You all know the debate: Does the existence of evil and suffering prove that there is no God?

Well, let's debate it, because I think I have a unique perspective on this. The argument is usually seen as one of the greatest pieces of evidence against the existence of God, however I think it could be one of the greatest pieces of evidence for God's existence.

Allow me to explain.

There are a lot of things you could say about what happened in 9/11 that morning. If God did not exist you could say, "Well, that upset me" or "I would never do that kind of thing" or "I can't understand why they would ever do that thing", in other words, you could talk about your feelings all day long but what you couldn't do (it seems to me), is that you couldn't call what happened in New York City "wicked". But it seems that that is exactly what you must say of it and the reason you can't call 9/11 wicked if there is no God is because there is no way of distinguishing objective evil from objective good unless you have a foundation to measure those things from.

C.S. Lewis said, "I would not know what crooked was unless I knew what straight was." So if we say, "9/11 was evil" and "that was wicked", I have to ask why would you call that "evil" and "wicked"? I'll answer that question for you... because it's not the way things are supposed to be. They should have done otherwise. Notice my language, "supposed to be" and "should have done otherwise". Those words and that language implies a standard that they should have conformed to and they didn't.

But how do you get "should have" and "ought to" and "supposed to"? In a world of which there is no God. In which it's just molecules and motion. And this is why most Atheists with intellectual integrity acknowledge that if you have no God, you have no standards for good and therefore no standard for evil and therefore the problem of evil evaporates. There is no "problem of evil". I'm sure you didn't like what happened and you wouldn't drive a plane into the World Trade Centers and to you it was bad but you can't say anything more. You can't speak about the actions, you can only speak about your emotional responses.

I think most people are pretty much convinced that those actions were evil. Indeed, one of the strongest arguments against the existence of the kind of God I believe in is the presence of evil in the world. But that can only be voiced if there is real evil in the world and two things follow from that:

First of all, relativism is a dead-end trip. If you believe in moral relativism, that there is no objective right or wrong and it's just a matter of "you have your views, I have mine" well then you can't even answer this question because you don't believe in evil in the world.

I also think that Atheism is a dead-end trip as well, because the Atheists cannot make sense of evil and good in the world. This only makes sense in a world where there is this absolute standard and so it only turns out that the presence of evil in the world (I think) is a great argument for the existence of God.

If there is morality in the world then there must be a God.

You are stupid. End of.

There doesn't have to be a God to teach us what is morally right and wrong, so much so that some people do genuininely believe they are doing good, when in fact the rest of society would have them believe it is wrong. It's an objective standpoint, it's up to you what's right and wrong. The only reason you think, say killing someone, is wrong is because you have to be able to empathise, which of course is a sense that we have developed through evolution.

Besides which, what difference do you think it would make to have God show us this? It's certainly something we can figure out for ourselves. I don't seem to be answering your questions head on here, but I'm trying my best.

Take for instance, when you're a toddler. The only reason you know something is wrong is if your parents scold you. I take it this is how you're referring to God and humankind? However, don't you think that when that toddler grows up, if he was never taught right or wrong, he wouldn't know what was right or wrong? He would, because he would have the ability to empathise. We developed empathy because we needed it for our species to survive, out of natural selection if I must say it.

Honestly, I can't believe anyone can... well... believe - what you believe.

God isn't real.

But I applaud the effort.

Quote from Automaton

You are stupid. End of.

There doesn't have to be a God to teach us what is morally right and wrong, so much so that some people do genuininely believe they are doing good, when in fact the rest of society would have them believe it is wrong. It's an objective standpoint, it's up to you what's right and wrong. The only reason you think, say killing someone, is wrong is because you have to be able to empathise, which of course is a sense that we have developed through evolution.

Besides which, what difference do you think it would make to have God show us this? It's certainly something we can figure out for ourselves. I don't seem to be answering your questions head on here, but I'm trying my best.

Take for instance, when you're a toddler. The only reason you know something is wrong is if your parents scold you. I take it this is how you're referring to God and humankind? However, don't you think that when that toddler grows up, if he was never taught right or wrong, he wouldn't know what was right or wrong? He would, because he would have the ability to empathise. We developed empathy because we needed it for our species to survive, out of natural selection if I must say it.

Honestly, I can't believe anyone can... well... believe - what you believe.

I'll ignore the insults, and actually many people believe in God so yourclosing statement is rather silly.

I didn't say God taught us what is right or wrong, I said that he put it inside us, it is part of us. You keep mentioning empathy, but I'm saying it goes deeper than just that. I'm saying that there is a standard, a real good and a real evil - it's not up to the individual. They know when something is wrong and they know what is right.

You've given the example of killing and the only reason we think it's bad is because there is something built inside of us (through evolution, as you put it) that makes us know it is bad. That's what I'm saying. God set what is right and what is wrong in the world. When you kill, you know it is wrong. You know you shouldn't kill because that's not the way it is supposed to be.

You're missing my point here. You see, I'm not saying God scolds you or whatever, but what I am saying is that he has built inside of us the knowledge of what is right and wrong. Even without living in a society we would still know what is right or wrong in the circumstance. You're actually agreeing with what I'm saying, but you say it is through empathy from evolution.

You also say that it is "completely objective what is right or wrong", then you go on to say that "we know killing is wrong" etc. You're contradicting yourself here. If you think that right and wrong is completely objective to your own mind then this argument cannot be answered by you - you don't believe in right or wrong.

Ok, I'm not sure if I fully understand but I'm attempting.
Well, first of all to even debate in this debate you have to believe in right or wrong. Well alright, that makes sense, since that is the topic.
So you're saying that there must be a god because we can differentiate between right and wrong, because god put it in us or whatever. But then the other side of the debate (who could think that right and wrong disproves the theory of god) isn't left with much because if they believe it means that he doesn't exist and then therefor wrong or right is just a trained belief we're born into. Therefor comes the argument that right and wrong is completely objective, which therefor, said by you, this side can not debate.

