Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 09/03/2023 10:10:00 AM PDT by 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


TOPICS: Education; Health/Medicine; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: agnosticism; antitheists; atheism; becausehehatesyou; hatefulgod; theodicy; whichgod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 561-572 next last
To: RoosterRedux

Generally agreed; but in the meantime, why not correct the errors to help keep them from infecting others...?

Too often atheists claim to win by throwing down a “plausible” (even when it isn’t, read Alvin Plantinga on this), and then walk away crowing, “Because SCIENCE!”™


441 posted on 09/05/2023 8:14:42 AM PDT by grey_whiskers ( The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Correcting errors for the benefit of open-minded onlookers? Then, yes, I completely agree.

But if you expect your corrections will be objectively considered by those whose hearts and minds are closed to God, then you are probably beating your head against a brick wall.

On a personal level, I did very much enjoy your comments above.

442 posted on 09/05/2023 8:22:34 AM PDT by RoosterRedux (A person who seeks the truth with a strong bias will never find it. He will only confirm his bias.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Thanks for the compliment, sirrah.


443 posted on 09/05/2023 8:27:17 AM PDT by grey_whiskers ( The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Actually to be analogous you need to be bringing the person to want to believe in you, as in a covenanted relationship rather then not doing a particular things due to the motive of of self-preservation compelled by evidence he may not want. While appeal to the latter motive can initially have its place, even them the call is to believe as to enter into a relationship that will result in more than simply not doing something harmful to self.

Actually: No. That distinction is utterly irrelevant. You are indulging in sophistry. You are putting too-fine a point on it. You are unnecessarily making irrelevant distinctions.

Then let my analogy be formulated thus: "Would you not do everything in your power to provide the most-compelling evidence and logic conceivable to convince your friend of vital fact XYZ?"

YES or NO?

"XYZ" could be anything: That smoking is hazardous, that God exists, etc. - anything of vital importance!

Why should it make a difference WHAT you are trying to convince your friend of? Wouldn't you - REGARDLESS - try your best? Provide the most-incontrovertible evidence? The most-irrefutable logic?

I see absolutely no need to differentiate between "Smoking Kills" and "Obey these Rules!" Whatever it is I want to convince my friend of, I would do my absolute best. Wouldn't you?

Again: YES or NO?

And unless there is a deeper change in the heart of your hypothetical smoker, then he will likely go back to smoking despite the most compelling logic and forensic-level evidence against it, which he can even resent, and you for presenting it.

Irrelevant! Wouldn't you still do your best? YES or NO?

As said, the Bible shows that belief in God in the light of compelling evidence did not translate into willingly obedient faith, and your boot-camp world of instant punishment for every wrong choice as the means of solving the problem of evil would not either. Even old Pharoah was compelled to finally relent and heed Moses, but he quickly went back to his old ways when more space was given him.

So you are trying to prove the Bible by citing the Bible. Circular Logic!

A man like Dawkins can admit that there it is unlikely that evidence could convince him that there is a god, postulating he likely could explain such away, and the implicit faith of atheists, that of the universe will one day be found explainable by purely natural laws, goes alone with this, typically excluding a Creator even as a hypothesis. As does their wholesale rejection of changes in peoples heart and lives - from innumerable hymns to profound documentaries - as at least testifying to the supernatural.

You are taking the most-extreme example - an individual like Dawkins. The Fallacy of Appeal to Extremes.

You are arguing that, because some especially hard-headed individuals like Dawkins might never be convinced - What?! A good friend wouldn't even try?

I say: Even if only a few individuals were to be convinced / saved, this would warrant undertaking every possible effort, making the absolutely most-convincing argument I could, providing the very best evidence I could supply. Skywriting in all 2,000 known languages, if need be. Would you not?

And in which you have been unable to sustain a compelling moral argument against the God of the Bible without degrading him as one who is not omniscient and omnipotent, and who thus acts in the light of all that can be known.

I never degraded God. I never cast doubt upon the existence of God. I merely asked you for your explanation to the age-old "Problem of Evil."

You did nothing but minimize, trivialize, misrepresent, divert, distract, and deflect.

"It wouldn't always work! Some people would never be convinced!"

Don't care! Try anyway! Some might nevertheless be saved!

"It depends upon what you are trying to convince your friend of. Trying to convince him to quit smoking is different than trying to convince him to join a convenant with you!"

