It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Problem of Evil and how it provides evidence for the existence of God.

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I'll begin by defining what I mean when I say 'God'. I am a Christian as most of you know but in this thread when you see me use the word 'God' it will not refer to the God of the Bible, but rather the entity I am about to describe to you.

God is an all powerful, all knowing, all good, and necessary being. Now its important to realize that when I say God is all good I mean that perfect goodness is something fundamental to the nature of this being, God, and without that attribute we would be talking about different entities.

Now let me first formulate the Argument from Morality in a way you might not have seen it before:

1.) If God does not exists, then Evil does not exists.

2.) Evil does exists.

3.) Therefore, God exists.

Now many of you reading this may be atheist if you are I'd like to point out that on an atheistic framework their can be no such thing as moral values and duties. So your world view doesn't even have the necessary grounding for moral values to raise the problem of Evil. When you do however it would show you are claiming evil does indeed exists and as such if the first premise of my argument above is true you could no longer be an atheist . So I'd keep that in mind.

Now for the logical form of the problem of evil it is a bit longer but I want to be fair so I used the best version I could find:

1.)God exists.
2.)God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
3.)An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
4.)An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
5.)An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6.)A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7.)If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
8.)Evil exists.



Now notice premise 2 in my argument above is the conclusion of this argument. So anyone raising the problem of evil cannot disagree with premise 2 or premise 3 of my argument as Premise 3 follows logically from premise 1 and 2. So the only place someone raising the problem of evil could disagree would be in Premise 1.

Now the main two contention I have with this argument is that it assumes that if God is omnipotent then he could prevent all evil in the world. But I would argue that if God is omnibenevolent he would create a world with free creatures as free will is a good thing and to remove or withold that quality from a sentient being would be an evil thing. This however makes premise 5 completely false. Omnipotence does not entail the ability to do the logically impossible. For example being omnipotent doesn't mean you could make a square circle. In the same way an omnipotent being cannot make someone freely choose something as that would not be a truly free choice. So if an omnipotent being creates free creatures he cannot prevent evil as he cannot prevent free creatures from freely choosing evil. So premise 5 is false not thats enough for me to end here and reject the logical problem of evil as invalid. However I'll continue as I also have an issue with premise three. If God is omnibenevolent then he would want to prevent all evils. God could have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil in the world to achieve a greater good. I'll use the same example as above. The existence of free will is a good thing and its removal is an evil thing . God chose to allow free creatures the right to choose evil in order that his creature may truly be free and evil would be a by product of this . In order for premise 5 and premise 3 to be necessarily true the defender of the logical problem of evil would have to show that God's all powerful and all knowing nature are indeed logically incompatible with the existence of Evil. I cannot see anyway for a human to prove this from our limited cognitive perspective.

Anyways enjoy.




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

In order for the following to work:

"1.) If God does not exists, then Evil does not exists.

2.) Evil does exists.

3.) Therefore, God exists. "

Statement one needs to be assumed to be true. Otherwise the modus tollens (contrapositive) means nothing. So, in order for statement one to be assumed true, you would already need to assume that evil requires God. Which means you are assuming your conclusion in statement three.

Your logic is not sound.


(post by ImmortalLegend527 removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

There are some gaping holes in that 'logic" of yours. Indeed it is circular reasoning that I see, not logic. But moving on.
I'm a religious person too, a polytheist. So lets discuss evil.

Evil is a moral statement, and morals change over time, and space.

Look at the idea of the death penalty.

"Thou shalt not kill"

Yet many, god fearing individuals call for the death penalty (indeed passages in the bible seem to support it) for certain crimes. Thus killing under certain circumstances = not evil.

We could move on to slavery next. But lets not

Quite simply, one can perceive evil, and need no deity, deities, or divine pasta.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TycoonBarnaby




In order for the following to work: "1.) If God does not exists, then Evil does not exists. 2.) Evil does exists. 3.) Therefore, God exists. " Statement one needs to be assumed to be true. Otherwise the modus tollens (contrapositive) means nothing. So, in order for statement one to be assumed true, you would already need to assume that evil requires God. Which means you are assuming your conclusion in statement three. Your logic is not sound.


