This is the best way I've seen a theist answer:

Atheist: <qoute Didymos> 

Theist: All-powerful means "capable of doing anything which is logical consistent and doesn't violate the nature of God". A universe with free will and without evil is not logical consistent because free will means the ability to choose, if God removed evil from the available choices then this would violate free will.

Atheist: Ok...Then will you have free will in heaven?

Theist: No. You surrender your free will to God in order to enter heaven.

Atheist: So god cares all this much about free will that he has to allow all the evil in the world, yet he will take it away in order to allow entrance to heaven. Care to explain this?

 --I never got past this point--

To the problem of animal suffering like "the pain the zebra feels while being eaten alive by the lion", I never heard a good answer either.

In recent years, I've come to understand just how arrogant Christians are when speaking of suffering and god's love for mankind.  It all goes back to the story of the Garden of Eden, where god told man to have dominion over all the animals.

God's supposed to be so fucking wonderful, and yet he put all these animals on the planet who can suffer immensely.  I saw video once of an alligator who got a hold of a wildebeast's ankle.  It was a fucking tug of war that lasted an hour, according to the narrator.  Of course, the wildebeast eventually lost, his leg mangled, tendons severed, muscles exhausted.  He was drowned rather painfully.  

Then there's the famous video from just a couple of years ago of a pack of lions taking down an elephant.  It took them a couple of hours, but the elephant was basically blind -- it was night -- and the tigers just jumped on him and dug their claws in.  After being bitten and clawed for a couple of hours, the elephant finally keeled over and the tigers grabbed his throat, strangling him and literally ripping out his flesh.

This has been happening for millions and millions of years, day in and day out -- animals suffering gruesome deaths.  When a wild animal breaks his leg, he doesn't die immediately.  He has to live with excruciating pain until he starves to death, or is eaten by another animal.  No hope of redemption.  No promise of anything good to come after death.  Just suffering.

And they say god is loving.  Fuck that.  He makes a planet full of suffering, gives it to humans, and then tells the humans he's going to send people to even worse torture for not believing how wonderful he is.

What a fucking prick.

True, and true.

It seems appropriate to direct arguments in that direction since it accounts for 99.9% of the theists in America.

(Recent studies have indicated that I made that number up.)

Well, I suppose that's possible, but we've never really come to any agreement about the nature of an entity "big enough" to be your conception of god.  I think it's probably a bit early to be assigning motives to the thing.

You need data to calculate probability, so strictly speaking, we have no idea what kind of goals this undefined deity would have.

You know, I've thought about this before, wave, and the reality is, if you managed to package and sell a deist god well enough to convert all the Christians to deism, I'd probably help you do it, even though I didn't believe in the damn thing.

Deism is looney, if you ask me, but it's about a thousand times better than theism.

Just go with the everyday, common, man on the street concept of "evil" and everything will be just fine.

Philosophical discussions of conventional, mundane concepts just tend to disrupt the actual purpose of the OP and waste a lot of time.

Curious, let me put that in more decipherable language, ok?

IF evil is defined ONLY by god's existence, THEN atheists have no referrent for evil, AND the word cannot have meaning.

This statement is true only if evil is defined solely by god's existence.   The normal way of doing this goes something like this:

Evil is difficult to define.  If we don't agree on universal evil (the idea that there is a removed, constant measure by which evil exists), then evil doesn't exist.  Yet, evil exists.  Therefore, god exists.

The problem with this is that it creates a false dichotomy:

EITHER Universal Evil OR No Evil.

This is not the case.  There is a third option -- namely, that evil is a fluid concept based on cultural factors, evolutionary traits, and subjective valuation of harm versus return.  In fact, any competent ethicist can demonstrate this very thing.

If you're interested in learning about evil, I recommend 

The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History

It's not about Satan/Lucifer at all.  Rather, it's an exploration of the cultural and evolutionary factors which contribute to our understanding of the concept of evil, and a rather well thought out hypothesis positing evil as the primary driving force in evolution.

Actually, the Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics only applies because we are attempting to observe the mechanisms of the universe from inside it, and thus are limited by needing to interact with the things we're attempting to observe. This interaction changes the properties we are not attempting at that moment to measure, which is what creates the uncertainty.

