#StrawGodFallacy - Rebuttal to #ProblemOfEvil criticism

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not talking about atheists.

Why not?

I'm perfectly happy to talk about how Theists view the explanations for the existence of evil. But if evil is a problem for Theists, it's also a problem for everybody else, too. After all, we all live with the existence of evil. Why is Atheism being given a "pass" on this universal problem? And why should the skeptics get to pick on the Theists, while remaining artificially immune to facing it themselves? How is that equitable? How is that even reasonable?

But the problem, or course, is that Atheism's got nothing. Theists have answers, at least for themselves, if not to the delight of the skeptics. But Atheism and its cluster of godless fellow-beliefs, they've got no answer, no information, not even a hint. They are a gelding, on this question...no fruitful answers at all.

Now, you may not want to talk about the Atheists. But if you're fair-minded, you certainly should. The problem exists equally, on all sides.

Evil is a problem for theists who claim that God is all-loving and/or all-good.

Of course. But one with an explanation that makes sense, of course. Not an insoluble problem at all. But insoluble for the Atheist. For the Atheist, bad things are still as bad as they are for the Theist, but the Atheist has no access to the means of understanding any reasons or explanations for any of it.

The Theist is a person who understands what cancer is, and what the treatment involves. The Atheist still has the cancer, but no diagnosis, and absolutely no means of treatment. How is he better off?

So who really has the problem of evil? I suggest that it's the Atheist, far more than the Theist, who has the real problem.

[Gary Childress]

Why not?

I'm perfectly happy to talk about how Theists view the explanations for the existence of evil. But if evil is a problem for Theists, it's also a problem for everybody else, too. After all, we all live with the existence of evil. Why is Atheism being given a "pass" on this universal problem? And why should the skeptics get to pick on the Theists, while remaining artificially immune to facing it themselves? How is that equitable? How is that even reasonable?

But the problem, or course, is that Atheism's got nothing. Theists have answers, at least for themselves, if not to the delight of the skeptics. But Atheism and its cluster of godless fellow-beliefs, they've got no answer, no information, not even a hint. They are a gelding, on this question...no fruitful answers at all.

Now, you may not want to talk about the Atheists. But if you're fair-minded, you certainly should. The problem exists equally, on all sides.

Evil is a problem for theists who claim that God is all-loving and/or all-good.

Of course. But one with an explanation that makes sense, of course. Not an insoluble problem at all. But insoluble for the Atheist. For the Atheist, bad things are still as bad as they are for the Theist, but the Atheist has no access to the means of understanding any reasons or explanations for any of it.

The Theist is a person who understands what cancer is, and what the treatment involves. The Atheist still has the cancer, but no diagnosis, and absolutely no means of treatment. How is he better off?

So who really has the problem of evil? I suggest that it's the Atheist, far more than the Theist, who has the real problem.

So an atheist can't know that cancer is a bad thing? Yeah. Atheists can't know anything. I suppose Atheists should consult with religious dipshits like you who read the Bible for their spiritual information.

[Immanuel Can]

Evil is a problem for theists who claim that God is all-loving and/or all-good.

Of course. But one with an explanation that makes sense, of course. Not an insoluble problem at all. But insoluble for the Atheist. For the Atheist, bad things are still as bad as they are for the Theist, but the Atheist has no access to the means of understanding any reasons or explanations for any of it.

The Theist is a person who understands what cancer is, and what the treatment involves. The Atheist still has the cancer, but no diagnosis, and absolutely no means of treatment. How is he better off?

So who really has the problem of evil? I suggest that it's the Atheist, far more than the Theist, who has the real problem.

So an atheist can't know that cancer is a bad thing?

Analogies are really lost on you, aren't they?

[Gary Childress]

Of course. But one with an explanation that makes sense, of course. Not an insoluble problem at all. But insoluble for the Atheist. For the Atheist, bad things are still as bad as they are for the Theist, but the Atheist has no access to the means of understanding any reasons or explanations for any of it.

The Theist is a person who understands what cancer is, and what the treatment involves. The Atheist still has the cancer, but no diagnosis, and absolutely no means of treatment. How is he better off?

So who really has the problem of evil? I suggest that it's the Atheist, far more than the Theist, who has the real problem.

So an atheist can't know that cancer is a bad thing?

Analogies are really lost on you, aren't they?

