Admittedly, the philosophical problem of evil was the catalyst for my break from religion. However, as I learned more about the Abrahamic religions, I started to dismiss the problem of evil in favor of more compelling arguments.
However, after listening to Christians attempt to respond to the problem of evil, their responses seem incomplete at best and quite possibly just plain silly. As such, I have gained a new found respect for the problem of evil.
So what exactly is the problem of evil anyway? Well, it was best stated by Epicurus at least 250 years before the alleged birth of Jesus. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”
Philosophically speaking, let’s define evil in one of two ways. Evil could be defined as the opposite of good or as the absence of good. There is a third definition that I will save for later. Let’s say that evil is the opposite of good and God created evil so that human beings can better understand and/or appreciate the good as many Christians claim. That doesn’t really solve the problem of evil. If God is all-powerful, then he wouldn’t need to create evil so that humans could better understand good. He could just snap his all-powerful fingers and humans would understand and appreciate the good without the evil. To do otherwise would be cruel.
Often Christians try to use the parent analogy here to explain why God would cause suffering (or not prevent suffering) and still be considered moral. This analogy breaks down pretty easily because God is alleged to be all-powerful and parents are not. God can change the laws of physics.
We have to understand that the character of God is alleged to be supernatural and therefore not bound by the limits of reason and logic. In the world we currently live in, an ‘up’ implies a ‘down’ and vice versa, but an all-powerful deity could have created a universe in which that was not the case. He didn’t. God could make it so that you could eat whatever you want and never exercise and still lose weight. A parent on the other hand can’t do that, so a parent has to teach a child about good nutrition and tiring exercise.
Likewise, if evil is the absence of good we still have the same problem. Evil doesn’t have to be the absence of good. We could be living in a universe where that was not the case. In fact, I would argue that we already do live in such a universe. While evil can be the absence of good, it isn’t just the absence of good.
The question of theodicy (as the Problem of Evil is called) is a question about suffering. Why do bad things happen to good people or to all people indiscriminately? Hurricanes for example are not merely the absence of clear skies. It is a complex weather system in and of itself. Why would God allow a hurricane or an earthquake like the one that happened recently in Haiti happen and cause suffering? Is God willing to prevent these things, but is not able? Is God able to prevent them, but not willing? If he is both willing and able, then why do hurricanes and earthquakes occur and why do they kill people young and old, believer and non-believer equally?
That third definition of evil that I alluded to earlier addresses this issue. I talk about it more in depth in here. But to make a long story short, good and evil are human constructs. When we are talking about evil in this context we are not talking about some supernatural force. We are not talking about the character of Satan or his plans. Good and evil are not actual forces in the world acting on human beings. These are concepts create by people to help us interact with each other and the world around us. There are no all-powerful gods who are willing or able to stop suffering. We as human beings must stop suffering on our own.
The fact is that most people don’t need the lure of eternal paradise or the threat of eternal torture to motivate them to help those who are suffering. We help those who are suffering because we can help those who are suffering. Human compassion is the atheist solution to the problem of evil.
This article is also part of the 'On Faith' Series of the Washington Post addressing the issue: Does God allow Haiti to suffer?
If you enjoy this article, please consider sharing the link and subscribing to the Philly Atheist Examiner column using the "Subscribe" button above so that you can be notified about new articles.
On Faith Series:
On Faith: Media biased against Christians?
On Faith: Free speech vs. God
On Faith: Religion’s Impact 2009
On Faith: Climate change a moral issue?
On Faith: Good News -- Oral Roberts is dead
On Faith: Just war or holy war in Afghanistan?
On Faith: A crèche in the White House?
On Faith: Swiss ban on Islamic minarets
On Faith: holidays or holy days?
Atheism 101 Articles:
Atheism 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Atheism 101: Is there moral grounding without God?
Atheism 101: The Purpose of Life
Atheism 101: The Nature of Good and Evil
Atheism 101: Is the Bible the inspired word of God?
Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion
Atheism 101: Why has Christianity demonized nudity, sex and sexuality?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the lord, liar, lunatic argument?
Atheism 101: Does it take more faith to be an atheist?
