I am going to see William Lane Craig debate Stephen Law tomorrow in Westminster. I am pretty excited, even though the best one can hope for is some kind of philosophical impasse. Anyway, I have penned a couple of questions which I would love the opportunity to ask. I will try and get my tuppence worth in the Q & A:


Given that God is perfect, this must either be the perfect creation, or the most perfect created parameters that could achieve the best possible outcome. Since plate tectonic which cause earthquakes and tsunamis exist, since malaria and other brutal diseases exist (many of which predate humanity), are such ingredients that cause pain and suffering, not only to humans, but to billions of animals throughout time, necessary for the perfect world?

You often claim that atheists don’t have good grounds for morality, such as in utilitarian or consequentialist ethics. However, if God, throughout the bible, has brought about the deaths of many (such as millions of people and animals in the flood, various tribes of people, women becoming pillars of salt, Jesus on the cross and so on) and these actions are normally seen (by Christians) as intrinsically or objectively bad acts, then they are justified by Christians as serving a greater good. This is actually consequentialist ethics. Either acts do not have intrinsic moral value, or the intrinsic value is utterly negligible since it is universally trumped by the consequences that the act brings about. This is proven by the events of the bible itself. How is God not simply a moral consequentialist since all the pain and suffering which has existed since the dawn of time must serve a greater good?