Because the only other possible debater is someone who believes that right and wrong disproves god, and at the same time believes in right and wrong as it was implemented by god? because the whole ability to empathize throughout evolution and whatnot is the same as being forced into the belief of right and wrong, as I see it.

tl;dr:
You basically just stated your opinion and said, "oh yeah by the way you can't contribute to this because your opinion disproves my theory. "

You are mistaken.
Atheism isn't knowing to distinguish good or evil.
Us as Human beings can by nature and instinct, tell what is good and what is wrong.

Being called an Atheist is just a way to say that we believe that there is no god controlling that, that we think on our own actions.

So your point makes no sense.

Quote from Wtf

You are mistaken.
Atheism isn't knowing to distinguish good or evil.
Us as Human beings can by nature and instinct, tell what is good and what is wrong.

Being called an Atheist is just a way to say that we believe that there is no god controlling that, that we think on our own actions.

So your point makes no sense.

Check and mate.

if there is a god then it certainly isn't human and the fact that you are attempting to understand it is just plain silly

Quote from Automaton

You are stupid. End of.

There doesn't have to be a God to teach us what is morally right and wrong, so much so that some people do genuininely believe they are doing good, when in fact the rest of society would have them believe it is wrong. It's an objective standpoint, it's up to you what's right and wrong. The only reason you think, say killing someone, is wrong is because you have to be able to empathise, which of course is a sense that we have developed through evolution.


Besides which, what difference do you think it would make to have God show us this? It's certainly something we can figure out for ourselves. I don't seem to be answering your questions head on here, but I'm trying my best.

Take for instance, when you're a toddler. The only reason you know something is wrong is if your parents scold you. I take it this is how you're referring to God and humankind? However, don't you think that when that toddler grows up, if he was never taught right or wrong, he wouldn't know what was right or wrong? He would, because he would have the ability to empathise. We developed empathy because we needed it for our species to survive, out of natural selection if I must say it.

Honestly, I can't believe anyone can... well... believe - what you believe.

So, my dear friends, arguing about an existance that never appeared in your eyes? Why can't I say that Lucky from the Lucky charms commercial is real? There is such a thing as luck. Am I not right? Now, luck must come from something, forsay. And why can't it come from the one and only god? I think there may be god, but getting in fights about it is plain wrong. Why, no evidence. End of sentence. Goodbye, my dear companions.

Dude, there is no evidence of god, but what the dude said is NOT STUPID.

Quote from mdruyan

So, my dear friends, arguing about an existance that never appeared in your eyes? Why can't I say that Lucky from the Lucky charms commercial is real? There is such a thing as luck. Am I not right? Now, luck must come from something, forsay. And why can't it come from the one and only god? I think there may be god, but getting in fights about it is plain wrong. Why, no evidence. End of sentence. Goodbye, my dear companions.

How can you say luck is real? Some people say luck isnt real, some say it is. You just basically said, "There is no evidence of god, except that sometimes your lucky and god gave you that luck."

I hope, Nixon, that you can analyze what you are saying and realize your assertion is, essentially, the following:

"Assume there is a God. This proves God exists."

Quote from Nixon

I'll ignore the insults, and actually many people believe in God so yourclosing statement is rather silly.

Personally, I don't care how many people believe it; I still can't believe anyone actually does. You're essentially arguing that its silly to say "I can't believe people would jump off the cliff" if millions of people are doing so.

I didn't say God taught us what is right or wrong, I said that he put it inside us, it is part of us. You keep mentioning empathy, but I'm saying it goes deeper than just that. I'm saying that there is a standard, a real good and a real evil - it's not up to the individual. They know when something is wrong and they know what is right.

So your arguement is that God made morality? You have no evidence here...

You've given the example of killing and the only reason we think it's bad is because there is something built inside of us (through evolution, as you put it) that makes us know it is bad. That's what I'm saying. God set what is right and what is wrong in the world. When you kill, you know it is wrong. You know you shouldn't kill because that's not the way it is supposed to be.

Once again, you haven't actually said why you think that God "put" morality inside us, instead of it being subjective and inherited from varying influences.

You're missing my point here. You see, I'm not saying God scolds you or whatever, but what I am saying is that he has built inside of us the knowledge of what is right and wrong. Even without living in a society we would still know what is right or wrong in the circumstance. You're actually agreeing with what I'm saying, but you say it is through empathy from evolution.

Still nothing to support yourself...

You also say that it is "completely objective what is right or wrong", then you go on to say that "we know killing is wrong" etc. You're contradicting yourself here. If you think that right and wrong is completely objective to your own mind then this argument cannot be answered by you - you don't believe in right or wrong.

By the way, objective means that it is not open to different viewpoints. If someone believes that morality is objective, they believe that good and evil are set in stone (by someone like God) and certain things are always right or wrong regardless of the context. Someone who believes morality is subjective believes that morality is open to personal viewpoints of the subject, and social context is important.

And I agree with Real. The whole thread, you've stated what you believe ("God put morality inside us") but you haven't given us anything to debate about. You're trying to convince us of your view with nothing but repitition of it. When someone says "I think morality is subjective", you simply say "but he put morality inside us". You can't argue by just repeating your belief.

Nixon, your example proves your argument wrong.

The people who flew planes into the world trade centers GENUINELY believed what they were doing was right, they knew it completely to the core of their being they what they did was for good, and not evil. Yet you said what they did was out of absolute evil, that right there proves moral relativism.

:Oh No!: .