General Chat / The logical and emotional problem of evil.

How can God exist and there be so much evil in the world?

Hey everyone. I'm fairly new to the "basic chat" forum. I spend most of my time in the "ask the experts" part of this site asking questions and helping others when I can. Recently looking at the "science and Christianity" thread, someone asked a question about the evil in the world. The attempt was to show that there is a logical contradiction between the statements, "God exists" and "evil exists". Now the "science and Christianity" forum was locked for some reason (again, I'm fairly new to this thread), but hopefully there will be no hurtful and/or rude replies (if that was why it was locked. I'm starting this thread to give an answer to the Problem of Evil. Please keep in mind that I am actually extremely busy and that it might take several days or a week to respond should someone wish to do so and should the thread not be locked. Moreover, my original intent is to give an answer to the problem of evil to those who are searching and who have questions about it.










"The Problem of Evil

As a Christian, this is probably one of the most serious objections to the Christian faith in the existence of a loving and omnipotent God. Indeed, even when I ponder the evil in the world, both in terms of human evil—of man's own inhumanity to man—as well as the natural evils of disasters, then I confess quite honestly, I find it hard to believe in the existence of God. Maybe some of you have felt the same way... Maybe we should just all become Atheists... But that would be a pretty big step to take. I mean how can we be sure that God does not exist? Maybe there's a reason why God permits all of the evil in the world. Maybe it somehow all fits in to a sort of grand scheme of things that we can only dimly envision, if at all. ... How do we know? As a Christian Theist I'm persuaded that the problem of evil, as great as it is, does not in the end constitute a disproof of the existence of God. On the contrary in fact, I believe that Christian Theism is man's last best hope for a solution to the problem of evil. Now in order to explain why I feel this way, it will be helpful to make some distinctions to keep our thinking and the discussion clear. In the first place, we need to distinguish between the Intellectual Problem of evil, and the Emotion Problem of evil. The intellectual problem of evil concerns how to give a rational explanation of the coexistence of God and evil. The emotional problem of evil concerns how to dissolve people's emotional dislike of a God who would permit suffering. Now let’s look first at the intellectual problem of evil.

Intellectual Problem of Evil

There are two versions of this problem; the logical version, and the probabilistic version. According to the logical version to the problem of evil, it's logically impossible that God and evil could co-exist. If God exists, than evil can not exist. If evil exits, than God can not exist. The two are logically incompatible. Now since evil evidently exists, it follows therefore that God does not exist. But, the problem with this argument is that there's no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. After all, there is no explicit contradiction between them (one is not the negation of the other). So if a person means that there is an implicit contradiction between God and evil, than he must be assuming some sort of hidden premises which need to be brought to the light, and which would serve to make this contradiction explicit. But the problem is that no philosopher has ever been able to demonstrate successfully what these premises are. And therefore the logical version of the problem of evil has failed to demonstrate any inconsistency between the co-existence of God and evil.
But more than that, we can actually prove that God and evil are logically consistent with each other. You see the Atheist presuppose that God can not have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil and suffering in the world. But this assumption is simply not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And therefore I'm very pleased to tell you that the philosophical consensus of today is that the logical version of the problem of evil has been dissolved. There is no inconsistency, logically, between God and evil. But, we're obviously not out of the woods yet... because now we confront the so called "probabilistic" version of the problem of evil.
Now according to this version of the problem, the co-existence of God and evil IS logically possible alright, but nevertheless, it's highly improbable. The extent and depth of the evil in the world is SOO great that it is improbable that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting this evil to occur. Therefore, given the evil in the world, it is improbable that God exists (or that He is all loving, cares about us, etc..) Now this is a much more powerful version of the argument, and therefore I'll spend the majority of the time on it. In response to this version of the problem of evil, I'll make three main points.

