Posted on 07/14/2018 3:34:56 PM PDT by pcottraux
Does Suffering in the World Disprove God’s Existence?
By Philip Cottraux
War. Plagues. Starvation. Natural disasters. Children dying in the streets. Rapes. Massacres. The Bible says For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son (John 3:16), yet why does He allow these things? If He is all-powerful, couldn’t He intervene and stop all of it in an instant? This is perhaps the most common argument against His existence, at least from my experience. If an atheist sniffs out a tweet I’ve made about God’s love, they’ll respond with an image of a child’s body blown to bits by a terrorist, demanding an explanation why a loving God allowed such a thing.
I find exploiting tragedy to win an argument on social media reprehensible, but let’s set aside the ethics of emotional manipulation to take the point head-on. The impression I get from most atheists is that they think this is a ground-breaking argument that completely destroys theism. I’ve written in the past about the common atheist myth that religion is in decline while they are triumphing and growing in numbers, readying the world for a scientific utopia. They seem to view “how could a loving God allow suffering?” as one of the many powerful weapons in their arsenal, as if Christians are chipper, naïve people blissfully unaware of evil in the world (I can’t fathom how anyone would think that in 2,000 years, no one from a group of over a billion people would have figured out that tragedy happens in life). An atheist recently tweeted me that the argument is so powerful, no Christian has ever come up with a good counter argument. I didn’t even know how to reply to such a profoundly stupid claim (how could anyone possibly know something like that?).
But this argument isn’t exactly new. So far as historians can tell, it can be traced all the way back to the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, who lived from 340-271 BC. According to Epicurus: “Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” In 1710, the philosopher Leibniz first coined the term theodicy to describe the attempt at compromising a good God who permits wickedness.
This is a very complicated issue to unpack in a limited space and I won’t be able to cover every common Christian answer. But these are the arguments that I personally prefer on the alleged contradiction between a loving God who created a miserable planet.
Of course, the classic theist response is to point to free will. If God truly loves His creation, we wouldn’t be automatons forced to serve Him. He wants us to willfully love Him back, so allows us to choose good or evil. Sadly, many choose evil. He will try to woo us to do good with His Spirit but will rarely impose it on us. This is why many atheists, including Sam Harris, adamantly reject the existence of free will (though personally, I can’t compromise how predestination makes any sense without a higher power guiding us along. The inherent contradiction of people like Harris calling themselves “free thinkers” while rejecting the possibility of free thinking is beyond hypocritical). A mature person know that if you love someone unconditionally but they constantly reject you, eventually true love them requires letting them go.
But the free will versus predestination argument brings us down a rabbit hole that has been driving philosophers mad for centuries, so I’m going to sidestep it for now.
My first point is that Epicureanism commits what I find to the classic fatal flaw of atheism, a subtle logical flaw that occurs in almost every skeptical argument; and when I point it out to you, it’ll open your eyes to it emerging universally across the spectrum of atheist philosophies.
It goes as follows: presume atheism is already the truth, then judge all theology as if it’s the truth, without ever establishing why it’s the truth. Never establishing the premise provides a weak foundation. This fatal flaw is so pervasive, Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, considered by many to be the Bible of neo-atheism, is built entirely upon it. From the first page, Dawkins admits he cannot prove God doesn’t exist, then spends the rest of the book knocking down religion as if he’s proven God doesn’t exist.
So let’s apply this principal to the question of human suffering. While most atheists think they’re making a brilliant argument against Christian theology, they actually either show very little understanding of it or are ignoring its basic premise. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the Bible knows that its entire point is to explain why the world’s in this condition, and how it can be redeemed through Christ.
If atheists believe an omnipotent, loving God would only create a paradise free of pain, they should read the first few chapters of Genesis. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed (Genesis 2:8). Eden was heaven on Earth, there was no sickness or death and man dwelt in God’s glory. But when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they were cast out because God will not allow sin in His presence. A curse was placed on the human race. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return (verse 19). The devil has been able to wreak havoc on mankind ever since; sin covers this world like a dark cloud and God’s hands are tied, only able to penetrate it through the prayers of the righteous.
But the Word of God doesn’t leave it unresolved: from the beginning, a plan was set in motion to redeem mankind back to Eden. Jesus was the Son of God sent to free us from the curse of sin. His blood opens a door to heaven in the shape of a cross.
Now, you can argue that Adam and Eve are fictional characters and that the Garden of Eden isn’t historical; but that is a different issue. This is basic Christianity that we learn in Sunday school. So pay very careful attention to how the classic atheist flaw applies. When skeptics confront us with how a loving God could allow horrible things to happen in the world, they are presuming that Adam and Eve never existed, then demanding an explanation as if they never existed. But the first premise of the Bible is that they did exist, so this presumption sinks the entire argument. Like in so many other examples, they’re presupposing Christianity is already not the truth, then demanding Christians explain themselves under the premise that it isn’t the truth. See how this works?
