No this isn’t a joke…
But if you have an ipod, or know how to get podcasts, I recommend you download the lastest podcasts in Ravi Zacharais’ “just thinking”. It has 2 christians(one being Ravi), a Hindu, and an atheist. It’s a really good debate and I recommend it to all you guys, they discuss Good and Evil, Even Job in one.
The particular one’s our 8/28 and 8/29, check them out.
Once you do give me your thoughts on what’s been available thus far at least, it hasn’t came to a conclusion yet.
I would like to add to this however, that after listening to the debate several times…I’m not sure who to side with.
On one hand,
Absent of God, objective moral values don’t exist, atheist can’t propose the problem of evil.
One argument would be:
Objective moral values exist.
Objective moral values cannot exist without God(or a moral law giver).
Therefore; God exist.
But do objective moral values exist? If not, than why can we say anything is wrong? Isn’t it all relative then?
If values come from Culture than God doesn’t exist, but then neither do objective morals, since it’s just relative culture.
Morals have to be an outside, independent force, and we cannot know it’s way is the correct way unless it’s truth, and as far as we know truth exists. Denial of Truth is denial of that argument.
On the other hand,
Why can’t it be biological? You’d have to disagree with the atheist who say’s it’s cultural because it isn’t cultural, it’s biological truth.
Torturing children is wrong, why? because it inflicts pain, why can’t we just say that everything that inflicts pain eventually or anything use to an extreme is morally wrong? What’s so wrong with this argument? We will then have to say cannibalism is wrong, they are wrong, why? because it inflicts suffering, suffering is wrong, it hurts, things that hurt are bad.
SOOO, which approach do you see fit? This second one I kinda formed on my own, but not sure if thats’ what the atheist and hindu we’re trying to argue or not.
What do you guys think? Even if you didn’t listen to the discussion, which I still highly recommend.
But if someone derives pleasure in such acts would it not be good for them? Moral relativism can still reign supreme here.
Nature can desiginate certain objective principles as wrong. Say incest; which damages creatures genetically for their meddling with someone too close to their gene pool. But, after taking a ethics class you learn that everything is subjective and this would not prove God’s existence.
This is perhaps certainly one way to defeat the problem of evil but then again people always find ways around arguments.
But if there are objective beliefs which holy book, individual, or system is right? We call people who study a religious text for their moral insight a religious deontologist. Now, when one book says something is good like we will say donuts. But another book of equal acclaim says that donuts are bad. How is this objective? When books contradict each other does this not shake the idea of an objective system?
Overall a very interesting commentary you leave. Thanks 
Atheists can propose the Problem of Evil just fine, even if they themselves don’t believe evil exists. They simply propose the existence of Evil as a facet to Christianity, and the Problem of Evil becomes an argument that it is incoherent for Christians to claim that God exists and also evil exists- whether or not the atheist maintains either of these notions himself is irrelevant.
Here’s where I see the problem arises, at least in this debate:
On one hand Dr. Lycan(sp?) say’s morals are ‘cultural’, if they are cultural, there’s no denying they are relative. But his problem arises here because now, he can’t propose the problem of evil, since it’s all cultural/relative. He states the Nazi’s had they’re cultural moral’s, they believed they were right, and if this is so, who are we to tell them they’re wrong if it’s just cultural?
Ravi and Dr. Craig seem to have him trapped here because if he say’s objective morals are cultural than he can’t say what is evil, they ask “why?” If he say’s objective morals do perhaps exist, Dr. Lycan needs to leave out cultural relative morals. But then, they ask him where he get’s these objective morals from. He get’s himself, a very popular atheist and chief editor or something of Skeptics magazine, as well as a plasma physicist, has made a major boo boo here and leaves himself in a sort of embarrasment…but not sure if he realizes this yet.
This is what I propose he should have done, admitted that objective morals do exist. Without a moral law giver or standard, that it is biological, that the Nazi’s ‘knew’ what they were doing was wrong, but it was for a greater good. Everyone should know inficting pain on something is ‘wrong’ unless it’s for a greater good. Then they must look at that greater good to see if that’s morally right. I’m just saying Dr. Lycan failed here by saying objective morals do exist but yet they’re still cultural and relative.
