How about this: If the problem of evil is so strong, present me with a logical deductible form of it. Non-Theists are always going on and on about how it “kills” Christianity, but really all they have are arguments from outrage. Emotional problems, which are useless outside a rhetoric-centered environment. Can you formulate a logical deductible form of the problem of evil? Then we’ll talk.
The “emotional” aspect is not relevant.
The
deductive type of an argument presupposes that we can agree on a set of starting points (as axioms) and base the logical argument on them. (Without axioms there can be no deduction, I am sure you are aware of that.)
And here is the first stumbling block. Can we agree on the definition of such a simple concept as “benevolent”? In my vocabulary the word “benevolent” is very well defined. It designates a person who cares about others, who helps others, who is not aloof about other people’s pain, health, hunger etc. That person does not “outsource” the helping to others, but performs the help himself (as long as he is able to do it). No excuse that right now there is no help, but “later” there will be some reward.
Now, it may happen that this person “stays his hand”, and does not perform the expected help, but in that case he (
or his advocate) must explain very clearly and sufficiently why the route of “non-help” was preferable. Not just mumbling that “maybe” there is a very good reason, why the help was withheld, but we are unable to know that reason. That is not an argument (in everyday vernacular it is called BS-ing), and I want to make sure that you are aware of this, before we even start (if we ever get there).
Can we agree that this is the bare minimum for the definition of “benevolent”? If we cannot, there is no common ground, and we shall talk past each other. Can we agree that there is BS-ing in the form of “maybe”?
I am not hopeful. When a conversation like this ends, and the believer runs out of arguments, he/she will invariably say: “How dare you to question God? Whatever God does to you is just, right, moral and fine, because God is the Creator. The (
absolute) moral rules do not apply to God, since he is the rule-maker.”
So, my friend, I will decline your challenge,
UNLESS we can agree on the starting points and the rules of the conversation. If we can, then I will be happy to engage in a friendly dialog with you. The ball is in your court. As I said I am not hopeful. So far it never happened that the prospective opponent would have agreed to these terms. Not that these terms are unfair to either party. But for whatever reason they do not want to agree. Beats me, why?
Being an amputee could lead to a greater good. Alternatively, healing the amputee could lead to a larger evil. They could have their arm back, but virtually no muscular development nor nerve control. There are a lot of things that can go wrong, and this is where the free will defense really kicks in. You never know what impact it will have which could violate free will, even if the healing itself doesn’t.
A perfect example of an unacceptable baloney. You must spell out exactly and precisely why is not rendering help is preferable to the help. “Maybe” simply does not cut it.