1) We're simply not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evils that occur.
You see as finite persons we are limited in time, space, intelligence, and insight. But the transcendent and sovereign God sees the end of history from the beginning, and he providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through the free decisions of His creation. Now in order to achieve His ends, God might have to put up with certain evils along the way which humans freely perpetrate or which are necessary conditions for the existence of human freedom. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework might be seen as justly permitted within God's wider frame work. Let me give an illustration from a recent field in science; Chaos Theory. In Chaos Theory, scientists have discovered that certain macroscopic systems are radically unstable to the smallest perturbations. A popular example is that of the butterfly. The flutter of a butterflies wings in West Africa, can set in motion forces which would eventually result in the occurrence of a hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean. And yet no one, looking at that little butterfly palpating on a branch, would ever be able to predict, even in principle, the outcome of that butterfly fluttering its wings. Now in exactly the same way, certain evils in the world that appear pointless to us, such as, say the brutal murder of an innocent man or a young child's dying of a terrible death of leukemia, could send a sort of ripple effect through history. So that God's morally sufficient reasons for permitting it, might not emerge until centuries later, or maybe in another country. When you think about God's providence over the WHOLE of human history, than I think we can see how hopeless it is for us finite limited observes to speculate on the probability of whether God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting any particular evil that we observe. We are frankly just not in a good position to assess these kinds of probabilities with any sort of confidence.

2) The Christian faith entails certain doctrines which increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil. In so doing, they decrease any improbability which evil thought to throw upon the existence of God. What are these doctrines? Let me just give 3 or 4...

1) The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but rather, the knowledge of God.

I think that one reason that the probability of evil and suffering seems so intractable to people today is that we just naturally assume that if God exists, that His purpose for us, human beings in life, is happiness in this world. But according to the Christian view, that is false. The purpose of life is not happiness as such, but rather the knowledge of God. Which in the end, will produce ultimate and everlasting human fulfillment. MANY evils occur in this life which may be utterly pointless with respect to promoting human happiness. But they may not be unjustified with respect to producing the knowledge of God. Innocent human suffering provides an occasion for deeper dependency and trust in God, either on the part of the sufferer or on the part of those around him. Now whether God's purpose is achieved through what we suffer all depends upon OUR response. Do we respond with anger and bitterness toward God. Or do we respond with trust, deeper faith and dependency in God and courage for the future. IT ALL depends upon OUR response. And I strongly suspect that God may be far less interested in what we go through, than in our attitude while going through it.

2) Mankind is in a state or rebellion against God and His purpose.

Rather then to submit to and worship God, people rebel against God and go their own way. And so find themselves alienated from God, morally guilty before Him and groping in spiritual darkness; pursuing false gods of their own making. The terrible human evils in the world are testimony to man's depravity in this state of spiritual alienation from God. And thus the Christian is not surprised at the terrible human evils in the world, on the contrary, he expects them! The Bible says that God does not intervene to stop human evil, but that He has given mankind over to the sin that we have freely chosen. He lets human depravity run its course. This only serves to heighten mankind's moral responsibility before God, as well as our own wickedness(which we all fall to) and our need of moral cleansing from God.

3) The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life.

In the Christian view this life is not all there is. Jesus promised eternal life to everyone who places their trust in Him as Savior and LORD. And after we have passed, God will reward those who have born their suffering with faith and trust in Him and courage with an eternal life of unspeakable joy. The Apostle Paul lived a life of incredible hardship and suffering when you think about it. And yet he wrote the following words: "Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." 2 Corinthians 4:16-18
Paul imagines as it were a scale, on which the sufferings and the evil of this life are placed on one side, and on the other side is the glory that God will bestow upon His children in Heaven. And Paul says that the weight of glory is so great that the sufferings of this life are not even worthy to be compared to it. Moreover, the longer we spend in eternity, the more the sufferings of this life shrink, by comparison, to literally an infinitesimal moment. And that's why Paul could refer to the sufferings of this life as a slight momentary affection. They were simply overwhelmed by the ocean of divine eternity and joy which God lavishes upon those who trust Him.

4) The knowledge of God is an unimaginable good.

The source of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good. The fulfillment of human existence, the sufferings of this life, can not even be compared to it. And thus, the person who knows God, no matter what he suffers, no matter how awful his pain, can still say, God is good to me. Simply because of the fact that he knows God, an incomparable good.

Now these four Christian doctrines, greatly reduce I think, any improbability which the existence of evil might be thought to throw upon the existence of God.

3) Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God's existence is probable. You see, probabilities are relative to what background information you consider. To give an example, suppose Joe is a Texas A&M student, and we're informed that 95% of A&M students will greet you with "Howdy!" when you meet them. Well, relative to that background information, that makes in highly probable that Joe will greet you with "Howdy!" when you meet him. But now suppose we learn that Joe is a transfer student from Maine and that 90% of the transfer students from Maine do not greet you with "Howdy!" Now relative to this new background information, the probability of Joe greeting you with this "Howdy!" becomes drastically reduced, and even reversed. Now similarly, when the Atheist says that God's existence is improbable, we need to immediately ask, "Probable relative to what?" "What is the background information you are considering?" Well if for background information all you consider is the evil in the world, then it's hardly surprising that God's existence would seem improbable relative to that alone. But of course that's not really the interesting question is it? The interesting question is whether God's existence is improbable relative to the FULL scope of the evidence. And I'm persuaded that when you consider the full scope of the evidence, that God's existence is quite probable. Let me share just three pieces of evidence which I think render it probable that God exists. These are:

1) God provides the best explanation of why the universe exists rather then nothing.
Have you ever asked yourself the question, “Why does anything at all exist? Where it all came from? Why does the world exist?” Well, typically Atheists have just said that the universe is eternal and uncaused. But discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics during this century, have render this view point, improbable. According to the standard Big Bang model of the universe, all matter and energy, indeed, physical space and time themselves, came into exists at a point in the past about 14 billion years ago called the Big Bang. Prior to that point, the universe literally did not exist. Therefore, as the Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, “The Big Bang model requires the creation of the universe from nothing.”
Now this tends to be very embarrassing for the Atheist. Quentin Smith, who is an Atheist philosopher and collaborator of William Lane Craig has written, “The response of Atheists and Agnostics to this development has been comparatively week, indeed, almost invisible. An uncomfortable silence seems to be the rule when the issue arises among non-believers”. He goes on to say “the reason for the embarrassment among non-theists is not hard to find.” Anthony Kenny of Oxford University, suggests it in this statement, “A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an Atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing, and by nothing.” But that’s a pretty hard pill to swallow. No such difficulty confronts the Christian theists, since the Big Bang theory only confirms what the Christian theist has always believed—that in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. Now I simply put it to you, which do you think is more probable? That the Christian theist is right, or that the universe just popped into being uncaused and out of nothing?

2) God provides the best explanation for the complex order of the universe.
During the last twenty to thirty years, scientists have been stunned by the discovery that the existence of intelligent life, at this epic in cosmic history, depends upon an incomprehensibly delicate, and complex balance of initial conditions simply given in the Big Bang itself. We now know that life prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life permitting universe like ours. How much more probable? Well, before I share with you an estimation, let me just give with you some numbers to give you feel for the odds. The numbers of seconds in the history of the universe, is said to be about 10^18. The number of subatomic particles in the entire universe is said to be about 10^80 . Now with those numbers in mind consider the following: Donald Page, one of America's eminent cosmologists, has calculated the odds of the initial conditions of our universe existing by chance, as being on the order of one chance out of ten to the power of ten to the one hundred and twenty-fourth power (1/10^10^127) ---a number which is so inconceivable that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. Robert Jastrow, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, has called this the, “most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science.” So, once again the view that the Christian theist has always held, that there is an intelligent designer and creator of the universe, seems far more plausible than the atheistic interpretation that the universe, when it popped into being uncaused out of nothing, just happened to be, by chance, fined tuned with an incomprehensible precision for the existence for intelligent life.

3) God provides the best explanation for objective moral values in the world.
If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. Without God, there is no absolute moral right and wrong that apposes itself upon our conscience. Moral values are either just the byproducts of socio-biological evolution, or else expressions for personal taste. But the fact is, objective morals and values do exist, and I think deep down we all know it. There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of physical objects in the world. In particular, it is evident that evil exists—some things are really wrong. And thus, paradoxically, evil actually serves to demonstrate the existence of God. For if objective moral values can not exist without God, and objective moral values do exist—as is evident from the reality of evil—than it follows logically and inescapably that God exists. And thus, although on one level evil seems at first to call into question God’s existence, on a deeper more fundamental level, it actually serves to demonstrate God’s existence. Since evil as such could not exist without God. And if the Atheist wishes to deny that evil objectively exists in the world, than the whole problem of evil just diminishes all together. The Theist can confidently say "what problem?!"

