If God is all powerful, then why can’t he stop evil from happening? That would mean he’s not all powerful. If God refuses to prevent evil, then he can not be all good. So can a Christian explain how God is all powerful and good in this case?

Quora.com ^ | 9/3/2023, | Daniel1212

[daniel1212]

Certainly that logical fallacy, a superficial ignorant parroted polemic (such as invokes everything from the Flood to AIDS as a moral argument against God), can be answered.

There simply is no contradiction btwn God being omnipotent (and omniscient) and all good (from whom all good has come, as the creator of an exceedingly vast, systematicity ordered universe, exquisitely fine-tuned for our physical life), and the allowance of evil,

For unless you want a world in which mankind is like a cloud or a robot, then allowing evil is a necessary good if:

Man is to be a being with the ability to make moral choices;

And if such choices are to have effects/consequences, for both good and evil,

And which consequences can affect others as well as self, directly or indirectly.

But which God can make to ultimately work out for what is Good, in the light of all that can be known.

Which includes just punishment for eternal beings which manifest they wanted the opposite of God, (John 3:19–21) though only being punished according to what they could and did choose to do, (Deuteronomy 24:16; Luke 10:1- 15; Revelation 20:12; cf. 2 Corinthians 8:12) while making all to work out to the benefit of those who honestly choose Him over sin, seeking and finding the mercy of God in the Lord Christ. (Roman 8:28)

Consider some alternatives. God could have,

1. made us (and angels) with no moral standard or sense or deprived us from the moral ability to respond to or choose good [morally insensible, even as with clouds].

2. granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between [negation of moral choices, and no devil or God].

3. left man only with recourse to finite competing sources as his ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security, and supreme judge of what is good [atheism and atheistic governments].

4. called man to make the Creator their ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security as being what is right and what is best for man, versus finite created beings or things being one's "god," and provided moral revelation and influences. Yet always have moved us to do good, and never have allowed us to choose evil (even if as by making believing in God and choosing good so utterly compelling — like God appearing daily and always doing miracles on demand, and preventing any seeming evidence to the contrary - so that no man could attempt to make excuses for not believing in Him [effective negation of any freedom to choose]).

5. allowed created beings a negative alternative to faithfulness to the creator, and the ability to choose evil, but immediately reversed any effects and not penalized such [negation of consequences to choices].

6. allowed us to do bad, but restricted us to a place where it would harm no one but ourselves [isolated consequences to choices].

7. allowed us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by it, but not ultimately reward or punish us accordingly [negation of judicial and eternal consequences, positive or negative].

8. given us the ability to choose, and alternatives to chose between, and to face and overcome evil or be overcome by it, with the ability to effect others and things by our choices, and to exercise some reward or punishment in this life for morality, and ultimately reward or punishment all accordingly [pure justice].

9. restrained evil to some degree, while making the evil that man does to work out for what is Good, with justice yet with mercy, and grace, towards those who want good, and who thus the One who is supremely Good.

10. in accordance with 8, the Creator could have chose to manifest Himself in the flesh, and by Him to provide man a means of escaping the ultimate retribution of Divine justice, and instead receive unmerited eternal favor, at God's own expense and credit, appropriated by a repentant obedient faith, in addition to the loss or gaining of certain rewards based on one's quality of work as a child of God. And eternally punish, to varying degrees relative to iniquity and accountability, those whose response to God's revelation manifested they want evil, [justice maintained while mercy and grace given].

But man, as an exceedingly finite being who is but a speck in this universe,

and in the sea of humanity,

and whose existence on earth occupies an infinitesimal amount of time,

and who is very ignorant of what all the effects of his choices have been and will be, in time and eternity,

and quite impotent to make them all work out as he/she wants, not only in one’s own life but in others,

and for this life, as well as eternity,

is in no position to sit in judgment upon an omniscient and omnipotent being and giver of life,

who alone knows what all the effects will be of even our most seemingly insignificant actions or inactions,

not only in this life but for eternity.

And can make all work out for what is Good, for what is just, as well as showing mercy and grace.

And which the God of the Bible has often manifestly done already, and promises to do for those who choose the ultimate Good, the living and true God, (Romans 8:28) by His grace, thanks be to God.

This the choices of an omniscient omnipotent Being cannot be judged as being evil or good by extremely finite and relatively ignorant man. Not that - in my ignorance myself - I have/do not too often protested His dealing with me as I subjectively imagined Him, though objectively blessed, and I am being blessed right now listening to,

uplifting spiritual worship: Oden Fong and Friends: Lord of All Creation. Glory to God

[alexander_busek]

But my suggestion that you don’t really want to be a robot is quite plausible.

If it's so plausible, then why don't you simply enlighten us?

Don't be coy! Spit it out!

"It is preferable to suffer than not to suffer because..."

Why?

Actually, the real question is: Why would the Creator have the effrontery to imbue me with Free Will, knowing that that would result in suffering?

Regards,

[Lazamataz]

I had tyou, but pennicilin cleared it right up.