No, it isn't. It doesn't matter what you are trying to convince him of, as long as it is important.

"As C.S. Lewis wrote, a deep faith-based belief trumps an intellectually-held belief - on the battlefield!"

We are on an Internet message board, discussing Theodicy. What would be more effective in a foxhole on a battlefield is irrelevant here.

And your alternatives to what God could have done in the light of the problem of evil, that of a world in which mankind is like a cloud or a robot (OP option #1), or world of instant punishment for every wrong choice (akin to option #4) simply warrants some expansion to one my non-viable alternatives to what God could have.

Huh?! Unintelligible!

Regards,

444 posted on 09/05/2023 8:29:41 AM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
It's not that it denigrates the Free Will; it's that it's not enough to necessarily overcome either bad habits, physiological addiction, insecurity, or sheer cussedness.

That would be your excuse for not delivering the absolutely best, forensic-level evidence and most-compelling logic you could to your dear friend, to save him?

Because it wouldn't necessarily be enough?

"Well, I suppose that I could have thrown a lifesaver to that drowning man. But that wouldn't necessarily have saved him! In fact, he might even have rejected it!"

That, in a nutshell, is your logic!

Regards,

445 posted on 09/05/2023 8:37:18 AM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek
I'd rather do something that would effectively get my friend to quit smoking, rather the ideologically virtue-signal about whether I had the most complete data from the latest studies.

Penny: Sheldon, does this box have any sentimental value?"

Sheldon:"No"

Penny: (stomps on box to open it)

I think you are confusing "building an evidentiarily-airtight case that smoking is harmful" with "getting him to f------ quit"...

446 posted on 09/05/2023 8:53:11 AM PDT by grey_whiskers ( The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

God says, call to me and I will show you great and mighty things you did not know...
corollary... if you don’t call out to me, I will NOT show you...

God says, if you confess your sins I will forgive them and cleanse you of them...
corollary... if you don’t confess, forgiveness will not come and you will stay “dirty”

Jesus said, whatever you ask the father in my name he will give it you
corollary... God will not give you what you did not ask for in my name

God says... ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened unto you...

corollary if you do not ask, seek or knock you will not receive find or have doors open to you

Jesus said pray after this manner declare that my kingdom comes... and the corollary is this if you do NOT declare the known will of God to come to pass in the earth... he will not move in that manner because it was not requested.

there are laws in the earth gravity, natural law and 24 hour days... they are already established as is intended... but God’s sovereignty on earth is via conquest via obedience... as in ask, receive, seek and find, healing sickness, even the coming of God’s kingdom.

if we don’t ask he will or may NOT exercise his sovereign power to make it so.
not asking, is a choice.

what does God have in his will for us today, what is it that WE can particpate in through the weapons of faith and faithfulness in our prayers? remember to say “so be it” when you pray... it is to HIS glory...

asking is a choice... so is NOT asking.


447 posted on 09/05/2023 8:53:38 AM PDT by MIA_eccl1212 (utilize leverage at every opportunity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
I'd rather do something that would effectively get my friend to quit smoking, rather the ideologically virtue-signal about whether I had the most complete data from the latest studies.

You are right: I have been over-emphasizing the necessity of "forensic-level evidence and compelling logic" - because that is what would be most effective with me. But you are right: A different individual might be better motivated by other means.

My take-away: You and I agree that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God would perforce use TAILOR-MADE methods to sway each and every individual soul. For one person, that might be a personalized essay emblazoned across the sky, for another, it might be the materialization of a perfect Bible with hyperlinked footnotes, glossary, etc.

Penny: Sheldon, does this box have any sentimental value?" Sheldon:"No" Penny: (stomps on box to open it)

Don't get it.

I think you are confusing "building an evidentiarily-airtight case that smoking is harmful" with "getting him to f------ quit"...

Addressed by me above. A truly all-mighty God would of course select the most-effective tool for the given individual who needs convincing.

Regards,

448 posted on 09/05/2023 9:02:56 AM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy

Exactly... how does one complain about evil and suffering without a moral unchanging law..?

Without such a comparison only survival of the fittest holds... and whatever is done by the winner... no matter how awful... can be justified...

There is no right/wrong that is not subjective and transient...

The only hope you have is that you have enough influence to shape things the way you perceive...

Many of us have given explanation to why things are the way they are... just isn’t good enough for those that believe man is the center of all things...

