The Theodicy Odyssey -- Good and Evil, God and Morals

(Or, the Ultimate Theodicy)

If we are honest, we will acknowledge that the question, “Why would a good God allow evil?” is the most perplexing conundrum to both believers and unbelievers. Many sincere seekers have stumbled over this puzzling thought, and, much has been written on this topic over the centuries by both theists and atheists.

When tragedy affects you personally, or when Ebola hits someone you know, when your friend has a car wreck, when your spouse gets diagnosed with cancer, when Al Qaeda brought down the Twin Towers, when Adolf Hitler tortured and murdered millions – where was God then?

But this isn't the only question to consider. Other often-overlooked thoughts we will examine here are:

• “What basis or foundation exists for morality without God?”
• “Is there a modern moral system that is better than what is found in the Bible?”
• “Would God be bound by our moral values?”
• “Are there moral values which are objectively true?”
• “Are God's actions good because He says so, or because He follows a moral code?”
• “Can atheists be moral without God?”

My aim with this post, is to create the ultimate theodicy (explanation of why a good God allows evil), along with a powerful look at how morals relate to the existence, or non-existence, of God. I will attempt to move at a fast pace in a logical order. 

But before you begin, if you want to see an argument for the existence of God, please see my other blog post, "The Case for Theism."

Hold onto your hats ladies and gentlemen, because here we go:

So Why Does God Allow Evil?

This question does not have just one answer. It's very similar to the question, “Why do you want your kids to go to college?” There were likely multiple answers to this, such as, “To allow them to get a good job,” “So they can earn good wages,” “To ensure they have the skills needed for their future,” “So they can get that life-experience.”

In the same way, the Bible gives many answers to this question of why God allows evil. Here are some of them:

1: To respect and honor free will, without which, love is impossible. (1 John 4:8; Joshua 24:15; Deuteronomy 30:19; 2 Peter 3:9)

2: To allow challenges raised by Satan and humans to be successfully completed. (Job 1:9-12; Psalm 74:10; Proverbs 27:11; Micah 6:2)

3: It produces endurance, perseverance, and patience in Christians. (Romans 5:3-5)

4: There is some greater ultimate good God knows about. (Romans 8:28; Acts 4:27-28)

5: To test the faith of God's children. (James 1:2-4)

6: Occasionally as a discipline or punishment on certain people or nations. (Hebrews 12:7-14; Luke 21:20-23)

7: Because God only intervenes on earth when certain thresholds are met, otherwise, He lets nature run its course. (Genesis 18:20-32; Genesis 15:16; Ecclesiastes 9:11)

8: To demonstrate the consequences of rebellion against God and show how bad sin really is. (Romans 7:13)

9: Because suffering is part of the punishment for Adam and Eve's original sin. (Genesis 3:16-19)

10: As a way of showing people they need to rely on God. (Deuteronomy 8:2)

11: To show how bad things are when humans try to rule without God. (Jeremiah 10:23)

12: To prove how horrible life is when Satan has control of the nations. (Luke 4:5-6; 1 John 5:19)

Is God Immoral for Allowing Unnecessary Suffering?

The argument usually goes like this:

1: If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent, then God would (a) have the ability to stop unnecessary suffering, (b) have the knowledge to do so, and (c) have the desire to this as well.

2: God has not stopped unnecessary suffering In the world.

3: Therefore, either God does not exist, or God is evil.

This is actually one of the better atheist arguments, and it seems to make good, logical sense. However, the atheist is here making a positive claim, that unnecessary evil exists in the world. This is a positive assertion, which shifts the burden of proof onto the atheist. The atheist would then need to demonstrate that unnecessary suffering or evil exists, because simply saying it exists does not make it true.

The problem is, though, how does an atheist define the word "benevolent," and what standard or umpire are they judging God against? The Bible never refers to Yahweh as "Omnibenevolent" or "All-Benevolent." The Scriptures do, however, say that "God is love." As you can see in the "Free Will" section below, true love allows free will -- actually, true love is impossible without free will, therefore, when the Bible says "God is love," this includes Yahweh allowing suffering due to free will.

If the atheist is making an attempt to show that the existence of God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil, how is the atheist defining God and from where are they taking the characteristics of God? If the atheist is not using the Bible's description of God, then the atheist is no longer arguing against the God of the Bible. Instead, the atheist is arguing against a philosophical God of their own creation – a strawman fallacy.

In addition, how would an atheist know which suffering is "unnecessary" (or what the end result is) unless they have all-knowledge (including knowledge of the future)? For example, what objective standard exists which tells us precisely what suffering is “unnecessary” and also how much unnecessary suffering is unacceptable?

If the atheist argues that if God does exist, surely He would at least reduce the amount of suffering in the world, my reply is: How do you know God doesn't reduce the amount of suffering all the time, every day? What if this world that we see has already been filtered by God to remove even worse evil? But also, how much should a God, if He exists, reduce suffering? Is there a rule to determine this?