Premise 1 does need to be true in order for three to be true I would never say that it didn't. Now if someone disagreed with Premise 1 I would be willing to discuss it. When you say something is evil you are speaking of an objective moral value. I see no way on atheism for these to exists. On theism however they would be grounded in the nature of God. You cannot have Evil without Good and you cannot have Good without God.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Circular logic does not equal good logic.

Why can't their be a "moral framework" for people who lack a belief? Morals are purely a subjective thing, so no "higher being" is needed.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TycoonBarnaby




In order for the following to work: "1.) If God does not exists, then Evil does not exists. 2.) Evil does exists. 3.) Therefore, God exists. " Statement one needs to be assumed to be true. Otherwise the modus tollens (contrapositive) means nothing. So, in order for statement one to be assumed true, you would already need to assume that evil requires God. Which means you are assuming your conclusion in statement three. Your logic is not sound.


Premise 1 does need to be true in order for three to be true I would never say that it didn't. Now if someone disagreed with Premise 1 I would be willing to discuss it. When you say something is evil you are speaking of an objective moral value. I see no way on atheism for these to exists. On theism however they would be grounded in the nature of God. You cannot have Evil without Good and you cannot have Good without God.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I would also like to add that morals have changed so many times in the last 200 years. Man has decided what is morally right and wrong in society, but there are still personal morals that the individual chooses (eating meat or not, for example).

If right and wrong was defined by a "higher being" then our morals would be the same as they were 2000 years ago.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I used to use this logic.

It does however make one assumption ; that the universe is bipolar ie Good / Bad, light / dark etc etc.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

As a polytheist .... the universe has as many moods as we do. So this logic is black and white, and non descriptive



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImmortalLegend527
I always count evil people by looking at the polls during election time. I count the republicans voters as evil and programmed from an ideology program from the 20s era and I look at the Democrats’ because they have common sense a sense of reality and try to do things for the people to help them.

I would think that what you are saying is true, I don’t believe in the little gods and the little fables of your era, but its true, just in another way for us.


That is literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard on ATS. People are evil just because they don't fit your political bias? I'm not even republican and I still find your logic repulsive.
edit on 16-6-2016 by BELIEVERpriest because: typo



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Good and evil are subjective statements, and they also do not require supernatural beings. Thus your logic, which is as round as a wheel, is blown.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




There are some gaping holes in that 'logic" of yours. Indeed it is circular reasoning that I see, not logic. But moving on.


No circle there. I don't mind you claiming logical fallacies but at least attempt to describe what you are claiming dont just say circular reasoning and then not explain how it is so.





Evil is a moral statement, and morals change over time, and space.

Look at the idea of the death penalty.

"Thou shalt not kill"

Yet many, god fearing individuals call for the death penalty (indeed passages in the bible seem to support it) for certain crimes. Thus killing under certain circumstances = not evil.


If morals are objective they do not change over time and space, which would be my position on the nature of moral values. Well first you've misrepresented the Bible as the word the KJV translates kill means murder not hard to find that out by simple researching the Hebrew their and indeed many translations have changed it to that. As I said earlier though what I am speaking of stands independent of Christianity.

Sure you can move onto slavery.

"And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."

You see the word slavery in the Bible and think it refers to this type of slavery which as you can see is condemned. The slavery the Jews practiced was a form of debt payment.




Quite simply, one can perceive evil, and need no deity, deities, or divine pasta.


How we come to recognize evil is very different from whether evil exist or does not exist. One is in the realm of epistemology and the other the realm of ontology.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




Circular logic does not equal good logic. Why can't their be a "moral framework" for people who lack a belief? Morals are purely a subjective thing, so no "higher being" is needed.


Well first the idea of a subjective truth claim is logically incoherent. When someone says "stealing is wrong" they are making a claim about the way that reality actually is. Namely that stealing is truly not something people ought to do. If one person says stealing is wrong and another person says stealing is right someone is mistaken. These statements are claims about reality and they cannot both be true. Just because people do not agree on what is moral doesn't make morals subjective. I could say 2+2=18549 and you could say 2+2=4. The fact that we disagree doesn't mean 2+2 isn't objectively 4. In fact I could say 2+2=238329 and you could say 2+2=23939 and that still wouldn't change the fact the 2+2 is objectively 4. In the same way what we believe is moral in a particular situation doesn't take away the fact that one action is objectively good and the opposite of the action is objectively bad.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Morals are SUBJECTIVE, no objective. This is shown throughout history. Morals are not something that never changes. Thus you can not make a statement about morality (evil and good) and assume that only God is the answer.