If we are, there always will be chaos and suffering... that is who and what we are as a species... that is what is dictated by our history... as for natural calamities... that is part of the nob-purpose reality we live in...

I reject such... the more discoveries science makes the more it shows the complexity of our being and the reality we live in... even the laws of nature state we should not exist taken at face value...

Many scientists are now stating that for life to evolve as it has... are trillions-to-trillions to one as being possible... our DNA and individual cells speak to such... our DNA has design patterns built into it... a sign of intelligence...

As such, many atheist scientists are now saying that we are a product of a multiverse... where we are the reality where life formed...

Of course there is no proof of the multiverse... but they know the odds just don’t support life springing into existence and evolving as quickly as it would need to for such complexity to exist in our reality...

But even with the multiverse you need to understand why the laws of nature are finite and finally tuned... and how all the matter and energy came into existence...

Even a multiverse theory requires an intelligence outside of its reality to initiate it...

As the Bible states... His creation points to His existence...

So God Bless to all and especially to those trying to bring purpose to suffering based solely on man living in a non-purpose filled reality...


449 posted on 09/05/2023 10:53:55 AM PDT by PigRigger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Bless you... your answers are truly worth reading and contemplating...


450 posted on 09/05/2023 11:00:12 AM PDT by PigRigger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

The fool says in his heart...


451 posted on 09/05/2023 5:43:32 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek
A truly all-mighty God would of course select the most-effective tool for the given individual who needs convincing.

What forest?

All I see is a bunch of damned trees!

452 posted on 09/05/2023 5:47:50 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
A truly all-mighty God would of course select the most-effective tool for the given individual who needs convincing.

What forest? All I see is a bunch of damned trees!

A truly all-mighty God would of course not be "stumped" by that particular variety of denseness (nor any other variety of obliviousness, stupidity, obstinancy, etc.) and then simply give up. A truly all-mighty God would of course apply an infinite variety of different strategies until one finally worked. A truly all-mighty God would of course not become "exasperated" after a mere 1080 attempts (that's greater than the number of fundamental subatomic particles in the entire known Universe). Rather, He would persevere. He would ensure that the individual did not, in the meantime, accidentally fall victim to some silly lethal microbe or fatal natural catastrophe prematurely. He would arrange, if need be, for a face-to-face "sit-down" to discuss the matter in person.

Wouldn't He?

WOULDN'T HE?

If not: WHY not?

Regards,

453 posted on 09/05/2023 11:51:39 PM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek; grey_whiskers; daniel1212
Sorry! Wanted to address my posting #453 to you all.

Regards,

454 posted on 09/05/2023 11:54:27 PM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: PigRigger
Bless you... your answers are truly worth reading and contemplating...

Thank God for what is good, and the exchange has been thought-provoking and revealing. From what I see, while the atheist may justify his rejection of God by demanding compelling hard forensic-level evidence for God, yet that hard compelling evidence simply does not exist for his rejection of a creator, but which can only be upon what they see as a degree of evidential warrant for their faith (that the universe can one day be all be explained by nature), which is due to the inclination of their heart.

Meanwhile Biblically believing in God is simply not the same as showing that obesity often causes diabetes, but it is that of believing in a person that is worth seeking to know (Heb. 11:6) which finds a degree of evidential warrant for their faith, which is due to the inclination of their heart, and a faith that makes Him worthy of obedience.

And thus, rather than acknowledgement of existence of God (which itself is not salvific) being compelled by hard forensic-level evidence (which still can be rationalized away) making one a effectual believer, converts find evidential warrant for their faith, even in the light of changes in the hearts and lives of others that overall are not sufficiently explained others than the supernatural. Thus this reveals the character of the heart of the believer. (cf. Jn, 3:19-21)

One wonders if the demand for compelling hard forensic-level evidence for faith somehow relates to most atheists being unmarried men without children (besides being pro-homosexual/abortion, liberal: 10% I.D. as conservative) .

However, the atheist can deny he is casting doubt on the existence of God even as he demands compelling forensic-level evidence for him, and not degrading God (of the Bible) while vainly engaging in a moral argument against Him by treating Him as if He was not omniscient and omnipotent, and who thus acts in the light of all that can be known, and can make all to work out for what is ultimately Good, as promised. Which attributes themselves invalidate charges of God allowing evil, no matter how many hoops the atheist demand God jump thru to his satisfaction.