Atheism 101: What came before the Universe?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the ex-atheist
Comments
Hi Staks. My problem of evil article (to which you replied, I answered, and you did not reply again: www. examiner.com/x-26772-San-Francisco-Apologetics-Examiner~y2009m11d29-Good-101--Is-there-a-solution-to-the-problem-of-evil-argument If there is no "real" good--there can be no "real" evil, and no "real" problem of evil. But if evil is a problem, then there is a "real" good--so there must be a reason a good God allows evil and suffering: if He prevented 'all' evil and suffering, He would prevent free will and the growth that comes from suffering. More valuable is learning love-despite circumstances.
When you say "real" what exactly do you mean. There is good and evil, but they are descriptions not personifies forces. Is Fonzy cool? Sure he is. Does that mean that there is a personified being of cool? No. Does that mean that cool isn't "real?" No.
You said, "there must be a reason a good God allows evil and suffering." Okay then, what's the reason? You talk about free will and all that crap, but what choice did the people of Haiti have when the earthquake came? Many died. They didn't have a free choice in that Maryann. What they they learn? Nothing, they died. Like I said in the article, God is not a parent. He could have created a universe in which one can have free will and there wouldn't be any suffering. Clearly this is not that universe. The the problem still exists for Christians. Why did God murder all those Haitians? Why did God allow them to did?
Is he willing but not able or able, but not willing to prevent suffering?
actually, Maryann, you were close to the answer at first. There is no real good or evil (as in no personification of or source of) simply good and bad things happen to people or are done by people to others. A person doesn't have to believe in God to do mostly good things, nor do they have to scorn God to do mostly bad. Also note that things done by one group who think it's a good thing may be seen as bad by another group, so good and bad can be subjective things. for one, take abortion, you may think it's a bad thing, but look at the case of the 9yo girl in Brazil last year; if she hadn't had an abortion, she and the twins she carried probably wouldn't have survived. You might also look at holy wars and the Inquisition. Good for the Christians, bad for anybody who wasn't Christian. Haiti? The plates on the Earth are constantly trying to move. Only friction prevents it, but eventually enough pressure overcomes friction and earthquakes happen. The Earth doesn't care, it's not alive.
A man walks into a campsite, kills the occupants of the tent, and takes their goods. We call that evil. A bear does the same thing, but we don't call it evil. So evil is just a human construct, a synonym for "I don't like it."
Yet the emotions behind our condemnation of such things as the Holocaust sound less like condemnation of a construct than an affirmation that some things are true whether we like them or not.
If trinitarian theology is correct, Jesus was God, yet the Bible says he "learned obedience from what he suffered." Why would an omniscient God have to learn? Why would a sinless being have to learn obedience?
The Bible doesn't give us any answer to suffering. God essentially told Job "you didn't make the world, you don't understand it, and you can't do anything about it, so shut up." Either there is a God who is ultimately good or not. If not, life is ultimately meaningless: literally no one would care tomorrow if we all died today. If so, we have unanswered questi
Even the Holocaust is an extension of what I was talking about below. Most of us can agree it was a bad thing in the extreme, but Hitler and at least a fair proportion of his troops believed it to be a good thing. What you miss is that Hitler echoed the hatred Martin Luther showed for the Jewish people. And even today you'd find people in the world that would think it was a good thing (Iran, Gaza, and the West Bank for instance?).
And as for your last statement, Life doesn't become meaningless just because there is no god. We find our own meaning. Atheists have been doing it for years.
To Maryann:
The "growth" that comes from suffering? You mean like being burned alive for heresy and from incendiary bombing. And if you think such things are exceptional, you need to take a history lesson.
Some thoughts. God created the angels and gave them free will. Lucifer the most beautiful and intelligent of the angels decided he or she was better than God and rebelled. The Why to all of these things is better left for God to answer. It matters not that you don't believe in Him, and you can tell Him that when you meet Him. God banned Lucifer from Heaven and gave him the world to rule over. No harm done as no one inhabited the earth.
God created Adam and Eve and gave them free will. They sinned because they were human & of course tempted by Lucifer (Satan),who is the creator of evil. Should God have known about this before hand? If so, why create them? Maybe He wanted to be loved freely by His creation. That can't happen without free will. Did God realize He would have to send Jesus to shed his blood to cleanse the world of sin? Probably, but who knows for sure? God created nature and gave it the immutable laws of physics.Note how well they work. Look&see HisWayNotOurs
Jimmy,
And what credible evidence do you have that any of this occurred besides a book full of stories written by superstitious farmers, and edited by politicians, and full of contradictions. I mean I'm sure there are other books written during this same time period said to have the same credibility as your Bible, that you ignore completely.