Even if this argument successfully proves that God wouldn't be "good" according to atheist standards of "good" and "evil," (again, which standard are they using?) it has absolutely no bearing on whether a God exists or not. Yahweh could still exist even though you consider Him “evil.” Why should anyone else care that you think Yahweh is evil?

In summary on this point, I will quote the CARM website:

“Christian theology states that suffering is a result of sin in the world. This is the result of Adam's free choice and the effect of sin upon his descendants and the world. All suffering is then the necessary consequence of this sin.”

Suffering and Death Before Adam

Some people may wonder, "Why did God create the animal kingdom to be so brutal and violent, with suffering, death, and disease long before Adam sinned?" This is a great question. 

Many Christians (myself included) believe that Lucifer (Satan) fell from heaven after he sinfully rebelled against Yahweh in an attempt to become the new god. (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:6-18) 

Some Christians have put forth a theory that Lucifer had been delegated the authority to look after the earth and life on it (Ezekiel 28:13-14). This theory says that Satan, in an attempt to corrupt God's perfect creation of peace and harmony, invented the current system of suffering and dying we see in the natural world. 

While I do not subscribe to this theory, I find it fascinating enough to include here as one possibility.

I have a different view. My belief is that after Lucifer rebelled in heaven, God wanted to demonstrate to Adam and Eve, and to the angels, what life is like without God keeping things peaceful and in harmony. Therefore, outside of the Garden of Eden, God created a system of evolution and natural selection, which features much suffering and death, as a warning to those who oppose God. (Genesis 3:18-19; 3:23-24)

(Also see my other blog post, You CAN Believe in Adam & Eve AND Evolution!)

The Brutality of God in the Old Testament

Atheists often say that the brutality and violence of Yahweh in the Old Testament is strong evidence against His existence. Given a closer look, this just doesn't make sense.

If we take a logical look at nature, evolution, natural selection, the food chain, extreme weather, natural disasters, and survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom, we would have to acknowledge that if nature was created by a god, this god would be capable of violence and brutality.
 

Yes, divine brutality and violence in the Bible is actually evidence for God, because it matches the violence we see in nature. It could actually be viewed as evidence against the existence of Yahweh, if He was not violent, or if His character didn't line up at all with the way things work in nature.

It also doesn't make sense for an atheist to say that God would only be worthy of worship if He behaved in a totally different way from how His natural order behaves on earth. What rule are you using to determine whether a god is worthy of your worship?

Modern Atheists have Better Morals than God

First off, the most important thing to determine is whether Yahweh exists or doesn't exist. If the omniscient God of the Bible does exist, then by definition, He is all-knowing on the topic of morality, therefore, you cannot claim to know better about morals than an omniscient being. That would be highly illogical.

Now, if Yahweh doesn't exist, then there is no reason to argue over the morals of an imaginary being. This would be like arguing over Santa Claus' favorite color, or the Easter Bunny's favorite flavor of ice cream.

However, if you are trying to prove Yahweh is evil by virtue of His morals being bad or inferior, then you would have to present an objectively true moral system which all sentient beings are obligated to obey, that Yahweh was disobeying. The conundrum for the atheist is, that no objectively true moral system can exist apart from the existence of a Supreme Moral Law-Giver and Judge.

If no ultimate Moral Law-Giver and Judge exists, then each of us merely has his or her own personal subjective moral values which we evolved naturally and were molded by our environment growing up. There would be no reason to say your moral values, or anyone's moral values, were superior or better than any other human's morals, let alone claiming to be better than Yahweh's morals. If the only things guiding and shaping your moral opinions are evolution, environment, and natural chemical reactions, then your morals are equal to everyone else's (no better, no worse, just different).

Your “superior” morals would only be superior inside your own mind, and why would anyone else be obligated to obey the morals found inside your mind? If your “superior” morals only exist inside your mind, then your argument is very weak, and basically boils down to “My opinion is that my morals are superior to Yahweh's because of my own subjective feelings, environment, and evolution.”

On the other hand, if there is an ultimate Law-Giver and Judge, who gave each of us an in-born reflection of His own moral values, then each person's moral ideas should be listened to, respected, and examined to see if they make sense or perhaps are a better reflection than our own.

Objective Moral Standard

An “objective moral standard” is simply a set of laws, principles, or an umpire, which is true and factual, regardless of what each person thinks in their mind, and which we are obligated to obey. For example 2+2 objectively equals 4, even if people are ignorant of this or if they deny it. 

I have never seen a good and logical explanation for how an objective moral standard could exist unless something or someone exists outside/beyond/above mankind, which places moral obligation upon all of us.

Atheists often will agree that Hitler's actions and the 9/11 attacks were objectively evil. The problem for atheists though, is in explaining why or how it can be objectively true, for all people, at all times, in all places, that these actions are evil, without invoking a Moral Law-Giver or Judge. It is very scary, possibly dangerous, to believe that Hitler's actions weren't evil, just different. Logically this leads directly to moral nihilism.

If the value we place on morality only exist inside our minds, then this places morality on the same level as fiction stories, folk-lore, myth, and religion (in the viewpoint of the atheist). It would also place all moral ideas on an equal level. Why are your imaginary/fictional moral values "better" or "more important" than anyone else's?

