Evil proves God does not exist (Part 3)

Moral objectivism and Moral objective standards and Objective moral values My opponent has made a big point of the difference between “objective morality” and “absolute morality”. For the record, I should say that the two are closely related and that absolute morality is more relevant to theological arguments than is objective morality. Absolute morality is “…ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions. It holds that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God or some other fundamental source.” Source: http://www.philosophybasics.com... By contrast, moral objectivism holds “…. that the truth or falsity of moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons, and that they describe (or fail to describe) a mind-independent reality. Therefore, certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion.” Source: Ibid (as above) The two positions are very close to each other (and absolutism is a sub-species of objectivism) and the difference is not relevant to the debate. Now, where does this leave us? Well, either there is an objective morality or there is not. Let’s consider both propositions in turn: There is an objective morality If there is an objective morality then we should just agree that evil exists. But for the record: i) “Honour killings” occur and some of those who commit them get punished ii) “Honour killings” are either morally good or bad (evil) iii) If they are morally good then punishing those who commit them (or preventing them) is evil iv) If they are morally bad then committing them is evil One way or another, an evil act is being committed (either by preventing/punishing a morally good act or by committing a morally bad act in the first place). Therefore, evil exists. There is no objective morality In this case, morality is relative and it is based on individual or group or cultural beliefs. What is morally good to some is morally bad (evil) to others. Does evil exist? Yes, it does exist. Various people define various acts to be evil. Since there is no objective standard to tell us what acts are evil, an act that is believed by someone to be an evil act, is an evil act by that person’s standards. Where this leads is that it does not matter whether we accept that there exists objective morality. One way or the other, evil exists and therefore Point 5 in my original argument stands untouched. God and The objective moral standard Now my opponent makes the following argument: “1) There is an objective moral standard 2) God could be that objective moral standard 3) Therefore God could exist” Firstly, let me point out that this is a red herring. It is not relevant to the Argument from Evil and I can’t help but wonder whether my opponent is acting in good faith (something he himself insisted on in Round 1). Secondly, the argument above fails in any event. My opponent has not provided any argumentation for his premise (2). His argument holds as much water as the following: 1) The sun exists 2) The sun could have been vomited by Bumba 3) Therefore Bumba could exist (African Creation Myths: http://www.mythome.org...) It would seem that (if we accept my opponent’s reasoning) anyone who claims the existence of the sun automatically admits the possibility of the existence of Bumba. This is, of course, false. By admitting the existence of the sun one may, at the most, admit the existence of something that caused the sun, not any specific cause. But there is a further problem with the above argument, namely it cannot succeed unless the Argument from Evil is defeated in the first place. Sure, assuming that morality is objective, God could be the source of morality, unless we can show that God cannot exist, and that question depends on the outcome of this very debate! God is not (by any stretch of the imagination) the only source of morality proposed by Absolute Moralists. Other claims include laws of the universe, the nature of humanity […] some other fundamental source.” http://www.philosophybasics.com... Whether an all-powerful god can stop all immoral things from happening at no cost. My opponent now says that I haven’t argued sufficiently about God’s ability to stop evil. My central argument (although I did put it in a messy way) was that a world where morally wrong things don’t occur is a morally better world than a world where they do occur. My opponent says that I haven’t supported this. But the statement is a truism. It’s the same as saying that a room where there’s more light is a brighter room than a room with less light. Morality (in the sense of being moral) is defined as “1. the quality of being moral” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Is a more moral world more moral than a less moral world? The answer, of course, must be “yes”. Again, this is a truism. Morality (in the sense of a system) is a system of “right and wrong” (Ibid). It’s a system of what ought to be done and what ought not to be done. Therefore, things that are morally right must be more desirable to morally good beings than things that are morally wrong. A morally good agent must desire a morally good world. Note that my opponent has never taken issue with this contention (my point 2 in R1). I then say that an all-powerful agent must also have the means of achieving a morally good world. All-powerful agents are not limited in their power. Now, let’s consider the attributes that my opponent has given to God in R1: Uncaused – this has nothing to do with evil morally good – as argued previously (and unchallenged by my opponent), a morally good agent must have in its nature a desire that no immoral things should happen (my point 2 in R1). all powerful – on its face, this has nothing to do with evil. However, it does bear on my argument that God would be able to do anything He pleases (as long as it’s logically possible) all knowing – again, this does not bear on evil personal - irrelevant the prime/first mover – this has nothing to do with evil From all these attributes, the only one that bears on any desire that God might have is “morally good”. All others focus on God’s non-normative attributes and abilities. Therefore, the only thing that we may say God seeks is that the world should be morally good. And a morally good world is a world where no immoral (evil) things happen (truism). Since, by definition, there is nothing that God seeks other than a morally good world, there can’t be anything more important to Him than a morally good world. And creating a morally good world is a walk in the park for an omnipotent entity. Now, perhaps there’s something my opponent has not told us about God’s nature in the way he defined “god”. But certainly, based on the definition of “god” he has provided, the only thing that God can seek is a morally good world. A world populated by morally good agents would be the most morally good world possible (as no evil things would happen in such a world). Conclusion: 1. Whether or not morality is objective, evil exists (and if there isn’t, God -as defined - cannot exist). 2. A god, as defined (R1) can’t seek anything else than a morally good world. 3. A morally good world is achievable for an all-powerful entity by creating morally good agents. 4. Since this is not the world we have, God (as defined) does not exist.