As God would have it, I have been writing on many of the questions that have come up on this thread.
All this week..."Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility" and how evil has a meaning and used to bring glory to God.
I want to address somethings here, But please visit my page for more understanding.
www.examiner.com/x-35125-Calvinism-Examiner
peace....James
Hello Staks
YOU SAID...You said.."Okay then, what's the reason? You talk about free will and all that crap, but what choice did the people of Haiti have when the earthquake came? "
The reason is many...
1)A picture is not a good picture apart from the shadows.
2)To bring about Gods power and glory.
many more reasons..
2nd...fallen man has no free-will
YOU SAID..>>"Many died. They didn't have a free choice in that Maryann. What they they learn? Nothing, they died."
When is the best time to die? If you were God..or even in control, when would you have people die? We all die...when is the best time?
YOU SAID>>"He could have created a universe in which one can have free will and there wouldn't be any suffering."
Why would you say this? If man did have free-will, the pain and suffering would be greater. If hate rose in someone to zap you and they had the power and free-will to zap you...they would do it. And BTW...you would do the same.
Hello steve-n-sa
YOU SAID>>There is no real good or evil (as in no personification of or source of) simply good and bad things happen to people or are done by people to others.
If you know there is a good, there must be a idea of good. (PLATO)
You may think it is a good idea to take my car. I feel it is a bad idea. Which idea is right?
Peace...James
Jimmy B and the Calvinist Examiner's views do not represent all Christians' views. If you peel away the extra stuff, Jimmy B got it right that "love" (and its alternative choice) is not possible without free will (which the Calvinist Examiner does not acknowledge). I do not want to debate fellow Christians, but I also do not want the discussion to go on tangents. If we stick to the article's topic, we will have a much more fruitful discussion. Staks--I do not think good or evil are "forces"--did you read my article?--I think evil is the privation (absence) of good, and that "real" good corresponds to God's character (which is love). If God prevents the suffering that results from earthquakes, then logically He must prevent all suffering--including the suffering resulting from our freely willed evil choices--and that takes away free will (love must be a choice--there must be the ability to choose evil, and suffer its consequences.) The people of Haiti did not choose the quake.
Staks--my first reply, and the article I originally linked you to answers "Is He willing, but not able, or able, but not willing?"--and Steve pointed out that the question is moot if there is no "real" good (and therefore no "real" privation or absence of it, no "real" evil).
Henry--the bear did not have evil intent...(everyone else--) neither did the earthquake...but humans can have evil intent. That we hunger for 'real' meaning (like nutritious food), even though we may be wrong about what that real meaning is (like we eat junk food), points to there being real meaning that can satisfy that hunger. Although He was fully God, Jesus gave up some of His glory for a while because love is more important--so Jesus became fully man--that's why His suffering perfected Him, "proved" Him, in preparation to be the perfect sacrifice, as opposed to all of us who make very poor, imperfect sacrifices. Humanity does not contradict divinity--we are made in the image of God (free will to love).
1225truth: If one dies, one is released from suffering..."growth" (while on earth) is no longer applicable. But for those who are still on earth, if God removes all suffering, it means we can not learn the consequences of evil choices (since He prevents them)--preventing the evil choice--making love 'not' a choice. That would be evil. I said most of that below, but wanted to reply to you specifically. Have a great day, all. Our job is to support the people in Haiti, help ease their suffering. Don't let's drop the ball.
Hello James, and just Steve is fine.
When you define good and evil, you define them as hard and fast rules defined by your god, I just wanted to point out that it isn't always so black and white.
"If you know there is a good, there must be a idea of good. (PLATO)"
This is true, but it doesn't change what I said
"You may think it is a good idea to take my car. I feel it is a bad idea. Which idea is right?"
actually I would feel it's a bad idea because I wouldn't want to live in a society where someone would feel good about stealing my car. But if, say, you were default on your car loan, wouldn't the loaning bank be right to take your car?