Science and naturalism can explain why we have feelings of morality (empathy), but they cannot tell us which feelings we ought to obey and which feelings would be wrong to obey.

We are left with two choices: There are some things we ought to do because they are objectively right, or there are no things which we ought to do.

God and Slavery

A popular atheist argument is, “Since slavery is absolutely evil, and since Yahweh allowed slavery to take place, Yahweh is evil.” But, first, it needs to be asked, how do you know that slavery is “absolutely evil?” Based on what objective standard of good and evil? Can you prove that slavery is objectively evil at all places, at all times, for all people, under any circumstances? What specifically about ancient Jewish slavery was “absolutely evil?” No atheist I've spoken to has been able to answer those questions.

For example, what is objectively evil about having someone work to pay off a debt in ancient Israel? Or, what is objectively wrong with ancient Israel drafting servants to help in major public building projects, such as Solomon's Temple?

In order to make the claim that the modern atheist's morals are better than Yahweh's morals, there must exist an objective (3rd party) standard (or umpire) of morality, against which the modern atheist can judge or condemn Yahweh's morals. The problem for atheists is, without some kind of "God" or "Universal Law-Giver," the atheist has absolutely zero objective standards or umpires they can use to claim superiority over the moral values of Yahweh. Atheists are merely judging Yahweh against their own subjective feelings and opinions, or some kind of imaginary moral law in their mind, which doesn't exist out in reality.

You could also use illogical circular reasoning, and say that you have determined that Yahweh is evil based on the moral values which Yahweh has given you. This is self-defeating and illogical, because, on the one hand, you're saying that Yahweh was good because He gave you morality to accurately know good and evil, but on the other hand, you're saying Yahweh is evil for violating the moral values which He placed inside of your mind.

Now, it would be a valid argument to say that you don't believe Yahweh is the God who created you because His morals found in the Bible do not align with the morals that the Creator has placed inside of us. If you feel this way, then I encourage you to search for the God whose morals do align with those you were given. (For me, the God whose morals align with my morals, is Jesus Christ, the Son of Yahweh) Also, please see my points below, “Moral Values Across Different Species,” “The More Powerful Species,” and “The Right of Ownership.”

Now, if you are trying to borrow the Bible's definitions of good and evil, in order to show that Yahweh breaks His own moral laws...

Does God Violate His Own Moral Laws?

If you're going to borrow the morals of good and evil found in the Bible, to show that Yahweh, in the Scriptures, breaks His own moral code, and thus is evil, or is a contradictory human invention, in order to be consistent, you would need to look at everything the Bible says about the nature of good and evil morals, and also the nature of God.

For example, some atheists say, “Yahweh breaks His own moral laws because He allows evil things to happen, and evil things are against God's laws.”

But, you really only have to look at the Book of Job to see that the Bible portrays Yahweh as a good God who chooses to allow evil things to happen for His own good purposes. Therefore, you would need to prove how this is a contradiction, or how this violates God's laws found elsewhere in the Bible. The atheist would have to show where the Bible says it would be immoral or evil for God to allow bad things to occur.

You're being inconsistent if you borrow only parts of the Bible and ignore others.

One popular claim by atheists is that Yahweh repeatedly broke His own moral law, “Thou shalt not kill,” (Exodus 20:13) however, the Hebrew word there actually means “murder,” not just “kill.” Definitions of “murder” always exclude capital punishment, killing opposing soldiers in war, self-defense, and defending your family. So Yahweh was not breaking His own moral law since He killed people but He never committed “murder.”

But, even if Yahweh had committed murder, He still wouldn't have broken His own moral law that He gave at Exodus 20:13, because this was a law given to human beings intended only for behavior between other human beings, not the behavior of God toward lower species.

Morals and Your Children

Most parents today, atheists, included, have one set of rules (“law”) for their young children, and a different set of rules (“law”) for themselves as adults. For example, you probably tell your young children they are forbidden from watching R-Rated or X-Rated videos, and M-Rated video games. However, you, as a full-grown adult, have no such restrictions placed on you. You are free to watch anything, anytime you please.

Another example is a curfew. You probably give your children and teenagers a curfew, at least on school nights, while you yourself have no such curfew placed on you.

Why do you deny that Yahweh could do the same with us, since the Bible refers to us as “God's children?” God is free to apply one set of rules to His children, while He Himself, as far more mature and full-grown, is free from many of those restrictions.

As your children grow older, and start getting closer to becoming young adults, you likely begin to gradually grant them more and more freedom ("free will") to make their own decisions in life. 

Even though the "safest" course of action to keep your children free from suffering, pain, and all kinds of harm, would be to lock them up in their rooms and continue to make all their decisions for them, most of us acknowledge that allowing young adults the freedom ("free will") to make mistakes and even suffer some, is a very important moral value for us as human beings. 

In the same way, Yahweh, as our Parent, places a high value on granting us the freedom ("free will") to make our own decisions, including choices that sometimes bring suffering and pain. God could have chosen to "lock us up in a room," but instead, He lovingly gave us free will.

