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,
I try to cut thru the chaff whenever possible.
He merely wants to understand GOD.
A fool’s errand at best, but like Zeno, even fools get frustrated when the prize is just THIS far away from their fingertips.
I think that's much too kind. Sounds more like someone wants to create a God-like straw man.
My son and I are not on an equal intellectual, emotional, etc. footing - and yet I would endeavor to answer his questions to the BEST of my ability.
Besides: You have distorted my scenario. In the scenario I described ("Wouldn't you do ALL you could, provide the BEST arguments and evidence you could, to convince your friend that, e.g., smoking is dangerous?"), there was no mention of anyone "questioning" or "demanding" (petulantly or otherwise).
If I saw my low-I.Q. friend (who thus is NOT on an "equal footing" with me) engaging in a dangerous or immoral or unwise behavior, I would - without his even saying a thing - walk up to him and attempt to dissuade him.
If I saw him trying to repair a transformer substation on the side of the street, and I knew that his understanding of electrical engineering was sub-optimal and might quite possibly result in his Death, I would rush - unasked - to his assistance.
I would NOT walk past him, thinking, "Well, he's not on equal footing with me! And the written instructions I wrote are lying there on the sidewalk next to him. True, they've been photocopied a dozen times, and are getting quite grainy. And someone tore out a page or two. And someone else pasted in a few extra sections. And then someone else translated them poorly. And then someone else came and said that the Book of Mormon had to be added. And a street preacher yelled at him that he would surely die if he didn't read them. But then another passerby shouted that only Allah gives salvation. Etc. etc."
Rather, I would help him - no questions asked!
If I were a supernaturally powerful being, I would of course employ persuasive means that a mere mortal could not marshal.
Why doesn't God do this?
certain forms or instances of disobedience have had the effect of causing God to command/declare deleterious effects
You are always grasping at straws, citing the (perhaps rare) exceptions - hard-hearted Pharaohs and the like.
For me to "win" this argument, all I have to do is present a single instance in all Human History of a person - say, an innocent child, or some adult with next to zero exposure to Holy Scripture - who does NOT "demand" an explanation, but who - through perhaps shear ignorance - is in danger of damnation, or who is in mortal danger due to the behavior of a different individual very much in need of "instruction."
So the question remains: Why wouldn't God intercede in such a case? Either to save the perpetrator from committing a Cardinal Sin (thus risking eternal damnation), or to save the other person from being the victim of that Cardinal Sin?
You would have been intellectually far more honest if, from the very get-go, you had answered the title question ("If God is all-powerful, then why...") by saying, "We can't presume to know why. It is, indeed, perhaps unknowable! And as mere mortals we also have no right to be irritated by not knowing."
Regards,
He did, and does. It's not His fault if you choose to ignore Him and His Word.
And if, in the process, a couple of souls are condemned to Eternal Damnation, what of it, right?
Or if a single individual is forced to endure suffering - what of it?
Regards,
I am "demanding" nothing of God. Nor am I casting doubts on the existence of God.
Rather, I am merely standing here, admitting that I absolutely fail to see how a loving, caring, and all-powerful God could possibly be capable of the horrors and injustices that have occurred (natural disasters; innocent victims of mass-murderers; etc.).
My intellectual powers are simply not up to the task.
You have no right to say that I have "demanded" anything of God. I have not demanded that He intercede in Human affairs. I have not challenged Him to provide me an answer or prove His existence.
Rather, I am engaging in a conversation with you. And you are consistently refusing to properly counter my observations.
If you chose, you could at least reply, "We don't know. Perhaps we humans can't know! It's a mystery!" That would have ended the matter for me.
But you didn't.
Instead, you have said that you do know, and provided what you purported to be a good explanation.
How is claiming to understand God, almost to speak FOR God, more "presumptuous" or "prideful" that my asking God for proof (which, again, I have NOT done - but which you accused me of doing)?
On one hand, you claim to address my problem (my failure to understand / my puzzlement over an apparent paradox - "God allowing Evil.") - and on the other hand, you accuse me of having the effrontery to "demand proofs of God" (which I have NOT done).
Curious!
Regards,
My intellectual powers are simply not up to the task.
Try this intellectual exercise as an analogy:
You are playing with a set of army men. Because they are army men, you hold a battle. Dozens are "killed," dozens are "wounded," a few are heroes, etc.
Now put yourself in the position of the army men. Everything you see is from that viewpoint. All you "see" is death and suffering everywhere. But from the person playing with them, the viewpoint is entirely different. Goals are different. Results are different, etc.
Those army men cannot see the reasons behind the actions/environments/etc. Yet the person "playing" with them is all-knowing with regards to this environment.
