sungyak:

I took a look at your response and am disappointed to find it on a pseudo-logic-ridden, anti-religion blog. There really is nothing worthwhile to entertain in your response, nor your blog. But I’ll leave you with this. 

Ad hominem.  Nothing worth while to entertain in my response?  I’ll get to that below.  Nothing worth while to entertain on my blog?  You sure your brethren agree?  Three blogs were created just to respond to me (1, 2, 3; granted, I don’t yet know the intentions of the latest one)!  One of your own said I’m perhaps the most formidable opponent he’s debated against and I would be more so if only I learned to be “objective,” which is something I don’t see I have an issue with.  Anti-religion?  Anti-your-religion isn’t anti-religion.  Pseudo-logic?  In this first section alone, anyone can tell that I’m better at logic than you are.  Ad hominem (specifically poisoning the well) is a logical fallacy — one that you’re guilty of in your first three sentences.  Come again?  Who’s pseudo-logical?  I’m not shocked by this sudden decision to reduce a discussion to fallacious rhetoric; it happens all too often.

The two flaws in your argument I pointed are still terribly relevant. If premise 2 (in the logical argument from evil) is not assumed in your initial argument, then it’s incumbent on you to show how the idea of an all-loving God and evil are irreconcilable. As far as I’m concerned that is just your personal opinion (that the two are irreconcilable), which carries no weight in a logical argument. I find the two to have no apparent logical contradiction. 

Moving the goalposts.  I didn’t have to assume P2 of that argument to make my argument.  I start at the presupposition that a perfectly good being wouldn’t murder blameless children — in bold because you obdurately continue to bypass that point.  Therefore, I have proven that perfect good and the murder of children and infants is irreconcilable.  Since you insist on seeing a difference between the logical Problem of Evil and my argument, I present my argument in modal form:

P1 Any being that commanded the murder of innocent children is not perfectly good.

P2 Any being that promised to murder innocent children is not perfectly good.

P3 Any being that carries out a promise to murderer innocent children is not perfectly good.

P4 Yahweh commanded the murder of children, promised to murder children and carried out promises to murder children.

P5 Therefore, Yahweh is not perfectly good.

According to the “word of god,” P4 is true; thus, P5 follows from P4.  P1-3 are logical presuppositions that any sane individual would consider self-evident.  You’re obviously not sane and that isn’t abusive fallacy; that’s the truth given the impressions you’ve given me thus far.  The truth may be offensive and it may hurt feelings, and I could care less about either, especially in your case.  You have shut the eye of reason in order to continue believing that a literary child murderer is an actual entity, but you don’t stop there; he’s also the god you worship and the creator of the universe.

Also, unless you concede that morality is only objective given the Christian worldview, you need to first define your terms like ‘atrocities’ or ‘evil’ and argue for why I should agree with your subjective definitions. And then I can go about answering your demand to reconcile your terms with my God. How did you find your metaphysics of morality when Nietzsche couldn’t? Are you that sure of yourself?

Maybe you are, and maybe that’s the problem. 

False criteria.  I don’t need to define atrocity and evil; if you cannot recognize evil when you see it and if you cannot identify an atrocity when it occurs, you have an unaddressed issue; that isn’t my problem to solve.  As far as your questions go, you are guilty of centipede fallacy:

Since science cannot provide a complete explanation of phenomenon x, we have reason to question whether it really knows anything about X

That is parallel to:

Since Nietzsche couldn’t find his metaphysics of morality, I have reason to question whether he really knew about the metaphysics of morality.  Therefore, your conclusion doesn’t follow.  Nietzsche didn’t know what we know now.  A moral person hinges on a normal brain.  Consider the following argument, an argument all my own:

P1  The qualities that makes us human begin to exist in the brain.

P2  If the brain is impaired or damaged, some of these qualities may never arise or may be diminished.

P3  Morality is one such quality.

P4  If the brain is impaired or damaged, morality may never arise or may be diminished.

P5  The absence or diminishing of morality are observable phenomena.

C   Therefore, morality begins to exist in the brain.

Being that the argument is sound, your only resort is to argue as a dualist would and say that normality and thus morality hinges on a soul; however, it would then be incumbent on you to provide evidence for a soul.  Moreover, you would have to explain why a perfectly good god would create damaged souls, which, in turn, leads to the absence of or diminishing of morality.  You will likely address this issue via the doctrine of original sin.  Original sin hinges on a nonexistent man who was depicted in a myth.  I can prove all of those statements; thus, any argument in favor of a soul from your Christian lens is futile.  Nietzsche didn’t know that issues in the brain cause one to murder.  He didn’t know that psychopaths have abnormalities in their brain structures.  He didn’t know that pathological liars have issues in their brains (that’s still being questioned however).  Neuroscience has shown us the brain like nothing ever has and it is safe to conclude that a working concept of morality hinges on the normality of the brain. 

What was that about pseudo-logic?  If I can step out of the philosopher’s square for a second and say this bluntly:  you couldn’t design your own modal argument if your life depended on it.  All of your arguments, thus far, have been rehashed apologetic arguments.  Nothing original, nothing conceptualized within your own mind.  You have a right to be disappointed…in yourself.  You have the ability to think for yourself and yet your thinking has been clearly puppeteered by centuries old, apologist puppet masters.