Slippery Relativists

What is a relativist? In the case of religion, and more specifically Christianity, the general definition is that of epistemological relativist, someone for whom "man is the measure of all things". But when it comes to certain situations, there are also, of course, ethical or moral relativists.

The slippery part comes is when Christian antagonists argue for some version of absolute morals using relativist epistemology, or the other way around. Can one logically argue for the absolute contradiction in the problem of evil, i.e. "Bad things happen so there is no all-powerful, all-loving and omniscient God", using an epistemology or ethics built on "man is the measure of all things"?

Yet we are bombarded with these arguments from atheists, acting as if they are indeed the measure of all things. But as ethical and epistemological relativists, how can there be any argument from an objective point of view, either on ethics or how the atheist comes to know about ethics. This is not only a question of what is right or wrong, it is a question of how humans get to know the whole concept of morality, that such a thing as right or wrong exists. Yes, one does learn from being slighted, but how that can be extrapolated to make an absolute truth claim? And does personal experience account for the whole concept of morality, why it exists in the first place, how we can make absolute moral truth claims and then conclude that there is no God?

It is so patently absurd, yet so widely believed, published and argued. The relativist is in no position to appeal to absolute truths, nor to draw conclusions that can be construed as absolute truth. One cannot reach absolute conclusions from relativist premises. But we see this slippery action continuously, and astoundingly, allow it.

The question that needs to be answered regarding the problem of evil is simply this: Does God allow gratuitous evil?