Why the Problem of Evil Destroys Atheism, Not God

The Moral Paradox: Why You Can’t Complain About Evil Without God

Introduction 

The argument from evil is widely considered the crown jewel of atheistic objections. On the surface, the logic seems devastatingly simple: if an all-powerful, all-loving God exists, suffering and cruelty should not. Yet, when subjected to rigorous philosophical scrutiny, this popular objection turns out to be an intellectual boomerang. Not only does the Christian worldview possess a robust, coherent framework to resolve the coexistence of God and suffering through free will and redemption, but the argument itself proves fatal to atheism. To declare something genuinely evil, one must appeal to an objective standard of moral goodness - a standard that naturalism is utterly powerless to provide.

Measuring the Crooked Line 

Think of someone walking through a house and loudly complaining that every doorway and picture frame is crooked. To prove that a picture frame is crooked, you must possess a true, calibrated level or a ruler that defines what a straight line actually is.

If the entire house is suspended in a chaotic, shifting void with no fixed gravity, no horizon, and no baseline of straightness, the word "crooked" loses all objective meaning. It simply becomes a personal complaint about the angle you happen to prefer.

The atheist who raises the problem of evil is pointing at the world and demanding justice because the picture frame is crooked. But under philosophical naturalism - a universe of blind, unguided matter in motion - there is no transcendent "straight line." By calling the world broken, the atheist inadvertently borrows a ruler that can only exist if there is a transcendent Lawgiver who defined the standard of goodness in the first place.

The Problem of Evil Formulated

The argument from evil typically takes the classic logical form popularized by the Greek philosopher Epicurus:

• If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), He has the ability to stop evil.

• If God is omnibenevolent (all-loving), He has the desire to stop evil.

• Evil undeniably exists in our world.

• Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God does not exist.

While this syllogism appears formidable at first glance, it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of omnipotence and commits a False Dilemma Fallacy: the unproven assumption that an all-powerful God can have no morally sufficient reasons for temporarily allowing evil to exist alongside human freedom.

The Solution for Christians: Omnipotence, Agent Causation, and Redemption

Logically, omnipotence does not mean the ability to do the logically impossible. God cannot create a square circle, nor can He force a creature to freely love Him. Forcing someone to freely choose love is an inherent logical contradiction.

1. The Nature of Free Will (Agent Causation): A truly good creation required creatures capable of genuine love, moral virtue, and fellowship with God. But authentic love demands free will—defined philosophically as agent causation, where the person is the genuine cause of their actions rather than being physically determined by external factors. The necessary possibility of choosing the highest good (love and obedience) inherently carries the possibility of choosing the opposite (moral evil). Evil is not a created substance; it is the privation or corruption of good caused by creaturely rebellion.

2. Morally Sufficient Reasons: God permits human rebellion temporarily because He has morally sufficient reasons: namely, the greater eternal good of freely chosen redemption, sanctification, and ultimate justice.

3. Redemption over Eradication: Rather than wiping out human beings the moment they sin, God entered human history in Jesus Christ to bear the full weight of suffering and evil on the cross, offering forgiveness—the legal release of the condemned—while preserving moral accountability.

Objection: What About Free Will in Heaven? Skeptics often ask: If heaven has both free will and zero sin, why didn't God just start with heaven?

The answer lies in the process of sanctification and glorification. In the Garden of Eden, humanity possessed untried innocence, yet had never chosen to trust God over evil. Heaven is not a realm of pre-programmed robots; it is populated by redeemed individuals who have experienced the destructive reality of sin, freely repented, and undergone a lifelong transformation of their wills (Romans 8:18, 2 Corinthians 5:17).

In heaven, glorified believers retain free will, but having seen evil for what it is and being perfected in the direct presence of God (Revelation 21:4), they freely and perpetually choose holiness. Furthermore, Jesus demonstrated in Matthew 4 and John 10:17–18 that having absolute freedom of will does not necessitate committing evil—He had full volitional agency, yet chose obedience at every step.

The Fatal Dilemma for Atheism

While the Christian framework harmonizes God's existence with the reality of evil, the problem of evil creates an insurmountable philosophical crisis for the atheist.