The Importance of Free Will

From a Biblical Perspective

Despite what many Calvinists and determinists say, the Bible makes it clear that Yahweh highly values and respects the free will that He granted to humans, and He doesn't like to intervene to alter free will, or the course of history, unless certain thresholds are passed first.

God is love, and love is not possible without freedom to choose to express it. Without free will, “love” would just be a robotic action we were pre-programmed to perform. In fact, every action we take would be determined from eternity past, and God would basically be a puppet-master pulling all the strings, or simply watching things unfold exactly how He already decided they would.

The very first human events recorded in the Scriptures are God having humans go through tests so that they could exercise their free will – Adam and Eve on whether they would eat from the Tree, Cain on whether he would kill Abel or not.

God gave the precious gift of free will to His angels also. A beautiful spirit known as Lucifer, a very high-ranking angel, was granted free will. But he used this free will to turn and attack God in an attempt to be worshiped as God himself. Lucifer harmed many of the other angels and humans in his destructive quest. Lucifer is now known as Satan the Devil. (Isaiah 14:9-20; Ezekiel 28:13-18; Luke 10:18)

Without free will, God had to have programmed Lucifer to rebel, and programmed Adam and Eve to sin, thus God would be the direct cause and architect of all of the evil and suffering we see on earth. This is in direct contradiction to what the Bible says at James 1:13. In addition, it would mean God Himself is very illogical and irrational in getting angry with His creation for doing exactly what He programmed them to do. This would not harmonize with the logical minds He gave us. Plus, many other Scriptures declare that God never does anything immoral or evil.

Also, it goes against how we view ourselves and how we view reality and logic, so even without appealing to the Bible, it doesn't make sense. If we assume that our moral values were given to us by God, then it would be illogical for a God who has similar morals as we do, to be the author of evil.

To quote “Truth Magazine” on this topic, “Morality is real only if mankind is free to choose. In a world of fate or determinism, in which all things are predetermined and fixed, mankind has no responsibility.”

From an Atheistic Perspective

Each of us assumes free will exists whenever we make a logical argument or an appeal to reason. If free will is an illusion, then so is the freedom to logically form an argument using reason. If you aren't actually choosing to think about the logic of an argument, but instead, you're only following pre-programmed cause-and-effect, there would be no way of ever knowing if anything is real, and you would never even be able to trust the conclusion that free will is an illusion, since that could be an illusion as well.

Coming to the conclusion that free will is an illusion is self-defeating (since, if it were true, we would never know whether it was actually true) and it goes against all the assumptions we make during logical arguments and using the scientific method. This conclusion destroys the very foundation that was used to arrive at the conclusion.

It therefore seems more logical to come to the conclusion which supports the validity and trustworthiness of logical conclusions, which is the existence of free will.

The Presidential Theory

The Bible repeatedly portrays God as a King, Ruler, Prince, Governor, Potentate, Judge, and Leader. Human kings and presidents don't feel obligated to personally intervene in every person's life in order to prevent every crime from happening, or to declare Martial Law and remove people's freedom to ensure their security. In fact, most atheists would probably consider these actions immoral.

Since atheists would find it immoral for the President to restrict our freedoms in the name of security, why should it be any different with our Heavenly King or President? Why do you accuse Yahweh of being immoral for not intervening, but you believe it would be immoral for the President to intervene?

Moral Values Across Different Species

Atheists generally acknowledge that human moral values and laws do not apply across different species. For example, no atheists I know are demanding that we put lions on trial and execute or arrest them for “committing murder” against gazelles. No atheists I've ever spoken to are saying that human beings should be condemned for killing wasps, mosquitoes, or grasshoppers. Atheists usually don't even demand a gorilla be “brought to justice” when one gorilla mistreats another gorilla.

We all realize that human moral values only apply to human beings and within the human race in our dealings with each other. Completely different moral values apply across species, if any exist at all. We don't have the same moral obligations toward a flea or a rat as we have toward our neighbor. Also, we don't hold even the most intelligent animals (apes, dolphins, elephants, etc.) to human moral standards. Each species is different and has its own moral system (or none at all).

Yahweh, the God of the Bible, if He truly exists, would be a different “species” or “category” of being than humans are. That is clear from everything we read in the Scriptures: God is a spirit being, God lives in another realm, etc. Therefore, human moral values cannot apply to God any more than they could apply to lions, apes, or any other species. God wouldn't necessarily have the same moral values as human beings, and God shouldn't be obligated to follow human moral values, since He is a different species.

In summary on this point:

Atheists usually agree that human moral values only apply within our own species, and that is why we put humans on trial for crimes, but not apes or lions on trial for killing others. Therefore, our human morals would not apply to Yahweh in the same way they apply to other humans, if Yahweh belongs to a different species. To judge Yahweh, a different species, by human morals, would be a double-standard.

The Right of Ownership

Imagine that you one day create an android/robot in your image, and then a whole bunch of androids/robots in your image, and you install a program inside of them which is a reflection of your own moral values, along with special morals guiding how they interact with each other. But, then, something goes terribly wrong – some of your androids begin to malfunction and they start to attack, destroy, and steal from, the other androids.

