Debate with an atheist

Debate topic:  Do atheists confuse "absence of proof" with "proof of absence"?

Details:

Proof of absence = you can prove it does not exist.

Absence of proof = you cannot prove it exists.

Note: they are not the same

Answer from J.P. (an atheist):

No doubt some atheists are so because there is no proof that god exists. Others of us are so because we have some reason to believe that god does not exist.

I don't think logical dynamics has anything to do with it for many people.

For myself, it is the fact that given the nature of the world, and given human nature, I find the existence of "evil" (purposeless harm) to be inconsistent with the existence of a being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. The evil is there, so god must not be. Or whatever god is, it is not something I need to worship.

My reply:

So for you.. the existence of evil excludes the existence of an all merciful God.

What would you define as evil? I define it as Harm done to someone or something greater than the benefit it brings to someone or something else? But I can find no example of evil (as defined above) other than that committed by us.. humans

You may reply why would God permit humans to commit evil? But did you consider that if He didn't...then we wouldn't be able...so would we have free will or would we be like any other creature?

Then your real debate is not with the existence of evil but the existence of our free will which has the potential to do evil and the potential to question it.

If you could have a world without evil (but also without free will) would you prefer it? (Of course then you'd have no choice in the matter of belief I suppose )

J.P's reply:

There is no debate as to the existence of evil. A sufficient condition for the existence of evil is harm in the absence of beneficial purpose (i.e., harm done for the sake of harm).

You are pretty much begging the issue when you say that god created us to have free will. Animals have free will ... I can see nothing that would be inconsistent with being an animal and being "free." As for human free will, I see nothing that would be inconsistent with free will and being created so as not to do evil (no animal does evil, and they are all free).

I also have no problem with the idea of a life form that is of a higher order than humans - but it is not worthy of worship, since it is lesser than perfect - it cannot be all knowing, all powerful and all merciful.

My reply:

I refer to the free will which permits us to decide our own codes and rules to follow or break. An animal cannot break it's own instinctive rules of behaviour. Humans often do. This is the free will I refer to in humans and other higher life forms that may exist

J.P's reply:

That's an ad hoc definition of free will. Also, humans cannot break their own instinctive rules of behavior (and yes, we have them). Do we really get to "decide our own codes and rules to follow or break"? That's a fairly substantial claim to make.

Just because we don't know what they are, how do you know animals don't have codes and rules to follow? Are you confusing "absence of proof" for "proof of absence"?

My reply:

animals have instinctive rules for behaviour which they cannot break. Whereas we humans also have them BUT we can (and do) break them at will (we are not r*completely* reactive zombies enslaved to our desires and habits). This gives us the ability to create (something animals cannot do) and also the potential to abuse or do evil (e.g. g. Smoke while aware we are killing ourselves)...something animals also cannot do.

That free will. Without it...no creation or evil.

Which will it be? Give up every humans ability to disobey and create for the sake or ridding the world of evil?

J.P's reply:

I'd rather rid the world of evil. By the way - the absence of evil would not eliminate free will. I mean, is the only function of god to justify the existence of evil? That's what you seem to be saying.

My reply:

No. My point is that human type free will (intelligent autonomous behaviour... as opposed to animal like autonomous behaviour) is a double edged sword capable of creation and disobedience. It is this disobeience from the natural order of things which may result in evil.

My point is that God ultimately permits humans to make our own decisions. To follow His natural order or to disoey (which can lead to evil). If He stopped all evil then there'd be no point creating us with the intelligent free will we possess.

J.P's reply:

If god created humans with free will (as you say), and did so in order that we could choose other than the "natural order" of things (as you say), and evil is the result of our use of free will to disobey natural order (as you say), then it is god who created evil, since he created the free will that causes evil. Q.E.D.

The all-merciful deity created the evil that makes our lives miserable.

We can go on like this forever. I do not believe in this god thingy, you believe in your god. I'm not out to convince anyone, and you are certainly not going to convince me. Thanks for the discussion.

My reply:

I agree that God created evil. (That does not make Him evil as a baker who makes bread is not bread)

I was simply demonstrating that the existence of evil is not proof of the absence of God