The Problem of Evil - Whose Problem is it Really?

I respond to a common Christian fallacy about the Problem of Evil being an issue that Atheists - who themselves do not believe in objective morality - have no grounds to raise.

Gary Habermas Video - "The problem with 'the problem of evil':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5aLBJEH80E

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• the problem of evil
• c.s. lewis
• gary habermas
• apologetics
• christianity
• jesus
• the bible
• atheism

[ReinaValera1865]

Agnostic means ignorant....just because your puny little mind does not believe it or can't see past your nose does not mean it's right...God created the heavens and the earth and gave life to every living being and created all of us for his good pleasure...unfortunately for all of us Sin and Death came into God's perfect world because of disobedience from Satan, a third of the angels and then Adam and Eve...God died on the cross to pay for sin and only through obedience in him can you be freed!

[myintellectualjourny]

@ReinaValera1865

AKA: What I use to believe in a nutshell.

Of course it was learning things that I use to be IGNORANT of as a believer that changed that.

Faith means assuming you know more than you do. Maybe that's why you seem to assume that I am in need of hearing things that if you actually did know me you'd know I was already familiar with ;)

(But why learn when you already "know" ?)

I'll take being honest with myself about where I do lack knowledge over THAT approach to life any day.

[TipoftheSlung]

Excellent video. The vast majority of theists i speak to constantly sidestep this question. It is easy for them to deal with the evil that men do, what they never seem to be able to come to terms with is the evil that God does.

I like to pose a question to them, an old one but a great one..

"Why isn't your belief in a benevolent creator shattered by the fact that He created the parasites that lay their eggs in starving children?"

Non of them can answer it without eroding their Lord.

[myintellectualjourny]

Thanks TipoftheSlung.

And great question. I assume most believers (and even many non-believers) never ask it, because of how science illiterate our culture is (and I don't place myself above that).

Are those parasites in fact particular to the starving... only nest / lay eggs in those w/ empty stomachs?

If so, that certaintly is challenging. Else, I'd think believers would just blame it on "the Fall" / the effect of human "sin" on the natural world.

[eyallev]

thier answer to it is basiclly "you don't belive in god, so you can't say what he can or can't do, and don't even think about quoting what I saw about god to counter what I say about god".

stupid, I know.

[TipoftheSlung]

I think it hits them on anemotional level. I am not sure that the specificity of the parasites in question is really an issue, and the fall and sin/free will are just misdirection.

[myintellectualjourny]

Morality as understood as natural for humans also comes to involve the human capacity 4 rationality. Here, rationality is applied to the question of how to most effectively achieve happiness - the universal human goal. That cooperation is key 2 achieving happiness is true by our very nature (people are most happy when their happiness is shared w/ others.) Being moral is not only important 2 happiness in general, but being consistently moral is of value therein by our being creatures of habit.

[myintellectualjourny]

Morality is objectively based on what makes people happy. The value judgment that says happiness is better than suffering comes from us - our nature. While its true that people have preferences that vary on particulars, in general the things that maximize happiness and things that impair it are universal for people because of our shared nature. Even if you could find a rare exception, the preference of well-being over suffering is normative for most people by our very nature all the same.

[alainnmusic]

If morality is objectively based on what ultimately makes a person happy, how can one determine what creates happiness by nature? Abiding contentment that makes life worth living? By what measure is it determined that something makes life worth living? How is it also measurable that suffering is bad? Here, I think, is the underlying issue: in all these ideas and theories is still the inescapable theme that one way of living is better than another.

[alainnmusic]

The question I have is this: by what standard is this sense of "better" and "worse" measured? Why is it better to live than to die? Why is it better to be in comfort rather than pain? What quantifiable source makes one thing better than another? It seems that the claim proposed here is that morality is based on happiness which is determined by personal preferences which vary from person to person. Correct me if I'm wrong please.