The existence of evil in the world makes it unlikely that the Christian God exists

admin

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone."

I know that [God] can do all things; no purpose of [God's] can be thwarted.

God... knows everything.

The eyes of the Lord are everywhere...

zschmoll

The problem of evil can essentially be put into a proof form which I hope my opponent will not object to me organizing into a valid form of modus tollens.

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.

2. There is evil in the world.

3 Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

I will first address the two main points raised by my opponent in reverse order.

1. “Let’s not presume that God exists.”

There are many belief systems where the problem of evil is not a problem. Take Greek mythology. The deities had as many flaws as the humans they were ruling. Therefore, the problem of evil does not presume to address gods in that context because those gods are not omnibenevolent, omniscient or omnipotent. As a result, if we don’t presume that God exists, our debate is not going to get very far, and neither one of us has enough space to address all the possible arguments for the existence of God. I’m going to assume that we disagree on this one, but since the question asked about the Christian God, we have to at least suppose for the sake of argument that it is possible for God to exist unless the problem of evil shows otherwise.

2. “Evil must mean the absence of God”

My presence at a baseball game does not mean that I am a baseball fan. There might be an infinite number of reasons why I’m there, and none of them might be related to baseball. To bring this back to the argument, it hardly seems contradictory that God cannot exist in a world where evil does.

This brings me to my main point. In the logical proof above, this seems to be the insertion of an assumed premise.

There seems to be an assumption that God cannot possibly have a reason for the existence of evil. Note that I am not saying that God created evil. Rather, I’m saying that in this formulation presented by my opponent from Epicurus, there is the assumption that God would be created in our image. Because we see something that we believe God should not allow for, we question whether or not God can be all three of these things. That is a large presumption on our part to explain to understand and know the mind of God and to conclude absolutely that He would not be able to have a sufficient reason for allowing the existence of evil.

Of course, this will undoubtedly raise the question from my opponent which I will start to address here although I am sure we will talk about further.

What possible reason could God have for allowing evil to exist?

I am going to provide a possible reason although I do this with full recognition of my previous point that it is entirely possible for God to have a reason beyond what I present here.

However, when evil entered the world, it came through the rebellion of people against the will of God and His commandments. These people made a decision. Making a decision implies free will. This might be an area where my opponent challenges, but it seems to experientially hold true that each one of us has free will.

If that is true, then within the Christian worldview, God would have given that will to humanity since nothing was created without God.

Why would God give humanity free will if it had the potential to be abused and turned into evil?

Perhaps because it is only through free will that love is possible. Love cannot be coerced, and if God wanted to have a true relationship with His creation as opposed to a planet of robots, then perhaps free will had to be necessary even though there was risk involved.

Ultimately, I’m sure we will debate this more, but at least in this opening statement, I hope that you can at least see how it is possible that God might have had a reason for allowing evil to exist which would therefore mean that my opponent’s claim is refuted.

zschmoll

I want to thank my opponent for continuing his case.

To respond to his responses about my points:

Free will is a debate in the scientific and philosophical communities. However, I would encourage you to read the source that my opponent has posted. Prominent scientist Chris Firth points out near the end of my opponent’s own source, “We already know our decisions can be unconsciously primed,” he says. The brain activity could be part of this priming, as opposed to the decision process, he adds.” This is not a settled issue in science as my opponent wants to believe it is.

Therefore, when you compare the fact that some scientists argue that free will does not exist with the evidence that other scientists believe it does and our experience with reality seems to point towards the fact that we make our decisions freely, the evidence seems to tilt towards the existence of free will. It certainly seems rational to believe that which simply conforms to reality in light of no real consensus to dispute that.

Changing topics, my opponent claims that you cannot rebel against something all-powerful. I claimed that God gave humanity free will. Therefore, while God could have quashed the rebellion, He will simply gave up His right to control humans as robots. That does not make Him any less omnipotent if God chooses not to utilize a prerogative He has. 

Certainly, love can be a bad thing. It can be perverted and twisted. However, when a God such as the Christian God who is by definition perfect as I agreed to above, then I don’t see how the love of God could be anything less than perfect love. That simply follows if the definition is correct.

If God is good, then He can create things that are good. It is like humans have offspring that are humans. Humans are capable of creating others humans. Therefore, a good being is able to create something that is good, namely the universe in the beginning. Free will is not a bad thing. I emphasize that because it is the abuse of free will that is the problem. It is certainly not self-defeating that God would create anything. That doesn’t follow.

