The problem of Evil (from the "literal interp." thread)

[sacre]

This is a new thread spawned from our discussion of the "literal interpretation of the Bible vs. spam".

George:

I often debate with two local Christian friends of mine. They hold that the Bible reflects revisions in God's plan, made as he reacts to man's behavior. They hold God cannot have foresight because then man is not endowed with freewill. To me, taking foresight away from God, and/or limiting Him temporily, undermines the omniscience and omnipotence we (need to) attribute to God. After all, who created Time?

I would agree with you that God is immutable, at least in a "dynamic equilibrium" sense. However, endowing God with foresight weakens Christianity theology because it introduces the Problem of Evil. (Ironically, a not-quite omniscient/omnipotent God avoids the Problem of Evil, but the theology succumbs then to parthenogenetic qualities of Evil.)


I'm sure you're aware of this issue; it's fundamental to any definition of God. My understanding goes like this:

[1] God knew humans would fall because He knows each choice they will make, He could have selected souls who would choose Good every time. Thus, God specifically created the world to contain Evil. Ergo, God is responsible for Evil.

[2] God does not know how humans will choose. So, Evil is present in Creation because:
[a] Humans create it. But of course God created humans with the specific capacity to choose such. Therefore God is responsible for Evil.
[b] Something else -- that God created -- creates it. Again God created the capacity so God is responsible.
[c] Evil creates itself. This gives Evil the same power as God -- the ability to create oneself. Therefore God cannot eliminate Evil so our model of God must be insufficient.

[3] There is no Evil in the eyes of God (akin to 2c).

Thus the Problem of Evil is either God is responsible or it doesn't exist. And all this from endowing God with foresight :-)

Sacre:

I think a fundamental definition in this question is that of "evil". I would submit to you that "evil" is not a thing, but a lack of something, namely, "good". This gives us insight into the source, and further saves us from compromising God's omniscience or our logic (that is to say, ex nihilo, nihil fit, as Onceuponapriori would say: "from nothing, nothing comes"). If evil is a thing, and God cannot create evil, by definition, God did not create every thing. If God did not create every thing, then He is not God. Also, I must reject the notion that "God created Himself". This is a logical impossibility. Instead, God, by definition, is self-existing, and uncreated. Self-creation says that something can be (to posess the power to create) and not be (to need to be created) at the same time and in the same relationship, which violates the law of noncontradiction. Therefore, evil cannot be a thing, logically. Let me put it this way: There are four possibilities.

[1]Evil is a thing, and God created all things.
[2]Evil is not a thing, and God created all things.
[3]Evil is a thing, and God did not create all things.
[4]Evil is not a thing, and God did not create all things.

Since we seem to agree that God created all things (by definition), we are left with one and two. Since God also, by definition, is the standard for Good (I do mean to capitalize that), if He had created Evil, it would not be called Evil, but Good. To put it in the Biblical way, "a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit" (Matthew 7:18). So then, we are left with number 2: God created all things, and Evil is not a thing. What can it be then, but the absence of the active Goodness of God (the Christian definition)? This is not to say that He is not omnipresent. I only mean to say that He has the perogative to withdraw His "hand" from any particular situation, or will, or existance, or "thing", thus making it "evil". In this way, God is "responsible" for evil, but certainly not the source. The source is in the fundamental existance of any particular thing without the active grace of God to sustain it.

I don't know if all of that makes sense, but it seems to from my point of view. Let me know what you think.

George:

Evil is a Thing. It is a concept and it is the consequence of behavior.

God is responsible but not the "source"? I can't see how this hair-splitting gets you anywhere. To me, your words read that God withdraws from some portion of Creation -- and due to the lack of God (the source of all that is Good) that portion is Evil. Yet that portion endures.

What is sustaining it? If it is self-sustaining (because it was so constructed by God), then God created the capacity for Evil -- which aligns with the cases I listed above. If it ceases to exists (because the Universe requires the continuing presence of God's creative force), then the hypothesis that Evil is the lack of God is void because we agree that Evil is present in the world.