Horn 1: Morality Is Subjective If an atheist holds that morality is purely subjective—merely the product of personal preference, cultural conditioning, or social consensus—then evil does not objectively exist. Rape, the torture of innocent children, and genocide are reduced to behaviors that modern Western society happens to dislike, on par with preferring chocolate over vanilla. Under subjective morality, the atheist is stripped of any rational, objective basis to condemn atrocities, completely dismantling the argument from evil before it begins.

Horn 2: Morality Is Objective If the atheist acknowledges that torturing children is objectively, universally wrong regardless of what any culture believes, how does naturalism ground that standard?

• The Failure of "Human Flourishing": Secular thinkers like Sam Harris attempt to ground morality in the pleasure or misery of individuals, defining the "good" as that which promotes human flourishing. But this is circular reasoning and commits the classic Is/Ought Fallacy. Science can describe what is (e.g., how to split an atom, or what causes pain), but it cannot dictate what ought to be (whether we should use an atomic bomb). Why is human flourishing objectively good over cockroach or rat flourishing? On unguided materialism, humans are merely one accidental branch on the evolutionary tree with no intrinsic cosmic status.

• Naturalistic Determinism Destroys Moral Agency: Most naturalists embrace determinism. As Richard Dawkins famously summarized in River Out of Eden: "DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." But if human thoughts and actions are pre-loaded by the Big Bang and dictated by blind chemical reactions, volitional choice is an illusion. You cannot hold a malfunctioning robotic machine morally guilty for its output.

• Evolution Explains Urges, Not Obligations: Darwinian mechanisms like kin selection and reciprocal altruism might explain why certain instincts (like protecting family) aided genetic survival. But evolution also hardwired violent urges for territorial conquest and forced copulation across the animal kingdom. A biological urge explains a sensation, not a moral duty. A man may feel an evolutionary impulse alongside a moral prohibition; biology cannot tell him which voice he is morally obligated to obey.

Atheists frequently confuse moral epistemology (how we come to know right from wrong, which Christians affirm is accessible via natural law) with moral ontology (what actually grounds the real existence of an objective moral law).

As William Lane Craig summarizes:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist (as demonstrated by the universal condemnation of atrocities).

3. Therefore, God exists.

Conclusion 

The problem of evil is often treated as the ultimate objection against God, but in reality, it is Christianity's strongest witness. In order to complain about evil, one must acknowledge that real, objective evil exists. To acknowledge real evil, one must affirm an objective, transcendent moral law by which actions are judged. And an objective moral law demands a transcendent Lawgiver.

Far from disproving God, our deep moral outrage against suffering and cruelty points straight toward Him. It reveals that our universe is not an accidental swirl of uncaring molecules, but a created order governed by a God who defines goodness, holds humanity accountable, and entered into our broken world to redeem it.

Has My "Seven Facts About Biblical Slavery Prove that It Was Not Chattel Slavery" Been Debunked?

Since publishing Seven Facts About Biblical Slavery Prove that It Was Not Chattel Slavery, the post has generated intense pushback from critics eager to declare the thesis debunked. Yet much of the initial reaction amounts to little more than naked assertions, easily set aside under Hitchens’s razor. When we look past the rhetoric to the serious counterarguments, a clear pattern emerges: the standard objections routinely ignore the foundational legal framework of the Torah - specifically the anti-kidnapping and anti-return statutes that strictly governed servitude in ancient Israel. To test whether the original thesis still stands, it is necessary to examine these criticisms directly and demonstrate why reading Leviticus 25 apart from its wider legal context fundamentally mischaracterizes biblical servitude.  

The Hitchen's Razor variety: The critics that have non-effort criticism. 

Most of it is not very intellectual, just rants that say that it's been rebutted, full of fallacies, errors, yet zero effort given to show it or make their case. 

For example: 

"corrected/rebutted/rebuked very thoroughly"

"thoroughly got taken down point by point"

"It just get's crushed by scholarship"

"they are not willing to entertain the idea they are wrong"

The assertion is the extent of the "analysis" - i.e. none; it's just make an assertion that it's been debunked, and hope that people conclude that the assertion is true.

I call these Hitchen's Razor variety criticisms since comments like these one can, and should, apply Hitchens's razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

So I just lop those off and don't worry about them, and neither should you. This dismissal is the justice such criticism deserves.