[ealgeone]

Problem is, our finite minds are trying to comprehend the infinite mind.

Just something we cannot do.

Kinda like trying to comprehend eternity.

[dfwgator]

Wasn’t that the lesson of Eve and the Apple, that Man cannot possibly understand God, and to believe it possible is a Satanic trick.

[reasonisfaith]

Here’s an interesting question. Regarding good will.

Good will is a powerful topic, for one thing because I don’t think it’s ever been reasonably acknowledged to be anything other than a desirable quality fully consistent with a good moral code.

Here’s the question:

Does the man who questions God’s existence have the same good will as he who doesn’t? Where good will is defined as derived from love.

Keep in mind, both men have equal claim to be seeking truth.

But it seems only one can claim to desire love.

[cgbg]

You like to put your thumb on the scale.

Lol.

[tet68]

The whole question is like asking how many camels
can dance on the head of a pin?

Camels can dance? Who Knew ?

[alexander_busek]

I get a lot of blank stares with that one.

Not from me. My response: In an instant!

The possibility of eternal suffering would thus be removed in one fell-swoop!

How could one not choose that?

But still doesn't answer the problem of all that "pesky" suffering due to natural catastrophes. (One poster here - Fai Mao - has even gone so far as to declare that natural catastrophes have nothing to do with "sin" or "Free Will." In other words: God could have given us the capacity of Free Will, even if we misused it, and sinned - but he need never have allowed natural catastrophes.)

Regards,

[TangoLimaSierra]

Of note—when those children are with God, their tears and their sorrows will not only be gone. “Gone” includes forgotten.

Big deal. What about the years of terror and pain they have to endure first? Do they take their broken minds with them or does that get fixed in the end, too?

[JesusIsLord]

I don't pretend to have all the answers. "I don't know" and "that's a mystery" addresses many of my questions. What we do have is scripture that witnesses of Jesus, the Son of God. Scripture tells that both faith and grace are God's gifts. We can't will these gifts into being. We need to ask Christ into our life to receive them and as little children - receive His gifts. The cynics in Christ's day received nothing from Him. Those who sought His help - received it. The same is true today.

"For now [in this time of imperfection] we see in a mirror dimly [a blurred reflection, a riddle, an enigma], but then [when the time of perfection comes we will see reality] face to face. Now I know in part [just in fragments], but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known [by God]." - 1 Cor 13:12

[reasonisfaith]

First let’s approach it from a context of probability: What does your gut tell you? What seems reasonable? Would a majority of people choose free will or the life of an automaton?

And if the answer is most would prefer to be a robot (which is highly improbable), would the absence of free will even allow for conscious awareness? What is a life without conscious awareness?

[ealgeone]

IIRC....yes.

[reasonisfaith]

You’re trying to say the desire to deny ultimate good is itself a desire for good?

Explain to me how such a claim is not logically incoherent.

[alexander_busek]

Here’s an interesting question. Regarding good will. Where good will is defined as derived from love.

Great! Now we have to start a whole new thread arguing what is meant by "Love!"

If you keep introducing additional, new concepts and points of contention, rather than addressing those already at hand, we'll never reach a solution.

This is a popular tactic with some people:

You: "Free Will is an absolute good, but is purchased at the expense of the possibility of sinning. Suffering is due to Sin."

Me: "But not all suffering is due only to Free Will / Sin. There are also natural catastrophes! They have nothing to do with Free Will. Volcanoes erupt and harm (suffering) the Just together with the Unjust!"

You: "Here's another interesting question: Good will..."

Unnecessarily prolongs the conversation. Diverts from responding to earlier points!

How are natural catastrophes a necessary result of Free Will (or its misuse)?

Regards,

[Fai Mao]

I don’t believe in Self Evident things either.

[reasonisfaith]

When we speak of God we speak of love, because God is love.

It’s not a different topic.

Love is what we’ve been discussing the entire thread.

[Olog-hai]

You are saying this about the one empire on record as having abolished slavery and fought against the practice worldwide. Don’t generalize; that’s an Obama tactic, with all due respect, and he and his allies have used that to broad-brush all white humans as inherently evil and racist for one glaring example.

[cgbg]

Your method of structuring topics for discussion is “putting your finger on the scale” or “rigging the game” or “having the dealer deal from the bottom of the deck”.

You know the outcome you want and then structure the rules to help get that outcome.

How very human of you...

;-)

[alexander_busek]

For example, can you prove to me, or to yourself, that what you see in front of you is not a hallucination?

No, I would concede that you might be hallucinating. (Yes, and then you might draw a pistol and... That proves nothing. In good conscience, I must steadfastly maintain that I have no means of proving to you that you are not hallucinating me.)

Yes! This is what the skeptic does: He concedes that some questions are unanswerable, because data is lacking and/or because our computational skills are limited.

The theist, on the other hand...

Regards,

[Olog-hai]

I lived in Ireland; I know their propaganda. As for the Indians, perhaps they preferred being terrorized by the Thugees?