this before, and even though my response may not be descriptive enough, the point is good enough:
In a purely logical debate, it's rubbish to try to say "why would God allow evil to happen?"
First of all, ya morons, if we were debating on God's existence, we would have to accept that if he did exist, we would NOT understand his true intentions. We're human beings that are limited by the physical realm. God is supposed to be supernatural and powerful and shit. So saying "if God does exist, he's an asshole for letting evil happen" is admitting that you're an ignorant fool who isn't serious about reasoning.
The same goes for "what created God" arguments.
I hate stupid debate tactics by the people who are supposed to be the smarter ones.
First of all, ya morons, if we were debating on God's existence, we would have to accept that if he did exist, we would NOT understand his true intentions. We're human beings that are limited by the physical realm. God is supposed to be supernatural and powerful and shit. So saying "if God does exist, he's an asshole for letting evil happen" is admitting that you're an ignorant fool who isn't serious about reasoning.
The problem of evil aka Epicurus' riddle, doesn't attempt to understand the intentions behind God's actions nor does it need to. If we are to concede that allowing evil to exist contradicts the characteristic of 'benevolence' then it doesn't matter what the intentions are.
On the other hand, if you are to argue that allowing evil to exist doesn't contradict the characteristic of 'benevolence' because God is acting upon some unknown motive, this then becomes an argument from ignorance.
To say that "God allows evil to exist because he is acting on good intentions, but we don't know what those intentions are" is an unconvincing argument because without knowing what those intentions are how can we be certain such good intentions even exist or are even possible. You are essentially assuming that some unknown, and unverified information will confirm your conclusion. It is easily countered simply by assuming the inverse.
You're basing your argument on the assumption that in order for God to exists, someone MUST know what God's intentions are.
Did you read my response? I'm not making that argument at all. I'm making the argument that "we don't know God's intentions" just assumes that there is some unknown unverified information that would confirm the theists conclusion. These unknown intentions could just as easily be bad as they could be good, so it doesn't help the theists argument at all. It's an argument from ignorance.
The statement: "We don't know God's intentions therefore they must be good intentions." Is self-contradictory.
In other words, I don't need to know God's intentions are but for the arguer to know that the unknown intentions are good intentions, he must know what those intentions are which he has already admitted that he doesn't.
So? Is that the premise of this debate? No. Just because theists, to you, are bad at arguing doesn't mean that you've found the magical formula to argue against THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
I have never claimed to have a magic formula, and I don't know why you seem to be upset by the fact that this particular argument for the existence of God is such a poor argument. Arguments for the existence of God in general are usually pretty bad to begin with, this is why belief in God is usually relegated to faith. I can argue against theists so effectively, not because of some magic formula, but through years of experience in doing just that.
The people here who say that the OP's argument isn't valid, say this because they do not know what it means for an argument to be valid or invalid. They have this notion that a valid argument = a true argument, but this is not what it means for something to be valid. What they really mean to say is that they don't believe the argument to be sound, which is entirely different from it being valid.
True, I didn't really pay much attention to the different use of words (valid vs. sound vs. coherent).
So I'll agree with you there. The argument is bullshit, but that doesn't, technically, make it invalid. It argues on the premise that God can only exist if there is no evil.
I suppose it's just as fair, then, to say that "God definitely exists since chickens exist" is a valid argument, and then when someone gets all upset with that argument, I'll just say "no, you forgot about the fact that my premise is that chickens can only exist in a Universe that God does".
I'm quite sure that's what the OP meant. He was making a point about the bullshit tactics that Atheists CAN use if they want.
I was never really into that style of argument, though (I like to troll, but I'm being satirical when I do it; not serious).
Just because theists, to you, are bad at arguing doesn't mean that you've found the magical formula to argue against THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
First, I don't think that Bohemian thinks that all theists are bad at arguing. As an atheist, I also would have to give enormous credit to excellent theist philosophers such as Prof. William Lane Craig, Prof. Alvin Plantinga and Prof. Richard Swinburne. So it's unfair to accuse any atheist, including Bohemian, for making generalisations.
Next, I do agree that just because theists are bad at arguing, it does not mean that the atheists have the answer. Obviously, this is a false dilemma. However, what it does show is that the theists have no good argument for the existence of God. So, we can quite safely say that perhaps the atheists have the "upper hand" here. Until a theist can give good arguments for the existence of God that disputes the "Problem of Evil", then the balance in this debate will tilt in favour of the atheists.
