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

[Elsie]

Are you sincerely saying that you don't already know ...

Nope; for what I 'know' has no bearing on what you know.

What works for me, obviously doesn't for you - thus the question.

[alexander_busek]

[...] as if exceedingly rare mass extinctions, volcanic eruptions wiping out entire civilizations [...]

That's like someone saying that "It's exceedingly rare that home invaders have captured me and my family, r*ped my wife and daughters, etc.! I can count the number of times that that has happened on ONE hand!"

Good luck to them!

Or: "It is exceedingly rare that Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been nuked! It happened like, you know, only ONCE!"

So we might as well say that it actually happened ZERO times! / sarcasm

There have been numerous times in history that civilizations have been wiped out by natural catastrophes. Besides being ignorant of History, you are also suffering under Detection Bias (to be honest, large swathes of our society have fallen victim to it). Like asking, "Everyone who hasn't come to class today: Please raise your hand! Well, no one raised his hand, so I guess that everyone is here!"

Or: "I have never suffered a memory loss! I'm sure of it! I would remember it if I had!"

Next point:

cannot be a judgment due to sin (the Flood, Pompeii) by an omniscient being who knows every action of man, and his motives, and every single effect of man's actions, as well as His own

If God punished entire societies by wiping them out, then why stop there? Why not always stop, e.g., serial killers just as they are starting a killing spree? Some killers are never caught - some not even discovered (i.e., that serial murders have even taken place, and that people have disappeared, may not even be determined by the authorities). Why destroy, e.g., Pompeii - incl. innocent children - but not serial killers long before their crimes enter into the double-digits?

Would that somehow limit Man's highly touted "Free Will?" But somehow destroying entire cities like Pompeii and Herculaneum is permissible / doesn't abrogate our Free Will?!

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

What works for me, obviously doesn't for you - thus the question.

Well, I ANSWERED your question.

And your response?

< crickets >

Regards,

[Elsie]

But it does NOT follow that we HAVE to accept as TRUE unsupported accounts from disreputable or disputed sources...

Quite correct.

I am, however, at a loss to find something to believe in that is not disputed or considered disreputable by someone.

Experience shows us that Nature does, truly, abhor a vacuum, so Man finds something to believe in - even if it's merely his own assumptions about how the world (should?) works.

[Elsie]

...semi-literate Bronze Age tribesmen...

I wonder what our descendants; 4,000 years from now; will describe us?

[Elsie]

And if his Divine Justice were to demand that all of Humanity be immediately obliterated: BRING IT ON!

[alexander_busek]

You mean no immediate slapping down, or manifestly negative effects. Likewise, positive effects of obedience are often not immediately manifest. [That's beside the point / not my point / an irrelevancy.] Which means that once again, on one hand the atheist charges God for the evils resulting from man's disobedience to God, from conscience to express revelation, and then finds fault when He does manifest judgment.

YES! And your retort, please? WHY this inequality? Why immediate "slapping-down" when violating the "laws of electricity" - wouldn't that negate our much-touted "Free Will?" - but no immediate slapping-down of, e.g., serial murderers?

Why "slapping-down" of sinful cities like Pompeii and Herculaneum (incl. the innocent children) - doesn't that negate our precious "Free Will?" - but no immediate "slapping-down" of mass murderers - some of whom get off scot-free and/or whose crimes are even ever detected by law enforcement?

Just answer that!

A typical problem with arguments of atheists is that they want to morally argue against the God of the Bible while rejecting attributes of God and what is says as regards the scope of His operation, as if He was ignorant like them, and they were omniscient as God, and thus assert that God "needlessly permits" rare mass extinctions.

Please stop DESCRIBING what I'm asking, and instead just answer it!

HINT: An honest answer might very well be, "I have no friggin' idea why!"

Regards,

[Elsie]

Because if God existed, then He would fix things.

If HE doesn't; then we evolved from goo.

I'd expect goo to be a bit more selective in eliminating the bad things that happen in the world.

Doesn't seem like a good game plan to me.

