Argumentum A Malo- A Contradiction in Modern Atheism

There is a particular argument for atheism, the existence of evil, that I find not to coincide with a conclusion from atheism - that there is absolutely no meaning for anything in the universe; man applies all meaning to reality.

To an atheist, life means no more than death. Any beauty experienced in this life is a subjective idea or emotion applied to an object or event. Likewise, any moral evil experienced in this life is a subjective idea or intention applied either by oneself or by society to a given act.

The argument from evil states: If God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and if evil exists, God must either not be omnibenevolent, omnipotent or not exist at all.

In regards to "omnibenevolent", the argument from evil presupposes that the subjective application of meaning is not subjective but objective. It presupposes that evil isn't an idea applied by man to an act, giving the act a meaning it doesn't innately have but instead something everyone knows and should consciously choose to reject.

Regarding "omnipotent", the argument from evil presupposes that life is objectively better than death (as well as good is objective and ought to be preferred to evil and my life ought to be without suffering). "If God is omnipotent, He should prevent people from suffering". Again, the atheist assumes that the meaning they believe to have been subjectively applied to reality is, in fact, objective.

In order to not contradict oneself, the atheist cannot be convinced of these two principles simultaneously. To argue from evil, the atheist must either suspend their relative moral law (their subjective meaning applied to human actions) to presume an absolute moral law or avoid the argument entirely.

Let's assume for the moment the atheist has decided to suspend the conclusion that meaning is subjective in order to use the argument from evil. Often, they immediately apply their unformed conscience as the absolute moral law as the theist's argument. Most atheists argue for the non-existence of the God in their own minds rather than the one presented at the moment of debate (this also includes their own personal and literal interpretation of Holy Writ).

Ultimately, the atheist isn't satisfied with God's response to the freedom man has to either be human or inhumane. To be without free will is to be incapable of love. To be incapable of love would make us no longer human (un-human).