But now we come to a different category of critism...

The Some Effort Criticism - 

My original statements will be underlined

Debunk attempt : will be noted as such - with bold to indicate key points

My response to the "debunking" will be in red  

Debunk attempt one - Did God in the Old Testament specify that a Hebrew may purchase a person from the foreigners and keep him as property for the lifetime of the person purchased? The answer is yes, the purchased person is chattel by definition, thus chattel slavery. No amount of obfuscations and red herrings alters that fact.

What this seems to have missed is that, the main lynch pin of my argument. The Anti-Kidnap law - and the Anti-Return law. As I sated in my argument:

These laws very explicitly outlaw chattel slavery. With the anti-kidnap law, one could not take anyone against their will, sell or possess them, nor could they be returned if they left. LV25:44-46 is the main verse critics use to argue for chattel slavery, but given these two laws, it's reasonable to read that passage through the lens of indentured servitude.

Regrettably the criticism doesn't take this key points into considereation. 

Given the above, what Lev 25: 44-46 is saying is, peoples from other nations were going to volunteer themselves into the hands of the Israelites - it was permissible to only "purchase" men and women who voluntarily sold themselves into indentured service, which is a big difference from being held against one’s own free will. Voluntary service doesn't equal chattel slavery. And remember, any bond-servant purchased from the Gentiles had the right to flee their master.

It is very difficult to think that the Bible endorses or supports chattel slavery with the Anti-Kidnap and the Anti-return laws in mind.  This is why they need to ignore it. 

Debunk attempt two: 

This alone is enough to dismiss your entire post [Lv 25] and to exemplify the issues in your approach. This passage is the most direct and explicit statement of chattel slavery in the Bible - but you only offer a paper-thin response to it, none of which actually addresses the substance of the passage. You also mysteriously leave out the extremely relevant first half of this passage; here is the full thing: Lev 25:39-46

This makes the same fatal flaw as the one above: ignoring  point 4 - Anti-Kidnap  anti-return laws. Ironically this rock solid foundation is called "paper-thin".   

Debunk attempt three: 

First, one would have to ignore points 1-7 above to reach that conclusion - in reference to LV 25:44-46: says you can buy a foreign slave, and you can bequeath them to your children

Let's break down your response: By itself this is a naked assertion and it's not clear how many of your 7 points would even relate to this. You do argue two specifically though, presumably the two you thought were most relevant, so I'll assume this is just teeing that up.

Calling my entire argument a "naked assertion" is low effort enough to warrant Hitchen's Razor

Debunk attempt four: 

One must assume, without any rational basis, that “ebed” must mean “chattel slave”. But as argued above the passage can mean, and most likely does mean "servants".

This is just completely absurd. No, one does not need to assume that "ebed" must mean "chattel slave" in order to find chattel slavery in this verse. We don't think this verse refers to chatter slavery just because it says "ebed"! We think that because of all the very explicit details of chattel slavery here - 

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my argument; if one is simply using the word "slavery" or "ebed" to say that means chattel slavery an argument without any rational basis. However, I did say that "whether "ebed" mean indentured servant, chattel slave, or something else would have to be determined by the context."

Debunk attempt five:

these people are your property, you can buy and sell them, you can leave them as inheritance, they remain owned for life. We also think it because of the extreme contrast between the two halves of this passage, which immediately clarifies what the meaning of "ebed" is here. The first passage describes indentured servitude of Israelites, and the second passage is written in direct contrast to it and clarifies very strongly that this is not the same indentured servitude slavery discussed in the first half. By your interpretation, 25:39 would be forbidding indentured servitude of Israelites, which is obviously inconsistent with everything you have said and also with the dozens of laws about how to treat Hebrew "ebed"s.

Once again this makes the EXACT same fatal flaw as the one above: ignoring the Anti-Kidnap/anti-returns laws. Ignoreing key points in an arument is NOT the path to debunking it. 

Debunk attempt six:

As Stuart notes [fact 7 above] "buy" means financial transaction related to a contract.

Yes, "buy" relates to transactions. Are you trying to say that the fact this verse uses "buy" is evidence it's not talking about chattel slavery? Even if you want to argue that this word can sometimes be used for other things, you know it's primarily used for buying property, right? This is not a counter to the verse!

