"If God Exists, Why Does He Allow Evil?"

[hankroberts]

Your question in the OP was...

""If there is no Moral God who has established an absolute moral standard, then on what grounds do you call certain things 'evil' at all?"

The shortened version of my answer was...

"On the grounds of opinion."

You may not like the answer, but it is an answer... and one you've failed to find fault with.

Well, technically "I don't know" is an answer. But I would say in order for the answer to qualify it must actually work: you must be able to show how your answer actually addresses the original question. Yours merely begs the question.

 

[hankroberts]

Your question in the OP was...

""If there is no Moral God who has established an absolute moral standard, then on what grounds do you call certain things 'evil' at all?"

The shortened version of my answer was...

"On the grounds of opinion."

You may not like the answer, but it is an answer... and one you've failed to find fault with.

Oh, and actually, I did point out the problem with it. Would you like to go over that again?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ah, well, let us take those individually.
"If morality "conforms" to a "relative standard"...then I don't need to "objectively determine" good and evil"
Indeed. The key word there is "if". So far, no one has been able to describe an effective way that morality could 'conform to a relative standard' in such a way that one person could say another is acting immorally, or committing evil.

"If there is an "objective standard" then you need to be able to answer a few questions ..."
Possibly in another discussion where that was posed as a premise. Here, the issue was responding to the premise of others with a question, which has yet to be answered.

"How come nobody knows this objective standard?"

What makes you think no one knows it?

"Why does everyone disagree on this objective standard? "

You are aware than consensus has nothing to do with truth?

"The fact that you won't be able to tell me ..."

No sir, non sequitur.

I'll stand by the claim you won't be able to tell me what the "objective standard" is...you've dodged every attempt to discuss it. Your silence on the topic says more than your words.

I only used the word "if" because you seem to have trouble understanding relative morality. Reality does conform to a relative standard. The fact that you and I, and everyone else, disagree on moral issues/actions is evidence of relative morality. The fact that no one can prove their morality "true" is further evidence of relative morality. What more would you like?

 

[bhsmte]

I'll stand by the claim you won't be able to tell me what the "objective standard" is...you've dodged every attempt to discuss it. Your silence on the topic says more than your words.

I only used the word "if" because you seem to have trouble understanding relative morality. Reality does conform to a relative standard. The fact that you and I, and everyone else, disagree on moral issues/actions is evidence of relative morality. The fact that no one can prove their morality "true" is further evidence of relative morality. What more would you like?

What you state is quite obvious and I believe we will be waiting a long time for a demonstration of these "objective moral standards".

 

[hankroberts]

I'll stand by the claim you won't be able to tell me what the "objective standard" is...you've dodged every attempt to discuss it. Your silence on the topic says more than your words.

I only used the word "if" because you seem to have trouble understanding relative morality. Reality does conform to a relative standard. The fact that you and I, and everyone else, disagree on moral issues/actions is evidence of relative morality. The fact that no one can prove their morality "true" is further evidence of relative morality. What more would you like?

I'll stand by the claim you won't be able to tell me what the "objective standard" is...you've dodged every attempt to discuss it. Your silence on the topic says more than your words."

Actually, I believe I did address that issue directly, and offer to follow that discussion in another conversation. Were you not here for that?

"I only used the word "if" because you seem to have trouble understanding relative morality."

Indeed, I find it irrational, and have yet to find anyone who can justify it logically in a way that fits reality.

"The fact that you and I, and everyone else, disagree on moral issues/actions is evidence of relative morality."

Uh, no. That 'fact' has nothing to do with whether an absolute standard exists: consensus has nothing to do with truth.

 

[selfinflikted]

Indeed, I find it irrational, and have yet to find anyone who can justify it logically in a way that fits reality.

How? It's already been explained a couple of times.

 

[hankroberts]

How? It's already been explained a couple of times.

No, it has been asserted not explained.

 

[selfinflikted]

No, it has been asserted not explained.

Yes, it has. And Anatheist did well explaining it with a simple analogy. You know the one about the two people who couldn't agree on the "right" thing to do?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, technically "I don't know" is an answer. But I would say in order for the answer to qualify it must actually work: you must be able to show how your answer actually addresses the original question. Yours merely begs the question.

Lol no, it doesn't.

You specifically asked for a grounds for determining evil that isn't objective. I specifically gave you a grounds for determining evil that isn't objective. That grounds is opinion.


If that answer fails for some reason, you'll have to actually explain why. According to the criteria you framed you question with, its an answer that works.

 

[Thepz]

I wouldn't consider that love, no. Perhaps you can define "love" so I can see where you are coming from?

I think we may be talking about two different things. I can see from your perspective that the act can be seen as either obedience, social conformity, or maybe even self-interest.

To frame the discussion so we're talking on the same terms, we should probably look at Kohlberg's six stages of moral development. According to the model, there are three levels with each having two stages. The model is shown below:

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid punishment?)

2. Self-interest orientation
(What's in it for me?)
(Paying for a benefit)

Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms)
(The good boy/girl attitude)

4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(Law and order morality)

Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
(Principled conscience)

I believe the concept of morals has more significance at the Post-Conventional level (Level 3) where the individual internalizes the action and understand the meaning of the action.

Given that, I believe that this is where love takes its place. This is where love can serve the foundation of "ethical principles" and morals. My definition of love is what is defined by Merriam-Webster and also further supported by the biblical definition of love including agapao, phileo, and agape love.

According to Merriam-Webster one of the definitions or dimensions of love is "a : unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another: as (1) : the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2) : brotherly concern for others". This definition of love has more significance as a foundation for morals than the other dimensions of love (sexual love, attraction, affection).

 

[hankroberts]

Yes, it has. And Anatheist did well explaining it with a simple analogy. You know the one about the two people who couldn't agree on the "right" thing to do?