Now these are only part of the evidence that God exists. Alvin Plantinga, the prominent Christian philosopher, has expounded two dozen or so arguments for God’s existence. The cumulative force of these arguments makes it very probable I think that God exists. So in summary, if the three thesis that I have given in the length of this post are correct, than evil does not render improbable the existence of the Christian God. On the contrary, I think that when you consider the full scope of the evidence, it is quite probable that God exists. And thus the intellectual problem of evil, whether in its logical version or probabilistic version, fails to overthrow the existence of God. But this takes us to the emotional problem of evil. And I think quite frankly that most people who reject God because of the suffering in the world, don't really do so because of intellectual reasons; it's an emotional problem for them. They just don't like a God who would permit them or others to suffer so. And therefore they just want nothing to do with Him. Their's is simply an Atheism of rejection. Does the Christian Faith have anything to say to these people? It certainly does...

Emotional Problem of Evil

For the Christian Faith tells us that God is not some distant creator, or an impersonal ground of being, but that He is a loving Father, who shares our suffering and hurts with us. Professor Alvin Plantinga has written, "As the Christian sees things, God does not stand idly by, cooling observing the suffering of his creatures. He enters into and shares our suffering. He endures the anguish of seeing his Son, the second Person of the Trinity, consigned to the bitterly cruel and shameful death of the cross. . . Christ was prepared to endure the agonies of hell itself . . . in order to overcome sin and death and the evils that afflict our world and to confer on us a life more glorious than we can imagine. . . he was prepared to suffer on our behalf, to accept suffering of which we can form no conception."
You see, Jesus endured a suffering beyond all comprehension. He bore the penalty for the sin of the entire world. None of us can comprehend that suffering. Even though He was completely innocent, He voluntarily took upon the death penalty of sin that you and I desire. And why? Because He loves you so much. How can we reject Him, who is willing to give up everything for us? When we comprehend His sacrifice and love for us, than I think this puts the problem with evil in an entirely different perspective. For now we see, that the true problem of evil is the problem of OUR evil. Filled with sin, and morally guilty before God, the problem is not how God can justify Himself to us. Rather the problem is how we can be justified before God. So paradoxically, even though the problem with evil is the greatest challenge to the belief in the existence in God, at the end of the day, God is the only solution to the problem of man's evil. If God does not exist, than we are locked in the world filled with gratuitous and unredeemed suffering. God is the final solution to the problem of evil. For He redeems us from evil, and invites us into the fellowship of an incommensurable good, which is fellowship with Himself.


As I mentioned in the intellectual problem with evil, within God's wider framework evil may be seen to be justly permitted. To illustrate this idea, this idea was made even more clear to me when I had read the Missions Handbook, Operation World. Reading about each country listed on each calendar day over the course of a year, one of the things that struck me as I heard this was that how the places in the world where the gospel is growing at the rapidest rates is almost uniformly associated with countries in which great suffering has occurred. El Salvador, China, Ethiopia, Eastern Europe, Russia, it's just amazing. There is almost a 1 to 1 correlation between intense human suffering and exponential growth of the evangelical church. And I believe that part of God's reason for permitting natural and moral evil in the world is that it may well be the case that only in a world involving that sort of suffering would the maximum number of people freely come to know and experience God's salvation."

Just like I don't have a single reason to believe that a god exists, I have no reason to believe in the concept of good and evil, prespecified properties of any human deed. I think everything any human does always has a positive motive in the first place. Here are two examples, a recent and an extreme case of someone I guess most people (who believe in the concept of good and evil) would consider evil.

Anders Behring Breivik - killed and wounded A LOT of people, but in his opinion for a greater good. He want to protect Europe from bad marxist and islam influences. You could say he's a martyr or a hero for dedicating (or even sacrificing in a way) his life to protect the hundreds of millions Europeans. He's not evil, he only has a Europe-centric view. Adolf Hitler- pretty much the same story as Anders Breivik, only replace islam by Jews (and other groups) and Europe by Ayran/German.