Once again the EXACT same fatal flaw as above: ignoring the Anti-Kidnap/anti-returns laws.

Asking, "Are you trying to say that the fact this verse uses "buy" is evidence it's not talking about chattel slavery?" No,  I'm saying that Anti-Kidnap/Anti-Returns laws is evidence it's not talking about chattel slavery.  One must read it in the context of those laws.

Debunk attempt seven:

And note that vs 45 and 46 say that they may be your property and bequeath them to your sons. It doesn’t say must or will, it wasn't required or nor could it be imposed by force.

This is by far the most mind-boggling part of your defense. It says you may take them as property, not that you have to, so there's no chattel slavery here????? If I said "you may murder people if you want" would you read that to have no murder in it????

Sigh. So all this person has is, let's ignore the actual argument and attack a strawman version of it. 

How can they I'd just say go back and [read the response to objection F](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2024/02/seven-facts-about-biblical-slavery.html) that answers this.

Debunk attempt eight:

This is very explicitly allowing you to do these things - to engage in chattel slavery. It sets out a legal way to own another person, to buy and sell them, to treat them as property. This passage could not possibly be more explicit about that. It takes care to give multiple redundant examples of property rights, to clarify things multiple ways, to contrast it with indentured servitude so that you can't possibly confuse it with that. This unambiguously says "you may engage in chattel slavery" and your response was "well it says 'may', not 'must', so that means the Bible outlaws chattel slavery".

Only if one ignores the Anti-Kidnap/anti-returns laws, then they could see that this was speaking of indentured servsants and "owning" their services. And these servants, upon the death of the master could be bequethed to the children until their contract runs out. Or they may choose to stay forever, 

Debunk attempt nine:

So to recap all you've said is: "Ebed" doesn't necessarily always mean slave; "Buy" refers to financial transactions;  This only says you "may" buy people as property, not "must"

All three of these are true! And none of them respond in the slightest to the objection that this verse describes chattel slavery clearly and obviously.

But the hat Anti-Kidnap/Anti-Returns laws do!

Debunk attempt ten:

There's so much else wrong here: your brazen mistreatment of slave-beating law which also ignores Exodus 21:28-32, 

Exodus 21:28-32 deals with a bull goring a man or woman. Furthermore corparate punishment was normal in the ANE, even free men could be beaten. So, this has nothing to do with slavery. 

Debunk attempt eleven:

Your attempt to preempt academic criticism because you know this is a fringe view that nearly every serious commentator in the last 2000 years would have found laughable while you yourself lean heavily on a scholar's authority, 

How am I "preempting academic criticism"?

Majority opinion isn't a test for truth.

Debunk attempt twelve:

your reading of a person who "desires" a woman captured in war and so "takes" her and makes her his wife who is not free to go unless he "doesn't delight in her" as just her buddy hanging out with her with no indication of rape,

The law stipulated that a rapist was to be killed by stoning, see Deuteronomy 22:25.

Debunk attempt thirteen :

The complete lack of any discussion of the enslavement of Israelites in Egypt which would counter like half your claims about the meanings of "ebed" and the state of slavery in the ANE, 

First I never said that "ebed" couldn't mean chattel slavery; I said that "whether ebed means indentured servant, chattel slave, or something else would have to be determined by the context.

Debunk attempt fourteen:

your absolutely BONKERS response to objection B that for your sake I'm going to let you reexamine and blame on the person you quoted, 

Calling my response "bomkers" is low effort enough to warrant Hitchen's Razor

Debunk attempt fifteen:

So to recap all you've said is: "Ebed" doesn't necessarily always mean slave, "Buy" refers to financial transactions. This only says you "may" buy people as property, not "must"

You missed the most important part of my argument: the Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law - These laws very explicitly outlaw chattel slavery. With the anti-kidnap law, one could not take anyone against their will, sell or possess them, nor could they be returned. Given that, it's reasonable to read LV25:44-46 through that lens. As I wrote earlier, one would have to ignore points 1-7 above [especially 4 & 5] to reach the chattel slave conclusion; sadly, this seems to be the case of most of the critical replies.

Debunk attempt sixteen:

The first passage describes indentured servitude of Israelites, and the second passage is written in direct contrast to it and clarifies very strongly that this is not the same indentured servitude slavery discussed in the first half.