Heisenberg, in fact, when initially formulating the Principle, said specifically that if one were, like God, omniscient and capable of observing without interacting, then the uncertainty of probability would resolve itself.

Yes, but again, I think you miss the point.

The 'uncertainty' in Quantum Mechanics isn't real.

The uncertainty is not a statement that, under 100% completely identical conditions, things will not always come out the same way. It is a statement that we can never claim to have established 100% completely identical conditions, because by establishing the conditions, we change them.

It's not that the underlying physics is actually inconsistent, it's that we lack the ability to ever be sure enough of exactly what the situation we're looking at is to make reliable predictions beyond a certain threshold of uncertainty. Once we have enough aggregate effects in consideration, they will begin to cancel one another out, and we can begin to make accurate predictions based on observation.

Which is to say: If "free will" is reliant upon quantum uncertainty, then there is no free will, and it is merely an illusion, because the uncertainty it relies on is in fact an illusion, and a product of the limits of our observational abilities.

On the contrary, the Uncertainty principle is causing all kinds of mischeif.

For example, at absolute 0, the atoms stop vibrating. This is unallowed by the UP, so there is something called Zero point energy of a lattice structure.

This also applies to space, as there is a zero point energy field everywhere, there is not abosulutly nothing. The ZPF shapes, for example, quantum flucuations, and maybe even radioactive decay.

This is what shapes our universe.  

When I mentioned Quantum inderteminate, I was refering to my comment on God not being omniscient about the properties of the universe, the point raised in the OP, was why didn't God create the universe this or that way?

Well, it would be kinda boring if you knew the result of your creation eh?

In light of the many varying opinions among theists as to the nature and purposes of God , one can only guess.

The indetermnacies apply not just to science, but also to social settings, econmics, politics etc...

While you can't exactly predict the behavour of your girlfriend, you can still make choices that affects the relationship and will determine if she'll dump or keep you.

You see, our choices are a factor in the outcome. A relationship may be going down the toliet, but it's not 100% certain she will dump you. You can still make choices and 'make-up' with her. If you say something like 'Well, fuck you too.' It increases the probability of a ride to dump-ville and you didn't have to say it, you could have said something more civil. 

However if there is 100% certainty she will dump you, no matter what you do, your hitting the singles bar again. 

That is why I argue that indetermnacy is required for free will. It gives probability, and our ability to affect those probabilites. 

I think that's what your point was. 

Yes, this would seem to give rise to the thinking that God created evil in the conventional sense of the way we understand “create evil”. According to Strongs Hebrew Concordance, here are some meanings to the words being used.

create:

1254 bara' baw-raw' a primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes):-- choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

evil

7451 ra` rah from 7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):-- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil((- favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.). see HEBREW for 07489

To give my simple explanation (and I do mean simple, cause this is not exhaustive study by any means), in all the commentaries I have read on this verse, there is a lot more behind it than what is portrayed by this verse alone. There is a context that is misunderstood if you wish to describe God as the author of “evil”. The context is such that it is not saying God “creates evil”, but rather he is in control of peace but in addition to it the opposite of peace, war/calamity. I am not going to choose to go into more detail as I feel this is misleading and taken out of context. Many resources are available to help understand this verse.

I still have not been explained on what authority this is true from an atheistic worldview. If I am understanding this correctly, you are saying that it is decided arbitrarily. 

Let me explain why I choose the word arbitrarily. In a naturalistic worldview, there is only matter in motion that we can account for. Correct? If this is the case, then it would seem that the idea of “survival of the fittest” is the rule of thumb (it’s the only rule that seems to make sense self-evidently to me). In other words, the strongest wins as far as exerting ones will over another. This however has not been explained as to how it became a moral factor. It is not wrong, it is not right, it just is. Unless something or someone determines how we can identify that exerting ones will over another in a way that is harmful is wrong, I don’t understand how one should believe that exerting ones will over another is “wrong” to begin with. 

This idea presupposes that there is some kind of understanding of right from wrong to begin with. There is no right and wrong when it comes to a lion eating it’s prey, so how was it that we established that it was wrong for man to murder?

