Ysterday I went snooping around Borders by myself, while waiting for that ass Junlong who was over an hour late for our DotA session. Inevitably, I stumbled into a book I had to have- this time one by Bertrand Russell- Why I Am Not a Christian: a book of essays on religion. I enjoy reading Russell's books because he presents really cogent arguments about any issue he's writing on, and they can really broaden your perspective on those issues. Of course, being an atheist, his niche area of writing has always covered religion, more specifically, his firm stand that religions can do alot of harm.
Anyway, as I was reading his essays, I came across this really stellar counter-argument on the existence of God. The claim is that there would be no right or wrong if God did not exist. Russell argues that the issue at hand is not whether or not there is a difference between right and wrong, but more importantly, the point to note is that a theist does firmly believe that there is a difference. And this, therefore, raises a more important question- if there is indeed a difference between right and wrong, is this difference due to God's will? If it is due to God's will, then for God himself there must have been no difference between right and wrong (since he had to will the difference into existence). And if so, then it would be irrelevant to say that God is good.
Following this argument, if one is to say that God is good, like what theologians say, you would also have to agree that the meaning of right and wrong is independent of God's will, and that Right and Wrong existed before God (in order for God's actions to be good).
This indirectly implies that there must have been some superior deity who made the concept of right and wrong into being, and then instructed God on the actions that he must do, in order to be inherently good.
Ultimately, what we are now saying is that right and wrong could have existed without the presence of God-
which totally contradicts the initial argument that there can be no right or wrong if God did not exist-
and hence, logically, this casts doubt on the existence of God.
Interesting argument, no? I have been analysing this argument for quite some time, but I am unable to find any flaw in it.
P.S. do note that I am presenting an author's point of view not necessarily mine, and this is just food for thought.