You, as the creator of the androids, have the right of ownership over the androids, and also you would likely feel a moral obligation or responsibility to step in and stop the malfunctioning androids and protect the good androids from harm. There would be nothing wrong with you intervening to destroy or reprogram the malfunctioning androids as you saw fit.

It would be very similar with God and humans. If God created us, but then something went wrong, and some of us began to “malfunction” (sin) and began to rape, steal from, and kill other humans, then God would have the right of ownership to step in and put an end to the malfunctioning humans. There would be nothing morally wrong with God intervening to destroy the malfunctioning humans which He created.

The Obligation to Intervene

Even though, in the “android scenario” above, you would likely feel a moral obligation to intervene to stop the malfunctioning androids, you might not feel the same moral obligation to intervene to save miniature grasshopper robots.

The Bible says that God is as different from humans as humans are from grasshoppers. (Isaiah 40:22) So, if you don't feel the moral obligation to intervene and save every grasshopper, then neither would God feel the need to intervene and save every human being.

This analogy isn't 100% accurate, since there are key differences between how humans view grasshoppers and how God views humans, and that is because God made human beings in His image. (Genesis 1:26-27) Humans don't have that same connection to grasshoppers since grasshoppers are not made in our image. Also, we didn't create grasshoppers, therefore we don't have any right to ownership over them in that sense.

With that being said, this does show though, that God, being a much higher species, wouldn't feel the need to intervene in human (“grasshopper”) affairs all of the time.

Also, in regards to this, I have seen atheists be very inconsistent, and condemn Yahweh because He DID intervene in the Old Testament to destroy the evil people, AND condemn Yahweh because He DOES NOT intervene now to destroy the evil people. There is just no pleasing some atheists.

The More Powerful Species

Atheists generally have no issues with humans killing cows, chickens, pigs, fish, or sheep to prepare food or make clothing for humans. This is because atheists acknowledge that humans are the higher, more powerful, more intelligent species, and this gives us a right to take the life of lower species when it benefits the human species.

The same right should apply to Yahweh. If God is a more powerful, more intelligent species than the human race, then God would have this right to take the life of lower species when He determines it beneficial.

Can Atheists Be Morally Good Without God?

I think there is a misunderstanding among many atheists regarding what Christians believe about atheists. We don't claim (as a general rule) that atheists lack morals. On the contrary, many atheists have outstanding and remarkable moral values. I've known atheists whose moral convictions put many Christians to shame. Atheists can have even better moral values than religious people.

You don't need to be a Christian, be religious, or believe in the Bible to have the best moral values. No, rather, each of us is born with moral instincts/empathy, plus the ones we are taught by parents, teachers, and environment.

Christians feel obligated to obey their moral feelings because they believe they will be held accountable for their actions by a Law-Giver and Judge who placed those moral instincts inside each of us.

Christians are questioning the foundation, or reason, why atheists choose to obey their moral ideas. Why do they feel obligated to follow their moral feelings? Why should they care any more about their moral feelings than they do about their feelings on their favorite flavor of ice cream or their favorite color?

In addition, there are certain moral ideas which appear to have originated solely based on religious beliefs. For example, why would adultery be morally wrong aside from the religious belief that a marriage must only be one man and one woman?

Another example: Why would cheating on a test, or lying to your boss, or defrauding the IRS, be morally wrong, aside from the religious belief that God or gods hate dishonesty?

Why do atheists hold onto these moral values which clearly originated from religion?

Did Moral Beliefs Evolve Apart from Religious Beliefs?

Sometimes, the claim is made by some atheists that the reason why we should accept certain moral beliefs, is because they evolved separately or apart from religious beliefs.

First of all, atheists have zero scientific, repeatable, observable, falsifiable evidence proving that, so why do they accept this claim as a fact?

Secondly, even if this is true, what basis do atheists use to judge that morals are necessary for human survival but religious beliefs are not necessary for human survival?

In addition, what objective standard do atheists use to determine which moral beliefs evolved as part of religion, and which evolved separately from religion?

To me, it seems very apparent that most moral ideas that we have originated within religion. Take, for example, adultery. If survival and reproduction are the main “goals” of evolution/natural selection, then the moral belief that adultery is wrong goes against this “goal.” The moral belief that adultery is wrong only makes sense in light of religious beliefs that we were created for monogamous, committed relationships of just two people. Do atheists suggest we abandon this moral belief that adultery is wrong since it originated from religion?

Another example would be lying. If there is no God forbidding us to lie, then why would lying be considered wrong in itself? If survival and reproduction are the “goals” of natural selection and evolution, then why not lie to accomplish these things?

Atheists can't really explain why adultery, lying, or cheating would be objectively wrong, but religious people can.

If evolution and natural selection (without God) are solely responsible for our morals, then we should not have moral values which fight against very natural things such as pain, suffering, and death. Instead, shouldn't our moral values promote those things as a glorious part of the natural order of the survival of the fittest?

Is Religion Evil?

