# Is the moral objection to the existence of God valid? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2011, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842 "2011-02-02T00:25:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/41 "2011-02-02T04:24:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The Problem of Evil is not supposed to rebut the existence of any gods at all, only an omimax God. In that regard, yes it works and has never been successfully countered. > > The free will defense is a common attempt, but fails miserably for multiple reasons (not the least of which because the entire concept of free will is nonsense). As per usual Diogenes gives a completely over the top and wrong statement, with no citation. The PoE has actually two versions, a “hard” and a “soft” version if you will. The “hard” or logical version makes the statement that it is logically incoherent for an omnimax God to create a world that contains suffering. Here Alvin Plantinga [(cite)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense) has given a widely accepted argument to show why this is not the case. In the “soft” or evidential version, a probabilistic statement is made about the existence of God. Essentially this argues that the magnitude of evil (or better still, suffering) in the world makes it unlikely that it was created by an omnimax creator. Because it is a probabilistic argument it is harder to either prove or refute. However this argument is still being developed and discussed, with different philosophers taking both sides. Many consider the logical version of the argument dead. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/42 "2011-02-02T04:48:51Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > I didn’t say it’s impossible to speculate about the qualities of non-existent beings. > > I said it’s irrational to use that speculation as logical support for their existence or non-existence. How else would one speculate about or make any sort of discussion at all about the existence or non-existence of…anything at all? You speculate about the qualities of a proposed entity–unicorns, Counter-Earth, a fire-breathing dragon in your living room–and then you draw logical inferences from those qualities as to what the actual effects of the existence of said entity would be (viz., your living room being covered with dragon poop, and/or your house burning down). Then, you observe that your living room is or is not covered with dragon poop (and on fire), and from that you attempt to draw conclusions about the dragon or lack thereof in your living room. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/43 "2011-02-02T05:23:41Z")
There’s another moral objection: the depressing idea of a celestial totalitarian dictatorship that can never be opposed or resisted, even in death. Thought crime is real. Mind reading by the biggest big brother possible is complete. Arbitrary moral impositions are handed down by fiat and can never be argued. What was that quote? "My only regret is that I have but one soul to condemn to an eternity of torment in protest of spiritual tyranny of your deity. " ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/44 "2011-02-02T05:30:12Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > It’s simple: If you would accept the existence of a supernatural being under any circumstances then you’re a theist. If you don’t you’re an atheist. Only if the supernatural being in question is a god. You can believe in spirits, goblins, fairies and unicorns as long as you don’t believe in gods and still be an atheist. > [@Naxos](#): > > Since there is no god, there is no evil either. Evil presumes a supernatural entity that is directing, causing or benefiting from violent or anti-social acts. It’s the opposite of a benevolent god, therefore a god, therefore Evil is a theistic term. Not at all true. If there is such a thing as “evil”, then it is evil whether or not a supernatural being cares about it. An act committed by a human that would be evil if committed by a god is also evil; on the other hand, if evil is a meaningless term when applied to human behavior then it’s equally meaningless when applied to a god. Gods are of no importance to the question of whether or not something should be labeled evil or not. > [@Naxos](#): > > As a famous biologist has said, that I’m not sure of his name right now, violence and mass death is a common state of being on this planet. Calling a lion evil because it tears a gazelle apart is meaningless. Same thing with human beings. Lions are too stupid to consider whether or not what they do is evil; humans are not. Different standards apply. And whether or not something is common is irrelevant; something can be good or evil whether or not it is common or rare. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/45 "2011-02-02T05:40:59Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > As per usual Diogenes gives a completely over the top and wrong statement, with no citation. > > The PoE has actually two versions, a “hard” and a “soft” version if you will. > > The “hard” or logical version makes the statement that it is logically incoherent for an omnimax God to create a world that contains suffering. Here Alvin Plantinga [(cite)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense) has given a widely accepted argument to show why this is not the case. See post 21. His response seems to be > [@](#): > > Another issue with Plantinga’s defence is that it does not address the problem of natural evil, since natural evil is not brought about by the free choices of creatures. Plantinga’s reply is a suggestion that it is at least logically possible that perhaps free, nonhuman persons are responsible for natural evils (e.g. rebellious spirits or fallen angels).