This also presupposes how we came into beings who were able to actually think about these issues so that we can say this is right and that is wrong. What I am understanding here is that because culture, through evolution,  has determined something is wrong or right it should have some authority over us to say this is true. What I don’t understand is what grounds has that authority been placed? Not to mention how does naturalism, which has no “thought” process, give “thought” to what is right or wrong? In other words, how is it that we have come to being able to “think” (which is of the abstract, as far as I know, naturalism has know way of accounting for these things) about our conclusions with regard to morality when the thinking is that the very foundation of our existence had no thought process in it’s evolution? How and when did thinking begin?

In my humble understanding of this issue, for an athiest to be consistent in their worldview of naturalism, this issue of God being all-powerful and all-loving not comporting with the existence of evil is still a mute issue for an atheist because there has not been established an understanding of how we know that evil exists. I am not suggesting that we know God exists because we know that evil exists, what I am suggesting is that we know evil exists and should be asking ourselves how do we know this? Knowing that evil exists does not comport with a naturalistic worldview unless there is an explanation that correlates with naturalism as to how we evolved into thinking beings and came to an understanding of knowing what evil is and the kind of authority that is in place which requires us to abide by that knowledge. Without the understanding of a valid reason why I should abide by that authority or even why it exists in the first place, I could just as easily say that I choose to reject the notion that culture and evolutionary traits and other such factors play any effect on my idea of morality. I could just easily live a life based on impulse without any rational thought, even if it involved raping and murder and I would still be inline with naturalism because I am living according to my evolutionary ancestors (given if I believed it was true) which comes natural to me. I will guard and protect my desires and self preservation at any cost. I believe in no authority as to why you are right and I am wrong and that would be okay because that is what is. You might think I am crazy, but that brings me back to what grounds do you have the authority to pass that judgement on to me. I would be exerting my will which seems very consistent with naturalism. I am doing what comes natural to me.

I will consider looking into this book, but from your statement, I doubt I would get the answer that I am requesting. If you read this book and had an answer, I would like to think that you would just state that in your response. After all, you did mention that “any competent ethicist can demonstrate this very thing”. I am not claiming you are such an ethicist (or that you are not for that matter), but I have not seen this demonstrated yet.

Oh, and for the record, The Lucifer Principle is not a book for ethicists, or philosophers even.  It's a book written specifically for people like you -- people who would like answers without having to get a degree. 

Well, I could say that you should be a little more “open minded” about the Bible, couldn’t I?

For those interested, a lot of what I am about to suggest is from the book “The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalsim” by Philip E. Johnson. If you would like to get more details, I am sure you can get a copy from your local library or even buy it on Amazon.

Evolution, as Dawkins says, is a competition among genes. Dawkins is quoted saying, “...I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness.” He is also quoted saying, “We are survival machines-robot vehicles programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.” Johnson concludes that this implies these vehicles are acting naturally when they “murder, rob, rape or enslave other robots to satisfy their genetic masters.”

With regard to social Darwinsim, Dawkins says, “Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs,...” This seems ridiculous to me considering, as Johnson puts it, “Any tendency to pursue goals other than gene copying would be self-extinguishing because by definition it would be less effective at spreading genetic copies...  ...it would have to evade the destructive scrutiny of natural selection...”

Steven Pinker claims, with regard to the mind, that it is a set of computers where the “self” is what unifies them from going their own individual directions. He makes my point about morality being arbitrary from a naturalistic world view prettty clear when he tried to explain infanticide back in 1996-1997. To sum up the situation, two girls around the age of 18 were pregnant and gave birth to children where minutes after birth disposed of them. Yes, they were killed. When Pinker attempted for an explanation he said that although he believes killing a baby is morally wrong, they acted in accordance to their genetic make up. Interesting that Pinker believes, “moral reasoning requires that we assume the existence of things which science tells us are unreal.”