The Problem of Evil argues that God is not merciful, at best.
To say that "evil exists, so God doesn't exist" is to say that God is a being that can only exist in a realm without evil.
Why make such a claim?
It's one thing to attack Christians on this, but even so, theologians have their tactics. But to somehow claim that "God can't exist, look at all the evil" is a fallacy.
Deists believe that God made the Universe and has nothing to do with our personal lives (he's unconcerned or w/e). That belief by itself nullifies any claim that "God doesn't exist because evil exists".
The Problem of Evil argues that God is not merciful, at best.
Yes. That is indeed the basis of the argument. But it would be unfair for you to say, "at best". This is because the "Problem of Evil" does not challenge anything else but the inconsistencies and the contradictions between the traits of the supposed God. In fact, your statement actually supports the argument in the sense that you agree that it logically argues that God is not merciful. That is, in itself, already a direct contradiction of the supposed "creator" being morally perfect and/or omnibenevolent, as many Christian theists espouse.
To say that "evil exists, so God doesn't exist" is to say that God is a being that can only exist in a realm without evil.
This is a blatant straw man because the statement ignores every single premise except for the one that says "Evil exist". Thus, your argument assumes that the "Problem of Evil" postulates a false dilemma, when actually it doesn't.
It's one thing to attack Christians on this, but even so, theologians have their tactics.
I don't think that any atheists here have argued ad hominem. To say that atheists "attack Christians" is a gross misrepresentation. As far as I know, atheists argue against their world view and not their character as people. If any atheist attacks a theist's character in order to show that their beliefs are illogical, then you may well be justified to accuse them of argumentum ad hominem.
Deists believe that God made the Universe and has nothing to do with our personal lives (he's unconcerned or w/e). That belief by itself nullifies any claim that "God doesn't exist because evil exists".
This is yet another straw man. The "Problem of Evil" clearly is challenging the existence of a personal being. This is evident from the first premise.
So that we're clear, you mean "A Personal God who cares about us". Yes, maybe it was too long for the title (good use of the debate description, though).
Anyway, read my response to the other dude (like, the end of the argument, you may have to click a bunch of "show alls").
I will say this: Sure, if we decide to limit or unlimit God to certain qualities, we can make any bullshit argument we want. If it were as simple as "existence of God", Evil would have no "problem"... hell, evil, to me, doesn't even exist. So if I tried to argue that evil exists, I would just be lying to myself.
Maybe I hold Atheists to a higher standard. i have to remember that Atheists aren't always like me. After all, the only thing that makes you Atheist is disbelief in God. You can believe in other made up things (like evil, and a definition of God that doesn't account for Deism).
Perhaps I should have been clearer. When I said personal being, I meant that the argument is a challenge to a "personal God" as espoused by theists of the Abrahamic tradition. I hope this clears the confusion up.
Sure, if we decide to limit or unlimit God to certain qualities, we can make any bullshit argument we want.
I might be misunderstanding your statement here (so correct me if I am wrong), but the argument has not in any way "limited (or unlimited) God to certain qualities". Look at premise one. This premise merely states some of the characteristics of the supposed God. It does not, in any way, assert (or argue) that these are God's only characteristics.
hell, evil, to me, doesn't even exist.
This is something that you have not proven. But moving on...
Maybe I hold Atheists to a higher standard. i have to remember that Atheists aren't always like me. After all, the only thing that makes you Atheist is disbelief in God.
I don't know what you mean by the first statement that I have quoted, but I can offer other (to my mind) sound arguments why I do not believe in God. The "Problem of Evil" is one of the more plausible arguments that I subscribe to. For example, one way I can do argue against the existence of God is to show that there are no good theistic arguments for the existence of God by challenging the cosmological, ontological, teleological and moral arguments for God's existence. Another way I could do this is to put forth positive arguments why I don't believe in God. And these are the "God of the gaps" and perhaps the free will argument, just to name two.
The educated kind. I am a sceptic first and an atheist second. Scepticism is basically the epistemological position that true knowledge is unattainable. So, we cannot know for certain whether God does or does not exist. However, we can talk about on balance of probabilities, it is more plausible to believe that he does not. Arguments against the existence of God would less be to postulate a certainty that he does not exist, but aim to support the position that he does not.