But I have one more point to conclude with, and that’s looking at the results of the argument itself. If suffering is sufficient to debunk God’s existence, why hasn’t it done so for the majority of the human race yet? Again, the argument isn’t “new” or “groundbreaking;” Epicurus taught the problem of evil as a reason not to believe in any deity some three centuries before Christianity. In fact, the careful observer will note that his name appears in the New Testament. In Acts 17, Paul arrived at Athens. Since Greece had been one of the hubs of philosophy in the ancient world, its people would gather at town squares to hear strangers espouse new ways of thinking. When traveling to foreign lands, Paul would preach to Jews first, as they had a basic understanding of God and would be familiar with the Messianic prophesies of the Old Testament. Acts 17:17: Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. Paul would be invited to speak at Mars Hill to explain the teachings of Jesus. But he was already encountering resistance: Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. Followers of Epicurus were present at Paul’s sermon at Mars Hill, and rejected His message along with the rest of Athens. They were with him until he spoke on Christ’s resurrection from the dead: And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. So Paul departed from among them (verses 32-33). Athens would be one of Paul’s greatest failures; while some were converted, no church was planted at that time.
Far from being something new and Earth-shattering, we can see the conflict between Epicureanism and Christianity dating back almost to the time of Christ Himself. Yet Christianity still exploded in the coming centuries and is today the world’s largest religion. Epicureanism did nothing to slow down its growth.
The results speak for themselves; I can’t help but dismiss it as a weak philosophy. So when atheists show me pictures of horror and death and demand why my God would allow it, thinking they’ve blown my mind with something that’s never occurred to me before, my favorite response is: “In over 2,000 years, no one has been able to defeat Christianity with this old, tired argument. What makes you think you’ll be the first?”
Twitter: @DepthsPentecost
YouTube: Depths of Pentecost
Instagram: @DepthsofPentecost
Thanks for reading/watching, and God bless!
This is the official ping list for Depths of Pentecost: I’m a Christian blogger who writes weekly Bible lessons. Topics range from Bible studies, apologetics, theology, history, and occasionally current events. Every now and then I upload sermons or classes onto YouTube.
Let me know if you’d like to added to the Depths of Pentecost ping list. New posts are up every Saturday.
My first, gut response is that suffering Proves God’s existence.
Details to be worked out.
My lefty ex felt that if there was a god he wouldn’t let children die. I couldn’t contest that.
“My first, gut response is that suffering Proves God’s existence.”
I agree with you. I also feel that there is no such thing as free will when there is no suffering involved.
Suffering led me to God. If everything stayed A-Ok I would have just kept going until I died. Our time here is nothing compared to eternity.
Mankind sinned and was thrown out of the Garden of Eden. You only have to read the first few pages of the Bible to know that.
Alvin Plantinga made a logical philosophical argument that God allowing free will can explain evil.
No.
Suffering proves the existence of sin, rebellion against God.
Our ‘new gods’ (overlords, atheists, elitists) that are so ‘loving and tolerant’ encourage and promote the indoctrination, abuse and death of children.
My unbiblical opinion is if this world was perfect and there was no pain, why would Heaven be needed.
Pain is to let you know you’re alive and let you know you love somebody.
Pardons if that sounds too flippant.
No, it proves Satan’s (Allah’s) existence.
I agree with both of you. If God had not established Law, but Free Will within it, we would never learn anything or be able or inspired to perfect ourselves.
If you see every adverse condition as an opportunity to learn and grow, life goes a lot easier on you than otherwise.
I wonder what Jesus would say about human suffering here on Earth, since He suffered more than most humans will in their entire sniveling, pathetic lifetimes.
Jesus had the benefit of far superior knowledge and understanding; there was only ONE of him, to give the rest of us inspiration and consolation.
But good point, nonetheless.
“God is not your celestial butler.” —Dennis Prager
“Does Suffering in the World Disprove God’s Existence?”
No. This world would not be this world in every natural sense without what are some tragic consequences from aspects of it for not just humans but many forms of life. Earthquakes, floods, tornados, hurricanes, landslides and many other things are part of what makes this world the dynamic place it is. From them, sometimes, many tragedies to humans can occur. Our suffering from such things is not something we see G-d preventing. It happens. I live with the understanding that G-d wants and expects the natural forces of the earth to work as they do, whether sometimes tragic to us or not. Without the natural forces that bring those things this world would not exists as we know it.
Yet what does G-d offer us, in spite of suffering, all suffering. G-d told us to remember that “yea though we walk in the vallye of the shadow of death, He is with us”.
Yes, we may suffer, but that is not a “disconnect” with G-d, it is a part of life, and what G-d says is He can help us through it.
“Suffering” versus G-d is an irrelevant question, that if atheists need an answer to then what they really need is G-d.
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.—Matthew 5:45
God does not return evil for evil; He does not bear grudges, burn with resentment, or plot to get even. Rather, He freely gives even to evil doers while He patiently works toward the completion of His purpose!
This is one of the few New Testament verses that depicts God as commander of nature. Schweizer notes that in Palestine rain was extremely important and beneficial, the hot sun, was less so. He notes that in Greece at this time the burning power of the sun was often a symbol of godly power while the rain was a symbol of godly benevolence. By contrast in wetter and more northern societies, rain is often viewed as unpleasant.
Most scholars feel that in this verse both rain and sun are meant to be positive. The prominent Rabbi Joshua ben Nehemiah had made similar note of rain’s equal treatment of the good and the wicked, and saw it as a sign of God’s benevolence.
Greek philosopher Seneca, writing in the same era as Jesus lived, also has a very similar discussion of how nature aids both the good and the ill.
**Does Suffering in the World Disprove God’s Existence?**
No, it is God’s plan. There is suffering in the Bible, so that is an indicator that we also will suffer.
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.