Some people make the following argument:
1. God is defined as all- powerful, knowing, and good
2. A good being would prevent suffering
3. An all knowing being should come up with a good solution
4. An all powerful being should be able to do anything
5. There is evil and suffering in the world
6. God would prevent evil and suffering
7. Thus, God does not exist
I agree with 1, 3, 4, 5. I strongly disagree with 7. So where is the fallacy?
2 presents real issues for Christianity. Why doesn't god prevent suffering? Similarly, 6, why doesn't God prevent evil? Or be more active healing people?
There is actually a website dedicated to this question. The comments provide a summary of the video presentation.
There is a whole field of theology dedicated to this, known as theodicy.
The main fallacy of this argument is in 2. Yes, suffering is bad, but can good come of it? What is the price of a world without suffering?
I'm not going to deal much with good coming from suffering. Some people, when suffering, turn to God. That is good. But I don't want to say the ends justify the means, because they don't.
What is the price of a world without suffering?
Pain tells us there is something wrong. So too does the suffering in the world. The world was good when God created it, when He was an active part of it. That is not how the world is now. Our ancestors (Adam and Eve) chose to run the world without God. Ever since then God has been separated from the world, and there has been evil, suffering, and death.
So why not create Adam and Eve incapable of sin (not choosing God)? There is an issue of free will. If you are not free to not choose God, there is no meaning in choosing God. Also, without sin, God cannot demonstrate grace, mercy, and justice.
Like it or not, God created the universe to demonstrate His qualities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Ned,
Great thoughts. You’re spot on with the free will part of it. Regarding the suffering though, I think there’s more to it than what you’ve touched on.
Suffering is a result of sin. Without sin, there would be no suffering. Adam’s original sin brought imperfection into the world and as a result, man would suffer. (Genesis 3: 17-20) Our individual sins (albeit forgiven) still bear scars on our body that have negative effects on our lives.
Through Christ though, suffering can be redemptive. Through suffering, we can unite ourselves to Christ in His suffering. As Christ’s suffering redeemed the world, our suffering redeems us. Through our pain we bear His Cross and can bring people closer to Him. In our pain, we can now rejoice that God is good!
“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church” (Colossians 1:24)
Didn’t Christ suffer enough for the entire world? What’s lacking in His afflictions?
I am.
No, free will can not exist with an omnipotent, omniscient god. Sorry.
"Like it or not, God created the universe to demonstrate His qualities."
Then god is not good, or god is completely incompetent.
I do like how you say that the ends don't justify the means, and then go right on and attempt to justify the means. Don't you see the inherent contradiction there?
Finally, one of the problems with the Adam and Eve story (apart from it not happening) is that Adam and Eve never made a conscious decision. They had no idea what was good or bad until after they ate the fruit, so how could they know they were sinning? Yet, they are punished for it, and all of us as well? Why are we punished for their actions? This is not loving or good.
Also, the concept of heaven is quite the problem for theodicy as well. If god can create heaven, a place where all is good and no one suffers, why would he place us all here to suffer before we can get there? god, supposedly, is omniscient, so he already knows when we are created whether we will choose him or not (as if we have a choice, since according to your theology we don't) so why all the rigmarole? Again, god is either stupid, incompetent, or likes dishing out suffering.
Are natural disasters necessary? They are from god. And no all-good god could possibly create hell.
Sorry, but your god doesn't work with the attributes that you have described, and the problem of evil is still unsolved.
GCT, do you have an actual argument against free will (as opposed to an assertion)?
The universe as it is displays the attributes of God. A universe without suffering does not demonstrate grace, mercy, or justice.
Adam and Eve were aware of good and evil. Good was to listen to God. I have some interesting insights on Genesis 3 that I will post separately.
R.e. natural disasters: Romans 8:17-22.
theden, I agree. Also see 1 Peter 4:12-13.
Nedbrek,
I believe I have presented my argument against free will to you before? If not, here it is.
If god is omniscient and omnipotent, then he knows what will happen from the moment of inception of the universe, correct? Therefore, what he has foreseen will happen. There is no way around it. Everything was determined at the beginning. It is impossible for us to do something that god had not seen when he created the universe, so the universe was determined at that point.
"The universe as it is displays the attributes of God. A universe without suffering does not demonstrate grace, mercy, or justice."
The heaven does not have grace, mercy, or justice? Besides, where is the grace, mercy, and/or justice of killing people with tornados, hurricanes, etc? Are those really necessary for grace, mercy, and justice?
"Adam and Eve were aware of good and evil."
Not until they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If they knew what good and evil were before they ate that tree's fruit, then why did they suddenly realize that what they did was bad? This is like punishing a newborn for choosing to do something wrong. The newborn has no clue what right and wrong are, so do you think it is just to punish the newborn? Adam and Eve, although presumably older in appearance, had the same lack of knowledge of right and wrong.
What does Romans 8:17-22 have to do with natural disasters?
God's foreknowledge of your sin does nothing to reduce your responsibility.