Centric thinking is something very dangerous. Beware of such people and especially politicians; we've seen how power and damage correlate!





And just for the record, I disagree with the points of both Anders Breivik and Adolf Hitler and I disgust them for their deeds. I'm analyzing, not defending.

Oh dear. You actually believe this, don't you?

Behave yourself, and be good,then people will be good to you.
If you cant morally work that out yourself, join a religion

Oh, hey, Fantastico. What's up?

If anyone is wondering, this is basically a paraphrase of an argument that's all over the internet. http://www.bethinkin...lem-of-evil.htm

love you, Google.

IMHO, good and evil are formed by the society you live in, your family, your friends, your collegeaus, your schoolmates, etc.
Also by the circumstances your life is under. It's just a combination of happenings.

Behave yourself, and be good,then people will be good to you.
If you cant morally work that out yourself, join a religion

The problem is RRP, if you are a ethical relativist like chorkiel and Liampie, than there really is no such thing as "good". What does it mean to "be good", or to "do good to other people"? After all, if moral values are just constantly changing from society to society, than what was good 1000 years ago, may not be good now. And what is good 1000 years in the future will likely not be "good" now. Moreover, moral right and wrong are just the personal preferences of individuals. And to say that there are really objectively existing "right" and "wrong" actions is just non-sense.
So the problem isn't, "Can we be good without God?" Of course we can! No one is arguing that! The problem is, if God does not exist, than there is no basis for calling things "good" or "bad". They are just the biproducts of sociological conditioning and evolution.

Now a lot of people like to give lip service to ethical relativism. But when really examined, I think most people can come to see that this position is so extreme, that most people become repulsed by it. For example, there is a great story I heard a couple months ago about how my friend's pastor was having a discussion with this woman who was a moral relativist. The relativist was discussing with him about how there were no objective moral values and duties. And after a couple minutes the pastor stopped and said, "Wait a minute... I'm a pastor, and people are always coming to me asking me if they have done something wrong and if they need to ask God for forgiveness. For example, isn't it always wrong to abuse a child?" And still this woman wouldn't admit it. She said, "What counts as abuse differs from society to society, so we can't really use the word 'abuse' without tying it to a historical context." The pastor said, "You call it whatever you want! But the fact is, abuse it damaging to children!. Isn't it always wrong to damage children?!" And STILL she wouldn't admit it!

I think that this kind of hardness of heart ultimately backfires upon the moral relativist and really exposes in the minds of most people, the bankruptcy of such a world view. So in our moral experience, I think we have every good reason to affirm the reality of objective moral values and duties.

If anyone is wondering, this is basically a paraphrase of an argument that's all over the internet. http://www.bethinkin...lem-of-evil.htm

love you, Google.

That's correct, this particular argument is from Dr. William Lane Craig on the Problem of Evil, which I think is quite strong.

The problem is, if God does not exist, than there is no basis for calling things "good" or "bad". They are just the biproducts of sociological conditioning and evolution.

While that can be seen as at least partially true, any semi-intelligent being can differentiate "good" from "bad"...whether they use the same terminology or not is irrelevant.

That's correct, this particular argument is from Dr. William Lane Craig on the Problem of Evil, which I think is quite strong.

So basically, you've opened, and continued a religious debate, at a video game fansite, using someone else's argument altogether? C'mon man, at least have your own take on this shit.

Besides...this is keeping the Fantasy Football Draft buried in the sub-forums.

While that can be seen as at least partially true, any semi-intelligent being can differentiate "good" from "bad"...whether they use the same terminology or not is irrelevant.

So basically, you've opened, and continued a religious debate, at a video game fansite, using someone else's argument altogether? C'mon man, at least have your own take on this shit.

Besides...this is keeping the Fantasy Football Draft buried in the sub-forums.

I think this is just a misunderstanding of what objective moral values and subjective moral values are. From the looks of it, it seems like you and I agree! As you put it, it doesn't take a genius to see that there is a difference between abusing a child and loving a child! That is to say, they aren't morally indifferent acts, there is an objective difference. But that just IS what a moral relativist believes! That there is no objective moral difference between the two.