[23] Which is pretty damn weak. Angels are typically thought of to not have free will. In any case, God preventing evil spirits from killing tens of thousands is not the same thing as stifling their free will, which is always limited. My free will wants to fly, but God has designed me to not be able to. > [@](#): > > In the “soft” or evidential version, a probabilistic statement is made about the existence of God. Essentially this argues that the magnitude of evil (or better still, suffering) in the world makes it unlikely that it was created by an omnimax creator. Because it is a probabilistic argument it is harder to either prove or refute. However this argument is still being developed and discussed, with different philosophers taking both sides. Many consider the logical version of the argument dead. > > Calculon. Even Dawkins only says that it is almost certain that God does not exist. I think this argument backs that up. Otherwise you get the indefensible position that God exists unless we can prove that he doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/46 "2011-02-02T05:42:49Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same thing here. > > A nonexistent thing doesn’t have any properties. The omission of “omnimax” was to emphasize that qualifying things that don’t exist doesn’t change their quality of not being. All we’re discussing is whether a set of conditions can be logically compatible. It’s an analysis of a claim, not a claim in itself. If a claim is made that an omnimax God exists, it is perfectly rational to refute that claim by arguing that the characteristics of such an entity are not logically consistent with what we already know about reality. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/47 "2011-02-02T05:45:46Z")
I am god and you are god, as are we all, and we do this “being separate existences” thing because we find it entertaining; and within that context we have it that Good is unfolding, is emergent. Voluntary cooperation and trust and sharing and forgiveness make for a most efficient society once you’ve got the ball rolling that way. The world wasn’t created (merely) as it is now, you know; it has a trajectory. The unfolding is rather beautiful, don’t you think? We are benign and benevolent and omnipotent but we also like a good game. ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/48 "2011-02-02T05:47:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > All we’re discussing is whether a set of conditions can be logically compatible. It’s an analysis of a claim, not a claim in itself. If a claim is made that an omnimax God exists, it is perfectly rational to refute that claim by arguing that the characteristics of such an entity are not logically consistent with what we already know about reality. If an omni-whatever being exists then my aunt Ophelia is an airplane. Refute that one. You can’t step outside the boundaries of reason, assume an irrationality is true, and then come back to logic to examine the conclusions of a false premise. It’s meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/49 "2011-02-02T05:50:18Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > As per usual Diogenes gives a completely over the top and wrong statement, with no citation. > > The PoE has actually two versions, a “hard” and a “soft” version if you will. > > The “hard” or logical version makes the statement that it is logically incoherent for an omnimax God to create a world that contains suffering. Here Alvin Plantinga [(cite)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense) has given a widely accepted argument to show why this is not the case. I’ve refuted Plantinga’s pathetioc free will defense many times on this board already and, in fact have already done it in this thread. It fails for the following reasons: 1. The notion of free will is nonsensical and impossible in the first place 2. It does not address natural evil. 3. God has the ability to only create beings who he knows will freely choose good. 4. The assumption that free will is necessary in the first place is baseless. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/50 "2011-02-02T05:56:40Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > If an omni-whatever being exists then my aunt Ophelia is an airplane. Refute that one. That’s not comparable. The conclusion is a non-sequitur. The conclusion that an omnimax entity cannot logically coexist with evil is pure math. If A then not B. There is no ontological component to this, just logic. ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/51 "2011-02-02T06:04:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s not comparable. The conclusion is a non-sequitur. The conclusion that an omnimax entity cannot logically coexist with evil is pure math. If A then not B. There is no ontological component to this, just logic. With the “refute that one” I meant refute that my aunt Ophelia is an airplane. You can’t refute it if you accept that an omni-whatever exists. That’s not to say that that’s sufficient proof that the omni-whatever does not exist. Far from it. It only points out the fact that a false premise can result in any kind of conclusion you want. The proof that no gods exist is to be found elsewhere. The fact that no gods exist is enough to make people realize that they should not assume a false premise, then come up with conclusions and then try to use those conclusions to validate or falsify that false premise. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/52 "2011-02-02T06:07:51Z")
Actually, there is no proof that no gods exist, but there is proof that no _omnimax_ gods exist, and that proof is the existence of evil. ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/53 "2011-02-02T06:33:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Actually, there is no proof that no gods exist, but there is proof that no _omnimax_ gods exist, and that proof is the existence of evil. No rational being would ask for proof of a negative. Evil is an imaginary concept of the human mind, therefore non-existent as a provable entity, by definition. The argument of an omni-whatever being doing things that are logically inconsistent with the being’s own existence may not be objectionable, but still, an assumption of the existence of something that does not exist can result in any claim imaginable. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/54 "2011-02-02T06:39:14Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > Evil is an imaginary concept of the human mind, therefore non-existent as a provable entity, by definition. Evil and good are human defined terms, not imaginary ones. They are no more “nonexistent” than other human defined terms like money or justice are. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/55 "2011-02-02T06:39:47Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > Evil is an imaginary concept of the human mind, therefore non-existent as a provable entity, by definition. This is wrong. Evil is a universally agreed upon descriptor for observed physical phenomena. ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/56 "2011-02-02T06:46:24Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is wrong. Evil is a universally agreed upon descriptor for observed physical phenomena. Descriptor? Like the ancient Egyptians were “describing” the effect of their god Ra on their lives? Evil is a theistic concept. Was there any Evil between 760 and 620 million years ago? Of course not. There never was or will ever be. The believers of evil are at the same level with the believers of astrology, superstition, religion and all kinds of meaningless fantasies with the sole purpose of appeasing their emotional dysfunctions. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/57 "2011-02-02T06:50:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Because an omnibenevolent God, by definition, cannot allow an unnecessary evil, and for an omipotent God, all evil is unnecessary. But how do you know what “unnecessary” evil is? As I mentioned before a child may perceive a parent’s actions as “evil”. From an adult’s perspective the parent’s actions are not evil. Indeed mom and dad’s actions are benevolent and in the child’s best interests. The child cannot perceive that though and decides mom and/or dad are bad people. > [@](#): > > The free will defense fails for multiple reasons. Firstly, the whole concept of free will is, in itself, logically incoherent and impossible… I’ll need more than your say-so on this. Please explain why free will is impossible. > [@](#): > > …but even accepting it for the sake of argument, an omnimax God does not have to create anyone he knows will choose evil. He is perfectly free to only create people who he knows will choose good. It is logically impossible for any evil to be necessary orallowed by an omnimax God without violating at least one of his omni-characteristics. If a god knows all possible futures that god would be omniscient right? Can’t that god let people find their own futures and remain omniscient? (I think I broke my brain on this one…go easy…thinking it through myself.) As for the evil part what we perceive as evil may not be what a god percieves as evil. Again I refer to a child viewing mom/dad’s actions as “bad” (not sure a child has a concept of “evil”) while in reality they are for the child’s benefit. Or… Think of it in a larger view. God could not give a shit about an individual any more than you care about a blood cell. God cares about the bigger picture…the entity that is humanity as a whole. So what if a blood cell gets dripped on the cutting board. As long as the gestalt that are all humans is healthy then all is well. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/58 "2011-02-02T07:09:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > But how do you know what “unnecessary” evil is? Bad choice of words. An omnimax God can’t allow any evil at all. > [@](#): > > As I mentioned before a child may perceive a parent’s actions as “evil”. From an adult’s perspective the parent’s actions are not evil. Indeed mom and dad’s actions are benevolent and in the child’s best interests. The child cannot perceive that though and decides mom and/or dad are bad people. This basically just amounts to a denial that evil exists at all, and makes claims to God’s “goodness” meaningless. > [@](#): > > I’ll need more than your say-so on this. > > Please explain why free will is impossible. We’ve done this before here, but basically it’s because it’s an infinite regress. Something has to “decide” what the will is. The cause either has to be random or determined. If it’s random, it’s not free, and if it’s determined, it’s not free. It can’t determine itself because then something has to determine what it will determine and that leads to an infinite regression of determination. > [@](#): > > If a god knows all possible futures that god would be omniscient right? Can’t that god let people find their own futures and remain omniscient? (I think I broke my brain on this one…go easy…thinking it through myself.) I don’t really understand your question. “Find their own futures?” There is only one possible future, by the way. > [@](#): > > As for the evil part what we perceive as evil may not be what a god percieves as evil. Again I refer to a child viewing mom/dad’s actions as “bad” (not sure a child has a concept of “evil”) while in reality they are for the child’s benefit. This makes all discussion of good and evil meaningless, and moral decisions for human beings impossible. > [@](#): > > Or… > > Think of it in a larger view. God could not give a shit about an individual any more than you care about a blood cell. God cares about the bigger picture…the entity that is humanity as a whole. So what if a blood cell gets dripped on the cutting board. As long as the gestalt that are all humans is healthy then all is well. God can make them healthy without evil. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/59 "2011-02-02T12:06:23Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > I am god and you are god, as are we all, and we do this “being separate existences” thing because we find it entertaining; and within that context we have it that Good is unfolding, is emergent. Voluntary cooperation and trust and sharing and forgiveness make for a most efficient society once you’ve got the ball rolling that way. The world wasn’t created (merely) as it is now, you know; it has a trajectory. The unfolding is rather beautiful, don’t you think? > > We are benign and benevolent and omnipotent but we also like a good game. GG, Haiti cholera victims! GG, abused children! GG, foloks who died in a house fire! GG, Alzheimers patients! GG! I almost find this idea more repellent than the idea of a single omnipotent god. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2011, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842/60 "2011-02-02T13:52:33Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > so I see no reason to posit that this mysterious God is benevolent, and some pretty good reasons to posit one of the alternatives to a benevolent God. Such as a cursory flick through The Bible for instance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-moral-objection-to-the-existence-of-god-valid/569842.md?page=4)