One final point my opponent brings up about my case is actually very important to address, but I ran out of room in the first round. Did God have to make trade-offs? I do believe God is all-powerful, but being all-powerful and being able to do that which is logically impossible are different. If God wanted to create people that had free will, then they had to be free. God said that say that people have free will and then dictate what those people did. That is inherently contradictory.

I will continue my position then with the question posed by my opponent. Could God change the laws of logic? It seems to me that God did not create the laws of logic. Rather, they are the evidence that we see in the world of a consistent and comprehensible system inherent in the mind of God. The universe is logical because It is not as if the laws of external to God, but they are part of His character inherently.

A few quick challenges to my opponent’s positions before I wrap up for this round.

He asserts that evil is the absence of God. He asserts that God is part of everything. Christian theology does not teach that God is part of everything. In the definitions agreed to above, it speaks about God being aware of and seeing everything, but I would not agree to this kind of pantheism that God is in the trees and rocks as a part of everything.

In regards to his second point, if the Christian God exists, then it really does not matter whether people disagree over the definition of good. God is the lawgiver.

In regards to the riddle, it is a huge assumption to believe that there could be no possible reason God would not allow evil for a greater good. 

zschmoll

Thanks again Pro.

In response to his claim that I did not contest his case, I did that in both rounds. I don’t want to use up my limited room with things I have already said, but please refer to the previous rounds.

For the record as well, I do agree that we are not debating the existence of the Christian God.

Another slight clarification which I guess is a term we have never defined, but you need to show it is unlikely that God exists rather than problematic. Since we never defined unlikely, I have been assuming less than 50% probability. After all, then something else would be more likely. I just wanted to clarify what I have been assuming, and if you have been assuming something different, maybe we better sure we are on the same page.

I think you have misrepresented what I meant by tilted. The scientific evidence is still up for debate as regards to whether or not free will exists. Your article shows that there are scientists on both sides. Therefore, I said that in the case that we do not have definitive scientific evidence on either side, our own human experience is the next best thing to refer to in this situation. Therefore, it seems reasonable to choose the one that corresponds with the reality of our understanding that we have free will.

I have never made that representation of the Christian God as an old man on the cloud; simply a straw man. However, I would contend that if the Christian God has created, then at some point, He certainly made decisions about how to create.

It seems to me that you keep wanting to come back to this idea that God created evil, and that Christians are determined to justify even the evil that you claim God created as good. I have not said that at all. Rather, I have said that God gave humans free will which is good. If free will is good, then God did not create evil but rather humans have committed these acts by abusing the good thing God provided. In order for you to continue this line, I think it is necessary for you to now claim that free will is bad. Otherwise, I have provided a probable reason that God provided something that is good to humanity but has been abused by humanity which disputes your claim.

In regards to God not being able to do illogical things, I will start from Genesis 1:1. If God created the heavens and the earth, then it was impossible that God did not create the heavens and the earth. I don’t see how that is a contradiction of omnipotence. However, if you are claiming the position that it is possible for God to have the power to do illogical, then certainly the problem of evil is no problem. Your alleged contradiction is undercut, so if I can play by those rules, the debate is over now. Will you let me?

How is God rebelling against humanity the equivalent of Him providing them a gift of something that was good? Please expand in the following round.

Sure, maximizing human love particularly of God. How could humans have a relationship with God if they could not love Him?

Army of robots: a good God can create a good universe. Like can create like. No issue

Trade-offs: you have made the claim it would be better. Please expand on why.

Pantheism: this problem is not even a problem if God has a sufficient reason for allowing evil.

In regards of defining good, I did not say that human perceptions cannot possibly be different, but rather I said that there is one standard of good. We have the free will to say whatever we want, but if God is the lawgiver, it doesn’t mean that our perception changes that standard.

God being malevolent: if God has a sufficient reason, then how can you classify Him as malevolent? If God does not have a reason, then you may.

zschmoll

I’m going to apologize for jumping around here, but I want to conceptually bring some of these points together.

First, I have affirmed that God created the universe good. We did not agree that the universe was created imperfectly.

I will now address whether or not free will is good. Since we are operating from the presupposition of the Christian God existing as defined in our first statement, if it is a gift that comes from God, then it is good because as we are both affirmed, God cannot do that which is evil.

This of course leads to the point about free will as a force for evil. Free will is not evil in and of itself; the abuse of free will being evil does nothing to diminish the goodness of free will itself. Every human being has the potential to murder, but that does not mean that we all evil because we are murderers. Very few of us are murderers.

While we’re on the point of free will, in regards to the study Pro mentions, I would like to submit a perspective as to why free will does seem to exist (http://chronicle.com/article/Alfred-R-Mele/131166/). All I am saying in regards to the one study that my opponent presents is that the science seems to be in dispute here. Therefore, it seems more than reasonable to assume that our perception of reality is valid. Believing in free will is not anti-scientific, and I don’t see the unique points my opponent made in regards to the specific area other than that one article.