Furthermore, I do not think that atheists are expected to prove that God does not exist. That problem of the burden of proof has already been solved by the British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell through his famous Celestial Teapot argument. It is now logically accepted that the burden of proof lies in the person who makes the claim and not the one who is trying to disprove the claim.
The omnibenevolence of god relies on the existence of a non-existent objective morality. God can't be something that isn't, even if it is perfect in every other way.
However, the idea of an objective morality is one that theists subscribe to. That is where they derive another argument for the existence of God called "the moral argument". This takes the position expressed by the Russian author (in The Brothers Karamazov) that, "If there is no God, everything is permissible."
I don't think it's wise to generalize the beliefs of such a broad group of people so carelessly. Just as not all Atheists believe in abiogenesis or the big bang or even evolutionary theory, not all theists will find all arguments favoring the existence of god valid. Practically no theist I know, for example, is in any way partial to the "irreducible complexity"/banana argument; that doesn't make them any less theistic than those who are. You should be more judicious about your choices of language.
Practically no theist I know, for example, is in any way partial to the "irreducible complexity"/banana argument; that doesn't make them any less theistic than those who are.
Perhaps this is a false analogy. (By the way, I do agree that what I should have said was, "most theists agree that an objective morality does exist.") However, let me defend my contention here. Theists believe that their deity (the Judeo-Christian God, in this context) gave them a set of moral codes/laws that they must necessarily follow (e.g. the Ten Commandments, again, in this context). This is perfectly in-line with my statement when I say that theists (at least Christians) believe that an objective morality does exist because, in philosophy, the term objective refers to something that is "mind independent" (i.e. not derived from the mind). If God is not, in any way, human (a point that all theists agree on), and the moral codes they abide by are decreed by Him, then the moral codes/laws can be, justifiably, seen as "objective". Thus, the idea that theists (I am referring to Christians, in this context) believe in an objective morality is perfectly in-line with the idea that the Ten Commandments, as decreed by their God, must be adhered to.
This argument is called the theistic "Moral Argument" for the existence of God, summarised as follows:
1. If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist.
2. Objective morals do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
This is an argument that I find to be without any force (to prove the existence of God), but that is a question we should reserve for another debate altogether.
Evil is a relative term. Were one to assume the existence of God (specifically the Christian God), one may logically conclude that there is not necessarily anything evil in the world. That is, anything a human may perceive as evil is not necessarily truly evil. Even if we redefine evil to be a sin (considered as a violation of one or more of the Ten Commandments), one may consider God to consider a "sin" worthy of hell, even if on his absolute scale of morality (since he is omniscient as one of the assumptions, his scale must be absolute), the sin is not technically evil. Therefore, hell is reserved for those who sin, not necessarily those who are evil. And therefore, since hell is not a punishment, per se, just a way of organizing sinners vs. non sinners, God remains morally perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent.
Essentially my argument boils down to disputing assumption 5, i.e. I contend there is no evil (in the absolute sense).
Evil is a relative term. Were one to assume the existence of God (specifically the Christian God), one may logically conclude that there is not necessarily anything evil in the world.
Essentially my argument boils down to disputing assumption 5, i.e. I contend there is no evil (in the absolute sense).
Except the Bible has on multiple occasions explicitly stated that there is evil.
Therefore, hell is reserved for those who sin, not necessarily those who are evil. And therefore, since hell is not a punishment, per se, just a way of organizing sinners vs. non sinners
Yes, and soviet Gulags were just meant to impris-....um...I mean separate anti-Bolsheviks from pro-Bolsheviks .
"Except the Bible has on multiple occasions explicitly stated that there is evil."
The Bible was written by humans. Humans are fallible. Therefore, the Bible is not necessarily true. I am basing my assumptions of God off of a generic God that is omnipotent, morally perfect, and omniscient. As such, the Bible is relatively irrelevant in the debate.
"Yes, and soviet Gulags were just meant to impris-....um...I mean separate anti-Bolsheviks from pro-Bolsheviks."
This is a false comparison, since it originates with the assumption that the Soviets were omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect.
The Bible was written by humans. Humans are fallible. Therefore, the Bible is not necessarily true.
I agree, but had you not decided to include "specifically the Christian God" you might have a point.
This is a false comparison, since it originates with the assumption that the Soviets were omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect.