That is what the "basic chat" is about correct? To be able to talk about topics which are unrelated to RCT? You aren't obligated to discuss these things. But I think we can all be mature enough to discuss them with integrity and rational . No one is starting a "religious debate". Right now we seem to be talking about moral values, which is religiously neutral topic .

I'm not sure what you mean by "your own take". I think that the argument Dr. Craig presents is a logically valid and sound argument in defense of the POE. Why wouldn't one want to use such an argument? Simply because they didn't originate it? That hardly seems to me to be a good reason. The Original post itself included quotes for such responses.

You don't get it. Abuse is subjective, and so is love.

A paedophile having sex with a child, voluntary, is that abuse or is it love? And what if I could prevent a war (in some way; this is an absurd example) by raping three children?

Cant do the time, dont do the crime

The problem is RRP, if you are a ethical relativist like chorkiel and Liampie, than there really is no such thing as "good". What does it mean to "be good", or to "do good to other people"? After all, if moral values are just constantly changing from society to society, than what was good 1000 years ago, may not be good now. And what is good 1000 years in the future will likely not be "good" now. Moreover, moral right and wrong are just the personal preferences of individuals. And to say that there are really objectively existing "right" and "wrong" actions is just non-sense.
So the problem isn't, "Can we be good without God?" Of course we can! No one is arguing that! The problem is, if God does not exist, than there is no basis for calling things "good" or "bad". They are just the biproducts of sociological conditioning and evolution.

Now a lot of people like to give lip service to ethical relativism. But when really examined, I think most people can come to see that this position is so extreme, that most people become repulsed by it. For example, there is a great story I heard a couple months ago about how my friend's pastor was having a discussion with this woman who was a moral relativist. The relativist was discussing with him about how there were no objective moral values and duties. And after a couple minutes the pastor stopped and said, "Wait a minute... I'm a pastor, and people are always coming to me asking me if they have done something wrong and if they need to ask God for forgiveness. For example, isn't it always wrong to abuse a child?" And still this woman wouldn't admit it. She said, "What counts as abuse differs from society to society, so we can't really use the word 'abuse' without tying it to a historical context." The pastor said, "You call it whatever you want! But the fact is, abuse it damaging to children!. Isn't it always wrong to damage children?!" And STILL she wouldn't admit it!

I think that this kind of hardness of heart ultimately backfires upon the moral relativist and really exposes in the minds of most people, the bankruptcy of such a world view. So in our moral experience, I think we have every good reason to affirm the reality of objective moral values and duties.

That's correct, this particular argument is from Dr. William Lane Craig on the Problem of Evil, which I think is quite strong.

1. If you're using someone else's argument, it's generally polite to give them credit for it or post a link. Don't be a dick.

2. You're absolutely correct. There is no absolute, global moral perspective, and without "god" (in this case, you're not referring to god, but Abrahamic Law) there wouldn't be a set moral standard. Except, there is. Bible thumpers always seem to forget that there were laws in places where the bible has not been. Depending on which other revisionist texts you like to read that might say differently, the Native Americans had very peaceful cultures without ever having known about your god, despite your god's representatives attempts to not so morally shove it down their throats. Hell, there's tribes in the Amazon that haven't ever seen an outside person that still have never seen your Bible. Do you think they would exist this long without some code of morals?

Even so, your other arguments are pretty invalid, too. Children were pretty much slaves in Biblical time, and up until the last 100 years or so in the US, children did the most dangerous jobs in factories and mines. The Romans fucked little boys like they were high opium all the time, which they were. These days, any sexual contact to a child means you go to prison and the child needs therapy for 10 years and will always be told there's something about them that's not normal and the perpetrator gets to have their address available to everyone ever. Clearly, the morals changed and your Bible didn't.

I realize this isn't a very well thought argument. I'm not quite awake yet.

MA: About your argument #2:
I also think that man has a certain tendency to secure basic human rights and various moral boundaries. Emphasize on "tendency". This evolutionary process happens to exist even in separated communities and the occidental world at some point chose to collect those ideas and values in a "bible" and to project them onto a guy named "god".
Thus, my opinion is that there can't be a wrong or right with "religion". However, there can be a wrong or right with how the people choose to act out their beliefs.

