What My Opening Statement Would Be If I were Debating William Lane Craig
Or Other Theists for that matter.
Debates are fun. Here, I shall present what my opening statement would be if I were debating William Lane Craig. Future posts will present what my rebuttals would be to his points.
Opening Statement
In this debate I shall present several primary arguments for why God does not exist.
Evil
There are particular facts about evil, that seem to rule out God, and defeat all theodicies. Theism must hold that God has a good reason for allowing all the evils. Yet the theodicies generally present facile justifications for evil in some cases, that don’t address the particulars of evil. This will not do if theism is to be rationally justified. It must account for many of the specifics of evil.
Here are the minimal facts about evil—the horrors that theism must explain
1 Have been going on for millions of years before humans were ever around!! The suffering of the dinosaurs, for example, is hard to make sense of on theism. Did the suffering of every dinosaur who was devoured by a T-Rex have a morally sufficient reason!?
2 Present no obvious reason for their existence. There’s no reasonable account of the goodness of any of the commonly expected evils—malaria, parasites, cancer, and other diseases. The project of charting out why all the evils are justified is not merely partially completed—it hasn’t been started at all.
3 Seem clearly gratuitous. Surely there is no justification for babies getting cancer, death from ebola—which is a horrifically agonizing fate resulting in bleeding from the eyes, ears, nose, and mouth, misery from being tortured for years on end, children being molested, cluster headaches, earthquakes and tsunamis which crush children under buildings, old ladies burning to death in fires,
4 Stem from entities operating the way they were designed. Leon gives a list of examples including the Sea lamprey which gorges itself on the blood of others, the lancet fluke which has to make other organisms go insane and then commit suicide in order to reproduce, parasitic wasps which, as Leon says “The wasps use a variety of host organisms, such as spiders, caterpillars, or the larvae of other insects. The prey is stung by the wasp, which lays its eggs in it. After the eggs hatch, the wasp larvae slowly consume the victim from inside out, leading to a slow, painful death. Once inside, those eggs "clone" themselves until the still-alive caterpillar is teeming with hundreds of larvae. Strangely, about 50 of the females emerge with large jaws and no reproductive organs. Their sole purpose for living? To devour as many of their brothers as they can, since only a few males are needed to fertilize their sisters.”
5 The evils must, according to theism, make the world overall better as a result of their existence. If they didn’t, God would intervene to prevent them. This means that their account has to not only explain the previous phenomena, but has to also explain why these evils which seem gratuitous are not only not gratuitous, but have a purpose so unique that an infinitely powerful, loving, and wise deity could find no other way of achieving their aim. Generally, omnipotent beings don’t need to kill kids to get what they want so it would be very surprising if all of the evils in the world can’t be achieved by an all powerful God in any other way.
6 However, the evils also are things we should try to get rid of. Theists agree that it would be good to rid the world of malaria. Thus, these evils have to be such that preventing them is good, but it’s also good that they exist, such that a world without them would be worse. This must be true of all of the world’s evils. Otherwise, why would God make them in the first place? In general, if something makes the world better and has a morally sufficient reason, we shouldn’t get rid of it.
7 The evils vary based on time and place. The further back in time one goes, the more evil there is. Thus, God must have a morally sufficient reason for more evil in the year 2000 bc than the year 2000 ce and for more evil in poorer parts of the world. I don’t have enough faith to believe people in South America are deserving of evil than people in North America.
8 The evils aren’t proportional to anything. Many people experience evil that doesn’t cause them to develop or love God. Many good people experience horrific evils, and horrific people experience obvious goods. There is no reason why Hitler should have lived a generally happier life than the holocaust victims.
9 Despite the instances of gratuitous suffering, theism must hold that the world would be worse with a mechanism for filtering out gratuitous suffering. For example, we could imagine a mechanism resulting in beings who knew death was imminent no longer experiencing pain. This would avoid being fully conscious slowly succumbing to flames, or having their skin literally fall off as it melts under boiling water—as happened in a recent memorable instance of horrific abuse of power in a prison, or being brutally tortured to death by serial killers, who used sharp objects to take off limbs, fingers, and toes. Could God not allow us to avoid suffering during these instances of brutal misery?
10 There’s a conspicuous absence of gratuitous good. One could very easily imagine lots of ways of bringing about lots of good experience. Examples include
Making happy experiences produce 1000 times more happiness
Making atoms sentient and always very happy
Making experiences associated with virtue or wisdom produce more happiness.
Creating a universal feeling of immense euphoria when reading the bible.