Oh is that what that irrelevant bunch of sophistry was, an "analogy".

[phyllo]

It was another diversion.

[Immanuel Can]

It was another diversion.

I think you understand the analogy. It's pretty easy to see, actually. As with cancer, so with "evil": one who can identify the problem is far ahead of one who cannot. And one who has a rational explanation is further ahead of the one who has none. And one who has a remedy is father ahead of them all.

What can Atheism offer in regard to "evil"? No identity of what "evil" even means. No rational explanation for its existence. Certainly no remedy. All it can ask us to do is simply to stop believing that "evil" refers to anything real at all.

How is that a grappling with "the problem of evil"? The Atheist can't even possibly believe there is one.

[puto]

JL Mackie, Charles Sanders Pierce, and Alvin Plantinga, John Hick, and James, Epicurus are good resources for these questions. Evidential problem deals with probabilities, but it could be logically possible for the Problem of Evil to coexist. Transworld Depravity or Error Theory, and the Pragmatic Maxim are all theories that need to be researched before, "One opens their mouth."
"The ability to speak does not make you smart," The Cynics.

[MikeNovack]

What can Atheism offer in regard to "evil"? No identity of what "evil" even means. No rational explanation for its existence. Certainly no remedy. All it can ask us to do is simply to stop believing that "evil" refers to anything real at all.

How is that a grappling with "the problem of evil"? The Atheist can't even possibly believe there is one.

These are TWO very different matters. You are wrong on the first (even coming from your religious basis) but right on the second. So let's take that second first.

For the person who does not believe in any god, there is no "problem of evil". Remember, the PROBLEM is explaining how/why evil exists in a universe created by a good, just, merciful god. Since the atheist doesn't believe any gods exist, no problem. No need to explain or justify the existence of evil. The "problem" is only for those of us who believe a good, just, merciful god created the universe.

Now back to the first. You are simply wrong that the atheist is unable to recognize evil. Wrong even from YOUR starting point. It doesn't matter if you believe God created the distinction between good and evil, because that distinction doesn't depend on belief in this God, yes? Back to the Garden. God created the tree of knowledge of good and evil, humans ate the fruit, and this is "inherited", yes? We humans KNOW about good and evil. An argument (you've made elsewhere) that the Atheist could have no rational basis of morality is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the Atheist can give you a rational explanation WHY X is good and Y evil. << of course the atheist is going to disagree with you that his or her reasons are rational >> Have you never seen a demonstration of correct conclusion derived from false/incorrect premises? Say ending up with Kepler's Laws starting from the "Angel Theory of Planetary Motion". << that one is often used to demonstrate that a scientific theory can be wrong even though it leads to all the correct observations >>

[Immanuel Can]

For the person who does not believe in any god, there is no "problem of evil".

Really? He cannot be hurt by war, or contract cancer, or be robbed, or himself learn to lie, cheat and steal?

It seems to me that he still has all the effects of evil, all the consequences, all the badness. He just lacks any rational and moral diagnosis for it as being evil. He's at a loss to justify any use of moral terms in regard to the things he's experiencing.

You are simply wrong that the atheist is unable to recognize evil.

Your problem is that I never said that. In fact, I said the opposite: that the Atheist still recognizes evil, but can't explain it at all. Because his Atheism supplies him no information about that.

May I suggest that you address what I did claim? It was manifestly not that.

[phyllo]

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 4:36 pm
For the person who does not believe in any god, there is no "problem of evil".

Really? He cannot be hurt by war, or contract cancer, or be robbed, or himself learn to lie, cheat and steal?

It seems to me that he still has all the effects of evil, all the consequences, all the badness. He just lacks any rational and moral diagnosis for it as being evil. He's at a loss to justify any use of moral terms in regard to the things he's experiencing.

When you write stuff like this, I suspect that you don't even understand what the problem of evil is about.

[Immanuel Can]

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 4:36 pm
For the person who does not believe in any god, there is no "problem of evil".

Really? He cannot be hurt by war, or contract cancer, or be robbed, or himself learn to lie, cheat and steal?

It seems to me that he still has all the effects of evil, all the consequences, all the badness. He just lacks any rational and moral diagnosis for it as being evil. He's at a loss to justify any use of moral terms in regard to the things he's experiencing.

When you write stuff like this, I suspect that you don't even understand what the problem of evil is about.

