If God created all the good things around us then it means he created all EVIL too

[Asmodee]

The skeptics are misusing the word evidence. That misuse becomes immediately clear when you look at how the word is used in contexts outside of theology.

EXAMPLE 1:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: They just did.

In this example, Harry isn’t presenting any facts at all. He merely restates the original claim in a different form. This would be a case of a claim being made without evidence.

EXAMPLE 2:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: I heard people celebrating the night of the game.

Here, Harry is presenting evidence from which he inferred the Cub’s win. Since Harry lives next to Wrigley Field, he considers the party in the street sufficient justification for his claim. Yogi could object by saying that the hoopla on the street might have been from Cleveland fans or some random drunks or that people party in that neighborhood all the time. What Yogi cannot say is that Harry gave no evidence.

EXAMPLE 3:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: I was at the game and here’s the sport’s section of the Chicago Tribune from the day after the game.

Yogi really cannot say that Harry’s claim is unjustified although he could still make some weak objections. Yogi might say that Harry’s experience is just personal testimony. Yogi might also call the Tribune article is an Argument from Authority. “Why should I believe that rag?” he asks.

The tooth fairy comparison is saying that all claims about the existence of god are like Example 1. That’s simply not true. Cosmological arguments and design arguments are like Example 2. The evidences presented are general observations based on common everyday experience, such as the orderly and incredibly precise nature of the physical universe. From what is evident, theists apply reason and infer the existence of God. Historical arguments are like Example 3. The evidence presented is documentation from the past in which theists have confidence. Skeptics may think that age and apparent inconsistencies make that evidence unreliable, but it’s still evidence. It’s dishonest for the skeptics to say we are making bald assertions like in Example 1. We have presented evidence. They just don’t believe it justifies our belief that God exists. And it’s okay if they think that. We should have those debates. But the “no evidence” slogan is an attempt to hand-wave away the evidence and the tooth fairy comparison is just a dick move.

Cosmological arguments and design arguments are not like any of those three. They're more like example 4.

EXAMPLE 4:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: I started with the belief that they won. I then looked up quotes from Aristotle which supported my belief and from that I was able to adapt a logical proof showing that they won based on common observations which could be interpreted to support my belief. Based on my own biased interpretation of these observations, combined with an outright rejection of any opposing interpretation, I was able to definitively prove that the Cubs won the World Series.

Most "historical arguments" use a variation of example 4 in which they, also, rely heavily on biased interpretations of events and outright rejection of any alternative interpretation.

I must be missing the discrepancies you see btwn Godschild and me. Anyway...how does that work, you ask?

The concept of evil as "the lack of the good that ought to be there" is actually pre-Christian. Plato hints at is, but Aristotle developed it in his Nichomachean Ethics, Augustine popularized it. Today we call it virtue ethics. In order for it to work though you need to accept the notions of formal and final cause.* Formal cause is the notion that it means something to be human, more specifically, things that are essentially normative. Final cause is the notion that some things have desired ends, i.e. a purpose. An analogy might help. A dull, bent and rusty nail is a bad nail. It lacks all the essential features a nail ought to have: sharp, straight and fresh. A nail needs to have those features so it can do the job it is supposed to do. Nails have a right and proper use, fastening wood pieces together, not cleaning your ears. It should be obvious how these notions cannot be reconciled with modern atheistic naturalism. The atheist can list all kinds of facts about human beings, but that says nothing about the right and proper way to live, i.e. values. If there is no ultimate purpose to human life then there isn't anything we are supposed to do. If humans don't have essential natures then there are no general virtues for which they should strive.

*I'm not going to defend those right now since that would be a distraction and beyond the scope.

Oh dear God! There's an ancient, convoluted "logical proof" that you're right! How did I not see this coming???

In the first quote from you in this reply your argument relies heavily on what is "evident". In this argument you want to throw out what is "evident". In both cases you have some logical proof to show why, first, nothing is important except what is evident and, second, nothing which is evident is important. In this case what is evident is that I know people who I could not say one "good" thing about. As far as I can see, there is nothing "good" about them. But they do not compare to Hitler or Stalin. Maybe they're not "good", but neither are they "evil".

And I actually have ancient writings which support me on this. THE BIBLE! The Bible talks about sin as a "stain". Using the "lack of" example, how do I stain my shirt by applying a "lack of" wine? And the Bible clearly states that we need to be forgiven for sin. The narrative clearly lays out "sin" is an impurity which must be expunged through forgiveness. How do you expunge nothing? And using the impurity or imperfection narrative you can actually make a pretty damned compelling logical argument that "good" is actually the absence of "evil". Something which is pure, after all, is that to which no contaminants have been added. Something which is perfect is that which has no imperfections in it. And the Bible REPEATEDLY talks in this narrative, evil and sin being expressed, not as absences of good, but real, separate things.

As for your logical proofs, do you really think the further you go back in time, the smarter and wiser people get? You do realize the collective human race has had an intelligent thought or two since Aristotle and Plato, right? If you put Aristotle, Plato and Einstein in a room together, Einstein could understand everything the other two said, but they wouldn't have a clue what he was talking about most of the time. All of these logical proofs you're digging up from hundreds of years ago, these people were not more learned, more intelligent or more wise than the great minds of the 20th century or today. In fact, in every case, they are less learned, less intelligent and less wise, without exception. You simply are not going to be able to dig up some great wisdom from the past which in any way trumps the wisdom of today. If you have to go 800 years into the past to find your "evidence", to a time when superstition reigned supreme, to a time more than 400 years BEFORE even the superstitious beliefs in Salem allowed people to be horribly murdered on ridiculous claims we wouldn't even consider today then you are going to come up with shit. You just are. I'll take what Hawking knows over what Plato knew any time. Hawking knows everything Plato knew PLUS another 2,400 years of accumulated human knowledge. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but scientists today know a shitload more than philosophers from a millennium or two ago.

---

We could play this silly game for many posts but, I don't want to nor do I think it's helpful. So I'll explain, I've said it many times before I have a personal relationship with God, I've seen His work in my life and other lives. He speaks to me through the Bible and on occasion directly. He has never lied to me and He has shown me things that can in no way be coincidental, so I have no reason to doubt who He is.

One question, how do you know he's never lied to you? It's easy to lie to yourself. If "he" is really "you" then "he" is lying to you right now.