Perhaps the most common atheist claim is that “religion is evil.”

First, an atheist saying this is making the logical fallacy known as "hasty generalization" because there is no monolithic entity known as “religion.” (This is also a “strawman” fallacy)

Secondly, how does the atheist define "evil" and what are they basing that judgment on?

Thirdly, this has nothing to do with whether or not a God exists. Also, in order to truthfully make this claim, wouldn't an atheist be required to examine each and every different religious group and determine whether that group's beliefs cause more evil than they do good? 

Evil as Evidence for God

Believe it or not, the existence of evil is actually a strong argument in favor of a Law-Giver and Judge. Many atheists say that “the problem of evil” is a major evidence against Christianity, however, it is actually a powerful evidence for God.

If there truly are actions which were objectively evil, such as the Holocaust, 9/11, or pedophilia, rape, murder, etc, then there must exist an ultimate objective standard of good and evil by which we compare our actions. No such standard can exist in the worldview of atheism. But this standard does exist in the worldview of theism. This standard is God and His moral values.

The other option for the atheist, which is frightening, is to declare that there is no evil, and that Hitler's actions were just different, not actually evil. I don't think any of us, deep down, believe that to be true, unless you are an adherent of....

Moral Nihilism

Moral nihilism is the belief that no actions are inherently "good" or "evil" or "right" or "wrong," but human beings just view actions in certain ways. In this view, there is nothing actually wrong with murder or rape. Here is a quote from Wikipedia further explaining this belief system:

"Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense."

In my view, this is the true danger of atheism, because if you take atheism to its extreme logical conclusion, there is no way around moral nihilism. If there is no objective moral standard and no moral Law-Giver, then there is truly no good and evil, beyond the ideas that exist in the mind.

And if there is no action which is evil, then, to the moral nihilist, any action is already justified, including murder and rape, because, the nihilist believes these actions are not evil or wrong.

Society recognizes that there is something mentally wrong with people who do not have a conscience, or feel right and wrong, and these people are labelled "sociopaths." Yet, if you think deeply about atheism, it almost inescapably logically leads to moral nihilism, which is nearly identical to the way sociopaths view things.

One difference between sociopaths and moral nihilists is:

Moral nihilists may still feel right and wrong, but they believe these feelings are unimportant, whereas, the sociopath may not feel right and wrong at all.

Can Morals be Based on the Majority Opinion of Society?

So, if atheists don't have an objective moral standard, can they accurately base morality on the majority opinion of society?

At first, it sounds reasonable to base your moral beliefs on what the majority of humans think is good and evil. When you think more deeply on the subject, however, you realize how flawed this logic is.

What if the majority of your nation starts believing in the morality of Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Laden? Are you obligated to adopt these moral values because you base your beliefs upon the majority opinion? Was it morally acceptable for the Germans who adopted Hitler's morals, with the excuse that they were following the majority, or obeying their leaders' orders?

If the Tea Party and Republicans somehow become a large majority in America, would that mean you are required to adopt their moral ideas?

If a nation or society ever decides (God forbid!) to outlaw, arrest, or execute atheists, would you be obligated to quietly accept this just because it is the majority moral opinion?

Taking this a step further, exactly how much of a majority is required in order to make some action become "moral?" Also, should we base our morals on the majority of our city, or the majority of our state, or should it be the majority of the nation, or worldwide?

If rape is wrong, then what difference does it make whether the majority of your nation thinks it is right?

Also, who or what is the umpire to decide when two different societies clash on their moral views? What makes America's morals better than North Korea's morals? To me, it doesn't look logical or safe to base your morality upon the shifting sands of the majority opinion of society.

Altruism and Naturalism

If we are only the product of the naturalistic processes of evolution and natural selection, why would we have the "built-in" feelings that we should help other people who are not in our immediate family or circle? If the "goal" of evolution and natural selection is survival and reproduction, why should I care about anyone outside of my little circle of friends and family?

Why do we believe it would it be morally wrong to ignore the pleas for help coming from total strangers? We shouldn't have this belief if we are only the product of blind natural laws and processes. Why would the mindless universe give us empathy to care about the sufferings of people we don't know?

Basing Moral Beliefs on Feelings of Empathy

Many atheists say they base their moral principles on their feelings/emotions of empathy, along with their logic. This may sound good, but what causes you to place any more value upon your feelings of empathy, than on your feelings about your favorite hamburger or favorite movie?

Why are you motivated to act on your empathy any more than acting on eating ice cream or playing video games? Why are your feelings of empathy any more important or valuable than your feelings about chocolate?

Also, basing your moral beliefs solely on your feelings, would lead to very inconsistent moral values among different atheists. One atheist would feel that it is okay to lie or cheat to arrive at a perceived greater good, while a 2nd atheist would feel this was wrong. Each person's feelings would be different.

What about those who don't feel empathy, or who feel that Jews are not fully human? This is why we cannot base morality only on feelings.

I agree that empathy is an important part of morality, but it cannot be the only part.