Andrew Fergusson, from The Weekly Standard, critiques Pinker’s assessment by saying, “Basically, evolutionary Psychology proceeds by erecting a mountain of speculation on the basis of fragmentary evidence about primitive cultures.” Fergusson goes on to say that Pinker’s logic is similar to a philosopher by the name of Michael Tooley. Tooley believes that it is not wrong to kill a baby until it is around 3 months old. The reason is that he believes there is a “limited capacity for thought” and are no better than an animal. So, if a mother is unable to care for the child at birth or the child is incapable of developing into a self-reliant human being, historically and as seen in nature she is not wrong for being rid of the burden.

Pinker also says that, “Science and morality are separate spheres of reasoning.” And as Johnson puts it, “When the time is right to overthrow some traditional moral restriction, evolutionary Psychologists will complete the logic by observing that the moral sphere is as empty as the religious realm. After All, both religion and morality rest on assumptions that science has shown to be false.”

There is a lot of information I wanted to include and felt like it would take too much space. I find it interesting that with this said, I still don’t see how a person with a naturalistic worldview can possibly begin to ask the question of this thread. There still has to be some explanation of how do we know that evil exists. Otherwise, this is a mute subject to an atheist because in all reality, for an atheist, there is no way to define how we know that evil does exist. To be logically consistent, it would make more sense to say there is no good, there is no evil. There is only matter that happens to interact with it’s surrounding.

One last comment from Johnson, “Now that these philosophies are promoted in the mass media, we may expect many more people to apply the logic of nihilism to their own conduct.”

The following is from “The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God” by Lee Strobel. This is all to argue that there is (at the time of this book being written) no verifiable evidence that we can conclude our consciousness is a product of matter.

Darwinist will argue there is a point in which matter spawned though. An existence that allowed “subjectivity, feelings, hopes, a point of view, self-awareness, introspection, that “hidden voice of our private selves.” Thomas Huxley said, “Mind [or consciousness] is a function of matter, when that matter has attained a certain degree of organization.” Sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson said, “Consciousexperience is a physical and not a supernatural phenomenon.” This seems to be congruent with the ideas of those in this forum.

Let’s contrast this idea with the following statements. In response to Ray Kurzweil’s assumption about computers spawning conciousness, John Searle said, “You can expand the power all you want, hooking up as many computers as you think you need, and they still won’t be conscious, because all they’ll ever do is shuffle symbols.” Wilder Penfield, a neurosurgeon said, “Through my own scientific career, I like other scientists, have struggled to prove that the brain accounts for the mind.” He also said , “To expect the highest brain mexhanism or any set of reflexes, however complicated, to carry out what the mind does, and thus perform all the functions of the mind, is quite absurd...” He continues with, “What a thrill it is, then, to discover that the scientist, too, can legitimately believe in the existence of the spirit.” We also hear from John Searle say, “We don’t have an adequate theory of how the brain causes conscious states, and we don’t have an adequate theory of how consciousness fits into the universe.”

While there are some who insist there will somday be, as Antonio R. Damasio puts it, “a substantial explanation for the mind’s emergence from the brain will be produced and perhaps soon.” John E. Eccles says this attitude is “promissory materialism... extravagant and unfullfillable.” Anthropologist Marilyn Schlitz says that she is ardent with following the datate over theory and sees that the data is pointing to a refutation of the physicalist position.

There was a study published in the journals of Resuscitation in which Sam Parnia and Peter Fenwick studied sixty-three heart attack victims “who were declared clinically dead but later revived and interviewed.” They were tested and were found to have “well-structured, lucid thought processes, with memory formation and reasoning” in 10 percent. It’s no surprise that there were attempts by skeptics tried to refute this with “common objections” which were said to be ruled out. More cases were discovered to be similar.

J. P. Moreland offers some positive evidence that supports the idea of the mind being separate from the brain. He quotes Penfield who says, “There is no place... where electrical stimulation will cause a patient to believe or to decide.” Moreland also mentions how Roger Sperry, through his studies, discovered that the brains activities has nothing to do with the minds ability to make choices. Through other studies, Laurence C. Wood concluded that “Many scientists have been compelled to postulate that the existence of an immaterial mind, even though they may not embrace a belief in an after-life.”