And you think that I'm assuming the soviet union is morally perfect? I wasn't aware that one had to be morally perfect to punish another. The separation of two groups does not preclude punishment. This was the error that I was attempting to point out in your reasoning. That two groups are being separated does not mean one of them isn't being punished.
"I agree, but had you not decided to include "specifically the Christian God" you might have a point."
True, I did concede the Christian God, but considering how there is a broad spectrum of Christian beliefs, we must include the most general concept of a Christian God. That is, the fundamental Christian God is the solitary deity that created all life, the universe, and everything. Many Christians dispute various aspects of God, but all agree on God as the ultimate Creator (and as being omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect).
"The separation of two groups does not preclude punishment. "
But neither does it necessitate it. We may apply Occam's Razor in this instance and demonstrate that God would feel no compulsion to punish the sinners as far as fire and brimstone are concerned (because that is just adding conditions to his existence, and this condition is not necessary for his existence). Again this is not to assert that God would feel inclined to give benefits to non-sinners.
Another way of looking at it is that, as God is morally perfect he would not be compelled to punish the sinners.
Many Christians dispute various aspects of God, but all agree on God as the ultimate Creator (and as being omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect).
The existence of good implies the existence of evil. Yes or No?
But neither does it necessitate it.
In this case it does.
Another way of looking at it is that, as God is morally perfect he would not be compelled to punish the sinners.
And yet he does. Hell is always described as an unpleasant and even torturous place.
"They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
This is more than mere separation, it is punishment, whether you want to call it that or not.
The existence of good implies the existence of evil. Yes or No?"
Yes, but then I would posit that there is no such thing as absolute good, similar to there being no absolute evil. God is merely sorting what he would arbitrarily deem sins and sinners from non-sins and non-sinners.
As I pointed out previously, I am not proposing that the Bible is necessarily completely true. Accounts of "hell" are from the Bible, which was written by humans, or it is derived from an interpretation of passages from the Bible. Either way, it is an account that is not born from omniscient knowledge of existence, and therefore one may not regard it is fact.
Yes, but then I would posit that there is no such thing as absolute good
How can a morally perfect being such as God not be absolutely good?
God is merely sorting what he would arbitrarily sins and sinners from non-sins and non-sinners.
How can an omniscient being, who originally conceived of sin, arbitrarily decide what constitutes a sin and?
And if according to your logic even an omniscient being can reason arbitrarily, does it not imply that whether a judgement of Good or Evil is arbitrarily conceived or not is irrelevant?
As I pointed out previously, I am not proposing that the Bible is necessarily completely true.
So you have elected not to refute some fairly basic scientific concepts? Always a plus.
Accounts of "hell" are from the Bible, which was written by humans
Who were divinely inspired by God. Any fallacies contained within the book must therefore be conscious deception on the deity's part.
Either way, it is an account that is not born from omniscient knowledge of existence, and therefore one may not regard it is fact.
Then you must accept that any sections contained within the book can only be arbitrarily accepted to be true, where they cannot be refuted or proved by logic.
"How can a morally perfect being such as God not be absolutely good?"
Let me first ask your definition of morally perfect.
"And if according to your logic even an omniscient being can reason arbitrarily, does it not imply that whether a judgement of Good or Evil is arbitrarily conceived or not is irrelevant?"
Let me see if I understood your correctly. You are saying that since God is capable of reasoning arbitrarily, wouldn't that make the arbitrary conception of Good or Evil judgments irrelevant? If this is so, then yes, I would agree. Since the being's judgments are arbitrary, then its definition of what is Good or Evil is similarly arbitrary. However, just because it is arbitrary does not mean it cannot also be an absolute judgement.
"Then you must accept that any sections contained within the book can only be arbitrarily accepted to be true, where they cannot be refuted or proved by logic."
Let me first ask your definition of morally perfect.
Insusceptible of malice.
You are saying that since God is capable of reasoning arbitrarily, wouldn't that make the arbitrary conception of Good or Evil judgments irrelevant?
Essentially. Perhaps more succinctly, if God reasons arbitrarily, how can he be an absolute authority?
However, just because it is arbitrary does not mean it cannot also be an absolute judgement.
Here lies the rub. If a God reasons arbitrarily, then His judgement cannot be said to be of greater intrinsic worth than that of a human, who also reasons arbitrarily.
Yes, I do accept this.
Then by what means do you select which sections to adhere to, and which to eschew?