I'm NOT saying that God is playing with us. Rather, I'm saying that His viewpoint is markedly different than ours, and His goals are markedly different than ours, and His methods are markedly different than ours.
Also, the person "playing" with the army men have absolutely ZERO obligation to explain himself to the army men.
I’m at work and will reply this evening.
I accept and (I think) understand your analogy. I understand your caveat that you are using the word "play" only to simplify the explanation. And I think that your explanation is, indeed, an ADEQUATE explanation - one in which I can't so easily punch any holes! Bravo!
But in view of the TITLE of this article:
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?
...wouldn't it have been simpler from the get-go to frankly admit that you just DON'T KNOW? That "God's Plan" is simply unfathomable? That His Plan must be characterized as "good" per definitionem - i.e., merely because He is God? That - even using the best means at our disposal - it is impossible for us limited beings to DEMONSTRATE logically that God is acting in our best interests? That it is impossible to EXPLAIN how an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God would ALLOW Evil and Suffering? That the question of Theodicy is unanswerable using scientific means or rational argumentation?
That would have been a lot more intellectually honest.
If you had said that from the onset - instead of arguing as though you knew what His Plan was, or arguing that I was being "stubborn" or "prideful" for allegedly questioning it - this exchange could have been a lot shorter and sweeter!
Thanks nonetheless for the conversation!
Regards,
OK--Honestly I thought that was axiomatic. But you're correct. We should say that we don't know.
My analogy above is a way for me to grasp it.
I do have another question--if there was no evil in the world, and we were all still living in Eden, then how would we know what Good is? How would we know what Evil is? How could we possibly make an informed, free, decision to choose God and His Goodness over Evil?
Caveat: I am not speaking from a position of authority and/or knowledge. I do not purport to know the truth. Rather, I can only speculate. Having said that:
One could, I suppose, understand what "Evil" is as a concept - even though one had no obvious instantiations of Evil at hand to examine.
But isn't it stated EXPLICITLY in Genesis that only after having eaten of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge did Adam and Eve first acquire the ability to recognize Evil?
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it.
- Genesis 2:17
We can thus conclude that, prior to eating the fruit, neither Adam nor Eve had any understanding of what "Good" or "Evil" even were. There were thus, in effect, also incapable of distinguishing between "Good" and "Evil." They were thus incapable of making informed decisions about "Good" and "Evil."
I suppose that one could nonetheless still argue that they were capable of "acting evilly" - even without that knowledge. That they could "unknowingly" commit evil acts. (Someone up above - was it daniel1212?) had even STATED that it was possible to commit "sins of omission or of commission" in total ignorance.)
But Adam and Eve could not "knowingly" do so - because they completely lacked that faculty, prior to eating of the forbidden fruit.
Regards,
I've give him numerous chances in this thread.
I wonder why nothing has been forthcoming as of yet.
GOD! I just hate when this happens!
Oh?
Then why are you DEMANDING that His followers give you a reason that you should become a follower as well?
You sure give a good imitation of denying the existence of a RATIONAL, LOVING Christian GOD!
Spit it out and tell us what a Good, Loving god would be like.
Yea!
I win!!
Does a child have to know the effects of playing in the street to obey his mom when she says, "Do not play in the street"?
Genesis 2:16-17
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
A&E were not making any decision about G&E, thus had no need to know of either.
Adam was TOLD by GOD what the effects would be if the fruit of the tree (in the middle of the garden: location supplied later by Eve) .
Did Adam fail to tell Eve? She wasn't around yet.
Did GOD talk to Eve and add "and you must not touch it" that Eve replied back to the serpent? Or did Adam tell her that?? Or did she just make it up by herself???
Genesis 3:3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
Genesis 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.
Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
Did A&E know what 'die' meant?
Would a parent instruct a child with words they didn't understand?
That's the problem with these kind of discussions, in that written text does not have inflection nor facial expressions to go upon: and the intermittent nature of internet postings means one can't correct misunderstandings / mischaracterizations in real time.
My son and I are not on an equal intellectual, emotional, etc. footing - and yet I would endeavor to answer his questions to the BEST of my ability.
I meant by "equal footing" and "cater" a matter of status, of standing. I would explain it to a liberal like this: What would happen if I snuck up and gave Fauci a wedgie?" "HOW DARE you?"
(Or substitute a pie in the face and Hillary, whatever.)
The idea is that there is intrinsic dignity, or status, or POWER, that you had BETTER mind your p's and q's around people, disrespect is just beyond the pale.
Now exponentiate that.
If I saw my low-I.Q. friend (who thus is NOT on an "equal footing" with me) engaging in a dangerous or immoral or unwise behavior, I would - without his even saying a thing - walk up to him and attempt to dissuade him.
