God is not moral and the Problem of Evil logically says he does not exist.

On the Logic of the Problem of Evil If god is all knowing, then he knows that all evil exists and, being all-powerful, god can stop all evil. Being All-good, god would want nothing more than to end the evil as we know it. If I stood there and watched a woman and child be raped and, being well armed, there is no question I could stop it, then I would not be ignored from the crime or called good. I would be arrested and at the very least charged as an accomplice to the crime, as part of the crime. If we hold ourselves to higher standards than god holds himself, then god has extremely low standards for himself. It is impossible for god to be all-good (benevolent) if he sees the crime and does nothing about it. That is how these premises contradict each other. God cannot be good if he knowingly allows evil to exist, and since god is proclaimed to be good throughout the bible, it appears that it is a huge qualification for god to be good. Without that, he wouldn't be the Christian god. Therefore, we can assume that the Abrahamic God does not exist simply because he does not qualify to be the Christian god. On "ArgumentIIA According to your own bible, capitol punishment is not good in any case. when a man was brought to Jesus to be executed by stoning based on the 3 witness law of Deuteronomy, Jesus said "Let the one without sin throw the first stone." If we are all dead in our sin as the bible states, then capitol punishment is never right, even in the case of Saddam Hussein or Hitler. You can't kill a man because he kills another. Lock him up, torture him until he begs to die, leave him with minimal amounts of food and water, but no! Do not kill him unless you have been as perfect as Jesus. What you are using as justification for Capitol Punishment is subjective morality, or that morality can be changed to a case to case situation and is purely a weighing of pros and cons. If morality is objective, then we could never kill another human being- not even in war. God himself uses subjective morality in killing people who do not honor him and in allowing Israel to wage war against its enemies. Objective morality Position 4: Morality is not simple, and sometimes certain moral "rules" as the pro calls do not apply in all frames of reference. (this position may be irrelevant depending on how he argues.) Your statement above contradicts objective morality. Rules can be bent or broken based on a case per case issue. We reason what the morality of each case is and there is no basis of morality implanted in our hearts or minds. We are taught them from birth and there are several hypotheses that attempt to explain morality through evolution, one of which is very convincing and is based on social groups of animals. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) You see, objective morality is a set of laws that cannot be broken. But we see that God breaks these "laws" and that even my above set of rules can be accommodated for cases like Hitler or Saddam. Objective morality simply does not exist, On argument three On premise 1: I agree with premise one in the sense that everything comes from something and nothing can come nothing. Though we do not know exactly how the Universe began, you cannot throw god into that gap simply because any god based on an argument of the gaps will eventually cease to exist like the Sun, Rain, and Wind gods of the past. Science will explain the beginning of the Universe given enough time- the fact that we do not know now is not evidence for any god. On Premise 2: A) It also seems rational that since everything has to have a creator, the creator himself would also have a creator. It doesn't make sense under premise one that god is eternal as since he exists, there must also be a cause to his existence! This argument contradicts the bible which claims god is eternal and that is simply illogical. B) Intelligent Design is not evidence for any god. When you look out at the Universe, you see what seems to be a perfect set up for mankind, don't you think? All just for us. Every one of the Hundred Billion stars, galaxies, planets, black holes, asteroids that could destroy us at any time, stars dying showing that ours will someday die as well, the possibility of our climate suddenly changing and all life on Earth suddenly dying, and even the fact that we are on a gigantic rock hurtling through space around a huge ball of fusion energy and that we barely exist on the skin of that flying rock, it all looks as if it was perfect for us. I hope you could detect the sarcasm there. You see, the universe was not made for us. If it was, the whole thing would be built for our bodies, perfectly suited for us to go out and explore space at our leisure. Not only would our climate be perfect for life on Earth (which it isn't), The whole Universe would be there just for more Earths in case we destroyed this one. Intelligent Design is ridiculous. On Premise 3: Well, duh, the Universe exists. Conclusion: None of this points to god's existence. Under all this logic, God himself must have a creator and the bible states he is eternal in multiple places. This is illogical according to your own argument. Rebuttals? Case one: The Rape Story Joseph: Joseph never actually became a pharaoh or even a ruler of a town. He simply became an adviser and none of this is proven in the very recorded history of Egypt's reign. But anyways, the question is this: How does the rape and murder of a Mother and her child have anything to do with the big picture? If the big picture required the murder of these two presumably innocent people while god allowed it and watched it, then we ought to rebel against this "big picture" as it is even worse than Stalin's, who at least had a purpose behind his murdering. Response to my quote: Many people in Indonesia had never heard of the Christian god when the tsunami swamped them in 2004. Sure Missionaries had been there, but there were still uninformed people. Why did god kill them? Why, In Sodom and Gomorrah, were Children killed by fire and rock? Little Children who could not choose god in any way? God is in no way moral. For infanticide, the worst crime I can possibly think of, to be committed by an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing god, then god must be truthfully evil and cannot be anything but malevolent. There is no purpose to a baby's death. None. there is no purpose to allow children in Africa to starve when they will never hear his name. He allows for this evil and for every death that happens wrongly with no purpose whatsoever, god is that much evil. Case 2: Telling a baby not to eat a delicious looking peace of candy when he doesn't even know that eating that candy is wrong is like telling a dead tree not to fall- its going to happen unless you physically stop it. (How could we know that it is wrong to disobey god without knowing good and evil? Because he says so? Then why the need for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil if we already had it?) When God sat there watching the snake convince Eve to take a bite, why didn't he stop the snake? Was the introduction of evil into his creation part of some big plan? It seems that what he had was perfect! We loved him and obeyed him without question. But instead he allowed the devil to do what he did. Why? Another question still stands: God knew of everything that was going to happen, so why, knowing what Satan would do, did he not smite Lucifer when he had the chance? Moreover, why would there ever have been a battle? God can do anything! Why not kill Satan and save his creation? If Lucifer was Original Sin, why not destroy sin then and there? Why allow it to go on when he knew that was going to happen? Could he do nothing about it? Is satan more powerful than God? I and every Christian doubt that! So why did he allow it? Case 3: I am angry when god appears unjust and immoral. It is wrong to assume that even the Children were that evil. Ity bity little Children. Infants. Killed by Brimstone and Fire. What kind of justice is that? Even if the men of the city were gay and raping newcomers, then why not just kill them? A simple heart attack or a mass stroke session would have done the trick, but instead he killed even the infants. The Crime did not fit the punishment there. I can say they didn't know he existed for there is no evidence that they did know. With the knowledge level of the time, yes it is correct that to look into the sky and see the stars would cause one to think there is a creator (though with the knowledge of now, Intelligent design is debunked.) However, would they not have their own gods then? Why would the Jewish God be better than their god? Why should they follow his rules over theirs when there was no evidence he existed! It just doesn't make sense to punish them for rules they had no knowledge of as this god was completely new to the world and the idea of one god was specific to the Jews. The rest of the world were polytheists. They didn't beg for a destruction- they just didn't even know he was there. Case 4: Children had nothing to do with the decision that rulers made long before they were born. If a man murders 10 people's children, do we put him in jail or do we leave the father alone and take his child to jail instead? Once again, God does not even stand up to Human morals. Case 5: I am running out of characters so that is why these two were covered so quickly. However, for the case of Ananias and Sapphira (too bad my favorite dragon's name came from the bible. Sniff), they didn't lie to god. They lied to Peter. It would actually seem in this case that the church killed the couple, but we are assuming that God is real so even then, why would god kill them for such a small lie when there were people being murdered and starving and dying? Hardly a just god. Conclusion My arguments are still valid.