The Irrelevance of Naturalistic Metaethics to Arguments from Evil Against God’s Existence

Consider the following exchange between Christi, a Christian, and Natty, a naturalist, on the problem of evil. Natty: If God exists, then why is there so much evil and suffering in the world?Christi: Well, if God exists, it's logically possible that so much of the evil and suffering in the world is due to the free choices made by humans exercising their free will. At this point, astute readers will notice that Christi has just invoked the Free Will Defense (FWD). Let's continue: Natty: … [Read more...]

Hypocrisy on Moral Arguments, Arguments from Evil, and Logical Inconsistency

Many theists are fond of linking the problem of evil with a moral argument for God's existence. The idea is that by making an argument from evil against God's existence, the atheist has supposedly contradicted herself since the the argument from evil presupposes an objective evil and objective evil, in turn, presupposes God's existence.Since I've refuted that claim before, I want to explore a different aspect of linking these two kinds of arguments, namely, the double standard which … [Read more...]

The Slaughter of the Canaanites – Part 2

In Part 1 of this series, I outlined three main Christian responses to the stories of Jehovah commanding the slaughter of the Canaanites and of the Israelites carrying out this command.  There are significant problems with each of the three Christian responses, but the response with the most obvious and most serious problems is the Conservative one.1. The Conservative Christian response: The story of the slaughter of the Canaanites is FACTUAL, but Jehovah was morally justified in commanding … [Read more...]

The Fragility of Value and God’s Non-Existence

I'm working on a new version of the problem of evil. I don't know if the argument works, but I'll summarize it here in the hope of getting feedback.The basic idea is the fragility of value, viz., how (relatively) easy it is to destroy things  compared to how (relatively) difficult it is to create things, especially things of great value. Assuming that statement (or something like it) is true, the argument would be evidential. It would argue that the fragility of value is antecedently more … [Read more...]

William Rowe’s Fawn


I spotted this fawn this morning while walking my dog. Judging by the size and the wet fur on the top of the head, I'd guess it was born in the last day. It's bigger than my cats but smaller than my dog.The mother was nowhere to be seen, presumably off foraging for food. Hopefully she returns soon so that William Rowe doesn't have a new instance of his evidential argument from evil. … [Read more...]

G&T Rebuttal, Part 6: Chapter 7


Chapter 7. Mother Theresa vs. Hitler  In this chapter, G&T present a version of the moral argument for God's existence which I call the "Moral Laws Require a Moral Lawgiver Argument," which they formulate as follows. 1. Every law has a law giver. 2. There is a Moral Law.3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver. Like the earlier arguments, this argument is deductively valid. Like the earlier chapters about this argument, I plan to briefly summarize G&T's defense of … [Read more...]

Evolution vs. The Argument from Providence

In the Existence of God (2nd edition, hereafter: EOG) Richard Swinburne lays out a carefully constructed, systematically presented case for the the claim that it is more likely than not that God exists.  I have previously argued that there is a big problem with this case that arises with the third argument.  In order to know that the premise of the third argument is true, one must know a lot of information about science and about the evolution of life and the evolution of human beings.Here is … [Read more...]

Index: Draper’s Evidential Argument from Pain and Pleasure

The purpose of this page is to provide an index for my blog series on Paul Draper's classic 1989 article defending an evidential argument from evil which focuses on the biological role (and apparent moral randomness) of pain and pleasure.Part 1: summarizes key terminology for the argument, as well as the argument itself. Part 2: summarizes the first part of Draper's argument, which purports to show that facts about pain and pleasure are more probable on the hypothesis of indifference (HI) … [Read more...]