God's Existence- Part 2

The Existence and the Persistence of Evil is used as a argument against God's existence, but is this a sound argument?

In order to say something is evil, one must first know what is good, for there must be standard that separates good from evil. However, if Naturalism is true, then how do you make the distinction between good and evil if there is no objective transcendent anchor? The difference between subjectivity and objectivity is that if something is objective, then it is valid and binding regardless of one's opinion and subjectivity is rooted in personal preference or taste. If there is not an objective standard, then nothing is objectively evil, but rather everyone determines right from wrong based upon their personal opinion.

However, if this is so, then how can we say child abuse is objectively wrong or that The Holocaust was objectively evil? Only if there is a objective transcendent standard, which separates good from evil, can we make objective moral judgements. This of course is not to say that atheists can't be moral. Many are, but they must borrow from the Theist's worldview in order to make moral judgements of what is "good" and "evil".

I will write more on this in the coming weeks, but the next time that an atheist wants to use the Problem of Evil as an argument against the God of the Bible, remind him that he is borrowing capital from the Theist's worldview in order to do so!