Moreland also argues that there are philosophical arguments for the case. He says that there are things that are true for our consciousness that aren’t true for anything physical. To give an example in my own words about what he is talking about, you can think something is true, like “the sky is blue” and there would be no empirical evidence that can be shown by looking at the brain where you could say, “See that, that means this person believes the sky is blue.” All the data would show is that there is activity of something happening with the brain, but unless the participant was asked, the scientist would never be able to make the connection that the activity in the brain meant that the participant believed the sky is blue.

In listening to Greg Koukhl on his show Stand to Reason, he discusses this same issue with a caller. He mentions that the electrical impulses in and of the brain does not conclude an understanding of the mind. Yes, there has been research done in this field, but the furthest that we have gotten is that we are aware of activity in the brain, not what is actually going on with the mind. When activity is recognized, scientict still have to resort to asking the participant what triggered that response.

By the way, I don't see how resorting to insults really is a "rational" response. But I guess when morality is subjective it doesn't really matter anyway.

First off, I'm glad to see you admit that Christian morality is subjective. Not many Christians are so honest. As an atheist, my morals come from what is beneficial to my fellow humans. Those don't change.

As for your Strobel quote, may I direct you here?

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/

All of his books are dissected in detail. 

I don't know the exact origin of these quotes from Pinker, but if anyone wants an accurate portrayal of what Pinker has to say about morality here is a recent article of his on the subject. I don't think the quotes presented give an accurate impression of his position.

Empathy, need, reasoning ability, and social instruction.   

Actually you've been given both. The materialist has no problem answering this. I would love to see how the immaterialist can explain how animmaterial mind can be said to exist. Care to take on that challenge or do you simply accept that it does even though the very claim is incoherent? 

If we affect one's brain we affect one's ability to think. Brains are comprised of neurons which use chemical and electrical signals to communicate information. Both chemicals and electricity are material. We know of no other activity that could be responsible for thought. We can affect thoughts by affecting the chemicals and electrical signals that are being transmitted throughout the brain. This is empirical evidence that thoughts are material.

There is zero, zilch, nada, empirical evidence that thoughts are immaterial. Care to present some?   

No. The Law of Gravity is material because it is nothing more than information carried within brains. The phenomenon described by The Law of Gravity is what we observe and if you think that phenomenon is immaterial might I suggest reading some physics.   

Incorrect. Care to support this with something beside an assertion? 

You can't see air or microwaves either. I guess you consider these immaterial. Gravity is not immaterial. I suggest you read a little on gravity to get a better understanding of what it is. 

The laws of logic exist in the same way the laws of gravity exist. Information in human brains. What they describe, that A=A and such, are material truths. They are grounded in materialism. If something is not material then I would have no reason to think that the laws of logic would hold in that case. Since I have no idea what "to exist" means when discussing the immaterial, I have no way of saying that something can not both exist and not exist from that viewpoint.      

Um. No. Crime and logical fallacies are not at all related. If a criminal thought that the wallet was not their's and it was also not the case that it was not their's they would likely be put into a mental institution where drugs could be administered affecting the chemicals in their brain and thereby changing their thought processes. A material process. Criminals know that the wallet is not their's. This is why it is a crime to take it. 

Nice assertion. Where is the evidence that ideas are immaterial? You want evidence that they are material but you are willing to simply assert that they are immatterial. Why is that? 

You simply assert that ideas are believed to be immaterial. Believed to be immaterial by who? Most neuroscientists would disagree with you on that.

The way the materialist actually views this is the brain (which is material) causes the mind (which is material) which is where ideas (which are material) are formed, which makes much more sense than those believing that their is an immaterial component. Those who believe in the immaterial component should need to explain what is an immaterial component? How can immaterial interact with material? And then, they would need to go on to show evidence that this immaterial component actually does exist, not simply that a current materialist theory of mind is incorrect.   

The science is getting there quickly. You might be amazed if you looked into recent research on the mind. I mean actual scientific research not what apologists have to say about the research. 

Arguing that it is imaterial doesn't build a case until you can show the immaterial. The material theory of mind is much better supported than the immaterial.  

I have already given you evidence in my first reply. 

You mean its not strong enough to beat the case that the mind is immaterial which has exactly no evidence? Wow, that's being open minded. 

Yes empirical support. And material theories of mind are well supported.