Putting Faith in Immaterial Things

Some atheists claim that beliefs must be formed only on the basis of observable, repeatable scientific evidence. Many other atheists say we should also base our beliefs on logic, math, and morals. Nearly all atheists agree that we should reject belief in God because that is an immaterial thing/idea with no observable, repeatable scientific evidence.

The inconsistency is, that moral beliefs are not based upon empirical, observable, repeatable, falsifiable scientific evidence. Instead they are based upon "experiential" or "self-evident" evidence, for example, empathy and emotion. The scientific method itself is based upon, and requires, the use of self-evident things, such as logic and math, otherwise we could never even practice science. So any atheist who accepts these things, while at the same time ridiculing others for accepting God based upon experiential (or self-evident) evidence, is being hypocritical.

Speaking of experiential evidence...

The Founding Fathers and Morals

Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States, while they may not have been Christians, certainly believed that the Creator was the basis of our morality, and on the principles of liberty, justice, and equality.

A good number of the Founding Fathers based their beliefs that all humans are created equal, and that every human is born with inalienable rights, on the conviction that God created mankind in His image. These Founding Fathers would have been appalled at the notion that there is no such thing as objective moral truth.

What basis is there within atheism for declaring that “all people are created equal” and that they possess “certain inalienable rights?”

Should humans treat other humans well "just because" or should you treat other people well because they are sacred, made in the image of our Holy Creator?

Why are we Moral?

Sometimes, atheists ridicule Christians for only acting good morally because they are afraid of God sending them to Hellfire for eternity. But, the same point could be raised for the atheist -- "Are you only morally good because you fear punishment from the police, the government, or your boss/spouse/friends?"

If you're an atheist or a believer, likely there are times when you only do what is right because you are afraid of getting caught.

Regardless of whether you believe in eternal Hellfire (I personally do not believe in the traditional view of Hell), you have to admit, it is a much more powerful motivation for being good than "Because it feels right."

Also, the charge has been made against Christians that we all just blindly obey whatever God commands us, without thinking about the consequences at all. I can't speak for all other Christians, but I can absolutely say this is not how I view morality and God's commands.

If God gave me my conscience, then I can accurately use my conscience to examine any command allegedly coming from God, and also think about the consequences of acting a certain way, or not acting a certain way.

If you look in the Gospels in the New Testament, Jesus always taught morals and ethics based on the consequences of how it helps or hurts other people.

Is God Good Because He Says So?

Now we get to the most difficult and deep conundrum on this topic:

• Are God's actions good just because He says so?
• OR
• Does God do His actions because they are good, based on a standard?

This is a classic philosophical debate known as the “Euthyphro Dilemma.” In its simplest form, it says that moral acts must be declared good because God arbitrarily decides they are good, or God declares moral acts good because they are good in themselves, based on another standard of right and wrong.

The initial reaction of many Christians is that surely there cannot exist another moral standard outside of God, which God uses to judge moral acts against. But, equally shocking, perhaps even more so, is the notion that things are only good or evil based on the arbitrary declarations of God.

The First View

If things are only “good” or “evil” because God says they are right now, then, at any time, God could change His laws and command us to commit murder or rape. This would also make any statements in the Bible like “God is good,” or “There is no darkness in God,” meaningless, since God would be the only One determining good and evil. Obviously He would call Himself “good” instead of “evil.”

This view would not agree with the fact that God has given each of us in-born moral instincts that murder, rape, child abuse, etc. are evil. If God can arbitrarily change His morals at any time, then why would He create permanent, unchanging moral instincts inside of our minds?

This view is scary, in that, you could never know whether God might change His mind and command you to commit murder, rape, etc.

The Second View

But, the other view, that God judges things based on a separate, third-party moral standard of justice, also has its own problems. The biggest problem with this idea is that it would mean there's a higher authority than Yahweh, which Yahweh has to look up to.

Also, what kind of moral standard “Justice Entity” would this be? How would it relate to Yahweh and how would it relate to human beings? How does Yahweh know and determine the morality that is best according to the “Justice Entity?” If such a “Justice Entity” exists, then could it have created us and Yahweh, or did it create Yahweh? Or, has the “Justice Entity” always existed alongside God?

Perhaps this “Justice Entity” could exist in the form of Plato's “universals” (Visit this Princeton page on Plato's Morals, and also do a Google or Bing search for “Platonic Realism” or “Platonic Morals”). Plato viewed morals as having a real existence somewhere, in a heavenly or ghostly essence, not in a normal physical existence.

If this is accurate, then it would mean Yahweh is better-tuned-in to these “universals” than anything else in existence, and Yahweh uses them to determine and judge good and evil. This view would explain why the Bible seems to compare Yahweh to another standard when it says “The Lord is good,” or “There is no injustice with God.” But it still seems to place Yahweh in a position inferior to these “moral universals.”

Is There a Third View?

Thankfully, there is a third view, which fits in better with the Scriptures and makes logical sense. This view says that God bases His moral decisions on His own unchanging conscience which exists inside His mind and nature. This means that the “Justice Entity” or Platonic “universals” referred to above, actually exist as an immutable part of God's own mind.