Rather then to submit to and worship God, people rebel against God and go their own way. And so find themselves alienated from God, morally guilty before Him and groping in spiritual darkness; pursuing false gods of their own making.

somebody of any other religion or no religion at all can repeat this same 'belief' to you, could they not? what makes your god any more 'true' than john's god? laquisha's god? tom cruise's god? this is what religulous people just don't understand... why is what you believe right, while the guy's beliefs right next to you are wrong? and he thinks the same of you. somebody has to be wrong. and they are wrong. all of them.

god has infinite knowledge and his thinking is beyond what we can even imagine. ok... so how the fuck would a puny human servant know all this shit about how god feels and what he wants in the world, along with all his hopes and dreams. how do you know this? how would anybody know this? it's not possible.

and yea, i jumped around a bit. but EVERY religion is bullshit. following something on 'blind faith' alone is bullshit. every argument a christian has with an 'atheist' always ends the same... the christian gives up and says, 'there is a god. how do i know? i just do.' where else will that argument EVER work?

i'm just rambling, i know.

america is moving away from this christian bullshit, slowly, but i couldn't be happier about it. CHRISTIANITY IS A MENTAL DISORDER.

You don't get it. Abuse is subjective, and so is love.

A paedophile having sex with a child, voluntary, is that abuse or is it love? And what if I could prevent a war (in some way; this is an absurd example) by raping three children?

What you need to differentiate here is the difference between objective moral values and changing perceptions of facts. The perception of a particular moral value may be relative, but the moral values that are involved are not. Like you said, the child might be engaging in sex voluntarily! And thus it wouldn't be rape or abuse. The question is really, are rape and abuse objective bad? Moreover, is love objectively good? You see, you yourself differentiate between them "or is it love?". You seem to differentiate between the two as if there is an objective reality called "love". What you need to understand is, this does not exist on relativism.

Midnight A: I'll respond to the first part of your post because the second one wasn't well throughout. You misunderstand what we are talking about. NO ONE is saying, "Must you believe in God in order to do good?" That is NOT the discussion. The discussion is moral ontology; What is the objective basis in reality for moral values?

If you would like to point out some part of the argument that logically invalid, feel free.

somebody of any other religion or no religion at all can repeat this same 'belief' to you, could they not? what makes your god any more 'true' than john's god? laquisha's god? tom cruise's god? this is what religulous people just don't understand... why is what you believe right, while the guy's beliefs right next to you are wrong? and he thinks the same of you. somebody has to be wrong. and they are wrong. all of them.

god has infinite knowledge and his thinking is beyond what we can even imagine. ok... so how the fuck would a puny human servant know all this shit about how god feels and what he wants in the world, along with all his hopes and dreams. how do you know this? how would anybody know this? it's not possible.

and yea, i jumped around a bit. but EVERY religion is bullshit. following something on 'blind faith' alone is bullshit. every argument a christian has with an 'atheist' always ends the same... the christian gives up and says, 'there is a god. how do i know? i just do.' where else will that argument EVER work?

i'm just rambling, i know.

america is moving away from this christian bullshit, slowly, but i couldn't be happier about it. CHRISTIANITY IS A MENTAL DISORDER.

Via the ontological argument, God by definition is the greatest conceivable being (this is common knowledge in philosophical and theological understandings). Any being which is not the greatest conceivable being, would not be God. This eliminates a number of beliefs right away.

I agree with you that not ALL religions can be true, because they believe contradictory things. But the question is, why think Atheism is true?
Now you have a lot of double edged swords in your argument as well as a number of ad hominems. Given this, I wont continue the conversation on this thread (I want to respect whoever the moderators are, and would like for it not to be locked). But if you would like to message me and include some people in the message, I'd be more than happy to share with you the various arguments that I use for the existence of God, as well as share why, in the absence of any arguments for the existence of God, the theist can be completely justified in believing that God exists.. As well as show why there is no good reasons to believe that Atheism is true. Perhaps you've never had a real substantive discussion with some who studies Christian Apologetics. But if you would like to, message me.