So, it has taken me a while to respond because I have been reading some articles and trying to finish some books that I got for the issue of the body/mind problem. Although, I have not finished doing all the reading I would like, and I am still fascinated by what is being discovered, I still find there is a presumption of what these “facts” mean and I would like to share my thoughts so far.

It would seem that both sides have made a critical error of using terms without describing what it is that those terms mean. I would like to clarify what some of these terms mean in the context of which I am using them and would like to welcome any clarification of better defining these terms.

Material – The substance or substances in which a thing is made or composed.

Matter – Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more of the five senses and subject to the laws of nature.

Immaterial – Something to have existence that is not material.

Being that we all believe in the idea of the mind to exist, that part is understood. It seems that the part in question would be it’s formal cause or the nature of it’s existence. I also find it kind of ironic that a materialist, under these circumstances, would ask for proof that the mind is immaterial. If it is “invisible” and the materialist’s basic assumption is that all things that exist are material in nature, what physical evidence can be provided for something said to be immaterial? This is like asking me to draw a circle square. Since the burden of proof is typically placed on the person stating the affirmative, and it is agreed that there is the “mind”, it would make sense that the materialist has the burden of proof to show that the “mind” is material in nature. Of course, if I am wrong, I am open to an explanation.

Is it so hard to imagine the concept of the mind and the brain being separate entities? Let me use an example that I think could make for a good analogy of this concept. Let’s consider satellite TV. There are many channels that can be viewed with satellite TV, so there are features (or functions) that it has with regard to what it can provide. This would represent the “mind”. There are usually different packages in which a subscriber can purchase determining what kind of features the subscriber has access to. This would represent the capacity of the brain to interact with the mind and vice versa, the greatest subscription package representing full access of the mind. Another component of this is the receiver that is used to be able to view Satellite TV on your television. The receiver is needed to be able to view channels from Satellite TV, but the receiver does not create the satellite images, it controls what images can be seen. Another component is the television itself, which can alter the way the image is perceived. If you have a black and white television, does this mean that Satellite TV only provides black and white images? No, it limits the perception of what the images have to offer.

I am not saying this is a proof for the existence of the mind being immaterial, nor am I saying it justifies a separate entity of the brain. Rather, I am suggesting that it is possible that through these discoveries of the brain we can only conclude the kind of interaction it has with the mind. Even Antonio Damasio admits in his book “Descartes’ Error” that his discoveries aren’t conclusive. This is one example of a reason, but does not exclude others. The existence of the mind, it’s efficient cause, is not exclusive (as far as we can say based on evidence) to the brain. It is limited in what is perceived of the mind by the brain. There is still need of further research (based on what I have read so far) to say the mind was created by the brain.

Something else I would like to suggest. If the mind is material in nature, it would seem to make sense that it is formed of some kind of substance, or matter that can be perceived by one or more of the five senses. So far, I have gathered that the mind is a result of activities in the brain. With that said, all that can exist of the mind can be verified through the brain. If I am misunderstanding this, again, I am open to clarification. To give further clarification of my discussion, I believe there is a difference between a thing itself and the things caused by the thing itself, or the function of the thing itself has. The function of the thing itself can be tested with what is perceived through our five senses. If a thought is created in the mind it has then come to some form of existence. This thought is realized in so far as we can verify the activity that occurs in the brain, but it is still locked away in the mind, hidden from all until the author of that thought reveals it. This thought itself cannot be verified unless the author of that thought tells you what it is they are thinking about. Saying that one sees the function of the thought through the viewing of the activity of synapses in the brain is not the same as seeing the thought itself.

If the mind itself is material in nature, wouldn’t it make sense that the ideas brought forth would have some kind of material nature that can be verified from the five senses, thus making it physical? This is the evidence that I’ve been asking for. Since the mind itself cannot be perceived by the five senses, and yet me know that it exists, then I see no reason to believe that the mind is material. I am stating that it is immaterial on the grounds that we believe it exists, but cannot attribute any material nature to it’s existence (as of yet).