Now, a question for you. If you had a son who acted rebellious and wouldn't listen to you, would it be right for you to take him to the town center and have him stoned to death? (Deut 21:18-21) Me, I'd consider that a bad thing, but that's just me.
Maryann, I addressed those issues in this article and in the article on Good and Evil which I put a link to in this article. The question of suffering still exists and your attempt to hid from the question has failed on multiple levels as I pointed out in the article. Also, this article is not a response to your article in particular. It is a response to the Washington Post question and also a general response to Christian's failure to address this issue. As you can see Christians disagree with you on this. In fact, I think most Christians disagree with you here. Even still neither you nor other Christians have addressed this issue satisfactorily.
So his creation would love him of their own free will makes about as much sense as they hate us and they hate freedom. Sound like the kinds of "reasons" you can give to someone that just wants to hear SOMEthing to make sense of things.
"The fact is that most people don’t need the lure of eternal paradise or the threat of eternal torture to motivate them to help those who are suffering. We help those who are suffering because we can help those who are suffering. Human compassion is the atheist solution to the problem of evil." I've said this in many forms elsewhere....its weird that people don't seem to get it. Looking for the WIIFM (what's in it for me), why should anyone give you ANYthing (including heaven) for being a good person? I don't think an all powerful all knowing being would result to punishment/rewards system for love.
I am predestination, I believe because I was chosen. I simply can't stop believing. I don't argue with pigs, the pigs enjoy it, and I just get muddy...
Staks, that people disagree or agree with something, doesn't mean it is wrong or right--but most Christians do agree with me. I did not think this article is in reply to mine (mine, on which you personally did comment, does not appear to be represented or answered in this article).
Gina (and Steve)--if there is a real good (love) then the 'unchanging' to which it corresponds must be loving (God must be love). To reject that love, is to choose the alternative, which, ultimately, is hell. It isn't about "what's in it for me" (which would be a type of rejection)--it's about God respecting our rejection. If we choose love and compassion--we should have no beef with God. But none of us is that perfect. None of us is compassionate 100% of our waking and dreaming. We cannot earn the status of "perfect" by being super-heroes of compassion. Perfection (perfect love) cannot be earned--it can only be given (that's grace).
Something (((Wes))) has yet to learn.
Maryann, I did address the points you discussed in your article, "Likewise, if evil is the absence of good we still have the same problem." and "Often Christians try to use the parent analogy here to explain why God would cause suffering (or not prevent suffering) and still be considered moral. This analogy breaks down pretty easily because God is alleged to be all-powerful and parents are not. God can change the laws of physics."
Maryann, you can't simply redefine God as "The Good" because the Bible goes on at some great length with examples of God's character and from those examples it is quite clear that no one in there right mind would consider such behavior as good. Second, it still doesn't address the Problem of Evil. If God is Good, then why was there an Earthquake in Haiti? Was God willing to prevent it, but was not able? Was God able to prevent it, but not willing? If he was both willing and able, then how come it happened?
Staks, this is how you answered "evil is the absence of good"
-- "Likewise, if evil is the absence of good we still have the same problem. Evil doesn’t have to be the absence of good. We could be living in a universe where that was not the case. In fact, I would argue that we already do live in such a universe. While evil can be the absence of good, it isn’t just the absence of good." In other words--you said we still have the same problem, but didn't explain "why"--and then you said -- maybe evil is "not" the absence of good. But, if there is no preexistent good--then there is nothing to mess up--there is no evil. How else would you define evil?
The parent analogy fits 'because' parents are powerful enough to bail their kids out--but, for the good of their kids--they don't. "Kids"--in this analogy--includes adult humans who drop the ball, like social workers who fail to check up on foster kids, for example. It is easy to blame God--but we grow when we fix the human system.
Staks, have you considered the term "Demiurge"? Check out a movie called "The Nines" or read "Jehovah Unmasked!" by Nathaniel Merrit.
Merry Matrix!
Free Will as a concept is indicative of self-delusion. Check out the film, "Revolver" with that transpoter guy.
Maryann, did you read the article? You quoted it, but you missed a few things. "character of God is alleged to be supernatural and therefore not bound by the limits of reason and logic."
You claim: "no preexistent good--then there is nothing to mess up." I wrote in the article: "Hurricanes for example are not merely the absence of clear skies. It is a complex weather system in and of itself."