There are no mods.....carry on. Just wait until we're done with the draft, priorities and all, ya know?

I agree with you that not ALL religions can be true, because they believe contradictory things. But the question is, why think Atheism is true?
Now you have a lot of double edged swords in your argument as well as a number of ad hominems. Given this, I wont continue the conversation on this thread (I want to respect whoever the moderators are, and would like for it not to be locked). But if you would like to message me and include some people in the message, I'd be more than happy to share with you the various arguments that I use for the existence of God, as well as share why, in the absence of any arguments for the existence of God, the theist can be completely justified in believing that God exists.. As well as show why there is no good reasons to believe that Atheism is true. Perhaps you've never had a real substantive discussion with some who studies Christian Apologetics. But if you would like to, message me.

Atheism does not make any claims, it is just the lack of a belief in a god. You also it seem like it is a belief system, which it is not. Atheism falls under the same category as theism, deism, etc. All you're doing is shifting the burden of proof. (which, may I add, is the worst and overused argument I have come across). If you make a positive claim, it is up to you to prove it. Otherwise I am not going to believe you.

You are making the claim that there is a god. It is up to you to prove it, which you have not done. Until then, I am not going to believe you.

Midnight A: I'll respond to the first part of your post because the second one wasn't well throughout. You misunderstand what we are talking about. NO ONE is saying, "Must you believe in God in order to do good?" That is NOT the discussion. The discussion is moral ontology; What is the objective basis in reality for moral values?

If you would like to point out some part of the argument that logically invalid, feel free.

Yeah, sure. I'll point out some things that are wrong: 1. You didn't respond to my first point after saying you were only going to address that. 2. There is a very invalid argument in that it requires belief in god as a priori, while clearly that's not something we an all agree on. 3. There is no objective basis for pretty much anything experiential, including morality and god. 4. You can't make my apology for a lack of thought put into dealing with your poor arguments into a reason to not respond to my points. This is not a forum for you to preach. This is not your alter.

Atheism does not make any claims, it is just the lack of a belief in a god. You also it seem like it is a belief system, which it is not. Atheism falls under the same category as theism, deism, etc. All you're doing is shifting the burden of proof. (which, may I add, is the worst and overused argument I have come across). If you make a positive claim, it is up to you to prove it. Otherwise I am not going to believe you.
@ KONG: I'm sorry KONG, I'm really not sure what you mean.

You are making the claim that there is a god. It is up to you to prove it, which you have not done. Until then, I am not going to believe you.

You mean my cat muffins is an Atheist?! How horrible! Lordy... It means my unborn child is an Atheist as well. After all, they all lack a belief in God...
It's important not to be mislead in believing that Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. It's this type of "re-defining" of terms that can mix you up. Atheism is the belief that "there are no gods". This, as much as the theist, is a claim to knowledge that bears a burden. Atheism is derived from the Greek "a-theos" (no gods) to make "athe-ism" belief that there are no gods. Since this is not what you believe Cole, how do you differentiate between Atheism (normally defined as there are no gods), Agnosticism (the absence of belief in God, or the belief that you don't know) and Verificationism (a belief that's been dead for over 50 years)?
I think this step for the Atheist actually represents an admission of ignorance. For many of them, they realize that they have no arguments to prove that God doesn't exist, and so they re-define Atheism to hide their ignorance. When they speak in the public square, they will spout off about how God does not exist. Yet when pressed to give evidence of this, they will change their stance and re-define Atheism as a lack of belief to hide their burden.

@ MA:
1) Sure I did, you said, "the Native Americans had very peaceful cultures without ever having known about your god" to which I responded "That's not the discussion"
2)The POE is not an argument for the existence of God MA hah. It's a defense of Theism, i.e., it is an argument against Theism. So really, the Atheist is presupposing God exists in order to attempt to prove that he does not exist.
3)Really? So you believe that the physical world does not exist? Anything that you touch, smell, or see? How about the belief that you exist? You don't believe you exist?
4) Stop with the Ad Hominems or I wont respond to you anymore. If you can't be respectful you can have a conversation with yourself.