It's right there in the verse: They are to be treated as hired workers...; the contrast isn't between indentured servitude and chattel slavery, but between indentured servitude and hired workers

Debunk attempt seventeen

By your interpretation, 25:39 would be forbidding indentured servitude of Israelites

Correct, They are to be treated as hired workers... which is different from an indentured servant.

"buying" slaves - The verb acquire [qanah] in Leviticus 25:39–51 need not involve selling or purchasing foreign servants. For example, the same word appears in Genesis 4:1 Eve’s having “gotten a manchild and 14:19 - God is the “Possessor of heaven and earth” Later, Boaz “acquired” Ruth as a wife (Ruth 4:10). So you are trying to force a narrow definition onto the word. And as noted earlier, "buy" can refer to financial transactions, as in "work for x amount of time for x amount of debt to be paid off".

Debunk attempt eighteen

these people are your property, you can buy and sell them, you can leave them as inheritance, they remain owned for life.

Nope, you've ignored the anti-kidnap law and the anti-return law. Under penalty of death they could not be bought or sold, or possessed against their will, and they always had the opportunity of escape without the fear of being returned. Again, one would have to ignore points 1-7 above [especially 4 & 5] to reach the chattel slave conclusion.

For an example of "ebed" escaping: But Nabal responded to David’s servants, “Who is David, and who is this son of Jesse? This is a time when many servants are breaking away from their masters! 1 Sam 25:10; Also 1 Kings 2:39 - Three years later, two of Shimei’s servants ran away to King Achish son of Maacah of Gath

Debunk attempt nineteen

It says you may take them as property

They were not considered property in the same sense as an ox or coat because escaped slaves were not to be returned (Deut. 23:15-16) but an ox or coat was to be returned (Exodus 23:4; Deut. 22:1–4). Since they were not considered strict property nor chattel slaves, it must be that the work these inherited slaves produced was considered the property of the master.

Leviticus 25:47 states that the strangers living within Israel could “become rich.” In other words, a foreign slave could eventually get out of poverty, become self-sustaining, and thus wouldn’t have to be a slave anymore. While foreigners in Israel could serve for life, serving multiple generations if they wanted (just like an Israelite slave could), the Torah didn’t require that. Third, except for automatic debt cancellation in the seventh year, foreign slaves were afforded the same protections and benefits as Israelite slaves, including protection if they decided to leave at any time.

There's so much else that you got wrong here, there's really no point addressing any more of your responses, until you figure out how you will deal with the Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law which is the very foundation of my argument.

Debunk attempt  twenty

You read the anti-kidnapping and anti-return laws a certain way, take that as authoritative, and then say 'what the rest of the entire slavery code says is inconsistent with that, so we should read it some other way.' Not due to any internal reason within the text, but because it doesn't match your reading of these other two laws.

No, I do not say that the rest of the entire slavery code says is inconsistent with the anti-kidnapping and anti-return laws. I say that they are completely consistent with the rest of the entire slavery code if one understand that it talks abut voluntary servitiude. 

Debunk attempt  twenty-one

The verb acquire [qanah] in Leviticus 25:39–51 need not involve selling or purchasing foreign servants.

Are you planning to give any evidence for this, or are you just going to assert it? Saying the word has multiple meanings won't cut it! I agreed with you that the word refers to financial transactions. So what? You're concluding from that "and therefore this does not refer to the purchase of property." Why?????

You agree that acquire [qanah] refers to financial transactions; all I'm saying that based on that alone it doesn't necessarily mean  purchasing chattel slaves.  It could mean, just as easily, purchanse the services of someone. 

Debunk attempt twenty-two

You mention the "anti kidnap law" a lot. If there is a law that says "thou shalt not steal a car", is that the same thing as a law that says "thou shall not own a car"?

Slavery apologetics is just bizarre to me.

In order to aquire a slave one must take another person against their will - i.e. kidnap them. Which is vasly different than purchasing another's services. 

Differentiating between chattel slavery and voluntary servitude us foolish and absurd? I think it's wish to understand something before you judge it 

Debunk attempt twenty-three

Genocidal and slaving societies aren’t known for the consistency in their laws and action. Your whole argument seems to be on the level of denying Israelites ever killed anyone because it clearly says in the bible that killing is wrong so they can’t possibly have committed genocide.