If you're referring to the assertion that two people disagreeing about a standard is evidence that the standard does not exist, I already pointed out that is both logically and factually in error.

Consensus has nothing to do with whether a statement is true.

Demonstration? If you and I disagree about the speed limit on the road in front of my house, does that mean there is NO speed limit? You see, it simply fails as an argument.

 

[bhsmte]

If you're referring to the assertion that two people disagreeing about a standard is evidence that the standard does not exist, I already pointed out that is both logically and factually in error.

Consensus has nothing to do with whether a statement is true.

Demonstration? If you and I disagree about the speed limit on the road in front of my house, does that mean there is NO speed limit? You see, it simply fails as an argument.

One can point to a sign, to establish an "objective" speed limit and or city and county records of the same. Please point us to these "objective" moral standards that you claim exist.

 

[quatona]

Ah, but does that not take us back to the original question? If in fact all moral views are merely individual opinions, then on what basis does one assert that the existence of 'evil' is argument against the existence of God?

It´s not an argument against the existence of God. It´s an argument against the concept that God is omiscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

You see, if your position is true (and incidentally, we can demonstrate it is not),

Go ahead. Talk is cheap.

then that argument fails completely. There is no objective evil

So what?
If you or anybody else holds the opinion that torture, rape and genocide are good, I can´t help it. I couldn´t help it even if I believed that there is an objective morality saying the opposite.

for which God would be (potentially) accountable, if there is no objective morality.

The alternative is that God is accountable merely to his own standards for which there is no reason, IOW which he arbitrarily put up.
If you feel that the mentioned atrocities are good if God says they are good, you and I don´t have a basis for a meaningful conversation. If you don´t feel that way, your argument rings hollow.

 

[hankroberts]

One can point to a sign, to establish an "objective" speed limit and or city and county records of the same. Please point us to these "objective" moral standards that you claim exist.

Missed the point. The point is that agreement fails as evidence of a standard.
Want another example? if you and I disagree about the actual terms of Boyle's Law, does that mean the law doesn't exist?

Consensus is no measure (pro or con) of the truth of a claim.

 

[Kylie]

"If God Exists, Why Does He Allow Evil?"

I see this question asked frequently by unbelievers who want to argue that the existence of Evil is somehow a refutation of the existence of a Moral God.

It seems to me that the appropriate first response to this question should be to ask, "If there is no Moral God who has established an absolute moral standard, then on what grounds do you call certain things 'evil' at all?"

It seems we spend a great deal of our time defending Free Will to unbelievers, when we should actually be pointing out the flaw in their premise.

The flaw is that you think that morality can only come from an outside source.

 

[bhsmte]

Missed the point. The point is that agreement fails as evidence of a standard.
Want another example? if you and I disagree about the actual terms of Boyle's Law, does that mean the law doesn't exist?

Consensus is no measure (pro or con) of the truth of a claim.

Then point out and demonstrate these "objective" moral standards.

We can find evidence that Boyle's law exists, where is the objective evidence that this objective morality exists?

Bottom line is, you can't demonstrate it and even the best Christian apologists can not objectively show they exist.

So, you would have to believe they exist on "faith", not based on anything you can demonstrate. Which by the way, is fine by me, knock yourself out.

 

[bhsmte]

The flaw is that you think that morality can only come from an outside source.

And for someone who claims in their profile to have studied psychology, is very difficult to comprehend they don't understand.

 

[bhsmte]

Missed the point. The point is that agreement fails as evidence of a standard.
Want another example? if you and I disagree about the actual terms of Boyle's Law, does that mean the law doesn't exist?

Consensus is no measure (pro or con) of the truth of a claim.

Consensus has nothing to do with it, if one can read the numbers on a sign. The "objective" speed limit can be demonstrated.

 

[FireDragon76]

What I struggle most with in regards to some Christians is this; when something good happens to them, they are quick to point out that this happened because of God. When something bad happens to them or others, they tend to all of a sudden lose this ability to determine when God makes things happen and they state; God works in mysterious ways, who could possible know God's will? Well, they seem to have a good handle on God's will when something good happens, but not when something bad happens.

Credit is better than blame. Gratitude is better than resentment. That should give you a guide to why Christians think the way they do.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'll stand by the claim you won't be able to tell me what the "objective standard" is...you've dodged every attempt to discuss it. Your silence on the topic says more than your words."

Actually, I believe I did address that issue directly, and offer to follow that discussion in another conversation. Were you not here for that?

"I only used the word "if" because you seem to have trouble understanding relative morality."

Indeed, I find it irrational, and have yet to find anyone who can justify it logically in a way that fits reality.

"The fact that you and I, and everyone else, disagree on moral issues/actions is evidence of relative morality."

Uh, no. That 'fact' has nothing to do with whether an absolute standard exists: consensus has nothing to do with truth.

I remember you saying that you can explain it, but you won't...if that's your idea of "addressing" an issue...then even the least responses to your OP have successfully "addressed" it.

I don't know what you mean by "justify" in reference to relative morality. It requires no justification, it simply describes reality. Again, you have moral opinions... I have moral opinions...neither of us have moral "facts". If we did, we could demonstrate/prove them...but we cannot.

Actually, in this case consensus is required to some degree. If your claim is that this alleged "objective moral standard" is for all of mankind...and you cannot demonstrate it...then you'll require consensus between all of mankind (Which you don't have) to even reasonably suggest it exists. If you claim the standard is for your religion, then you'll need consensus between members of your religion (Which you don't have). If you claim its a standard for individuals, then you'll need consensus between individuals (Which you don't have). If however, you claim its a standard only for yourself... you won't need any consensus, but it won't appear to be any different in practice from relative morality.