You ask, "How else would you define evil?" In the article I wrote "good and evil are human constructs." I go into more detail in the other article that I linked to.
As for parents, last I heard we can't change the laws of physics. But your God allegedly can. I discussed this in the article, "God could make it so that you could eat whatever you want and never exercise and still lose weight." Parents have to teach their kids about nutrition, exercise, and a "no pain, no gain" approach because they can't change the laws of physics.
You actually missed an approach to evil. The belief that evil is a perversion of good. Consider: self confidence is a good thing, but take it to far and it becomes arrogence and pride. Sexual desire is a good and healthy thing but take it to far and its base lust a need to fill a biological urge with out respect for health or safety. Evil was not created as an independent thing it is the corruption of good. Good can exist with out evil but evil has no meaning with out good to prey upon.
As to why God allows evil to occur in my oppinion it goes back to the garden. Man was given a perfect world with out death or suffering. All man had to do was obey a simple rule (don't eat form the tree) but we decided we knew better then God and ignored that one rule. Now the two problems here are one whether or not the story is literal and two why we're still being punished for a crime that happened thousands of years ago (as a theistic evolutionist I don't believe in young earth). (contin
the answer to both, I think, is the same. The entire history of the human species has shown that when we're given what we want we are more likely to be less moral. Look at the mdoern world (or any point in human history) are the people who have money and power moral exemplars? Could you in all seriousness tell you're son that Bill Clinton's, for example, multiple affairs are an appropriate example of how to act when married? What about the rich people who lie, cheat and steal to get what they want? That's not to say that all rich people are evil or that all poor people are moral (that would be ubsurd). But when you compare Trump who has money and power to Mother Theresa who lived in squaller among the outcast and the down trodden and spent her life helping them who would you say is the morally praise worthy? Also lets be honest short of children "good people" is a relative term. If you could find me a person who's never lied about anything or felt hate you might have a point.
Kevin, I think you have a point with the perversion of good argument. Aristotle talked about this when he said that for every virtue there are two vices. For example, if Bravery is the virtue, the two vices would be Cowardice and Brashness. The virtue is the middle of two extreme vices. However, the fact remains that virtues and vices are human concepts and do not exist in a vacuum without sentient beings.
I will have to disagree with you on the whole God allows evil and suffering because the victims deserved it since two of their alleged ancestors who apparently didn't have the knowledge of good and evil ate a forbidden fruit. That doesn't really make much sense. How does eating a forbidden fruit have anything to do with the Earthquake that killed so many in Haiti? Why was the fruit forbidden int he first place? How stupid was it of God to put it there knowing that Adam and Eve would eat it? Not knowing Good or Evil, how can they be held accountable for this actions?
Staks and Kevin--the 'perversion of good' is the 'privation of good'...they are the same. Staks--To change the laws of physics is the same as bailing kids out--they learn nothing from it. And if good and evil are contstructs--not 'real'--then there is no problem of evil. Hurricanes are not evil--nature is not evil--our instincts are not evil--it is how we respond to situations that is good or evil. It is better for God to allow us to learn that, rather than to change the laws of physics and prevent us from learning anything at all. Reason and logic are descriptions of God's character (as is love). To be supernatural does not mean to be irrational.
Maryann, there is a difference between the lack of good and the coruption of good. Second, there is no problem of evil for atheists becasue we don't believe in an all-powerful moral deity. But for Christians and other God believers the problem of evil still holds.
The Ploblem of Evil is the Problem of Suffering.
Again, why didn't God create or fail to prevent the Earthquake in Haiti? What lesson did the dead people learn? If God is all-powerful, couldn't he have taught them without the Earthquake? Why are you limiting what God can do? I can't understand why you are not understanding this. I have address these issues with you multiple times and all you have done is restate your lame defenses even after they have been debunked.
And Jesus answering said unto them, “Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, nay; but unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Here we have Jesus saying people don’t die as a result of their sins; they are killed later if they don’t repent for those sins. People are not only killed for their sins, but Jesus threatens everyone within earshot with the same construction-accident fate. If these innocent fathers were sinless and righteous people, wouldn’t it be better for society and the community to let them live, and kill only the unrepentant, evil dads? Premature death for the innocent righteous isn’t much motivation for seeking God.
Why didn’t one single person in that crowd say “So, whether we do good, or do evil – either way, we die?” No one ever challenged Jesus’ foolish and ignorant statements. Jesus resorts to His Father's best practices - terrorist death threat.
I am trying to find the atheist answer or solution to the problem of evil. Did not find it here! So far my conclusion is:
Good & Evil are moral statements determined by
a)God
b)Consensuses (Society/Culture)
c)Individuals
If God does not exist then with
a)morals do not exist and there is no Good or Evil
b)what is Good & Evil will change with the consensus of each society/culture
c)what is Good & Evil will change with every individual
Depending on how we define Good & Evil (a), (b) & (c) are real and can be observed in the world. At the extremes of Good & Evil only (a) remains.
Therefore:
Without God there is no Good & Evil
Since Good & Evil exist
God must exist
Scott, the problem of evil obviously doesn't apply to atheists. Let me state the Problem again for you since you seemed to have somehow missed it (which is odd because it was pretty much the point of the article):
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”
Now what you seem to be asking about is moral grounding, not the problem of evil. I already addressed that issue in another article. Please see the sidebar ---->
I am trying to find the atheist answer or solution to the problem of evil. Did not find it here! So far my conclusion is:
Good & Evil are moral statements determined by
a)God
b)Consensuses (Society/Culture)
c)Individuals
If God does not exist then with
a)morals do not exist and there is no Good or Evil
b)what is Good & Evil will change with the consensus of each society/culture
c)what is Good & Evil will change with every individual
Depending on how we define Good & Evil (a), (b) & (c) are real and can be observed in the world. At the extremes of Good & Evil only (a) remains.
Therefore:
Without God there is no Good & Evil
Since Good & Evil exist
God must exist
So I read your article on the Nature of Good & Evil. I am still at a loss to find substance on the athiest solutions to good & evil. Most of the article is still a reaction to 'religious' precepts. The only athiest conclusion I see is that there is no good & evil, it is merely a human invention. By this we are left to do whatever we want. To take a life or give life is the same. Is this the athiest dream, a world out of control?
So I read your article on the Nature of Good & Evil. I am still at a loss to find substance on the athiest solutions to good & evil. Most of the article is still a reaction to 'religious' precepts. The only athiest conclusion I see is that there is no good & evil, it is merely a human invention. By this we are left to do whatever we want. To take a life or give life is the same. Is this the athiest dream, a world out of control?
So I read your article on the Nature of Good & Evil. I am still at a loss to find substance on the athiest solutions to good & evil. Most of the article is still a reaction to 'religious' precepts. The only athiest conclusion I see is that there is no good & evil, it is merely a human invention. By this we are left to do whatever we want. To take a life or give life is the same. Is this the athiest dream, a world out of control?
So I read your article on the Nature of Good & Evil. I am still at a loss to find substance on the athiest solutions to good & evil. Most of the article is still a reaction to 'religious' precepts. The only athiest conclusion I see is that there is no good & evil, it is merely a human invention. By this we are left to do whatever we want. To take a life or give life is the same. Is this the athiest dream, a world out of control?
Well Scott, I think you have a bit of an internet stutter. But that aside, that is still not the article I was referring to:
"Is there moral grounding without God?"
Also, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that atheism is a religion with beliefs just like Christianity. It isn't. There is no "atheist" position on anything except claims of deities.
Most of the time I hear Christians respond to good and evil by saying that God gave us free will and it is our choices in what we do which allows God to bestow the evil that befalls us.
So if atheism is not a religion, or a creed with a set of beliefs; indeed if it holds no particular truths as right or others wrong, then it seems to have nothing to it. What are you defending if there is nothing there? Atheism then is like grape jelly: no form. and easily squeezed and meshed into whatever blob which may be left of it.
I addressed this in other articles of the Atheism 101 series. Please see the appropriate article.
Well first off Sir, good and evil cannot be human constructions simply because as you said there is evil in the world so how can a sinful person determine what is right and wrong, only an ultimate, outside authority can determine that. For some people/ cultures aka 911 terrorist were pleased and believed that they had done good or what is right however in most people's eyes killing people is veery wrong. So then we clearly cannot be the judge of good and evil because if man determines it, it will not be the same for every man.
*facepalm* Please actually pick up a book on ethics before you talk about the subject.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!