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

[reasonisfaith]

A careful reading of your quotations in post #194 demonstrates that they are not mine.

Pay particular attention to the concepts in your terms “absolute,” “purchased,” and “another.”

[21twelve]

Today’s sermon was about Joshua entering and conquering Canaan. The primary verse was about being strong and courageous and if you follow God’s commands you will be prosperous and successful and He will be with you wherever you go.

While the preacher didn’t talk about it, what always strikes me in verses like this is how one needs to be strong and courageous (mentioned three times in the passage). Even if the assumption is that they will follow the rules such as God told them.

God didn’t say “Everything will be easy if you just follow my rules.” He commanded them to be strong and courageous, AND follow His commands. He knows that the battles ahead for them would be difficult. Just like he knows the battles ahead for us are difficult.

Of course I too think that if I follow all of the rules everything will be okay. And when they don’t it is my fault. Some things are like that (steal from a store and get punished for it), but people doing bad things to my kids, or a child walking away from God after being brought up to love God....

So I have to be strong and courageous.

[RoosterRedux]

You would be willing to give up all free will--freedom of movement, thought, dream, contemplation, affection? Give up all control? No choice? Basically no self? A complete prison of the body, mind, and soul?

Somehow I don't think you have considered all the free will brings to your life.

[daniel1212]

Straw Man Fallacy. No one here has yet to identify himself as an "antitheist."

What I wrote was not saying the author or anyone here was an atheist, but in line with the OP, I said it was "another verse used by ignorant antitheists

And an "atheist," by the way, could be anyone who simply states, "I have not yet been given sufficiently convincing arguments and forensic-level hard evidence to adopt your belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster / Shiva-Brahma-etc. I therefore remain in a condition of non-belief."

Yes, as souls like you all point out, atheists believe in just one less God than Christians. I for my part not been given sufficiently convincing arguments and forensic-level hard evidence for many things, including what I would need to warrant the faith that an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life with intricate astounding complexity, is all a result of purely natural processes.

[daniel1212]

He already said: Vast chunks of their memory will be wiped. That decade they spent in a Soviet gulag will be "obliviated" - like with the Harry Potter magical spell. The unhappy childhood? Gone! Forgotten! Only question is: Will they still be the same individual, after undergoing such a thorough brain-cleansing?

There is a third alternative, which is that of seeing all things from the perspective of eternity and its ultimate effects. While the Bible states that in the end, God shall wipe away all the tears of His own, and makes all things new, at least before that memory is shown. (Revelation 6:10; 20:6) Too tired to get more quotes.

[grey_whiskers]

That's because "religion" is not attempting to be a model (which the modern Western mind, before the recent rise of Communism/nihilism/Satanism, took as the only possible activity of the human mind anymore).

Great. But I wanted a Bud Light!"

[Hambone 1934]

Even the saints fell. Humans are by nature, fallen creatures....Most of us would take the easy way out if we could...satan knows that and uses that against us...

[alexander_busek]

And, the number of people die in catastrophes pale in comparison to the numbers that die at the hands of our fellows.

Proof by Assertion Fallacy!

Throughout history, far more people have suffered and died due to natural causes (attack by wild animals, microbes, parasites, famine, death in child-birth, volcanic eruptions, etc.) than due to "Man's inhumanity to Man."

Suffering is a result of sin. In this fallen world we all suffer. When Adam fell all of creation fell with him.

Then "Free Will" -> "Possibility of Error (Sin)" -> "Suffering" includes dying in, e.g., a landslide. How convenient!

As long as you folks argued that Human suffering was due to our making (individual) bad (sinful) decisions, I was able to follow you. Even a non-believer would have to concede that human decision-making is often faulty, and can result in bad choices and even criminal actions.

But when you claim that Nature, itself, became imperfect through Adam's Fall - well, you're making it very easy for yourself. So now, weather patterns, sunspots, meteors, distant supernovas that cause Mass Extinctions on Earth, etc. - they're all due to the Fall (which, in turn, was caused by Sin, which in turn was necessitated by Free Will - which is such a GREAT good that untold suffering throughout History, and Pre-History, were a small price to pay)!

Your truth comes in dribs and drabs. It has taken you (collectively, in this thread) this long (in reality: you have held back some of your truths this long) to enunciate these beliefs of yours.

I guess "milk before meat," right?

All that said, suffering can service a number of purposes. 1. It reveals to us how deep, strong, or genuine of faith in God is. 2. It is a witness to those around us of the reality of our faith 3. It allows us to remember the hope we have of a place where EVERY tear will be wiped from our eyes

But in reality, it usually doesn't. MOST suffering throughout History and Pre-History has served little purpose, provided little to no insight, supplied no enlightenment. It was thus purposeless.

