(March 11, 2013 at 5:40 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Well, I think most of you are kinda missing the point here, which is why I kudos to Ryantology for the honest reply. Lane's point is that using the argument of Evil to prove God does not exist is not logical. His position is that good and evil have no meaning outside a theological context and so that argument has no force. Now, I know some of you believe in a morality apart from God. I'm not trying to restart another morality thread. I only wanted to clarify the thrust of Lane's argument.
Yes. I didn't see this reply before I posted mine below. The argument surrounds a belief that has yet to be established as true either. The idea that absolute evil exists deserves its own debate! An event like the holocaust being evil apart from and independent from human beings doesn't make much sense. All the acts classified as right or wrong are contingent upon human experience and therefore cannot be absolute. A rock is a rock apart from a mind saying it is so. But rape cannot even be rape independent from intelligent organic reproducing beings! There is nothing absolute about good or evil unless a God is proven. What Craig says is true-Objective morality exists only if there is a God. But his second premise-2 Objective morality does exist-cannot be strengthened by an unproven hypothesis. His syllogism fails.
