The problem with 'the problem of evil'

[johnadamceravolo]

The God of the bible is decidedly immoral. If an objective morality exists, the god of the bible hardly meets it's standard. This argument is strong until a person actually reads scripture and is made aware of how ridiculous it is to say that the existence of morality is proof of the existence of god. I love when christians try to play this card. I then ask them to explain to me how the ordinance laid out in Exodus 21:20, 21 is in any way moral.

[snuju1]

Is the Author of absolutely everything responsible for you not liking spinach? How can he not be?

[ticket88]

The idea that the acknowledgement of a moral argument somehow makes Xtianity true, is simply a non-sequitur and your argument is fallacious.

[M3PanoS]

@ticket88 But it does disprove atheism. :D

[ticket88]

@M3PanoS No, it doesn't. That's the problem with his argument. It's not valid.

[M3PanoS]

@ticket88 His problem with his argument is that it doesn't disprove atheism? You're not being coherent...

And lol. Yes it is valid.

[ticket88]

@M3PanoS The only incoherent thing here is his fallacious argument, which, as I have already explained, is based on faulty logic. He is saying that the acknowledgement of the existence of a moral argument makes Xtianity true. That is not correct logic. It's what is known as a non-sequitur and therefore, a logical fallacy.

[M3PanoS]

@ticket88 @ticket88 Uh no. You're the one that strawmans the argument to make it applicable to as you call it 'Xtianity.' Don't know why you're calling it Xtianity anyways unless maybe you have your reservations about this religion which may be why you're bringing into the equation...just a thought.

In reality, this video says nothing about Christianity, but only states that the moral argument argues for the existence of God...now who's guilty of the non-sequitor fallacy?

[DyXXed]

This is just semantics. If he insists, you can call it "the problem of suffering". The point is that it's something that we would not expect to see if a benevolent God ruled the world.

[veritaslogos]

Gabermas does have a point, it just depends on which version of the problem of evil one is takling about, something previous posters have failed to capture. His response doesn't work on the logical form of the problem of evil because its typically a test of internal consistency. However in the evidential form, it does work.

[yeahwotevaman]

Well actually as First Cause god IS responsible for your not liking spinach. Gods nowadays have no sense of personal responsibility, tsk tsk.

[RowanFortuneWood]

The problem of evil is a problem with the consistency of the theistic belief; atheist ethics are irrelevant. Also, there are sound atheistic moral realist positions and theistic moral realism often cannot solve meta-ethical problems - particularly in its justificationist guise; see Hume's problem. As an atheist I admit that there are good replies to the problem of evil and good Christian philosophers, this video is Christian philosophy at its worst; see Alvin Plantinga for something better.

[myintellectualjourny]

This is the same mistake C.S. Lewis makes in Mere Christianity - thinking the Problem of Evil is an issue founded on a secular worldview. It's not & never has been.

(The only problem with immorality & suffering in the secularity worldview is how humanity should deal with it in the here & now.)

The Problem of Evil is a theological issue that is internal to biblical theism. The Bible says God is perfectly benevolent AND created a world where evil & suffering could occur. AKA: The Problem.

[micahalb]

Well put, although, his point is that you can't prove Atheism with the problem. In other words evil doesn't disprove God...to the contrary God is the best explanation for evil. The problem remains, as you said, where did it come from.

[myintellectualjourny]

(A - 1 of 2)

Thanks micahalb. Now I'm not sure what you mean by "prove Atheism" since all Atheism is is a lack of a theistic assertion (or non-theism... like non-leprechaunism ;).

I hear what you're saying: you're basically talking about "evil" in the theistic sense and then saying the best explanation for "evil" in the theistic sense existing is theism. If I believed in "evil" in the theistic sense, I'd have to agree. As it is, I do not.

[myintellectualjourny]

(A - 2 of 2)

The problem of evil as a problem w/ the theistic worldview from the perspective of someone who is not a theist - however - is the conflict between the two ideas that are a part of theism as I mentioned.

[myintellectualjourny]

(A - 3 of 3 - oops)

(Not the actual existence of "evil" in the theistic sense.)

[AceofDlamonds]

exactly.......I know a lotta people who leave their faith simply because "millions of people die each day"

[utubephilosopher]

Sorry but moral realism is a position in metaethics that many atheists (including myself) defend. So the first sentence is bull.

Guess he's just trying to scare away those who haven't thought out a position on moral realism/nonrealism.

[RaspatanOriginalPapa]

The answer to this problem is easy. Atheist must proove that there is NO OTHER reason why God is not willing to solve evil than the no existence of God (or that god is not good).

Christianity say that there is other reason: human freedom. Because this cannot be prooved, this problem is not a proof against god´s existence. In fact, the problem is a tautology. To proove that there is no other reason, you must proove that either God is not good or do not exist, which is the same result.

[balvarez01]

This is a bad argument. There are atheists who objectivly believe in right or wrong, and have secular reasons to support it (e.g., utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics etc.). So their argument CAN and DOES get off the ground.

[grandconjunct]

Gary Habermas is the man, unquestionably one

of the leading christian thinkers on planet