How can an omniscient being, who originally conceived of sin, arbitrarily decide what constitutes a sin and?
And if according to your logic even an omniscient being can reason arbitrarily, does it not imply that whether a judgement of Good or Evil is arbitrarily conceived or not is irrelevant?
This is a quite an ingenious piece of logic. Such an argument is almost congruent to the "Free Will" argument against the existence of God.
The Bible was written by humans. Humans are fallible. Therefore, the Bible is not necessarily true.
How shocking is this? A Christian theist who claims that the Bible is not necessarily true
This is a false comparison, since it originates with the assumption that the Soviets were omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect.
This does not commit the false analogy fallacy as Bohemian was supporting the premiss that "Evil exists" and not the premiss that "God is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect".
"How shocking is this? A Christian theist who claims that the Bible is not necessarily true"
Don't presume to know what I believe.
"This does not commit the false analogy fallacy as Bohemian was supporting the premiss that "Evil exists" and not the premiss that "God is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect"."
He was comparing my bureaucratic sorting of "sinners" by God to the imprisonment, torture, and execution of millions of innocents (innocent in the human sense, of course). Therefore, if he is to say we may compare my assumed deity, then his comparison must follow the same assumptions, i.e. that the comparison must be omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Since the Soviets are human (by definition, not a deity), they subject people to, and are influenced by, the human interpretation of morality which is relative. Therefore, the comparison is false.
Say however that humans are incapable of "making up" concepts that don't in some form exist, like evil (ontological theory sort of).
Do you think theists who buy this theory would then be forced to either except that A. humans are capable of creating cerebral concepts that do not actually exist, or B. that yes evil must exist since we have a sense of it and we are incapable of creation on this scale?
I'm disputing because I do not accept the premise in general. I think that humans, though not always correct in defining evil, have every right for ourselves to determine what is or is not evil. After all we are humans, why shouldn't we have this power over our own destiny? And why should we give this authority to a god who is not human, real or imagined?
That is a different argument entirely from yours though.
But, if we now assume your theory is correct, (A) would quite quickly be seen as a theist as an argument against a deity, and (B) doesn't imply any sort of existence for any deity, just provides a basis for the existence of evil which is, in and of itself, independent from a belief in a deity. However, I still believe my initial assumptions still hold because, for our intents and purposes, "evil" exists as a manifestation of violating what we believe to be right or wrong. I am not saying that a human interpretation of evil does not exist. I am merely saying that this human interpretation of evil is not a form of absolute evil, which only the God would know by virtue of being omnipotent. Therefore, this absolute evil does not exist although the human interpretation of evil may.
"I think that humans, though not always correct in defining evil, have every right for ourselves to determine what is or is not evil."
My premise and argument in no way precludes the human race from developing laws, regulations, and society around its concept of evil. It merely points out that the "problem of evil" cannot disprove the existence of God. There is an a priori assumption of mine that there is no such thing as absolute evil, merely the relative interpretations of human evil. After all, history shows humanity on a sliding scale in terms of what it believes is evil or not.
For the sake of argument, how would you classify acts such as rape or indiscriminate genocide?
I ask this only because some of the most prominent theists, notably Prof. William Lane Craig, argue that there exists an "objective morality". And that such a position actually supports their view that God exists.
Let me put down Prof. Craig's version of the "Moral Argument".
1. If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist.
2. Objective morals do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
He supports the first premise by saying that for something to be "objective", it must be 'mind-independent'. He then supports the second argument by pointing to acts such as rape and genocide (which is why I've asked my question).
I would tend towards your position of relativism, but would like to hear your argument against that.
I, personally, would classify rape or indiscriminate genocide as evil acts. But I am not God. In my argument, I have stated repeatedly that God is not bound to or even necessarily in agreement with our definitions of evil.
I also do not necessarily agree with Prof. Craig. I would mostly object to the first assumption. I would posit that the converse is correct: If objective morality does not exist then God does not exist. I don't see the necessity for a God to exist, but it seems to me that a God could not exist if objective morality did not also, a priori, exist.
Bear with me hear, but I have posted a link to a playlist of Prof. Craig's lecture on the Moral Argument. To restate my stand, I do not subscribe to Prof. Craig's argument at all.