I would gladly do without #1, #2, and #3.

You can suffer all you want, though! Next time you go in for a root canal treatment, forego the anesthetic!

Regards,

[Secret Agent Man]

Exactly. This is what living under Satan would be like. His “eyes” are his minions, ready to report you and punish.

[grey_whiskers]

There is insufficient data for a meaningful answer."

Reminds me of Asimiov's classic short story The Last Question

Remember the last line of that story?

...which kind of leads back to "I Am" and to the end of C.S. Lewis's Till We Have Faces : "You, Lord, are the answer."

[grey_whiskers]

Saviour vs connaitre (and I’ve never figured out why my phone never autocompletes the circumflex over the “i”).

[grey_whiskers]

Pacino. Very powerful scene.

Thanks!

[daniel1212]

I'm sorry to say but that's is exactly why I am a non believer... from what we say, every single day, even as far up as the POPE! ...and no one gets struck down by lighting!??? No plagues for the wicked!??? Not only is there no wrath, there is no sign of anything!! the disgust is growing unhindered. I believe there is a place for the good book in society as a moral compass, but my faith there is a God is Zero.

Anti-theists actually rail against God for judging the wicked (the Flood, etc,) and then rail against Him due to His long suffering.

You mean you think the fact that most people live 72 years, eat and drink, have sex, etc. and with various degrees of freedom, and moral laws, and with suffering being a result of man disobeying basic universal Biblical laws, and that the whole world is not one giant North Korea, compels you to be a atheist?

But instead you believe that an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life with intricate astounding complexity, is all a result of purely natural processes, versus testifying to design, requiring a First Cause (at the least)?

[daniel1212]

I hereby assert that such a world would be devoid of suffering (surely you don't dispute that!) and would therefore be preferable! I assert in particular that, while some foggy-minded human beings might not choose that, an omniscient, all-loving Creator must perforce prefer that. My "personal feelings" about that are irrelevant. Instead, I assert that, objectively, a world without suffering is always preferable to a world with suffering. Can you seriously dispute that

I do indeed in the light of what is ultimately manifests - including all the motives and works of man and their effects, and what they would done if they had more power - and what is all accomplishes according to Scripture. Only by denying that, and or being ignorant of it, can you advocate a world of creatures who cannot make moral choices and that effect others, for good or evil, but must act as programmed.

assert that, objectively, a world without suffering is always preferable to a world with suffering.

Yes, that is the Bible. In the end (Rev. 21,22) the only world will be of humans and angels who could sin but will not, having chosen Light over Darkness, (Jn. 3:19-21) not by being androids or as clouds.

[daniel1212]

But when you claim that Nature, itself, became imperfect through Adam's Fall - well, you're making it very easy for yourself. So now, weather patterns, sunspots, meteors, distant supernovas that cause Mass Extinctions on Earth, etc. - they're all due to the Fall (which, in turn, was caused by Sin, which in turn was necessitated by Free Will - which is such a GREAT good that untold suffering throughout History, and Pre-History, were a small price to pay

So man's choices should not effect what is under his control, even though man has also been God-given much means to counter act the effects.

Anyway. I never expected this to be such a lively thread, but I will be back later, since my Latino neighbors called me up to come over for a "Pupusa." God is gracious. And I have many stories of such.

[WashingtonSource]

Not this sh*t again.

[Olog-hai]

I figured; thanks 🙂

[PeterPrinciple]

Free Will

---

Free will needs to be defined.

Is it absolute free will?

Or is God sovereign? And your “free will” is subject to His Will?

I thought I had free will as a child. My mother had other ideas.............................

[FarCenter]

God could have created a world without evil - only with varying degrees of good.

Then free will could be exercised by choosing between good and less good, rather than between good and evil.

[glennaro]

I do not see this as a dilemma nor to I see it as any form of equivocation. The statement is simply a way to describe the contrast of the two positions.

The believer's position is that there is a creator of all things, but a creator who abides clearly evident unjust suffering within what he created. The challenge for the believer is to explain why such a creator of all that exists in this wondrous universe accomodates the innate evil which also exists and which he created.

The atheist's position is that there is no creator and the universe was formed by happenstance, by chance. The challenge for the atheist is to explain the existence (not how it came to exist, but why it came to exist ... why is it there?) of not only the physical (i.e., galaxies; planets; In-n-Out burgers), but the esoteric (i.e., feelings of love or of sadness). I should think any thoughtful atheist would have pondered this as a matter of course.

Anyway, we're not going to resolve this on an FR thread but I find it interesting as well as entertaining ... and I thank you for your thoughtful response. Cheers!