Your reasoning is cirular, as you state where you want to end. That evil (and one presumes good?) in your reasoning proves God, and then evil does exist, there fore god. That right there is circular reasoning. Its like a self fulfilling prophesy.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

So your belief is that the statement "chocolate ice cream is the best flavor of ice" and the statement "torturing sentient being for fun is evil" are the same type of claim about reality? Because that is not the way we live our lives and that is not the way we act in moral situation. You seem to want me to reject the reality of true moral values and duties which I clearly perceive without offering some reason for me to believe that this experience is delusional.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TerryDon79




Circular logic does not equal good logic. Why can't their be a "moral framework" for people who lack a belief? Morals are purely a subjective thing, so no "higher being" is needed.


Well first the idea of a subjective truth claim is logically incoherent.
Who said anything about truth? I was talking about morals. Morals do not equal truth.



When someone says "stealing is wrong" they are making a claim about the way that reality actually is. Namely that stealing is truly not something people ought to do. If one person says stealing is wrong and another person says stealing is right someone is mistaken.
I can show 2 examples of SUBJECTIVE morality when it comes to stealing.

1, Man steal money. Man is wrong and morally wrong.
2, Man steals food to feed his children. Man is wrong, but morally right.

See? Subjective.



These statements are claims about reality and they cannot both be true. Just because people do not agree on what is moral doesn't make morals subjective.
That's EXACTLY why they're subjective LOL.



I could say 2+2=18549 and you could say 2+2=4. The fact that we disagree doesn't mean 2+2 isn't objectively 4. In fact I could say 2+2=238329 and you could say 2+2=23939 and that still wouldn't change the fact the 2+2 is objectively 4.
Maths isn't meant to be subjective, so that there, is a fallacy.



In the same way what we believe is moral in a particular situation doesn't take away the fact that one action is objectively good and the opposite of the action is objectively bad.
See my previous examples about stealing.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
atheistic framework their can be no such thing as moral values and duties. So your world view doesn't even have the necessary grounding for moral values to raise the problem of Evil. When you do however it would show you are claiming evil does indeed exists and as such if the first premise of my argument above is true you could no longer be an atheist . So I'd keep that in mind.

Absolute rubbish.
Morality:
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

Morality in no way is tied to any deity, religion, or supernatural knowledge. it is a determination of what is positive and negative to something, society, personal, family, etc.

religion does not have a monopoly on morality, and often, seems to run counter to any sensible framework of morality.

Religion is to morality what halloween is to candy. to suggest if there was no halloween, candy wouldn't exist is simply absurd.

Since thats been blown out of the water, your entire hypothesis is nonsense.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
atheistic framework their can be no such thing as moral values and duties. So your world view doesn't even have the necessary grounding for moral values to raise the problem of Evil. When you do however it would show you are claiming evil does indeed exists and as such if the first premise of my argument above is true you could no longer be an atheist . So I'd keep that in mind.

Absolute rubbish.
Morality:
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

Morality in no way is tied to any deity, religion, or supernatural knowledge. it is a determination of what is positive and negative to something, society, personal, family, etc.

religion does not have a monopoly on morality, and often, seems to run counter to any sensible framework of morality.

Religion is to morality what halloween is to candy. to suggest if there was no halloween, candy wouldn't exist is simply absurd.

Since thats been blown out of the water, your entire hypothesis is nonsense.


This^^

/Thread Done



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So you use a non-sequitur to argue this do you? Ok then ....


My belief AND historical evidence support the fact that moral judgments have changed through out human history. Slave owning was OK in the western world until quite recently. Yet it is not OK now. That may well change again. Thus morality is subjective.

Similarly what my religious path sees as morally reprehensible, and yours do not agree in many areas, there for these are subjective not objective statements.

I have no care for what you reject or what you accept. I am however not going to let you make sweeping statements, and not challenge them. As always Y Gwir yn erbyn byd/ An Fhírinne in aghaidh an tSaoil
edit on 16-6-2016 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join