I think you would find that he is of the opinion that rape and indiscriminate genocide are inherently and absolutely evil. Let's forget God for a moment here. How would you argue that such acts cannot be considered to be objectively evil (in the technical sense of the word).
Another one of the weaker theistic arguments against the atheists' opposition to the moral argument is, "If God didn't give us objective moral values and duties, then who (occasionally phrased as 'what') did?"
I would like to hear your opinions against these objections.
"How would you argue that such acts cannot be considered to be objectively evil (in the technical sense of the word)."
Perhaps (and this is me conjecturing wildly now, since we are firmly off-topic and no longer discussing God, but rather my view on God) one could view genocide objectively as a cleansing (and let the flames begin). Or rape as the propagation of a specific gene. These are wildly inappropriate however, and as stated before, I do not condone either of these acts.
""If God didn't give us objective moral values and duties, then who (occasionally phrased as 'what') did?""
I don't subscribe to a necessity of God, as stated before. I said (in my previous argument) that God is not a prerequisite for absolute morality, although absolute morality would be a prerequisite for God.
Actually, I would think that to be a very good argument. Perhaps such an argument would be, in fact, a better argument against Prof. Craig's moral argument.
I only brought in the moral argument because many (more amateur theists) would quote this argument against the "Problem of Evil".
By the way, I will allow no one to flame you as long as I am moderating.
While I would love to have another argument to show that god doesn't exist this one doesn't work for me. You see I am one of the few people that doesn't believe in good or evil. They are just points of view. What one person may consider to be good another may consider to be evil. To claim something is good the majority of people around you would also have to agree with your assessment. If that wasn't the case then they would see you as siding with evil and whatever you thought was good has now been established as being evil. Even if God himself was to say something was evil there will be people who disagree with him. Take for example the fall of Lucifer. For whatever reason Lucifer didn't agree with a lot of Gods beliefs so he rebelled against him and many other angels followed him. Meaning they also didn't agree with a lot of the things that God believed in. So as you see there is no good or evil just majority points of view.
To claim something is good the majority of people around you would also have to agree with your assessment.
This makes your argument deeply fallacious since this statement is perhaps a textbook example (literally speaking) of a fallacy called "argumentum ad populum". Simply put, it is a fallacy because whether or not a large (or majority) number of people agree with a view, it does not have any bearing on whether the view was true or false. One of the best examples I can give is that before the Copernican Theory of heliocentricity was proven to be true, many people, in fact the majority, believed that the Earth was flat. But, as Galileo and Copernicus proved, just because that a majority of the people believe in something, it does not immediately mean that that particular belief is true (or, for the sake of argument, false).
No, because just because he desires to eliminate all evil, doesnt mean he has to. It might be in his plan to let us fall and save us. We will never understand why he does what he does, so dont ask me.
But that supports rather than disputes "The Problem of Evil". Because by saying that we have the freedom to "fuck up" and cause evil outcomes, you're admitting that evil does exist. Thus, according to you, "The Problem of Evil" does hold water because you have not disprove the truth of any of the premises in the argument. In fact, I would say that you actually support the premise that "evil exists".
God, as taught by theologians, is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Something else that you list failed to mention, is that God is all loving. He gave us the freedom to make mistakes. But since humans have been corrupt since the fall, to end all evil he would have to end the human race. He loves us, so He has stayed His hand. Say you had a child, and your child grew up to be a thief. You would acknowledge the evil that they do, but you would still love them. So, no. What I said does not, in anyway, support your supposed problem of evil.
Such an argument simply commits the fallacy of appealing to emotion. Even if I were to accept the fact that God is all-loving, it is flawed to suggest that the mistakes are not inherently wrong or inherently, morally evil. That is simply a flawed argument.
Something else that you list failed to mention, is that God is all loving.
This statement is also fallacious because it takes the a priori assumption that God exists. Read the argument again. The premises starts with "If God...". The word "if" implies a degree of uncertainty. There is no assumption made within the premises themselves whether God does or does not exist. Furthermore, your challenge to premise 1 still fall short to show how the characteristic of being "all-loving" should negate the "Problem of Evil" argument.
Say you had a child, and your child grew up to be a thief.
This is a false analogy. First, the "parent" in this case is not omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect, while God is. Such incongruity already crumbles the analogy. But still, let me refute your analogy anyway.
You would acknowledge the evil that they do, but you would still love them.