What this Dr. Lycan should do is present it like this: “You Christians believe in the reality of good and evil, you Christians also believe in an all-good, all Powerful God that wants the best for us. These beliefs are incompatible.” Again, just because Lycan thinks Evil is relative, doesn’t mean he can’t pose the Problem of Evil. Hell, he apparently doesn’t think there’s a God either- and that doesn’t stop him.
Well he could easily be debated with a flawed statement like that ucc. Why can’t God be all Good? Good and Evil can still exist without God being evil himself.
No see that’s the thing, Lycan doesn’t think it’s relative, but yet he still does, he’s contradicting himself, lost in his statements.
He say’s it’s wrong to torture children, but then he say’s morals are cultural/relative.
Of course he doesn’t think there’s a God, he’s an atheist.
If evil is relative, than where do you anchor it at? What’s the standard if it’s relative? If there’s a universal standard it ceases to be relative doesn’t it? Then if he did address evil it would only be his opinion and opinions are also relative aren’t they?
Well first of all, I don't ultimately think the Problem of Evil works, so it's odd for me to have to defend it. But your criticism isn't working. The Problem of Evil usually says something like "If God is all good, there shouldn't be any even in the world because He wouldn't create a world that had any, and it would be in His power to prevent any that came up."
An atheist doesn't have to believe in absolute evil to propose this argument- they just have to rely on the Christian to believe that absolute evil exists.
I'm aware of the difficulties an atheist has in justifying ethics, and I'm aware that relativists are still tempted to make absolute claims. But none of that means an atheist can't use a classic version of the Problem of Evil.
Trust me, I’m a Christian who thinks the Problem of Evil is wrong, but you are off base on this one. Simply put, if I believe A and B, you can argue that A and B contradict each other, even if you don’t personally believe either one of them.
So your definition of the Problem of evil is “if God is all good, there shouldn’t be any even in the world because He wouldn’t create a world that had any, and it would be in his power to prevent any that came up.”
Atheist have used this argument since the dawn of time. If God prevented any that came up we wouldn’t be free to choose would we? God is the standard of Good, evil is just the rust on the car. Evil is the imperfection that God is missing in his attributes.
Not sure if you’re trying to say that this argument argues that a Good God can’t produce something that can create evil do you?
Oh and I realize you’re a Christian, and to me that’s irrevelant, I’m just arguing this here to exchange words and information we may each lack.
Let us examine the multiple takes on the Problem of Evil.
It was initally placed out there by Epicurius.
is generally credited with first expounding the problem of evil, and it is sometimes called the Epicurean paradox (or the riddle of Epicurus). In this form, the argument is not really a paradox or a riddle, but rather a reductio ad absurdum of the premises. Epicurus drew the conclusion that the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of the Gods. More generally, no paradox or problem exists for those who do not accept the premises, in particular the existence of a benevolent god or Gods.
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" (Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief)
Epicurus himself did not leave any written form of this argument. It can be found in Lucretius’s “De Rerum Natura” and in Christian theologian Lactantius’s “Treatise of the Anger of God” where Lactantius critiques the argument.
From Wikki
This is the formalized premises left by our main man Epi.
You would of course have to accept the premises, also make note that he was a Pre-Christian thinker.
This arguement is far more complex and uses the Book of Job to establish the arguement.
Logical problem of evil
Here is the arguement using morality which I imagine would be used by the people in the debate.
Moral argument from evil
I think after researching this in depth for a final paper for my Philosophy of Religion class I realized just how complicated this subject matter can become. These are only one of many arguments for the Problem of Evil.
Just to point out on one of your arguments…I’ve been told by an ‘apologetist’ that omnipotence means God could do all things, he say’s “no, if God could do all things the question would dissolve wouldn’t it?” he said that God cannot do that which is mutually exclusive, which makes sense in many ways. Mutually exclusive, opposed things that differ, cannot be the same thing can they? That can’t be actual can it?
I almost want to think this argument can be traced back to God. Let’s grant this way of looking at it.
If God is the all and everything, nothing God can do can be wrong unless it upsets him. If God is Good, he can’t tell himself he is wrong even though we may see it as wrong. If God is just, he may have possible perfectly good reasons to just things that look unjust in our eyes.
I would like to point out that I don’t think God defies logic. Does anything defy logic? Or does it only appear to defy because we may not understand it’s logical outworking?