I'm not saying that chattel slavery didn't happen in the ANE or in Israel, I'm saying that if it did it went against the law. Just like Israel had laws against muder, rape, robbery tht doesn't mean those things didn't happen.  those who did that broke the law as did those who partook in chattle slavery. 

Debunk attempt twenty-four

and they always had the opportunity of escape without the fear of being returned.

Slavery was a major social institution, and obviously allowing slaves to run away whenever they pleased would break a whole bunch of stuff. 

I agree, that slavery was a major social institution. I put multiple quotes showing that slavery was poverty based social institution. You accept one but not the other. Why?

For example, enslavement was used as a punishment for some crimes; a thief who can't afford his fine is sold as a slave (Exodus 22:2-4). 

Thanks, that's another example of debt slavery 

You would have us believe they can get up and walk away the next day if they don't feel like serving out their sentence.

Oh, please. You ncan't see the difference between one who voluntarily goes into indentured servitude and another who is sentenced to serve as slave to pay for crime?   

Creditors could take children as slaves to pay the debts of their dead fathers (2 Kings 4:1-7) - you would have us believe they could high-five the creditor and go back home.

Do you realize that Ancient Israel was an honor-shame society, where honor was a cultural value that could grant people power and status? And that walking away from a debt could seriously harm the entire family group? One's family's honor becomes your own and vise versa, as does the reputation of your hometown. That is why genealogies are so important. You can earn honor by doing something worthy or noble. And lose it by doing something unworthy or dishonorable. So to walk away isn't something that was taken lightly 

Debunk attempt twenty-five

Again, you rest your entire case (as you admit) on this plainly wrong reading of the return law. Here, let me quote a Talmudic commentator who says the exact opposite thing that you do and even quotes Deuteronomy 22 as support for returning escaped slaves: The Gemara states that verse is referring to a slave who escaped from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, 

The Gemara, a part of the Talmud, was written around 500 AD by scholars in Babylonia. The Gemara is a commentary on the Mishnah, a written version of the Oral Torah that was completed around 200 AD.

Deuteronomy was written around 630 BC; what was this interpreation based on? From something in the text?  What would that be? Show me where you getr that idea from the text: 

DT 23:14-16 Because the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.15 “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.

This  law applies to ALL slaves who have escaped from their masters

a. The decisive factor is that the text itself does not limit the law to foreign slaves  

b. This law would put pressure on the system of slavery in Israel to be of such a nature that it would be beneficial/tolerable to the slave. Though it could be abused, it would place strong pressure on Israelite society for justice in this area which would be in line with Anti-Oppression laws - 

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. [Leviticus 19:33-34]

You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt [Exodus 23:9]

The fact is Israel was not free to treat foreigners wrongly or oppress them; and were, in fact to, commanded to love them.

c. The fact that ANE cultures had both treaties that dealt with foreign runaway slaves and laws that dealt with internal runaway slaves may favor seeing this law as dealing with both.

Not a single one proposes an interpretation remotely similar to yours. Why do you think that is?

Incorrect. Two who do are Matthew Poole, see English Annotations on the Holy Bible and Christopher J.H. Wright in New International Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy And of course the  one I cited in the original Seven Facts about Slavery article: 

HANEL Page 1007: "A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to his master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of. This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations, and is explained as due to Israel's own history as slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution.

Debunk attempt twenty-six

Leviticus 25:47 states that the strangers living within Israel could “become rich.” In other words, a foreign slave could eventually get out of poverty, become self-sustaining, and thus wouldn’t have to be a slave anymore.

Your reading here is completely and absurdly wrong,... let me point out the obvious: Leviticus 25:47 speaks about foreigners. Foreigners, obviously, were not all slaves!

But neither does it exclude them; once out of indentured servitude they could become a hired worker - they already have the knowledge and skills - and thus work to become self-sustaining

Debunk attempt twenty-seven

Almost every protection for Israelite slaves specifically states it's for Israelites, not for slaves in general. I know of exactly two protections for foreign slaves - no murder (Exodus 21:20-21) and free them if you disfigure them

I cited the Anti-Oppression laws “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. [Leviticus 19:33-34]

You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt [Exodus 23:9]

In Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, God charges all Israelites to love aliens  who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her sservants. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to God himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities.

