If Good and Evil Exist then God Exists

This has been suggested by Peter Kreeft in the link below. It is a little different from the argument from conscience which is perfectly valid and which it assumes because if you think some act is good or evil you are making a judgment about the thought of this act which is the function of conscience - to judge.

What Peter does not say and perhaps should have said is that if you find even one act which you think should be universally declared good or bad, then you must agree that God Exists because such an assumption demands a universal law giver who has the right to set this minimum standard and this we say can only be He Who we call God.

Have fun. :smiley:


This is very much like hearing Kreeft read parts of his book A Refutation of Moral Relativism out loud.

“Good”, “bad” and “evil” are not ontological entities - in other words, they do not exist. They are our reflections on certain activities and events. These reflections are judgment calls, and they are dependent upon our particular upbringing, which is turn is the result of social environment we have been exposed to in out formative years. This is one of his weaker efforts to “prove” God. My reflection is: “Bah, humbug!”.

“Evil” does not exist, it is a lack of good just as dark is a lack of light and cold is a lack of heat, as science has shown us. Good exists, and it exists because God exists.

…and which part of you is capable of that type of “reflection”?
I disagree with the “upbringing” statement, because it is self evident that certain “values” are universal, upbringing notwithstanding.
Social environments change, but values do not, so your statement is just a flawed opinion.

I think you are splitting hairs. If I took a gun and killed your Mother or Father for no particular reason wouldn’t you call that act evil? The word " evil " is a human construct to describe those acts which are contrary to the natural law. The point is how do human acts come to be regarded universally as acts which must be done or avoided, shuned? The ten commandments, universally held in some form, require an ultimate authority which is outside human nature or they would not be universally held. :thumbsup:

Won’t wash Trurl. We all can point to a time when " conscience " told us that something was good or bad before which we had not been " coached " in any way. I think in particular of the first awakening of sexual activity., when our conscience warned us that to do this or that or to consent to this or that thought or act was bad and to be avoided. I think we can all think of such moments beginning when we were about 7 or 8. It was so in my case and I can assure you neither my parents nor anyone else had ever mentioned these topics. So how did I know they were wrong? How did the mere thought of them prick my conscience?

Futher, your objection does not account for the feeling of guilt when we act against such warnings. Society, government has set up all sorts of laws and violating one or the other does not prick my conscience. So the " environmental " argument accomplishes no more than to show me the " stop " and " go " signs. I obey them to avoid legal trouble, not because to ignore them would make me feel guilty. Of course some of these rules do coinside to the dictates of my conscience. The point is, no social rule can account for the feeling of guilt. :thumbsup:

Then why do you discuss things as if they were true or false? If we are products of our upbringing, that is. Kinda puts an end to all discussion doesn’t it?

There is nothing self-evident about it, whatever those “values” might be. Without enumerating those “values” your assertion cannot be supported or refuted, since the assertion is empty.

Actually, I know, but other, more descriptive and more precise adjectives are usually taken as not “charitable”. So I am “forced” to water down my wording, since honesty (even if it is not vulgar in any sense) is frowned upon here.

Right, which is why the atheists usually claim that moral laws aren’t ontological entites, and don’t actually exist objectively, which is every bit as much of a possibility as moral objectivism, if not more so. I don’t see this as a problem, since the existence of God seems to me to be equally compatible with both views.

To a certain degree, I agree with you. It is difficult to justify moral objectivity without a source for objective moral law. Which is why almost all atheists are either consequentialists or nihilists.

That’s just pedantic hair-splitting.

No one goes outside in -20 degree weather and says “This lack of heat is brutal”.

Failure to do good is not precisely the same as evil. No donating enough to charity can be called a “lack of good”, Killing an innocent is pure evil.

And, good can not exists without evil. If it was impossible to commit evil, no action could be called good. It would just be what people do.

God Bless

God is good, yet there isn’t any necessity for evil to exist in order for God to be good.

Goodness can exist without evil, but ultimate goodness cannot exist without the possibility of evil, since ultimate goodness is being freely united with God, which necessitates the possibility of sin.

I was talking about in our world. If God had decided not to create anything, then only good would exist. Once he decided to create the angels and man, and gave them wills, evil became necessary.

God Bless

If you replaced “necessary” with “possible” I would agree.

The problem is that the basic terms are not defined and not agreed upon. “Good” is the equivalent of “useful” or “beneficial”. “Bad” is the equivalent of the opposite “good”. “Evil” would be INTENTIONALLY “bad”. Without these definitions people talk past each other in this thread and in all the threards.

Evil is NOT the lack good, evil is the INTENTIONAL privation of good. The lack of rain is “bad”, but not “evil”.

evil is the privation of good that should have been.

A thought.

An empty thought…

In the OP video, Kreef’s argument on slavery is pure relativism - he doesn’t like it so it must be wrong. His reasoning throughout is inane, it’s as if he took a bet to commit every fallacy in the book. Is he always that infantile? :confused:

How is it relativism? He did not base his statement on his personal beliefs but on that of society. Slavery was once legal and acceptable in many areas around the planet while now it is universally outlawed and condemned. If morality is based on evolution (which is in a constant state of change), and there is no objective morality beyond that, then there is no basis today to call past societies immoral for practices which they deemed morally permissible. It’s all a question of the basis of comparison; evolution does not provide a universal standard for making such judgements.

is reasoning throughout is inane, it’s as if he took a bet to commit every fallacy in the book. Is he always that infantile? :confused:

Well, let’s see if we can put that to the test. Pick out a position of his from the video clip that you think is the most fallacious. Clearly state the fallacy being committed and then demonstrate where Kreeft committed this fallacy (using actual quotes of his).

Then why is there historically a universally accepted sense of morality? How does it transcend individual upbringings and the diversity of society? How is that that humans in general share the same “reflections on certain activities and events”?

Kreeft is a dumb apologist. This is one of his weaker efforts to “prove” God. My reflection is: “Bah, humbug!”.

And yet what is the basis for your insult to Kreeft and your condemnation of his material? If this is one of his “weaker efforts to prove God” then can you provide a point-by-point refutation of what he stated in the video? So far all you’ve done is stated your own unsubstantiated opinion as to what constitutes morality and then rejected Kreeft’s conclusions because they contradict it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.