Passerby’s challenge somehow tends to remind me of this series of photographs. But who knows, perhaps the stag will surprise us:
Definition of evil: the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing
I’m an atheist and going by Merriam-Webster’s def. of evil above, I say evil exists. According to VD, my stance is irrational. Prove it. Anyone. Show your work. Lay out the steps proving my logic is flawed. You’ll fail. I will crush you.
Well, let us see about that. He has made his claim that his stance is rational, (which is to say that evil exists but God does not), so I’ll take up the burden of attempting to falsify it.
- Passerby asserts that “the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing” exists.
- The existent fact of wrongdoing necessarily requires that there is a material universal standard of right and wrong by which actions can be classified.
- A material universal standard of right and wrong must be objective.
- Man’s standards of right and wrong are inherently subjective and non-universal.
- Therefore the objective, material, universal standard of right and wrong cannot be produced by Man.
- The most likely source of an inhuman, objective, material, universal standard of right and wrong is an intelligence of grand scope possessing a direct connection to the area in which that standard applies.
- The scope required for that inhuman intelligence to provide the universal standard implies, though it does not necessarily require, extra-universality.
- The most reasonable connection between the presumably extra-universal intelligence providing the standard and the area in which that standard applies is that of creator to creation.
- The presumably extra-universal intelligent creator that provides the objective, material, universal standard to its presumed creation is quite reasonably described as God.
This logic provides for a small degree of wiggle room here. A being need not necessarily be either extra-universal nor the creator to successfully impose an objective standard on the universe. However, since any act of creation that results in an observed objective standard necessarily requires the creation of a standard of some kind, the most rational conclusion is to assume that the standard observed was provided by the creator rather than by some other intelligent, inhuman entity that successfully replaced the original standard.
But I think even if the logic-dictated provider of the universal standard of right and wrong is neither the creator nor extra-universal, its observed ability to impose such a standard upon the universe suffices to justify its recognition as an existent god, at the very least, if not necessarily the Creator God or the Creator God of the Christian Bible.