I'm sure you would. The objection I raised earlier is that most people aren't motivated to change their ordinary behavior (let alone an addiction) by dry logic.
would NOT walk past him, thinking, "Well, he's not on equal footing with me! And the written instructions I wrote are lying there on the sidewalk next to him. True, they've been photocopied a dozen times, and are getting quite grainy. And someone tore out a page or two. And someone else pasted in a few extra sections. And then someone else translated them poorly. And then someone else came and said that the Book of Mormon had to be added. And a street preacher yelled at him that he would surely die if he didn't read them. But then another passerby shouted that only Allah gives salvation. Etc. etc."
Now come the misrepresentations, slanders, emotional arguments, and strawmen.
It's like someone hit the spray can on reddit atheism.
The equal footing was already covered: either you missed, or ignored, the parts about humility: they don't imply God won't deal with humans, but that He openly said He will push back on the proud. That was a personal warning against your approach, not a statement that God is aloof in general.
THe written instructions lying on the sidewalk next to you? Srsly? So now opening a book is too much trouble? Or is it only, hmmm, *some* books? Or perhaps you are demanding a telepathic phone line right into your head? Something like that is available, but it's the advanced class, only after you've converted, and takes a great deal of effort, devotion, trust, and self-sacrifice.
The remarks about photocopying, graininess, tearing out of pages, are merely poor excuses borne out of ignorance. The number of manuscripts, their agreement, and their proximity in time to the people and events, for (say) the life of Christ, are better than our sources of other historical figures from that period.
And I seriously doubt that you are entertaining thoughts of converting to Islam: if anything, your insistence on "if God is all-loving and all Merciful, and He has to prove it" etc. would put such out of the running immediately.
If I were a supernaturally powerful being, I would of course employ persuasive means that a mere mortal could not marshal. Why doesn't God do this?
(Quoting my earlier post, "certain forms or instances of disobedience have had the effect of causing God to command/declare deleterious effects") and your reply: You are always grasping at straws, citing the (perhaps rare) exceptions - hard-hearted Pharaohs and the like.
You couldn't be more wrong. It has nothing to do with straws at all. IT is that the assumption so many non-believers make, that everything is neutral, and that we all start out equal in our search for God, etc. Those verses were off the top of my head, as examples that everything is NOT equal, and that God has no obligation to excuse faults; and (later in my post) that in fact, God promises different results to different people -- and that the measure, the currency, the characteristic feature which will make seeking God more successful, is not rigorous systematic logical consistency, but rather *trust* and *humility*. The point wasn't "look, here's an exception to the rule, God can go without saving someone because they were bad" (cf. Monty Python's "who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.") -- my point was upstream of that: that some behavior, and indeed some attitudes, will cause God to turn away from you and not honor what *you* consider to be good-faith efforts. It wasn't a philosophical excuse to get God off the hook for suffering: it was practical advice on how to make sure you, personally, can connect to God.
For me to "win" this argument, all I have to do is present a single instance in all Human History of a person - say, an innocent child, or some adult with next to zero exposure to Holy Scripture - who does NOT "demand" an explanation, but who - through perhaps shear ignorance - is in danger of damnation, or who is in mortal danger due to the behavior of a different individual very much in need of "instruction."
An innocent child?
Several ways to unpack that one. One of them is to point out Original Sin: that the state of Mankind since the fall, is *by default* separation from God. (The Orthodox have a somewhat different take on this.), and so even children aren't "innocent." Against that is the view of something called the age of accountability (following from St. Paul's Romans 4:15 "Where there is no Law, there is no transgression", or the words of Jesus from the Cross "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" or his remarks to the Pharisees in John 9:41 "Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you should have no sin: but now you say, We see; therefore your sin remains. "
So the question remains: Why wouldn't God intercede in such a case? Either to save the perpetrator from committing a Cardinal Sin (thus risking eternal damnation), or to save the other person from being the victim of that Cardinal Sin?
God did not promise to save sinners, unless and until they turn to Him. And He certainly didn't say that as a general rule, being innocent would by itself save you from evil people. The entire Bible is chock full of innocent people suffering before God: and only rarely are they rescued -- and that usually when He wants to make the situation an example for other people. In fact, even the Old Testament shouts it out loud, long before Jesus said "Turn the other cheek": 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus ("and the dogs used to come and lick his sores"); and reflect that St. Paul says both "if for this life only we have trusted in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied" and "I was taken up into Heaven and seen things that man may not utter".
If you're going to trust in God, then trust. And that includes Heaven (which you've curiously ignored) as well as Hell (which you yourself already know how to avoid).
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.