Maybe survival of the fittest is the best we can hope for after all.

[alexander_busek]

I wonder what our descendants; 4,000 years from now; will describe us?

I can only hope that they will have as much disdain for our lowly technology as I have for that of the primitive tribesmen!

Regards,

[Elsie]

Mass Extinctions, volcanic eruptions wiping out entire civilizations, etc.

What choice have we?

We either play the hand we are dealt; or pick up our money and go home.

[Elsie]

YES, THE POT DOES QUESTION THE POTTER!

So true.

And either gets used the way he/she designed it, or it gets lumped back together to start over.

[NCLaw441]

If God were to heal all sickness and provide enough for everyone to eat and otherwise cure all ills on earth, would you bow down to Him and worship and follow His commandments? History says you would not! Read the Old Testament accounts of God’s people rescued from their sin and given all earthly blessings. They promised to be faithful but it never lasts. Other gods grab their attention and the consequences of their sin follow.

[Elsie]

I'm still waiting for adequate evidence and compelling arguments.

[Elsie]

Rather, the atheist merely observes that your arguments are insufficient. He makes no counter-claims. You are therefore not entitled to demand that the atheist provide a counter-explanation.

I see...

So; why are you wasting your time here?

Not a 'demand' - just curious.

[alexander_busek]

I am, however, at a loss to find something to believe in that is not disputed or considered disreputable by someone.

Look I provided you with several examples of "extraordinary evidence" and "extraordinary claims" - as well as with several examples of banal / trivial claims.

Was I not convincing? Were my examples not convincing? Is it not obvious?! Is not my tag-line BROADLY true? THEN SAY SO! Agree now with my tag-line. You haughtily dismissed it in your earlier post, essentially quibbling about the meaning of "is" - although it is pretty obvious. Please, not cat-and-mouse. When you've raised an objection, and I've dealt with it, then please be so polite as to acknowledge that before beginning with a new attack!

Experience shows us that Nature does, truly, abhor a vacuum, so Man finds something to believe in - even if it's merely his own assumptions about how the world (should?) works.

Now your are "diluting" the discussion. You are veering "into the weeds" by making overgeneralized, feel-good, pseudo-profound statements - that sound conciliatory - that slyly introduce additional points serving to further cloud the issue at hand.

Let's stick to the basic thesis statement, shall we? "God should be perfect and all-powerful. But God doesn't want to restrict our Free Will. Except when God restricts our Free Will by destroying cities. But God doesn't want to stop mass murderers because of... something."

Regards,

[Elsie]

Tell that to the poor child dying in a Concentration Camp!

Not much I can do about that, but you could help a poor child suffering in a refugee camp Right NOW!

Will YOU continue to let him suffer, when it is in YOUR power to alleviate it?

[NCLaw441]

All God wants is for you to love him. How do you do this? Choose good over evil. But we don’t. What do you expect God to do? Let it slide?

[Elsie]

Thailand

It doesn’t quite look the same as when I was there - last of 61-62-first of 63.

[alexander_busek]

Re. mass destruction wrought by God in the form of nat. catastrophes:

What choice have we? We either play the hand we are dealt; or pick up our money and go home.

How does your remark serve to further the discussion? I never claimed we had a "choice!"

Your remark is a distraction and/or diversion. It does not directly address my point. I don't even really know what you mean by "pick up our money, etc." Please, stop with the unhelpful, unproductive Chinese fortune cookie responses!

Namely: How can we reconcile the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God with the existence of needless suffering? If you say that it's because God doesn't want to limit our Free Will, then I ask: Then how can He in good conscience DESTROY ENTIRE CITIES? If THAT doesn't limit our Free Will, then why not also stop mass murderers before they continue their crime sprees?

Please, no platitudes like "Well, I guess that we just have to accept it!"

Please, a substantive (falsifiable) answer!

Is my logic faulty? If so: How?

Are my facts faulty? If so: How?

A "I have no friggin' idea!" will also do quite nicely!

Regards,

[Elsie]

And your response?

I don't hang on your every word.