Debunk attempt twenty-eight

You are wrong when you said chattel slavery is explicitly outlawed by an anti-kidnapping law. Saying you can't kidnap people is not the same thing as saying you can't own people as property. They are two different things, 

In order to own people as property, it must be against their will, so yes the Anti-Kidnap law does apply, since there are no Slave codes that legalize chattel slavery in Israel. The verses that people cite that say "buy" and "property" must be read in light of the anti-kidnap,  anti-oppression laws and voluntary servitude. 

Debunk attempt twenty-nine

To maintain your argument you were forced to claim that the Old Testament forbids indentured servitude of Israelites. The reason for this is that Leviticus 25:39-46 very explicitly and unambiguously draws a distinction between Israelite indentured slaves and foreign chattel slaves:

You want to deny chattel slavery and make the second half of this passage about indentured slaves instead. But this passage could not possibly be more clear that the first half is in contrast to the second, so that means the first half can't be about indentured slaves - so you claim that there were no Israelite indentured slaves and that they were all hired workers:

First, given my argument I reject your presumption that foreigners were chattel slaves

Second, there is a distinction between Israelite and foreign "ebeds", but it's not what you think.

Ellicott's Commentary says this about LV 25:39-40 - Under these circumstances he is not to be treated like heathen slaves who are either purchased or captured, and made to do the menial service which these Gentile slaves have to perform. The authorities during the second Temple adduce the following as degrading work which the Israelite bondman is not to be put to: He must not attend his master at his bath, nor tie up or undo the latchets of his sandals, etc.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible...but a brother, an Israelite, sold to another through extreme poverty, was not to be put to any low, mean, base, and disgraceful service, by which it would be known that he was a servant, as Jarchi notes; such as to carry his master's vessels or instruments after him to the bath, or to unloose his shoes; but, as the same writer observes, he was to be employed in the business of the farm, or in some handicraft work, and was to be kindly and gently used, rather as a brother than a servant, and to be freed in the year of jubilee.

Israelite and foreign could both be indentured servant, but only foreigners could do the work above. 

The good effort critism - These I actually appreciate this kind of critism, since an intelligent, in-depth conversation is hard to find on the internet. Not shockingly these are rare.

Debunk attempt thirty

You are wrong on ebed, the Hebrew word is actually abad

You are correct; abad, whose primary meaning is "to work, serve" is used 3x in Lev 25 and ebed whose primary meaning is "slave, servant" is used 8x; I don't see the meaning changing much, and certainly not to mean chattel slave.

I'll rework my argument to incorporate this into it. 

Note: This will be an ongoing post as I field other critisms and examine them to see if they have any merit. So far, nothing that would justify any significant changes 

Skepticism vs. Critical Thinking: Why Merely Saying "I Don't Know" Isn't Enough

The Intellectual Dead End of Chronic Skepticism

Introduction

In contemporary discourse, skepticism is frequently paraded as the pinnacle of intellectual sophistication. Doubting claims, withholding assent, and demanding ever-increasing mountains of evidence are often treated as synonymous with being a sharp, rational thinker. Yet, equating skepticism with critical thinking fundamentally confuses a diagnostic tool with the actual building process. Skepticism is merely the front porch of inquiry - a preliminary filter designed to prevent gullibility. When skepticism becomes an end in itself, it ceases to be critical thinking and devolves into intellectual evasion.

The Analogy Imagine a home inspector walking through a freshly framed house with a clipboard, tapping structural beams and flagging flawed foundations, improper wiring, and weak joints. That inspector is serving a vital skeptical role: testing assumptions and detecting vulnerabilities.

However, an inspector cannot build a house. If a crew needs to construct a livable structure to survive the winter, simply standing by the foundation pointing out imperfections while refusing to offer blueprints, pour concrete, or frame walls leaves everyone out in the cold. Critical thinking is the full architectural trade - it tears down bad structures precisely to build and defend the strongest, most stable shelter possible. Skepticism that only tears down without offering a superior positive model is just demolition masquerading as engineering.