This, then, brings us back to the issue of all the explanations of morality that I have received. They are all based on the assumption that the mind is material in nature. Until this evidence has been brought forth, there is still a need to explain the grounding of morality from an atheist worldview. So far, I have received discussions that the greatest means for survival is expressing common good to all that exist. No doubt, I would agree with this 100%. But saying that is the best means for survival doesn’t ground why I should live a good moral life to further my ability to survive. If it’s subjective, why can’t a person take the position of ultimate destruction as the means for their existence? If one chooses to refer back to “it wouldn’t promote survival” then you would be using circular reasoning and have not answered the question.

Saying that morality is subjective is to say that given a context of a situation, one response is the good moral response and in that same context it is equally valid that it is not a good moral response. A=B and A≠B. This is a fallacy with regard to the principle of contradictions. You are probably saying that there are situations where this can be true. Let me explain a little further. There has to be an understanding of the difference between what is objectively true and what is perceived to be objectively true. With what is perceived to be objectively true, there are a multiple factors of subjective experiences, things that only you can verify from personal experience, that help or sometimes cloud your judgment or understanding of a given situation that has objective truth to it, objective in that it is true regardless of how you perceive it.

In this discussion, I have received many statements about how I cannot conduct a proper argument, comments about how I believe in things and find it ironic that all of this is based on the presumption of objectivity. There is a difference between asking “how can we know what is objectively true about morality” and asking “is there objectivity to morality”. Morality has to be grounded on the principle that it is true regardless of perception for it to hold value strong enough that it would apply to others. Otherwise, to say that someone else is wrong is completely invalid. In other words, it is true regardless of how a person might feel about it. This is why it is true that expressing moral and ethical behavior promotes the survival of mankind, regardless if a person should choose a life of total destruction.

War is sometimes morally right.

Person A says that war is sometimes morally right.

Person B says that war is not sometimes morally right.

If War is sometimes morally right, then Person B is wrong.

If it is not the case that War is sometimes morally right, then Person A is wrong.

Someone is wrong because of what is objectively true about the statement “War is sometimes morally right”. It cannot be “what’s true for Person A is true for Person A but not for Person B” kind of thinking. It’s true regardless of how one feels about it and it’s hard to justify that both can be equally valid, if at all.

I was listening to a discussion the other day and it brought some things to mind about some of my previous posts. Consider the following arguments:

1^st argument

If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.

Objective morality exists.

Therefore, God exists.

2^nd argument (the one in discussion)

If God exists, being all-powerful and all-loving, then evil cannot exist.

Evil exists.

Therefore, God does not exist.

Although, some atheist would agree that there is objective morality, for those who don’t, I find that the 2^nd argument is sufficient to show that it is. Here is why. To bring some kind of harm to a child, such as pedophilia, is safe to assume that we all agree is wrong and evil. Some have argued that we know it is immoral because of evolution and society. Be careful not to commit a Genetic Fallacy by saying this invalidates that morality is objective. My question at this point would be, do we say pedophilia is immoral because it is wrong, or is it wrong because it is immoral? At any rate, for the 2^nd premise of the 2^nd argument to be true, to invalidate the existence of God, it has to be objectively true. If it is subjective, how can one know what evil is? Evil exists objectively on the grounds that morality is objective.

We know evil exists by the evil that people do.

The evil that people do is rooted in their moral behavior.

If this is the case, then the 2^nd premise of the first argument is true and all that is required is to discuss that the 1^st premise of the 1^st argument. I don’t believe that it is necessary to go into to much detail about this since so many have been willing to state this claim to it’s validity. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist. We can say this is true because there is no way for us to know that morality does exist objectively unless there is some transcendent form to show us otherwise. As I have mentioned before, without having something to ground morality in, what is to say that choosing a life purpose of total destruction invalid if morality is subjective? If one says it is the case because the “society” would pressure some one into thinking this is invalid, you still have to come up with something to ground it making it objectively true for them to be in violation of moral goodness.

Subjective is defined as “1. Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. 2. Dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for it’s existence.”

Objective is defined as “1. Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. 2. Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.”

To say that morality is subjective is to say choosing a life of destruction is okay because it is based on that persons feelings, taste or opinions and it is dependent on that persons individual perception. So, to impose your ideals about morality on another person is indeed to believe that morality is objective and that it actually exists apart from your mind or perception.