11. Is Evil in the World Simply the Absence of Good? – Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

In the Does God exist? debate between theist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty (September 17, 2021), we are now looking at the nature of good, as well as the problem of evil. Also, can change be outside of time?

Readers may recall that the debate opened with Egnor explaining why, as former atheist, he became a theist. Then Dillahunty explained why, as a former theist, he became an atheist. Michael Egnor then made his opening argument, offering ten proofs for the existence of God. Matt Dillahunty responded in his own opening argument that the propositions were all unfalsifiable. When, in Section 4, it was Egnors turn to rebut Dillahunty, Dillahunty was not easily able to recall Aquinass First Way (the first logical argument for the existence of God). Then, turning to the origin of the universe, Egnor challenged Dillahunty on the fact, accepted in science, that our universe began in a singularity (where Einsteins equations break down). He accused Dillahunty of using science as a crutch for his atheism. Then they discussed the Second Oldest Question (after Why is there something rather than nothing?) If there is a God, why is there evil?

And then, what is the true origin of our sense of morality? Besides, what if Dillahunty isnt really an atheist anyway? Egnor has come to doubt that. Egnor and Dillahunty then took questions.

And now, another perennial question came up again from the audience: Why is there evil?

A partial transcript, notes, and links to all previous portions of the debate follow:

Arjuna [podcast host]: Question for both. If indeed God is indirectly or even directly responsible for evil/harm that, if nothing else, he allowed man to mess up best guess as to why from your perspective.

Michael Egnor: So why does God allow evil?

Matt Dillahunty: Its easy for me. He didnt, but go ahead. [01:45:30]

Michael Egnor: The Thomistic understanding of evil is that its an absence of good. Its not a thing that exists independently in itself. Its a deficit of goodness. Gods creation necessarily fall short of goodness because if he created something perfectly good, He would just be creating himself. So all of creation necessarily has some evil in it because its not perfect. Its not God. I believe that God allows evil to accomplish good through it. [01:46:00]

That good can be difficult to see, but of course, we have a very small horizon that were able to see. But I believe that evil is allowed, in part, to allow free human agency to allow us to act in the image of God in the sense of being active agents with free will and that God allows natural evil as a way of challenging us, as a way of giving us burdens to bear, which builds character. Its a tough thing. Im not saying I like it, but I think that is a reasonable explanation for the existence of evil along with Gods existence. [01:47:00]

Note: Evil as the privation (absence) of good is a traditional philosophical position: In the neo-Platonic tradition, from Plato, through Plotinus, and from there integrated into mainstream Christian and Islamic theology, good is the only true reality, and evil is just the absence of good, just as darkness is the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat. Stack Exchange

Arjuna: For Michael Egnor. On my previous question, couldnt I simply communicate what I meant by justice and mercy to you and then you would know what I would mean by justice and mercy? Im not sure I understand.

Michael Egnor: Well, again, I think that abstract things like justice or mercy and mathematics are all things that dont have real physical instantiation in the world but are not just figments of our imagination.

Theyre not just figments in our minds because, if they were, we couldnt talk about them with other people because other people dont have access to our minds. There is some reality to them independently. Of course, thats the Augustinian argument for the existence of God, that those universal concepts exist in Gods mind. [01:47:30]

Note: This question revisits the debate between realism and nominalism (see Note here). Realists believe that concepts like honesty or the square root of 5 are real, even though they are abstract. Nominalists would say that they are only words for which we agree, roughly or specifically, on a meaning.

Arjuna: Next question at the Super Chat. Mike, you said that simultaneous change can occur outside of time but that doesnt make sense because simultaneous refers to a single point in time.

Michael Egnor: Thats a very good point. Change cant occur outside of time. Change depends on time.

Matt! Somebody has to give Matt some blood pressure medication, I tell you

So change itself is something that is within time. Causation, however, can initiate outside of time. But the first cause does not have to be an entity in time. In fact, it cant be an entity in time because if its in time, then its not the first cause. Its in a network of causes. [01:48:30]

Matt Dillahunty: Id recommend maybe not making medical declarations about what kind of medication I need because when I talked about change earlier, what I was saying was that a causal chain requires time, that change requires time and you fought me on it, and now, youre saying it. I already knew about concurrent change. [01:49:00]

Michael Egnor: Im saying that the first cause does not have to be in time

Matt Dillahunty: Yes, I am aware of that and I was aware of the special meaning that you go to.

Michael Egnor: And that the Aristotelian and Thomistic understanding of change

Matt Dillahunty: Its fine. People can rewind it and see if I was actually correct and whether you actually came around to agreeing with me. Its fine. They can rewind. [01:49:30]

Next: From a questioner: What is atheist Matts favorite argument for God?

The debate to date:

4: Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for Gods existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.

10: Christian Egnor and atheist Dillahunty now take questions For example, What is Mr. Egnors best evidence of any god that would make me believe? Key questions turned on whether abstractions like right or wrong wrong represent realities. Its the perennial realism vs. nominalism question again.

You may also wish to read:

Science can and does point to Gods existence. Michael Egnor: Natural science is not at all methodologically naturalist it routinely points to causes outside of nature. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature.

The Divine Hiddenness argument against Gods existence = nonsense. God in Himself is immeasurably greater than we are, and He transcends all human knowledge. A God with whom we do not struggle who is not in some substantial and painful way hidden to us is not God but is a mere figment of our imagination.

Atheist Claims about logical fallacies often just mean: Shut Up! In the recent debate, Matt Dillahunty accuses theists of the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity because we examine his claims and find them incredible. What atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious fallacies is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.

and

Theists vs. atheists: Which group has the burden of proof? Because Dillahunty refuses to debate me again, Ill address his claim that atheists have no burden of proof in the debate over Gods existence in this post. Both atheists and theists make positive statements about the nature of the universe. If atheists shun the ensuing burden of proof, it should count against them.

Link:

11. Is Evil in the World Simply the Absence of Good? - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence