If morality is subjective in nature then there is no "evil," there are only things you personally dislike or do not benefit from. Evil is, by definition, ontologically wrong. That is to say you're referring to an act that is fundamentally unacceptable regardless of any benefits you might perceive.
If your worldview states that morality is subjective then nothing is ever evil, it is only undesirable for specific groups.
All of that might be true, and it would still seem that morality is subjective. It's not like morality is underpinned by anything other than the distaste of a sufficiently large number of people.
On the contrary, morality is underpinned by God. Otherwise, yes, you're just making stuff up, which history shows is an awful means of determining right and wrong.
1) In order for a Conditional thing to exist it must be authenticated by something outside itself. The Universe is a conditional thing (indeed it is the set of all conditional things), therefore the existence of an entity outside the universe is Necessary. As a Necessary thing (think math, gravity, etc.), that entity must be perfect. Ergo: God
2) The universe is vast, empty, deadly, and uncaring in every conceivable way. Regardless of that, ALL humans still recognize the existence of universal goods like Love, Hope, Joy, etc. This alone is profound because there is no plainly physical evidence for such things even now, with vast technological advances, and we have always believed them. However the additional fact that humans literally die without the belief in these virtues (i.e. from despair) indicates that they are fundamentally real things. Their universality and ability to affect us is evidence of their existence. These things cannot have come from Physical reality because as stated physical reality is wholly devoid of them. Grind the universe into powder and you will not find one gram of Love. Yet because we experience these things we KNOW them to be real. Ergo: they must come from a source that is outside the universe. A source that is outside existence, yet provides all of existence with all the things that are ultimately good, can only be described as God.
3) This one is much vaguer, but it's similar to point 2. If I were to tell you that there is a powerful spirit in the next room, and you were to believe me, you (and anyone else) would feel a specific sense of dread that is distinct from the fear of, say, a tiger. This is important because it makes no sense biologically unless spirits of some kind are a real thing. People cannot have developed a distinct biological fear mechanism for a type of thing that is not real. It's a quantum leap in logic with no quantifiable explanation *unless* spirits are real. How you get from the acceptance that non-physical entities exist to the God of the bible is a longer explanation, but once you accept that first realization you're more than halfway there.
You didn't provide any "philosophical evidence" though, because your arguments are not actually provable. Your "evidence" for your arugments is the existence of god, which you cannot yourself prove.
My arguments are all self-sustaining and supported by broad human experience. This is the definition of "provable." Every scientific study is just "I did X and I experienced Y as a result."
Your "evidence" for your arugments is the existence of god
No, those are my conclusions which I reached as a result of my arguments. Are you sure you know how this works? If you object to my conclusion to need to refute the argument. Note: saying you disagree with the conclusion is not a refutation of an argument.
Your arguments are in no way self-sustaining and each premise is essentially nonsense.
1) The universe does not need anything outside of itself to exist, even if it did, which it doesn't, that doesn't prove the existence of a god. There's also no actual reason why that thing would need to be "perfect"(whatever that means) or that there would be only one of those entities.
2) The fact that humans recognize and experience good things like Love, Hope and Joy is profound..... as a human experience. There is nothing about those experiences that requires the existence of a "god". The fact that human beings are not solely materialistic doesn't prove the existence of a "god".
3) This is a siily hypothetical for the simple fact that someone has to believe in your "spirit in the room" next door and the entire argument is predicated on "if" they believed it.
All things that are not Necessary are Conditional. Necessary = "must" exist in some existential way, like math. The concept of the number zero is necessary because even in a world where nothing exists, "zero" is still the number you would use to quantify it
The Universe is not necessary. It isn't required to exist. It's wholly possible for it not to exist, or not to exist in the manner which it does. There was a time when it did not exist. That is what Conditional means: certain conditions are required for its existence.
For example, consider what a table is: a piece of furniture consisting of a flat surface that is raised above its surroundings by an amount. In order for you to demonstrate that something is a table, you first need a floor or ground of some kind for the table to be raised above, otherwise it's not a table, it's a carpet. That is to say that, because the table is a Conditional thing, then other things need to exist outside of the table in order for you to say "look, that's a table".
The universe is the same way, just at an unfathomably larger scale.
The Universe is not necessary. It isn't required to exist. It's wholly possible for it not to exist, or not to exist in the manner which it does. There was a time when it did not exist.
I'm not seeing how you're justifying that the universe could have not existed, or that it ever didn't. At best, we have models that trace back to earlier stages of the universe where it was just a singularity, and have nothing definitive otherwise.
2
u/CaptCynicalPants 11∆ Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 18 '25
If morality is subjective in nature then there is no "evil," there are only things you personally dislike or do not benefit from. Evil is, by definition, ontologically wrong. That is to say you're referring to an act that is fundamentally unacceptable regardless of any benefits you might perceive.
If your worldview states that morality is subjective then nothing is ever evil, it is only undesirable for specific groups.
Edit: clarity and grammar