Moving on to this idea about God not making decisions, I don’t follow his point. If God is unchanging, then why does not necessarily mean that God cannot make decisions? Why couldn’t God not change creation if He wanted to? It involves a decision as well as nothing about God changing.

In regards to the point about God being able to do things that are not logically possible, I’m not going to continue on that line. You brought up that it was possible for the Christian God to do that which was logically impossible. It is not a part of my argument and does not limit omnipotence as I already explained.

For the rest of the time that I have here, I am going to go back to this idea of sufficient reason and the old man in the clouds. Maybe I’m not explaining myself clearly. The problem of evil is:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.

2. There is evil in the world.

3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

The first premise is clearly the problematic one. It is important to point out that if this type of God exists and has a sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist, then it is not necessarily true that evil does not exist.

The logical problem of evil goes out the window. After all, the following proof is just as valid as the one I just presented.

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists (assumption in the conditions of the debate)

2. There is evil in the world.

3. God can possibly have a sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist in the world.

4. It is possible for God to exist despite the fact that the world has evil.

Obviously we are debating over 3. I have proposed that perhaps free will is a sufficient reason for allowing the existence of evil. I have provided reasons why this is a likely reason for God allowing evil

To reiterate what I said in the first round, this is only a possible explanation but it is one that seems to have explanatory power. However, even hypothetically if everything I have said up until this point is wrong and God allows evil for an entirely different reason than free will, my opponent has yet to show that it is unlikely that God has a sufficient reason for allowing evil.

I am looking forward to the final round and thank my opponent

zschmoll

I have been accused of avoiding arguments. Let me try to explain why. Remember that this entire question is whether or not it is unlikely that God exists given the existence of evil in the world.

The argument I have made throughout this entire debate is that it is certainly logically possible that God has a reason for allowing evil. It should be rather self-evident that God did not need to make about reason known to humanity. Given that we are not omniscient, it is possible that there is a reason we do not know about. Yes, that was only one third of my opponent’s argument, but it was also the only part of my opponent’s argument that really addresses the question.

If it is true that God has a sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist, then the problem of evil is not a problem. The debate goes my way if this is true.

That is why I have stuck to this idea presented a positive case as to why free will is a sufficient reason.

First off, I understand that free will have to exist in order for this to be true. From the article I posted as well as the one that my opponent shared, it should be obvious that science does not uniformly deny the existence of free will, and if you want to do your own research beyond our debate, you’ll find more of the same.

Therefore, it does not seem reasonable to reject that which seems obvious in our daily lives. Free will simply seems that reality, and in the absence of having a good reason to doubt that, science is not the trump card my opponent wants it to be.

I’m not going to rehash my entire debate, but my logic can essentially be summed up into the following:

1. If God has a sufficient reason for allowing evil, the problem of evil does not make the existence of God unlikely.

2. Free will is a sufficient reason for God allowing evil. (And even though my opponent repeats this claim again in his final speech, allowing humans to have free will does not impinge on the omnipotence of God)

3. Therefore, the problem of evil does not make the existence of God unlikely.

Why my opponent made some points that I did not engage with very much:

The objectivity of ethics is really irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if people disagree on what constitutes ethical behavior. There is a huge difference between ethics being objectives and everyone agreeing on them. I really didn’t think that this point was worth countering and similarly does not really speak to the issue.

Good not being is not everywhere is a mischaracterization as well. I think the baseball game analogy holds. Isn’t it possible to be somewhere without being guilty of the activity taking place? I am an American, but I am not guilty every time another American does something that is wrong. I simply don’t think this is a very strong objection.

Therefore:

Given two irrelevant arguments and one relevant argument that is admittedly a technical and complex idea, naturally I had to focus on that which was of immediate concern.

Also, we set the rules in the beginning about the definition of the Christian God. I affirmed that. In the last round. My opponent says that I did not defend omnibenevolence, but that isn’t something I need to defend. That was in the definitions. We agreed on that at the beginning, and he agreed to that as part of who God is. Therefore, why would I bother defending that if my opponent is going to agree that we are assuming a being who is omnibenevolent? My opponent wants to recharacterize what we agreed on here in the last round, and that simply isn’t a great tactic.

Bottom line, I have been defending the idea that free will is a sufficient reason for allowing evil. If that is true, then my opponent has not even a reason for it to be unlikely that God exists given the existence of evil.

Thank you for the debate.