Another problem of evil examined
Posted by RyftJul 20
Justin, a young man from Canada, started a brand new blog called Consider Atheism. Although I don’t remember how I stumbled upon his blog, it has garnered my interest for two reasons: he is Canadian and purports to defend Atheism. (And there is also the fact that he is young, which means he is still teachable.)
One of the first posts to elicit a response from me regarded the Problem of Evil (which most people know is my favourite subject). The following is the sum of our discussion.
~*~
Justin (18 June 2010)
This will be my first of many posts on this argument. I believe it to be the strongest argument in support of atheism. If you are unfamiliar with it, allow me to explain it as simply as I can.
The POE is basically asserting that evil should not be able to exist if a God is all loving. I am not convinced by an argument right off the bat, so I did look into it for a fair bit of time. I came to my own conclusion: if objective moral values exist, then God exists. If evil exists, then God created it. I believe that creating evil itself is the worst sin of all. It is concluded that God is not able to sin, because sinning would be falling short of a perfect act. So if we are able to conclude that creating evil itself is the worst sin(or any type of sin), then God would not have been able to create it. Since he is falling short of a perfect act. This can be explain in a syllogism that I formulated:
P1: If evil exists, then God created it.
P2: By simple assertion, it is at the very least considered a sin.
P3: God cannot sin.
C: Following premises 1-3, God cannot create objective moral values since this would include making evil.
This is the conclusion I have come to after considering this argument. Perhaps if this seems fallacious, I will change my mind. But for the time being, it is my stance and the main reason why I believe atheism to be true. If you think you can prove it false, then feel free to comment. I’m always open to consideration.
~*~
Ryft (1 July 2010)
(I am responding from the Christian view.)
If objective moral values exist, then God exists.
This warrants no serious objection, so it can stand.
If evil exists, then God created it.
This, however, does warrant serious objection.
First, ‘evil’ is not an ontological term; it is not a thing to be created. If moral order is grounded in the nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands, then ‘evil’ is a relational term—i.e., the moral value of p is determined by p’s relationship to the nature and will of God (e.g., malevolence is evil because it is contrary to the nature of God, or idolatry is evil because it is contrary to the will of God).
Second—and consequently—God did not create evil; he created free agents who committed evil (e.g., blasphemed against the nature of God and rebelled against the will of God). The agents God created were perfect, but they did not remain perfect.
I believe that creating evil itself is the worst sin of all.
Therefore, this no longer follows (since evil is not a thing to be created).
It is concluded that God is not able to sin, because sinning would be falling short of a perfect act.
God is not able to sin by definition. In other words, given how sin is defined, the nature and will of God is not able to be contrary to the nature and will of God. Think law of non-contradiction; i.e., “God is not able to sin” because x cannot be ¬x at the same time and in the same respect (e.g., God cannot command something he does not command).
So if we are able to conclude that creating evil itself is the worst sin…
Therefore, the rest of the argument no longer follows.
~*~
Justin (1 July 2010)
I think you are misunderstanding what I am proposing.
God did not create evil; he created free agents who committed evil.
Just to clarify a little more on my argument, evil is not able to be committed if it didn’t even exist in the first place; which is something that you even have yet to prove. However, for the sake of argument, I will accept that evil does exist. This also leaves problems. I do not see how evil can exist in the physical world if it was not first created. When God created the universe, he created matter, the laws of logic, and everything that is material of immaterial around us. Even if it is grounded in His nature, that still leaves problems. Does that mean that objective moral values existed before the universe? This is just nonsensical.
Therefore, this no longer follows (since evil is not a thing to be created).
Like I stated, evil needs to be created for God to make it exist in the actual world. Even if it is grounded in his nature, it would still have to be created to apply to our universe. Else evil itself would not apply to our setting of life.
~*~
Ryft (1 July 2010)
Evil is not able to be committed if it didn’t even exist in the first place.
This simply does not follow—at least on the Christian view, where evil is not an ontological term. I suppose it might follow on some other view which sees evil as a created thing having an ontological state; but then your critique would address a view different from what Christianity posits, which stands unchallenged.
And the Christian view is that, since objective moral order is grounded in the nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands, ‘evil’ is a relational term, such that the moral value of p (e.g., “P is evil”) is determined by p’s relationship to the nature and will of God. Moral terms are different from ontological terms; i.e., ‘God’ is an ontological term, whereas ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are moral terms. What this means for your argument—if it wishes to address the Christian view—is that evil is committed when something is contrary to the nature and will of God (and, conversely, good is committed when something corresponds to the nature and will of God). In other words, evil is able to be committed because an objective moral order exists in the first place, God. (Remember your first premise.)
I do not see how evil can exist in the physical world if it was not first created.