In either case disgarding these questions. I’m discussing the moral law rather than logical reasonings to prove or disprove God.
So what do you think Satori?
Do you think evil Exists? Do you think morals are relative? Or Objective?
I want to believe relative morals ‘do’ exist, but yet an objective moral still exists at the same time, just certain cultures defy the objective morals. What do you think?
Would a being such as God make mistakes? Or do something which would anger him/it?
Fair enough.
The platypus…and on a serious note logic, unless you are speaking of the formalized logic, is relative. It may seem to some that flying machines are real while others may believe it to be hogwash or senseless. I hope you get my point on that.
A man can never know anything beyond his own mind, so I believe we are hindered. One of my favorite Billy Shakespeare quotes is “Far more lies in heaven and earth than those wrought of your philosophies.”
Yes it does. In every one of us.
Yes. Some people are adamantely against things such as pre-marital sex while it is no big thing for me under certain restrictions. Would I kill someone for a reason? Maybe. While others may absolutely refuse to kill.
I believe objective ideals are non-existent. Objectiveness in nature is still an uncertain thing at times and with cultures it is wholly relative 
. If there was a universal truth why do people not know it? And why would they not follow it?
Club29
Dunno. All I'm trying to say right now is that an atheist doesn't need to believe in evil himself to propose the argument successfully, that's all. The argument could be formed to say that God shouldn't create anything that causes evil, or that He should prevent each instance of evil as it's about to occur, or even that a God could allow [i]some[/i] evil into His creation, but as it stands, the world has too much. I've seen all these. Again, I don't think any of them work.
Hm… I think I see what you’re saying. Like, an atheist doesn’t have to believe in Evil, although he can still say God is evil because God brings forth the ideology of evil. Within that bubble, he can argue evil on God without beleiving in Evil.
But I think what I’m saying here is that, An atheist can’t say God is so evil, look what wrong he’s doing in this world, if the atheist believes moral’s are relative. He’d only be arguing within that bubble of a God existing.
So then, he’d first have to believe a God exist to propose this argument then wouldn’t he? If God doesn’t exist than why argue a Godly principle and use it against him.
This logic has been used many times that i’ve seen, that you can’t critique something that isn’t valid… but then you are critiquing it to show it’s not valid right?
To better understand what I’m saying…for example, in this podcast debate Dr. Lycan is critiquing the Book of Job, Ravi asked do you believe the book of job is an authentic valid book? Dr. Lycan say’s no I do not believe it as truth, then Ravi say’s, “what then are you aruging?”
Dr. Lycan is confused here, but only because he didn’t realize he should have came back with, I’m critiquing to show it’s not valid…I think…would that be right?
Anyway I’m just spittin out ideas here, but I can see where you’re coming from. This whole moral law principle is really confusing and both sides of the argument seem to be really good.
Imagine if you went around saying "Stealing is wrong!!!" all the time, then you were caught robbing a bank. Even a person who [i]didn't[/i] think stealing was wrong could point out the contradiction in your behavior.
Right. To continue my example along, the person who caught you couldn’t say “You’re a bastard cause you robbed a bank!” because they themselves don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. But they can still point out that your words contradict your own claims that stealing is wrong.
I don’t mean to devolve the conversation, however, whether morality is objective seems rather unimportant as long as humans continue to live in societies that demand certain codes of conduct. There are many contemporary laws that govern aspects of human behavior that are otherwise outside of the moral evaluation of God - insofar as God has either no reference for these human behaviors or simply forgot to refer to them when creating a standard of morality. Or, of course, we can assume that the humans who created these codes of conduct had different social norms and were trapped in the historical context of their societies.
Yeah…I’m not so sure what I think about it anymore. I’m sick of reading Norm Geisler’s Book “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”, only to hear him argue the moral law as existing, but then saying some people in africa see cannibalism as ok, while other don’t.
I’m starting to think all morals are relative, whether an objective moral law exist or not just depends on your faith I guess…I mean when you say that objective moral laws have to have a law giver they don’t, they can be society based, who gave the law that cannibalism is ok, well the cannibals did. Who can deny that? Well the bible or God if he exist, but hten you have to prove those bases.
Very different from the typical Xian ideas, arguably “pantheist”?
What sort of “Hindu” was @ the convo?
He’s a hindu atheist I think…
ohhh…