And that for the atheist, the proffered solution to the problem of evil can be that of a world in which mankind is like a cloud or a robot, or world of instant punishment for every wrong choice.

Neither of which I find compelling, nor any of the other atheistic arguments against God, even they are denied as being so. Thus, while this has been further revealing, yet as typical with other exchanges, I presently found such as unworthy of further attempts at reason.

455 posted on 09/06/2023 3:22:45 AM PDT by daniel1212 (As a damned+destitute sinner turn 2 the Lord Jesus who saves souls on His acct + b baptized 2 obey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
(Comment to you) A truly all-mighty God would of course select the most effective tool for the given individual who needs convincing.

(Your comment) What forest?

All I see is a bunch of damned trees!

IMO, your comment cuts to the core issue of this thread.

People arrogantly demand that God speak to them in this way or that, or that he act this way or that way (according to their estimation of how "a truly all-mighty God" should act).

The funny thing is that God HAS selected the most effective way of speaking to human beings (most effective in that it accomplishes what he wants to accomplish).

He speaks to the human heart (the center of consciousness, being, morality, love, empathy, shame, etc., etc., etc.). People who are confused by what is meant by "speaking to the heart" can get a clear view of it by reading what his Son says in the New Testament. Jesus/Yeshuah doesn't mince words.

God seems to have no interest in speaking to those who are unwilling to listen with their hearts. He seems to have no interest in playing silly rhetorical games with people who insist it's their way or the highway.

In fact, he seems to be weeding out those people. And they seem angry that he will not perform like their circus monkey...doing what they think a truly all-powerful god would do.

Your quote upthread, "The fool says in his heart (that there is no God)" is spot on. The next verse (Psalm 14:2) is also particularly applicable to this thread: "The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God."

456 posted on 09/06/2023 3:44:18 AM PDT by RoosterRedux (A person who seeks the truth with a strong bias will never find it. He will only confirm his bias.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Simple, that a Child can see.

Love makes trust. Love doesn’t make People and Creation, Robots.


457 posted on 09/06/2023 3:56:50 AM PDT by Varsity Flight ( See"War by🙏🙏 the prophesies set before you." I Timothy 1:18. Nazarite prayer warriors. 10.5.6.5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek
Because He is God and you are not; asking the question implies that you are on an equal footing with Him, and that all your facilities and intellectual/psychological tastes (as it were) are innocent and uncorrupted, such that it is morally incumbent upon Him to cater to them.

But not only is that *not* a given (it is an emotional add-on deriving from the ansatz of "equal a priori probabilities," together with the ad hoc insistence that "God loves everyone equally")(*)...

but it is openly contradictory to the repeated call of God to "repent, and turn to Me." In a general sense, it relies on the unwarranted insistence that there are no intellectual sins: logical syllogisms may have universal validity, but that is not enough to make sure that your premises are true, even if they are "just common sense" or are universally agreed upon in the social and intellectual subculture you prefer. Second, it ignores the plain admonitions/commands of Scripture, "God rejects the proud, but gives Grace to the humble" and "Whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and rewards those who diligently seek Him" and "I tell you, whoever does not accept the Kingdom of God like a little child shall never enter it."

You are trying to establish a rules-based, general principle up front in order to regularize, classify, and (philosophically) "constrain" God's behavior to a firm most consistent with intellectual pride ("I told Him what I wanted and He didn't do it, it's all God's fault")...but all those who already know, are pointing that tghe rules don't work that way. Not as a threadbare excuse to cover for lack of intellectual heft to devise efficacious models to describe moral systems in the same way SCIENCE!™ describes physical systems--but because we're no longer about dispassionately describing a neutral system, but getting to know Somebody.

"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated"; not to mention the presence of curses: certain forms or instances of disobedience have had the effect of causing God to command/declare deleterious effects either on that person's subjects (Pharaoh and the firstborn of Egypt; King David's census and a plague of sorts in Israel), or on their descendants (a disobedient Israeli priest who was told his forbears would be removed from the priesthood--even though succession was hereditary).

458 posted on 09/06/2023 5:09:43 AM PDT by grey_whiskers ( The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

Again I ask, “What kind of a god would suit YOU?”


459 posted on 09/06/2023 5:58:04 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

Y'all shall NOT use the words "you all" in my presence!

460 posted on 09/06/2023 5:59:57 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 561-572 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson