If Evil, Then Atheism is False

Popular skepticism says that since evil exists, God is either non existent, impotent, or evil.

But if evil exists, we must have a standard of good that is beyond matter and energy to measure it against. Matter and energy only gives us what is, not what is good or evil. We would not know good or evil, only facts of what is the case. Therefore we either have to give up evil or accept a transcendent good. Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins admit that there is no good or evil if there is no God.

If God is evil, atheism is false, for God still exists.

If God is impotent, God still exists.

About humblesmith

Christian Apologist & Philosopher
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to If Evil, Then Atheism is False

  1. Nate says:

    God can define evil because he’s the ultimate being. But if there is no God, that makes us good candidates for the ultimate being. Therefore, we can define evil. And we pretty much have — that’s why all cultures throughout time have developed laws. What is and is not acceptable changes over time, but so do we as people. I think that’s very consistent.

  2. Grundy says:

    To that logic, must there also be a standard of evil beyond matter and energy? Could there be a standard of evil instead of good?

    • humblesmith says:

      If any evil exists, there would indeed need to be a pure evil, not instead of good but in addition to it. The distinction is that evil is a lack of good, an absence of good, like rot to a tree. There is indeed evil, and its a real thing, but it is a lack of good and cannot exist on its own without good.

      Good question.

      • Grundy says:

        Why couldn’t the distinction be that good is the absence of evil?

        • humblesmith says:

          I cannot think of something that would be evil without being evil against something good. I can think of pure evil as a concept, but the only way I can conceive of evil is in something that ought to be good, but is not. Thus an evil man could poke out someone’s eyesight, but this is only evil because the eyesight exists, or at least should exist. It would not be evil for a man to prevent a rock from seeing, for the good of eyesight does not exist in a rock. But since good exists in a person, an man could be evil against a person. Thus evil can only exist while it is a deprivation of good. I cannot think of an instance where evil could exist in an of itself, without a good to be evil against.

          However, I can think of good existing without there being evil.

          • Grundy says:

            Lack of imagination isn’t a great defense and just because something exists doesn’t imply goodness. The stereotypical description of hell works for me as a vision of evil without good.

            Anyway your premise is more of a problem for me. If life can exist without God then good and evil as defined by said life can exist without God. If you think that life can’t exist without God, then make that your argument.

          • humblesmith says:

            Hell is only considered evil because of the perception that people have some goodness that does not deserve hell. So that one does not work. So the burden of proof would then be on the one trying to show evil without good. I maintain it cannot exist except in as an attack on good.

            Not sure what your other point is.

  3. Grundy says:

    I’m saying there is only good and evil if there is life to be affected by it. In our case, we define what is good and what is bad. There can easily be evil without God.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s