Oh, I get it. But I'm pointing out that everybody has the same problem: we all have to live with the reality of evil. So in that sense, "evil" is a "problem" for everybody. It does not play favourites.

But whereas Theists of all kinds attempt some kind of explanation or diagnosis, and some propose solutions, as well...we don't find that Atheism has anything at all. No explanation for evil, no diagnosis, no solution, and not even a coherent account of how it can speak about evil.

Maybe some Theists are qualified to raise the question of the existence of evil. I think they are. But Atheism...it doesn't even imply the concept.

How can Atheists critique a thing which their own worldview allows to have no real existence?

[MikeNovack]

For the person who does not believe in any god, there is no "problem of evil".

Really? He cannot be hurt by war, or contract cancer, or be robbed, or himself learn to lie, cheat and steal?

It seems to me that he still has all the effects of evil, all the consequences, all the badness. He just lacks any rational and moral diagnosis for it as being evil. He's at a loss to justify any use of moral terms in regard to the things he's experiencing.

The existence of evil is NOT a problem for the atheist since he or she does not believe in any god, let alone one that is all good, all just, all merciful, etc. Thus in Archibald MaLleish's play JB
"If God is god he is not good, If God is good he is not god, Take the even, take the odd " (I think the next line is "I would not stay here if I could")
For crying out loud, IC, that is what the Book of Job is all about.

It is not a PROBLEM for the atheist to simply accept "evil exists". Why shouldn't it exist? It is only those of us who believe in an all good, all just, all merciful god that there is the problem, who need to explain/justify "then why does evil exist".

[Immanuel Can]

For the person who does not believe in any god, there is no "problem of evil".

Really? He cannot be hurt by war, or contract cancer, or be robbed, or himself learn to lie, cheat and steal?

It seems to me that he still has all the effects of evil, all the consequences, all the badness. He just lacks any rational and moral diagnosis for it as being evil. He's at a loss to justify any use of moral terms in regard to the things he's experiencing.

The existence of evil is NOT a problem for the atheist since he or she does not believe in any god, let alone one that is all good, all just, all merciful, etc.

No, evil's still as much his problem as anybody else's. He just has no diagnosis or answers.

It is not a PROBLEM for the atheist to simply accept "evil exists".

Denying a problem doesn't make it less real.

Now, how about you answer Henry's question? You've asked me enough, and I've answered. Now you answer, if you can.

[MikeNovack]

It is not a PROBLEM for the atheist to simply accept "evil exists".

Denying a problem doesn't make it less real.

Now, how about you answer Henry's question? You've asked me enough, and I've answered. Now you answer, if you can.

The Atheist is NOT "denying the problem" , just denying his or her need for a "solution".
~P v Q (P implies Q) results in a "problem" only if ~P is false and Q is also false
The atheist is willing to accept ~P as true (willing to accept "there is no god, all good and all powerful, or otherwise). The atheist is NOT denying that those who believe in an all good, all powerful god have a problem explaining the existence of evil. The atheist is not denying that YOU have a problem.

[Immanuel Can]

It is not a PROBLEM for the atheist to simply accept "evil exists".

Denying a problem doesn't make it less real.

Now, how about you answer Henry's question? You've asked me enough, and I've answered. Now you answer, if you can.

The Atheist is NOT "denying the problem" , just denying his or her need for a "solution".

Same thing. The only way you need no solution is if there is no problem.

But there is. And if the Atheist says there's not, then he can't even ask the question, "Why does evil exist." He's already answered himself, by telling himself it simply doesn't. So he can't accuse the God he doesn't believe exists of having allowed any evil he doesn't believe exists.

But now, why haven't you answered my question? Why not provide a moral axiom every Atheist is morally obligated by Atheism to accept?

I know why. So do you. It's because there are none. Zero. Atheism has no moral perspective at all. It just treats good and evil as unreal.

This is one of the most cowardly and risible things about Atheism: it runs so fast from the question of evil it won't even admit the problem exists. When I was myself a skeptic, it was actually the cowardice of Atheism that pushed me toward Theism. I knew that evil did exist; to adopt a worldview that implied it didn't did not merely seem unhelpful to me...it was manifestly craven and dishonest, as well. I simply could not respect so ridiculous a stratagem.

So consider that. Atheists are so scared of the problem of evil that they can't even admit they have one.