Perhaps you do now. I shall wait for your response to find out, but evil can exist in the physical world because things in the physical world can be contrary to the nature and will of God (e.g., malevolence, idolatry, rape, etc.). Evil—a moral valuation—does not exist ‘in itself’ (Latin: per se) but rather by virtue of being contrary to God; ‘evil’ is a moral term, not an ontological one.
When God created the universe, he created matter, the laws of logic, and everything that is material of immaterial around us.
A slight correction here. Neither the laws of logic nor morality were created by God. They are grounded in the very nature of God, who exists eternally. While it is true that God created the entire universe and everything in it, the attributes or properties of his nature were not part of that creation; with regard to his being, God is who he is eternally.
Does that mean that objective moral values existed before the universe? This is just nonsensical.
First, to dismiss something as nonsensical without demonstration commits the argumentum ad lapidem fallacy. The rational person (which I assume you are) is concerned with avoiding invalid argumentation. Second, objective moral order is grounded in the nature and will of God, who exists eternally (i.e., “before the universe”). Keep in mind that both your argument and our discussion here is addressing metaethics (what morality is), not ethics (what is moral).
~*~
Justin (3 July 2010)
I will concede for now, but I will make a blog post in the future addressing these points. I need to start writing blogs instead of replying to comments.
Thanks.





7 comments
Comment by taco on 22 Jul 2010 at 08:40
An interesting application note one might share, if it is valid, of your argument would be to note that when God created, He declared it "good." That would be a prescriptive definition in relation to His will as well. Good didn't exist "in itself" but rather is God's moral valuation of what He created.
Would you consider this a sound application to clarify the the side of "what is good?"
Comment by consideratheism on 22 Jul 2010 at 14:10
I would like to thank you for linking to my blog.
As someone else stated in a comment on my blog, Isaiah 45:7 states it very plainly: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Your entire argument falls apart if you follow this bible passage, but you certainly can't pick and choose what you follow(which many are guilty of[not necessarily you]).
Comment by Ryft on 22 Jul 2010 at 19:56
Yeah, I wouldn’t get too excited about the comment that Bethrick left on your article. It was so full of holes it was almost embarrassing to read. Bethrick is very often an object lesson on how not to argue. In other words, perhaps you might want to think twice about writing a blog post on the points he raised. His reference to Isaiah 45:7 that you latched onto here is a brilliant example. Let me ignore him (as I tend to do) and speak to you directly. You at least still have an open mind.
Your argument, and my rebuttal thereof, was concerned with moral evil. This is what we were talking about when I said “evil is not a thing to be created” and that “moral order is grounded in the nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands,” etc. But does this passage pull the rug out from under my argument? No, because it is not talking about moral evil. This becomes obvious the moment we realize that contrasts are being made here. There is the contrast of light versus darkness on the one hand, so what is the contrast of peace or national well-being (shalom)? Disaster or calamity, which is why practically all other translations use such words—including the NKJV (New King James Version). This passage is emphasizing the jurisdiction of God’s sovereign rule; as the opposite of light is darkness, so the opposite of peace is calamity, and God alone is Lord over it all (the context begins in verse 5).
And this is observed throughout Scripture. “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other.” (Ecclesiastes 7:14); “When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?” (Amos 3:6); “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?” (Lamentations 3:38); “You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” (Job 2:10); and so forth.
So my rebuttal still stands, as Isaiah 45:7 was not talking about moral evil.
Comment by Ryft on 23 Jul 2010 at 04:35
No, because the word "towb" (good) is not expressing a moral quality. In their Commentary on Genesis 1, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown described its sense in this way: "Every object was in its right place, every vegetable process going on in season, every animal in its structure and instincts suited to its mode of life and its use in the economy of the world. He saw everything that He had made answering the plan which His eternal wisdom had conceived."
Comment by Royce on 23 Jul 2010 at 21:56
Hi all.
Just wanted to piggy-back off that last comment, in anticipation of the most common follow-up question I get when using Ryft’s argument: “Wouldn’t causing disaster or calamity be considered an evil act?” One of the big factors in classifying sin is not just the act itself but also who it is committing the act. For instance, if I remove my CD collection from my house and hock the whole lot—no sin. If another person removes my CD collection from my house and hocks the whole lot—theft. The CDs are my property and therefore the dispossession of them is my prerogative.
As God is the Creator of everything—people included—his prerogative as Creator enables him to do many things that would be considered sin if they were done by pretty much anyone else.
Comment by Ryft on 24 Jul 2010 at 06:53
Excellent point, Royce. Spot on.
Comment by consideratheism on 24 Jul 2010 at 08:36
By that reasoning, Royce. You must not only agree with short-term and long-term abortion, but you must also agree that the mother and father of a child have the right to kill the child at any point in their lives in any way they choose.