Thus, this shows that the Euthyphro Dilemma is actually a false dichotomy – a false claim that there are only two options, but in actuality, there are three or more options.

This third view solves the problem of God being arbitrary and also eliminates the idea of something higher-ranking than God existing. But does this third view harmonize with the Scriptures? Yes! See for yourself:

Hebrews 6:13 (ESV): For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself,

Hebrews 13:8 (ESV): Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Malachi 3:6 (ASV): For I, Jehovah, change not...

Titus 1:2 (RV): in hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal;

Romans 3:23 (NLT): For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard.

As you can see, the Holy Scriptures declare that Yahweh and Jesus never change (in their moral values) and that there is a glorious standard which is called “God's,” so the ultimate moral standard belongs to God, and it is unchanging. It also says that God's nature will not allow Him to lie. In addition, Hebrews 6:13 clearly proclaims that there is nothing in existence higher or greater than God, so this would rule out a separate Platonic “Justice Entity.”

But wait, if God's moral standard is a part of Himself and cannot change, then how could God give the ancient Hebrews the Law of Moses, then centuries later, cancel that Law and give them the moral teachings of Jesus instead?....

The Law of Moses and the Teachings of Jesus

Why were the Laws given to Moses so different from the teachings of Jesus? How can these moral contradictions exist if God has an unchanging moral standard?

The Bible makes the following things clear regarding the Law of Moses:

1. these were only given to the Jewish people,
2. they were only temporary, and
3. they have expired. (See Hebrews chapter 8)

Why was the Mosaic Law given in the first place, then?

The Law of Moses was never intended to be permanent, but was always just a temporary stopgap until the Messiah arrived (Galatians 3:23-26; Jeremiah 31:31-33), and it contained things which were NOT God's ideal standards (Matthew 19:7-9; Hebrews 8:7-8). God was meeting the Jewish people where they were currently at in their evolutionary moral and cultural development, and He elevated their own principles to a higher level. God made concessions, overlooking many things which did not agree with His ultimate standards. (Romans 3:25; Acts 17:30)

The Messiah's teachings are the ultimate moral authority, along with the conscience, according to the New Testament. (Hebrews 2:3-4; Hebrews 1:1-2; 1 Corinthians 3:11; Romans 2:14-16)

The Apostle Paul forcefully and repeatedly drove home the point that Christians are NOT obligated to obey the Law of Moses (Romans 4:13-14; Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:1-14; Galatians 4:8-12). Paul also declared that the Law was given to prove that humans couldn't even obey this elevated version of their own moral codes. (Romans 7:7-8; Romans 8:3)

These commandments were primarily given by Yahweh to the Jews to show a distinction, a separation in the eyes of the world, of God's chosen nation, to make them different and unique compared to all other nations on earth at that time. God was also banning things which the pagan nations associated with worshiping idols, such as orgies, temple sex, and prostitution.

Leviticus 20:23-26 (ESV): "And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them. … I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples. You shall therefore separate the clean beast from the unclean, and the unclean bird from the clean. You shall not make yourselves detestable by beast or by bird or by anything with which the ground crawls, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean. You shall be holy to me, for I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine."

In Matthew 5, Jesus nullifies some of the Laws of Moses, edits others, and keeps some in force, while giving the true, original, deeper meaning of them.

Jesus did keep many of the Laws of Moses in force (albeit, in somewhat different forms) up until His death and Resurrection, at which time the entire written Law of Moses was "nailed to the Cross," "taken out of the way," and "made obsolete," with the final nail in the coffin occurring when the Roman army destroyed the Jewish Temple and system of worship in 70 A.D. (Colossians 2:14; Ephesians 2:14-16; Hebrews 8:13)

In summary on this point:

The Law of Moses was never intended to be permanent requirements for all people at all times, as Paul writes so eloquently in Galatians:

 Galatians 3:24-28 (ESV): "So then, the law was our [the Jews'] guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

The Greatest Moral Teacher

When Jesus came down to earth from heaven, He became a real human being. He thus was subject to the moral values that apply inside the human species between one another. The Lord Jesus' human body was a special creation, a sinless human, which had not existed on earth since Adam and Eve.

This is one reason why Jesus' morals may seem somewhat different from Yahweh's morals -- because Jesus actually became one of us, and took on our moral requirements for how we treat one another, whereas, Yahweh, being a different, higher species than us, is not subject to the same human moral obligations that we are. As a full Human, Christ obeyed and taught the perfect morals for how one human should treat another human. (See the sections above called "The Obligation to Intervene" and "The More Powerful Species.")

Jesus, the Son of God, came to teach us the greater, eternal, elevated moral truths, some of which had been lost over time, or covered-up by bad human traditions. The entire New Testament agrees and testifies that the moral teachings of Jesus Christ are the greatest moral teachings of all time, and they are to be imitated above all other moral teachings.

Jesus never tried to remove or supplant the human conscience and empathy, no, rather, Jesus promoted, elevated, inspired, and breathed new life into the conscience and empathy. He showed the true power of your empathy, by revealing that your empathy is backed by a Mighty God who is watching to see if you act on those feelings.