Romans tells us that "all creation groans" and "waits for the manifestation of God".
Natural disasters primarily show that this world is not right without God. They serve as grim reminder that anyone may be called to stand before God at anytime.
"God's foreknowledge of your sin does nothing to reduce your responsibility."
Are you avoiding the issue? god's foreknowledge means that the universe is predetermined. I have no choice but to sin, as all my actions were laid out before the universe was even created. Also, if I am incapable of not sinning against god unless god comes and changes my heart (your theology) then how am I culpable? I'm being found culpable for something that is beyond my control. We don't put people in prison that can not understand their actions because we find it to be barbarous. god, however, does.
"Romans tells us that "all creation groans" and "waits for the manifestation of God".
Natural disasters primarily show that this world is not right without God. They serve as grim reminder that anyone may be called to stand before God at anytime."
So, god sends natural disasters to kill people to show them his power? Awesome. He seems like a great guy.
No rebuttal on Adam and Eve, predestination, and the possiblity of natural disasters in heaven? Should I take it that you don't have answers for those points?
(I have limited time, so I'll answer points as they serve my purposes)
Total depravity means that we will tend to sin, even when we would prefer not to.
This is not the same as being as evil as we can.
We could be much more evil than we are. Look at life in Iraq. People have gotten much more evil there, because they have long time grudges and a sense of chaos allows people to do what they want.
Or a less extreme case, look at a power failure or sports victory. People will go out and set fires and steal; people who would normally not do these sorts of things.
God knows people will do bad things, that doesn't mean He made them do it. People can riot or not riot, it's their decision.
"Total depravity means that we will tend to sin, even when we would prefer not to.
This is not the same as being as evil as we can."
I didn't say it did. It does mean that we can not come to god unless he "saves" us (changes our heart or whatever), which is what I did say. This leaves you in the position of claiming that we are at fault for god not changing our hearts.
"God knows people will do bad things, that doesn't mean He made them do it. People can riot or not riot, it's their decision."
We are in a state of total depravity because of god's direct actions. Original sin was punishment that god placed on all of us for the "sin" of Adam and Eve. I don't know how you can say that god is not responsible for our current condition.
'It does mean that we can not come to god unless he "saves" us'
Sure. But we are still responsible for your actions. We have a tendency to sin, but we can choose to do the right thing if we want to.
I'm curious why you would believe the conscience is evolved (to pop way back). I mean, why would something evolve that we ignore so often?
"Sure. But we are still responsible for your actions. We have a tendency to sin, but we can choose to do the right thing if we want to."
You are contradicting yourself. We can not do anything other than sin according to total depravity, which makes it impossible for us to do the right thing. Further, if we are physically unable to do anything other than sin, why is it just to hold us accountable for that? Let's say that I save a child from a burning building. I'm not "saved" so therefore god sees my actions as sinful. Who has the problem here, me or god? If god can't see the good in saving a child from a burning building, then god is not just or good. But, beyond that, the reason that it is sinful is because god hasn't gotten up off his keister to "save" my soul, so I'm being held responsible for gods inaction. Do you even understand how twisted that is? It's like the beaten wife who professes that he really does love her and that it's her fault for not hanging up the towels right or something.
"I'm curious why you would believe the conscience is evolved (to pop way back). I mean, why would something evolve that we ignore so often?"
By conscience, I suppose you mean moral conscience? It's simple really, we see the same types of attitudes and behaviors in other animals. We can trace the advancement of our morals from earlier peoples who thought slave owning was morally acceptable to now, or our treatment of women and minorities - for just a couple examples.
It's certainly possible for unsaved people to do good. But don't expect a reward from God for it. If your motives are wrong, it's no use to God.
Even if your motives are right, you are just doing what's expected of you, so no bonus points for it.
R.e. the evolved conscious: You're right, like the monkeys protesting
sexual harassment, or all those
german shepherds that rose up against their Nazi owners, and buffalo picketing abortion clinics - crying out for justice. Oh wait, none of that happened.
Do you have any example of an animal that cared about justice, or even murder, or stealing? Besides feeling angry that you stole from it?
"It's certainly possible for unsaved people to do good. But don't expect a reward from God for it. If your motives are wrong, it's no use to God."
What is wrong about my motives for saving a child from a fire?
"Even if your motives are right, you are just doing what's expected of you, so no bonus points for it."
Who expects me to rush into a burning building to save a child I don't know?
"R.e. the evolved conscious: You're right, like the monkeys protesting
sexual harassment, or all those
german shepherds that rose up against their Nazi owners, and buffalo picketing abortion clinics - crying out for justice. Oh wait, none of that happened."
Nice strawman. Monkeys do hold wakes for the dead, and they also will commit acts of altruism for others. Many herd animals will put themselves in danger to protect the young of the herd. Those are just a couple examples. Are humans more advanced in this area, yes we are, and we also happen to have higher cognitive faculties in this regard. Of course, you ignored that part of it and the obvious evolution of morality in our culture.
Post a Comment