11 The evils are often claimed to produce some greater good like soul building. It is a curious fact that these evils are randomly distributed, and often seem to undermine that purpose. For example, dementia seems to make it harder to have productive soul building as does death. Evils often occur as a result of people trying to do good and failing, such as medical errors that occur when people try to help others, antibiotic resistance, nuclear weapons that we discovered through development of other knowledge, and people who accidentally kill their babies. If evils served a purpose, then it would be a curious fact that these evils often seem to counteract many of the goals that they are trying to serve!
12 We also lack moral knowledge, often doing evils by accident. Given moral disagreement, we can’t all be right. Thus, God must have a reason for making us systematically deceived about morality—so deceived that many turn away from him, unable to understand his purpose for allowing evil. Why would God make our moral faculties which he allegedly gave us inaccurate, leading good people to do evil things when they’re just trying to do good
13 Many of the evils that people do are a result of facts about them outside their control. While the person who brutally tortures or molests children is acting on their free will, if they had the innate disgust reaction that most of us have to child molestation they presumably would not molest children. Thus, another minimal fact that must be explained is why humans some are given innate propensities that make them more likely to do evil. Why not just make everyone disgusted by the idea of molesting children.
14 While the jury is still very much out, it is not outside the realm of possibility that there is more total suffering than pleasure in nature!! This has been argued persuasively by Horta, Tomasik, and others. Thus, theism has to account not merely for minimal evils, but for arguably greater suffering than well-being in the world overall.
15 All of these evils must be unable to implicate God’s perfection. Theists would surely say that God experiences value—as the conduit of value itself. However, God does not sin. If God has free will then that means that a being who would never do evil can have free will!! So the account has to provide for how a perfect being would have free will and immense value in their life, in a way that would be impossible for created beings. Why is this?? It’s not at all clear.
16 All of the purposes of God’s allowing evil have to fail to rule out the goodness of heaven, where we never act wrongly.
17 All moral theories would seem to hold that a world of infinite people with infinite wisdom, virtue, desire fulfillment, joy, and with free will would be better than this one. Why would God not create that world? If it’s because God doesn’t want to force a relationship, he could just give them all the option to cease existing.
The common theodicies like soul building and free will totally fail to explain any of the above 16 facts. So does skeptical theism, which says that there’s some explanation, even if we don’t know what it is. Skeptical theism has 11 extra problems.
1 As Stephen Law has argued, this opens up a pandora’s box of possible horrors. If we can’t trust God to avoid making malaria, earthquakes that crush babies under rocks and fallen buildings, and people want to rape children, then we can’t be confident in any other moral claim of God. How do we know that God won’t lie. How do we know God won’t torture us for a billion years before entering heaven, if we can’t know nothing about what a good God would do.
2 If we took this seriously, we’d be skeptical about morality as a whole. If we can’t rule out there being a morally sufficient reason for making people want to rape children, then we should be very hesitant about making any moral claims given that all plausible moral systems hold that there are some gratuitous unnecessary evils.
3 As Stephen Law has argued, if we can’t rule out a good God based on evil then we can’t rule out an evil God based on good. If this is true, then God is just as likely to be evil as he is to be good. All of the theodicies can be used to explain how an evil God would create good.
4 As Oppy and Almeida argue skeptical theists shouldn’t think that God’s commands give us reasons, because God might have good reason to command us to do bad things.
5 This could justify any evil. Putin could use this to justify his invasion of Ukraine, a serial killer could justify their murders with similar theodicies and claiming they have a morally sufficient reason
6 The explanations of evil only work after the fact. If we hadn’t examined the world but were making predictions about what the world would be like if God existed, we wouldn’t predict all of the evil—we wouldn’t predict malaria, parasites, and other such horrors
7 Imagine I made the claim that all ravens are purple. You reply that you’ve seen lots of black ravens. I reply that they only appear black, but they’re really purple. We carefully investigate lots of ravens and see no evidence that they’re purple. It would be foolish to hold on to my claim. However, if God has a morally sufficient reason for evil, much like with the purple raven, one would expect us to be able to discover some morally sufficient reasons for some evils upon careful investigation. Yet I would bet that if we analyzed any evil in depth, we wouldn’t find any justification for it, which inductively undercuts the skeptical theist argument
8 If you think we can’t know God’s aims then this single handedly razes every argument for theism—they all rely on predictions about what the world would be like if God existed
9 This cannot explain the problem of hell. IN hell we are eternally separated from everyone else and from God, so why must we be tormented.
10 This also gives theism the task of explaining why God wouldn’t let us understand his moral reasons
11 This would fail to rule out a world that’s pure torture. If that view is incompatible with God then we can make at least some predictions about what a perfect God would do.