Definitions: Attitude vs. Goal-Directed Investigation

To understand why the two concepts diverge, we must look at how standard lexicons and academic philosophy define them:

• Skepticism: As defined by Merriam-Webster, skepticism consists of:

  1. An attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity, either in general or toward a particular object.

  2. The doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain; the method of suspended judgment or systematic doubt.

  3. Doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation).

• Critical Thinking: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines critical thinking at its core as careful, goal-directed thinking - the deliberate practice of applying logic, questioning assumptions, identifying cognitive biases, and weighing competing explanations to solve problems and arrive at justified conclusions.

Skepticism is merely a posture or an initial phase within the broader critical thinking process. It is a very low intellectual bar to simply fold one's arms and say, "I am not convinced." Critical thinking demands the far harder work of constructive reasoning.

The Limits of Certainty and the Power of Abduction

The fundamental flaw in chronic skepticism is the demand for absolute certainty. Outside of formal mathematical equations and deductive logical proofs (A = B, B = C, therefore A = C), almost nothing in human experience is known with 100% mathematical certainty.

Historical events, forensic criminology, medical diagnoses, and everyday scientific theories do not operate on deductive certainty; they operate on  The Inference to the Best Explanation (abductive reasoning).

When evaluating reality, the rational obligation is not to demand unattainable certainty but to determine which hypothesis best accounts for the full scope of the evidence; the seven gold-standard criteria for the "Best" explanation:

1. Explanatory Scope: 
2. Explanatory Power: 
3. Plausibility 
4. Less Ad Hoc
5. Accord with Accepted Beliefs:
6. Consistency
7. Comparative Superiority

[See the link above for details.]

Because our knowledge is provisional and can be refined as better data emerges, persistent skepticism without positive engagement is an intellectual dead end. When backed into a corner by strong evidence, retreating to a generic "I just don't know, so we can't conclude anything" is not rigorous critical thinking or epistemic humility - it is an intellectual cop-out.

Moving from Doubt to Constructive Inquiry

If skeptics want to engage in genuine critical thinking, they must enter the intellectual mainstream by presenting testable, coherent counter-hypotheses. True critical thinking requires you to:

State the Alternative: If you reject an explanation, articulate why an alternative model explains the historical, philosophical, or scientific data better.

Accept Evidential Weight: Acknowledge when the cumulative weight of evidence makes one conclusion vastly more reasonable than its competitors, even if absolute certainty remains out of reach.

Turn the Skeptical Lens Inward: Apply the exact same level of scrutiny, doubt, and demand for evidence to your own presuppositions and counter-theories as you do to the claims you challenge.

A Case Study in Real Critical Thinking: 

Antony Flew and Following the Evidence Wherever it Leads

For over five decades, Antony Flew stood as one of the world’s most renowned philosophical defenders of atheism, famously arguing in works like The Presumption of Atheism that the burden of proof rests squarely on the theist. This led to the change of the definition of "atheist and atheism." Yet, when confronted in his later years with modern discoveries in molecular biology - specifically the digital coding architecture of DNA and the integrated complexity required for the origin of life - Flew did not retreat into reflexive skepticism or hide behind a comfortable, noncommittal "I don't know." He recognized that when the physical data points decisively toward specified information and molecular engineering, perpetual doubt is not intellectual humility; it is an evasion of the evidence.

True to his lifelong philosophical maxim - borrowed from Socrates - to "follow the argument wherever it leads," Flew publicly abandoned atheism in 2004, concluding that an intelligent Mind was the best and most rational explanation for the origin of biological machinery and natural law. Rather than demanding unattainable deductive certainty or using skepticism as an intellectual firewall, Flew practiced authentic critical thinking: he weighed the explanatory power of the evidence, turned his critical lens onto his own long-held presuppositions, and possessed the intellectual courage to change his mind.

Conclusion

Doubt is a useful starting point, but it makes a terrible destination. Genuine critical thinking does not settle for perpetual suspension of judgment; it actively sifts through competing claims to identify the most robust, evidentially supported explanation of reality. Merely deconstructing arguments without offering better explanatory models is an easy way to avoid being wrong, but it guarantees you will never discover what is true. Skepticism asks questions; critical thinking stays in the room long enough to weigh and embrace the best answers.