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,
The Hindus have evil Gods—but not sure what the Muslim explanation is...
You are side-stepping the question!
The entire essay dwells solely upon the suffering in the World attributable to Man's Fallen State, and claims that, for Free Will to be able to exist, the possibility of Man choosing unwisely (= evil) had to be allowed. Understood!
However, the essay entirely elides the fact that a great deal of Human suffering is attributable to things over which we have absolutely no control, like severe natural catastrophes. Rather, it focuses only on sinful action causing Human suffering.
Why should Free Will necessitate natural catastrophes?
Free Will could exist even in a World entirely devoid of natural catastrophes.
Regards,
How does that apply to a child who is abused horribly for years until worn out then sold for parts?
Hebrews 11. [6] But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Living on this tumultuous planet is a test of faith. Will we still choose to believe the Almighty God even during and enduring often hostile and cruel happening’s? We weren’t meant to figure it all out but we are to be faithful in trusting Him through it all. To become cynical of God, atheistic or totally agnostic is a failing grade on the faith scale.
I don’t know if you’ve read the book of Job.
If you haven’t, it’s not a crime.
But it could become a crime if such neglect leads you away from God.
Again—the book of Job gives us the answer to the question of evil.
Plantinga is the best
Agreed.
Job tells you what to do after evil has hit....
As near as I can tell the explanation of “the problem of evil” is something along the lines of “God rules. Deal with it.”
Although we’ve had our disagreements, over the decades Dennis Prager has demonstrated clearly to me that he is a very wise and thoughtful man.
Earthquakes, tornadoes and the like are not evil. They just are. There is no such thing as natural evil. Only moral evil.
How could it be anything else? Didn’t God create everything?
Not just some things—everything.
The only ones who question submission to God, and persist in this questioning, are those who will not be with him in eternity.
A perfect example of the Tu Quoque Fallacy!
I will stipulate that you are correct with regards to our not always fully using our meagre powers to always choose Good over Evil - But your remark does NOTHING to address (let alone weaken) the argument that at least GOD should exert Himself to the utmost. If He were truly omnipotent AND omnibenevolent AND omniscient, He could at least eliminate all Human suffering stemming from, e.g., natural catastrophes.
BTW: He could also "zap" - or at least "doxx" - all those serial killers right after they take their first victim, rather than allowing them to continue, sometimes for decades, and sometimes without ever being brought to justice.
Any human police detective, if suddenly given superhuman detective powers, would do so. God does not.
Regards,
For I am the Lord thy God and I created the good and the evil, I did it for my own glory.
Great quote—and I had not heard it before.
When unjust tragedy strikes families the clergy is often there to try to explain—and they use some of the explanations given in this thread.
They lose many parishioners as a result.
I have my own views on the best answer—but that would anger many folks here since it is nowhere to be found in the Bible—so I am not going to go there.
At the end of the day there are always threats and warnings, threats and warnings—all done with love of course...
:-)
It is true that valid, rational answers are not emotionally satisfying, but that does not mean they are not valid, and can provide healing. The fact is that as the giver of life, and the God-given ability to make choices, and which have consequences that affect others, means that just (to varying degrees) as we benefit from the right choices of others, so also (to varying degrees) we suffer from the wrong choices of people, directly or (usually) indirectly.
But unless we want a world in which we cannot make choices, and that have consequences, the argument becomes why did God allow the negative ones we suffer from. For God does indeed restrain and prevent much evil (otherwise the whole world would be as North Korea or morally decline like a San Francisco).
The rational answer to this is than an infinitely wise omniscient as well as omnipotent being, who knows what every single effect will be of every choice of man - immediate, resultant and progressive, not only in this life but the future and in eternity - as well as the motive behind each one, can makes His choices in the light of all that can be known, and what He is able to do, being able to make all to ultimately work out for what is Good, with justice as well as with mercy and grace. All without removing from created moral beings the ability to make choices.
That was essentially the "answer" given to Job in the light of his protestations, meaning that the God would created the manifest universe he gazed at and saw around him, all without needing Job's advice, knew exactly what Job was going thru, and carefully watched on the temperature of his trial, which was for the good of Job, whom the envious selfish devil hated.
The alternative is faith in natural causes, for to believe that an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life with intricate astounding complexity, can be all a result of purely natural processes requires much faith, more so than that the universe logically testifies to design, requiring a First Cause (at the least), that of a powerful being of supreme intelligence being behind the existence of energy and organization of matter.
It’s Almost Impossible to Understand How Unfathomably Massive Our Universe Truly Is
Design from Fine-Tuning | Reasonable Faith
'God: new evidence' - the fine tuning of the universe - part 1
When science and philosophy collide in a 'fine-tuned' universe
We Live in a Very Fortunate Universe
Can DNA Prove the Existence of an Intelligent Designer?
82 Mind-Blowing Facts about DNA | FactRetriever.com
Extra-Biblical Historical Evidence for Christianity
Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?
Amazing Stories, Christian Testimonies, Healing Miracles and Inspirational Stories
Dawkins [essentially] Admits Nothing Can Persuade Him God Exists
There are two kinds of thoughts: those in the Lord, and those apart from the Lord.
When we look at these two categories of thought from a perspective of deductive logic, we can see that any thoughts apart from the Lord necessarily derive from some form of a denial of God.
This explains the error in all atheist philosophies from the beginning of time.
Earthquakes, tornadoes and the like are not evil. They just are. There is no such thing as natural evil. Only moral evil.
Irrelevant, distracting response.
If we were all "clouds," or "robots," no one would have any legitimate complaint to lodge with the Creator regarding "suffering." There would be no suffering!
As the OP states:
"For unless you want a world in which mankind is like a cloud or a robot, then allowing evil is a necessary good [...]"
If that's a genuine offer, then I opt for "cloud."
But the OP was being ingenuous - thinking that no one would "call" him on it.
Regards,
So did Marx, IIRC.
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.