So here is the data from evil that theism needs to explain. I look forward to see how theists are able to explain the data of evil. I suspect attempts will not succeed. If the response is to—rather than account for the facts—generally just give a minimal overview of how maybe some evils can be justified like soul building and free will—this would be no more of a response to the specifics of evil that I’ve identified than a response to theism that calls all arguments God of the gaps, or one that says that we might find a natural explanation for everything—any account has to account for these 17 minimal facts.
Argument from hiddenness
Why would god remain hidden and not reveal himself.
A God is allegedly loving. If he loves us, he would reveal his existence to have a relationship with us.
B God is good, so why make his moral nature hidden from us
C God wants a relationship, so why doesn’t he reveal his existence. If your father wanted a relationship with you, it would be shocking if he never revealed his existence
D God wants to be known by those who seek him, so why is there nonresistant nonbelief?
E God reveals himself, so why are his revelations inconsistent, varying by culture and background
F God is loving, so why does he not comfort those who are horrifically tormented.
Given that a relationship with God is supposed to be the highest good, it can’t be subordinated to anything else.
The problem of maximization
P1 A god would attempt to maximally achieve its goals
This follows from the definition of a goal
P2 An omnipotent god has infinite ability to achieve its goals
This follows from omnipotence
P3 A god with infinite ability to achieve its goal would maximally achieve its goals
Therefore if there were a god, its goals would maximally achieved
P4 Gods goals are not maximally achieved
Therefore, god does not exist
Theists say that God has several unmaximized goals.
A God wants to have a relationship with people. Well, an omnipotent being could have an infinitely intense relationship with infinite people.
B God wants to do good. Well, why doesn’t he do infinite good. One way of doing this would be to make lots of extra beings who are infinitely happy all the time—for example make atoms conscious and in a state of constant euphoria. He doesn’t do that so he doesn’t exist. That would be clearly good.
C Presumably God would rather there not be child molestation. An easy way to do that would be to eliminate people’s sexual desire to molest children.
D Presumably God would rather there not be diseases that kill young kids. He could realize this by making a world without those things.
Ultimately, the problem of God failing to meet his goals is a major problem for God.
E God wants us to avoid hell, so why do so many people go to hell.
F Presumably God is in favor of happiness all else equal. So why not make lots of extra happy beings—for example atoms, plants, and animals. They could be made in a state of hedonic bliss
Argument from instruction
The bible isn’t the product of a divine being it has many atrocities and ambiguities, the best possible designer would not design a contradictory book open to conflicting interpretation, such that religious people all disagree about what he actually wants
Leviticus 24:16 New International Version (NIV) 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them.
In Noahs flood god drowns babies. That seems unethical. God could have made death painless.
Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.
(Isaiah 13:9–16 NIV) "See, the day of the Lord is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated."
(Jeremiah 13:15–26 NRSV) "Hear and give ear; do not be haughty, for the Lord has spoken. . . . And if you say in your heart, 'Why have these things come upon me?' it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up, and you are violated . . . because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies. I myself will lift up your skirts over your face, and your shame will be seen."
This is also true in the New Testament. In the book of Matthew there is lots of absurdity.
In Matthew 17:20 Jesus claims you can move mountains with your mind
Matthew 27:53-54 Jesus says that lots of people came back from the dead—strangely, no one else saw fit to mention that. He says they saw many people.
“51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”
55 Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph,[f] and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.”
In Matthew 8:34 Jesus is greeted by an entire town
Matthew 8:34
New International Version
“34 Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region.”
John has absurdity too
Jesus lies about them all seeing the heaven open in John 1
“49 Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” 50 Jesus said, “You believebecause I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that.” 51 He then added, “Very truly I tell you,youwill see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’the Son of Man.””
John 5 28-30
“Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.
John 6 Tells about the loaves in the fishes. Why the hell would no one bring food?
John 6 50-54 Jesus lies about immortality for those who ate his bread
“But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
In John 6 many of the disciples desert Jesus after he offers them eternal life
So does Mark.
Jesus says that you’ll be able to drive out demons, speak in new tongues, pick up snakes with your hands, and not be harmed by drinking deadly poison in Mark 16:17-18
Mark 16:17-18
“And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
Argument from priors
This argument says our prior probability in God should be lower than in atheism. God has lots of complex elements, lowering the prior
A Being able to do all things, an omnipotent being with infinite power is not simple because there are infinite conjunctive things it can do. The fact that it can be said simply in English doesn’t mean that it’s simple overall
B Knowing all things, for similar reasons
C Being perfectly good, same reasons again
D The trinitarian doctrine is complex
E The theist has to make ad hoc assumptions about God’s desire, such as that he wants to resurrect Jesus and intervene in human affairs
Atheism has a higher prior because it’s just the negation of that long stack of things.