Willaim Craig: Evil is proof that God exists.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

[Minimalist]

His position is that good and evil have no meaning outside a theological context and so that argument has no force.

Just because he makes an argument does not mean that any one else has to buy it.

[EGross]

But that would bring us back to the old "There is no such thing as objective morality, since that is a theological argument, not a social one, and without God there is no theology and without theology there is no morality and without morality there is no good or evil, and since there is evil, there is a God."

But that last statement is certainly BS, because since man made up the theology, to define Good and Evil, one would have to say that God got bored and said, "Hmmm, what kind of BS religion do I want to make up today...Oh, I know, I will knock up a virgin...no..no..wait...this is good...and I will birth myself through her...bwaa...ha...HA...HA...yes! Make it so!" And then he has to explain what is good, what is evil, they write it up, and from all of that we prove that God exists because, well, the very morality that we created in the first place is used to prove that there is a God!

Which is a BS argument at its best.

[ThomM]

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.

However - good and evil exist around the world - even if places that have never heard of gods. And - they existed before the invention of Xtianity - as well as before Judaism. In fact - the earth existed before the claim of the creation of it by the jewish god.

However - one can use Buddhism or Confucianism as examples of morality in godless religion - since neither accept a "supreme being".

THe idea that morality exists only in a Xtian world is not only hilarious - but it is nonsense. THere have never been a time when the whole world was Xtian - and probably no time when most of it was.

---

But that would bring us back to the old "There is no such thing as objective morality, since that is a theological argument, not a social one, and without God there is no theology and without theology there is no morality and without morality there is no good or evil, and since there is evil, there is a God."

But that last statement is certainly BS, because since man made up the theology, to define Good and Evil, one would have to say that God got bored and said, "Hmmm, what kind of BS religion do I want to make up today...Oh, I know, I will knock up a virgin...no..no..wait...this is good...and I will birth myself through her...bwaa...ha...HA...HA...yes! Make it so!" And then he has to explain what is good, what is evil, they write it up, and from all of that we prove that God exists because, well, the very morality that we created in the first place is used to prove that there is a God!

Which is a BS argument at its best.

Agreed

The question you must ask yourself is WHY evil exists at all if a "all good" and "almighty" god exists.

Clearly =- if the god was all good - evil could not exist at all - it could not invent evil. But then - that god would not be almighty.
And the problem with the claim of almighty - is that the "battle" between "gods" good forces and the forces of evil should NOT even happen - since the god can summarily just WILL evil away as the almighty being.

However - the problem is that - even if evil were an indication of a higher power existing - now connect the dots to your religion. Xtians do not claim a god exists - they claim THEIR god exists - and that CANNOT be true. IF you add up all the claims, contradiction and whatnot they have said - a single being - even with multiple personality disorder - could Not fulfill all of them.

And that is where the problem comes in. Religion exists to be a "connection" and a "mediator" between a person and a god. THere is no support that show this can even be true. Even if a "higher power" exists - there is no reason to believe a religion would have any more say with it .

[The Reality Salesman01]

There seems to be a slight misunderstanding of his actual argument. What he said was that without OBJECTIVE (absolute) moral values there is no true evil or true good. His examples of the holocaust are used to provoke this question-Would the holocaust be evil even IF everyone thought it was not. Is rape TRUELY bad regardless of whether anyone disagrees? What he goes on to say is that- If someone murders another, although it is relevant to the indivual being killed and anyone directly affected by the murder through out the span of structured society and during any period of time in which record of the incident can be accounted for...Why does it matter long after the earth is gone? If something is an absolute truth or Objective in the sense suggests it is. Then it is not contingent on any physical existance or the existance of a non physical mind.

So, if long after human beings walk the earth or even earth itself going out of existance, if one is to assert that rape would still be objectively evil, you would have to assert how. Why is another neccessary question that follows.

If absolute right or wrong exists, it must exist independent of any person's opinion of it. Therefore... If Absolute good or evil exists, it exists in God, becuase to Craig, God is absolute and it is from God that such things are given their truth.

Its a trap.

His argument is actually pretty sound, but only if the opponent concedes that objective moral values DO exist. If you reject that premise, then there is little that can be argued to support the alternative. But to reject it, the perception of you is quite negative regardless of how much sense it makes when one is honest with themselves in approaching the subject philisophically.

The problem is that given the public venue of such a debate, the atheist is forced to assert that rape or the holocaust is not truely, OBJECTIVELY wrong in the absolute sense. This would be a move that would most certainly place the atheist into a stereotype of a "soul-less" drone regardless of how logical such an assertion would be. Craig knows this, and appeals to the prejudice of the audience and banks on it. He uses the setting of the debate to his advantage and puts Harris into an uncomfortable position. If Harris claims anything different, his words would be most certainly qouted out of context and distributed in such distorted versions as-"In the debate against William Lane Craig, Sam Harris claimed that"- "...The holocaust was not truely wrong"-"and Harris went on to say"..."Rape is not truely bad"- You see?!! It's not the right forum for such a debate to be had. Harris was at a disadvantage. Nobody wants to be percieved as a champion of Rape or The Holocaust!!! That's exactly how he would be labeled too. Craig appealed to ignorance in a different way than the fallacy defines it. He appealed to the anticipation of ignorant perception.

[The Reality Salesman01]

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.