Evil proves God does not exist (Part 3)

Moral objectivism and Moral objective standards and Objective moral values Pro says. .. . "Firstly, he claims that I must commit myself to the position that objective ("absolute" would be a more appropriate philosophical term) moral standards exist. " Pro mistakenly equates moral objectvisim with moral absolutism. "Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism (also called moral objectivism). Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism)" [1] As William Craig says. .. "To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them. " [2] --- Pro arguments rest on their being an objective moral standard --- Pro does indeed commit to their being an objective moral standard existing, not because I say so but because Pro says such things as "Stop the evil (rape of a child) and therefore deprive the rapist of exercising a morally wrong act (in effect limit the rapist's free will);" & "God cannot exist precisely because his failure to prevent evil is contrary to his claimed nature as a morally good god. " How interesting, according to Pro the rape of children and God not preventing that rape are both objectively morally wrong. But how can the rapist and God not preventing the rape be objectively morally wrong if there is no objective moral standard ? It can't. Pro thinks that me pointing out assumptions that are based on THEIR argument is me some how acting unjustly. As C. S Lewis has written in mere Christianity. .. "My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? .. . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies" [3] Pro tries to make them self a victim. Pro is claiming that I have some how acted wrongly, but how can I be acting wrongly if there is no moral standard ? And how can I be acting objectively wrong even committing these great injustice as Pro says unless there is an objective moral standard in the first place ? I encourage Pro to give more examples of "evils" done by people, God and myself in order to show that their own arguments rests on the foundation that an objective moral standard exists. God and The objective moral standard With an objective moral standard established, I before made the claim that God COULD be that objective standard. My argument is as follows. 1) There is an objective moral standard 2) God could be that objective moral standard 3) Therefore God could exist Now Pro could try and challenge premise 1, and deny that their is an objective moral standard, but then all Pro previous arguments that rest on their being an objective moral standard come crashing down. Now maybe Pro could agree that an objective moral standard does exist, to maintain their previous arguments, but deny that God is that objective standard. If Pro does do this then they would have to provide justification why God CAN"T be that objective standard. As such, it is possible that God is that objective standard and thus its possible that God exists. Countering Point 3- whether an all-powerful god can stop all immoral things from happening at no cost. I didn't claim ALL evil that is allowed, can be justified just because of a free will defense, I merely gave it as one example. I also claimed that another cost of stopping evil would be anything that would result in a world where evil exists which would not have been the case in the absence of evil existing. This was too refute the claim made by Pro that "3. An all-powerful agent can do anything it pleases. It COULD therefore stop all immoral things from happening and it could do so at no cost at all. " --- Does God have sufficient moral reason to allow evil too exist ? --- Now I listened very carefully what Pro had to say, in order to prove that the existence of evil proves God does not exist. Pro says "Let's then ask ourselves a question. Would a morally good entity allow evil things to happen simply for the sake of allowing agents to choose evil things? Of course it wouldn't. " Sorry, what was the reason again ? Is your rhetorical question an actual reason given ? Pro says "And a state of affairs where it's possible to commit a an evil act is a less morally good state of affairs than a state of affairs where this is impossible. " And the reason given to support this is what exactly ? Your own assertion ? Pro says "I suggest that the action in (i) would be a morally better action than the inaction in (ii). An agent who prevents moral wrong is a morally better agent than one who doesn't" So an agent who prevents moral wrong is better because you suggest that it is ? Pro says "What's the moral good of preserving an immoral free will? Nothing. " Well you say so, so it must be true. Pro says "A person who has the means to stop an evil and fails to do so only to say "Oh, but I wanted the evil-doer to exercise his free will" cannot be said to be acting in a morally good way" Free will was only given as one example and is not used to justify EVERY evil that happens, having sufficient moral reason to allow evil is another. If Pro argues that God and or a moral agent can never have sufficient moral reason to allow evil to exist, I look forward to Pro presenting a justification for this claim other than Pros own assertions. The Emotional problem of evil This debate is about the logical problem of evil, now there is indeed a emotional problem of evil as William Craig says "First, we must distinguish between the intellectual problem of evil and the emotional problem of evil. The intellectual problem of evil concerns how to give a rational explanation of how God and evil can co-exist. The emotional problem of evil concerns how to dissolve people’s emotional dislike of a God who would permit suffering" [4] I concede that their is an emotional problem of evil, but that is not the debate topic at hand. In order for Pro to justify the claim that the existence of evil proves God does not exist, they must show the logical contradiction not an emotional one eg, God allows things to happen that I don't like thus God does not exist. Summary 1) Pros arguments commit themselves to their being an objective moral standard. 2) God could be that objective moral standard and thus could exist. 3) Pros arguments about what is or isn't moral has no support other than their own assertions. 4) God could have sufficient moral reason for allowing evil. 5) An emotional problem does not prove a logical contradiction between the existence of evil and God existing. I look forward too pros reply. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://afterall.net... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...