First, why should being a thief be inherently evil? You need to prove your claim. Second, even if I were to accept that being a thief is inherently evil, this still does not refute the "Problem of Evil". In fact, it goes further to support the premise which states "Evil exists" in the argument.
What in this world is evil? And what makes it so? Surely God has a much different world view than you. It's not really feasable to attempt to understand the thinking of one who is supernaturally superior.
It's not really feasable to attempt to understand the thinking of one who is supernaturally superior.
I think you need to justify your claim here. You have not provided any argument(s) to support this statement. And even if we were to accept this claim to be true, then you are still contradicting yourself when you say, "Surely God has a much different world view than you." How can you be so sure whether God has a different world view than the person who has formulated the "Problem of Evil" argument? Even if you can be "sure", then is it still feasable for you to "attempt to understand the thinking of one who is supernaturally superior"?
The most glaring flaw of this argument is the ambiguity of the term "evil:" when theists talk about evil, they are most likely referring to that in opposition to god, while others might refer to it as suffering, malicious intent, or any great number of other things. Most would insist, too, that it is more relative than not, which further erodes their argument.
when theists talk about evil, they are most likely referring to that in opposition to god
This immediately negates your argument because this argument takes the assumption that God already exists, giving us a benchmark to judge what evil is. However, the premises in the "Problem of Evil" argument has made no bearing on whether or not God exists. The premises accept the possibility that God exists, evident from how the premises state, "If God exists..." So, to argue against the "Problem of Evil' by taking the assumption that God exists would make your argument not only a circular one, but also seem to commit the fallacy of special pleading.
This immediately negates your argument because this argument takes the assumption that God already exists, giving us a benchmark to judge what evil is
No, it doesn't. Nor does it necessitate our knowledge of evil. Pay special attention to my capitalization of the word "god," as it'll make communication a lot clearer. I'm still talking about the non-Judeo-Christian god.
However, the premises in the "Problem of Evil" argument has made no bearing on whether or not God exists.
Yes, they have. As an argument against the existence of god, which is how you are using it, the problem takes classic reductio form.
I'm still talking about the non-Judeo-Christian god.
No. This statement only makes your argument more convoluted. If you are talking about the "non-Judeo-Christian god", there can be a multitude of supernatural imaginary friends you are talking about, such as Thor, Baal, Amun Ra, Lord Krishna, Apollo or Zeus, and the list goes on. Who is to say that you are not talking about one of the specific or a combination of deities in that list or even speaking of the deist "god"?
As an argument against the existence of god
Obviously you do not understand the argument at all. How can an argument that aims to disprove the existence of God, then assume that he exists? Again, I refer you to the premises that say, "If God exists,..."
No it is not a valid argument. The bad that happens in the world are an important part of life as we know it, whether you look at it from an atheist or theist point of view. Bad things can not only be argued (as from a religious point) that they are a test but also in the less religious arguments that although they make many suffer and no one would wish to see them happen they give us a science of prospective on our own lives and how would we be able to appreciate the good that happens if we dint also experience hardship. Bad thing and good things alike are what make up everything that we know; our morals, sympathies, experiences our personalities and even the world as we know it and effect our society in a way we struggle to understand. For instance the 9/11 bombings was an atrocious act but did it not bring the modern world closer together in condemnation of those who did wrong, yes bad tings should not be encouraged to happen but they are another example of how everything we know is so cleverly designed and interlinked. How can that be a reason for god not existing
Your argument actually inadvertently supports the "Problem of Evil". The premise in the argument only states "Evil exists". It does not talk about the effect of moral and natural evils. It merely states the existence of evil.
Even if I were to accept your argument that the "bad things" will "bring the modern world closer together in condemnation of those who did wrong", which I don't for a minute admit, but even if that was true, it still does not disprove the existence of evil.
And by the way, what in the world is "give us a science of prospective on our own lives" supposed to be saying?
Well firstly there are two different forms of the argument(that I know of) - The logical form and the probabalistic form
The logical form has been dissolved already and is not really used anymore
the probabalistic form is basically saying that it is logically possible but highly unlikely that God would have sufficient reason to allow evil into the world (I.E means to an end arguament in that God did not need to allow such a huge depth of evil in the world to fulfil his goals). In this sense we are not in a position to make this judgement due to our finite capacities. God is omniscient and omnibenevolent thus knows all that will happen and thus we cannot judge in our mortality, his weighing up of the issue.
