Expert: Austin Cline - 7/18/2010

Question
dear expert,

Thank you very much for your answer.

As you know, I doubt the existence of God as depicted in Abrahamic religion due the problem of evil.

The 3 Books, to convince disbeleivers and skeptics, try to prove "empirically" the goodness of the Creator: for instance the many utilitu and benefits we get from nature (fruits, rain, reasoning, ect...).

But at the same time, we can reply to this by using the problem of natural evil: disasters, sickness can imply a Malevolent God as well.

Here a theodicy I've heard:

<< 1.Being God means being higher and greater than ALL things. This means nothing is over you. Since nothing is over you, then this means no one can judge you to be wrong, because there exist no law over you by which you can be judged. God has no one over Him. He is over everyone else. There is no law over God. If there was a law over God, that law would be greater than God. A real law also has its penalties and rewards intact. Thus if God broke the law you say is over Him, who is there to punish Him? If He kept the law you say is over Him, who is there to reward Him?

3. With no law over God, there is no basis by which to say He is wrong. If we say He is wrong, we must cite a law which He is under that He violated. Is God under the United States constitution? God existed before the constitution. Is God under the Ten Commandments? God existed before the Ten Commandments. Besides, didn't God write the Ten Commandments? How can He place Himself under a law? Why would He even want to do so? It's crazy to think about it.

4. You may say, "With no law over God, there is no basis by which to say He is right either, otherwise it's special pleading."
Wrong. He is right because He abides by Himself. He perfectly obeys His Will. His will therefore becomes in human terms, His law. Unto His will, He is a blameless and perfect adherent. >>


Admitting 1. 2. and 3., is the claim in 4. logically sound?


thank you

Answer
The problem with saying "there is no basis by which to say He is wrong" is that this necessarily entails "there is no basis by which to say He is right." The argument thus reduces to nothing more than "might" - not even "might makes right," just "might." It's an argument for submitting to an authority simply because they have more power than you and can hurt you, not because they are right or just.

And that's not the sort of system they claim they are advocating. Ergo, their own argument undermines their position.