Shouldn’t such a God at least refrain from genocide, from complete disregard of the Geneva Accords? If, on the other hand, Peter is right, that it is impossible to completely disprove the existence of God with the Problem of Evil (as it would be impossible to disprove the existence of a sovereign Satan with the Problem of Good) the non-theist can at least show how totally implausible the God of the Bible is (or for that matter, any God as defined by theism) by showing Him to be an egregious offender against nearly universal standards of law and justice.
On the other hand, if good is admitted to be an objective fact of the world, then, as the moral argument demonstrates, Satan must exist.” This is exactly the same argument, the same logic, that Peter uses to show that either the moral argument against God vanishes, or that God is ‘proven’ to exist. If no such standard exists, then no departure is possible, and the objection against Satan based on good vanishes. “The only way one can object to Satan on the basis of good is if good is an objective fact, since good must necessarily be a departure from a standard of perfect evil.
Perhaps this can best by shown by replacing God in Peter’s argument with Satan, defined as the omnipotent, perfectly evil creator of the cosmos. I defy anyone to formulate a more perverse, anti-intuitive argument. But if I do acknowledge such evil, it proves the existence of a perfect and all powerful God. Well, here we go again Peter persists in his argument that I must acknowledge evil as objectively real, by his definition, or I have no real standard by which to judge God. On the other hand, if evil is admitted to be an objective fact, then, as the moral argument demonstrates, God must exist: “if objective values cannot exist without God, and objective values do exist – as is evident from the reality of evil – then it follows inescapably that God exists.” The problem of evil either falls at the first hurdle, by failing to acknowledge the objective reality of evil, or else ends up proving God’s existence. If no such standard exists, then no departure from the standard is possible, and the objection against God based on evil vanishes. The only way one can object to God on the basis of evil is if evil is an objective fact, a departure from a standard of moral perfection. The dialogue addresses these and related questions.
The principle theistic response is the Free Will defense, which essentially blames the woes of the world on its human creatures. How can these attributes be reconciled with the fact that our earth, His creation, is filled with evil? The evil is both moral – evil committed by human beings, and natural – evils such as children dying of cancer, for which there is no human responsibility. God is supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect. Peter and Carl agree that the Problem of Evil is central in any debate about the existence of God as defined by theists.
0 kommentar(er)