C.S Lewis talks about the issue alot, however I believe this one stands out amongst the others
"Is this state of affairs in accordance with God's will or not? If it is, He is a strange God, you will say; and if it is not, how can anything happen contrary to the will of a being with absolute power?
But anyone who has been in authority knows how a thing can be in accordance with your will in one way and not in another. It may be quite sensible for a mother to say to the children, "I'm not going to make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You've got to learn to keep it tidy on your own." Then she goes up one night and finds the Teddy bear and the ink and the French Grammar book all lying in the grate. That is against her will. She would prefer the children to be tidy. But on the other hand, it is her will which has left the children free to be untidy. The same thing arises in any regiment, or trade union, or school. You make a thing voluntary and then half the people do not do it. That is not what you willed, but your will has made it possible."
The logical form has been dissolved already and is not really used anymore
Except that Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defence is also plagued with problems which, if accepted, might amount to an argument for atheism.
God is omniscient and omnibenevolent thus knows all that will happen and thus we cannot judge in our mortality, his weighing up of the issue.
Your argument is entirely circular. The evidential Problem of Evil also begins with the premises "If God exists". It makes no assertion either way. However, by saying that we cannot judge his actions, you are already presupposing that he exists. You are simply begging the question by asserting that he exists.
The problem of evil is not 'a valid argument against the existence of a god' ,but i don't think it was ever intended to be. the problem of evil shows the logical inconsistency of god as he is described doctrinally within Christianity. it demonstrates this beyond question, and theists only response is to tap-dance, back pedal, and make excuses.
if you approach it objectively, and logically, you have to admit the logical inconsistency of an all-loving,omnipotent, god, who does nothing as children starve, and suffer disease, genocide, and child molestation.
Christians will often cite 'god's need to preserve free will' as a response, but if one analyzes the argument from free will, he will soon see that free will is Christianity's excuse for a nonexistent god's inability to intervene, where any existent, and moral god would.
a god who refuses to intervene to protect children from genocide, is a god who refuses to answer prayers of children about to become victims of genocide.
yet christians claim that god answers prayers and he does not violate free will. this is patently contradictory.
Christians will often use the fall of man as an excuse but it should be clear to anyone who has progressed intellectually beyond grade school, that the fall of man is just an allegorical myth, meant to show 'the peril's of the quest for knowledge and understanding'. IE how this quest can be 'emotionally detrimental'. its Christianity's take on 'Pandora's Box'.
First, you have to ask yourself, "What is evil?" Evil is the absence of God. Throughout human history, mankind has made it clear that most of it wants nothing to do with God. It's very sad really. God just gave the evil people of the world what they wanted so they could see what kind of a terrible place it really is without him. But for some reason, people decide to blame him for all the evil in the world but forget to thank him for every little blessing. People like that are hypocrites. In closing, God didn't create evil; evil is the absence of God.
The debaters on the opposing side of this debate argue that god is evil because God created everything, and if God created everything then he created evil as well, ultimately resulting in God being evil himself...Right?...
WRONG!!! And I will explain why.
Suppose that God created everything...
Say it in you own mind...(God created every-THING)
Every...THING!!!
Evil is an adjective...not a THING!!
God is light...and he created everything...so before everything was created, there was nothing but light...
Think of it this way...
Picture a room of nothing but light...if you put a chair in an empty room of nothing but light, the chair would cast a shadow, thus darkness...
God put the chair there...see? The shadow came without God's intentions...
God created everything with good intentions and evil simply followed, and in all honesty, evil hangs on a thread of existence because it depends on the existence of everything god has created.
Without light, there is no darkness...not the other way around..
Without God, there is no evil, but god is not evil. God is everything that is not evil. Just as light is everything that is not dark.
People tend to toy with the idea of light and darkness being equal or opposites, but it is proven that this is not true. A battle between light and dark is over in an instant. Wherever light chooses to be present, darkness must give way. Yet darkness has no power to push back in the other direction. Light shines, Darkness doesn't darken. It can only have a shadowy existence. It is not a positive thing, its simply the lack of a positive thing.
The same holds true for God and evil...
God is not evil...
God is everything that is not evil...
And evil is not a problem, it's just another way of life that we see as something bad when in all honesty it's just a part of nature because nothing is absolute wrong or right. What you see ass good, to me could be wrong, and to what you see as wrong, to me could be good.