------------

As an(other) aside, I had a professor whose doctoral thesis discussed whether God had the capacity committing Evil Himself. He argued God could, but doesn't. My professor logic went something like this:
[1] God is perfect.
[2] The more morally praiseworthy, the more perfect.
[3] Having the capacity to commit Evil and not doing so is more morally praiseworthy than never committing Evil because it is impossible.
[4] Therefore, God could (but doesn't) commit Evil.

[sacre]

Evil is a "thing" as much as ideas and concepts are "things". I am using the word "thing" to mean "whatever God creates". This is circular logic, I understand... but the purpose is not to prove my point. The purpose is to set up definitions. We are left, then, my statement that "God created everything that He created." Since nothing can be without being created, "God created everything." Since we both agree that God, being wholly Good, cannot have created Evil, then Evil must, therefore, not be part of "everything." However, for us to have a concept of Evil, it must be real in some way at least. With what does that leave us?

We must throw out the idea that "there is no Evil in the sight of God" since we have agreed to argue from the standpoint of an infallible Bible (or we could not have this discussion at all). Therefore, since there is Evil in the sight of God, and God did not create it, and God created all "things", then Evil is not a "thing".

There are some examples that I can give you. Take "nothing", for example. "Nothing" is a concept, or idea, and yet not a reality. God did not create "nothing"--"Nothing" is a lack of "something" (or, more accurately, a lack of everything). So with darkness. It is not a "thing", although it is a concept. Darkness is the lack of light. For this reason, nobody says "let me turn on the darkness", but instead they say "let me turn off the light". So with cold. Cold is not a "thing", but a lack of heat. Thus, at the coldest temperature theoretically possible (0 degrees Kelvin), we say "there is no heat", but never "there is a lot of cold". So with Evil. It is equally invalid to say, "the devil has a positive amount of evil". Instead, we say "there is no good in the devil" (which, by the way, I would disagree with, for reasons that will follow soon). The Biblical language seems to back this up, with comparisons to light and dark, to straight and crooked, etc.

The next logical step is your question:

Yet that portion endures. What is sustaining it?

The answer is, "common grace". For the sake of not getting too far ahead before we agree on the first issues, let me mentioning this:

Romans 9
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

In other words, He sustains the wicked to make His goodness known.

Godspeed,
R. McIntyre

[mickiel]

[You have assumed that mankind "fell", and because God knew of this so called "fall", that he did certain things. This is a serious error in understanding God and predestination. Man didnot fall, he was created to fail, he was pushed. When you build your understanding from this truth, it can come together. Evil is a creation, it didnot create itself. Evil has no evolution, no great power created itself, nothing creates itself. In John 1:3, this is made clear.

[Alien]

Hey guys, I hope you don't mind my butting into your thread!


Sacre: We must throw out the idea that "there is no Evil in the sight of God" since we have agreed to argue from the standpoint of an infallible Bible (or we could not have this discussion at all). Therefore, since there is Evil in the sight of God, and God did not create it, and God created all "things", then Evil is not a "thing".

There are some examples that I can give you. [.....] So with cold. Cold is not a "thing", but a lack of heat.


It is my belief that the first person that started using "evil" as a noun did a great disservice to this particular debate. When "evil" is more properly (in my view at least) used as an adjective, the whole definition of evil as the absence of good goes away. Evil as an adjective immediately raises the question "evil what?". The answer is of course actions or perhaps circumstances. The idea that evil is simply the absence of good then translates to something like "evil actions can be defined as the absence of good actions". This is self-evidently illogical.

Sacre, I do follow your logic using certain Biblical principles, but surely the object of the "problem of evil" debate is to examine the supposed properties of God in the light of the evidence presented by the world as we see it. One of the possible conclusions of the debate is that God is not totally good. If you insist on Biblical definitions as premises, then the debate is lost (or won!) from the start, as the Bible does seem to define God as totally good.

Now I'd like to examine this:


I only mean to say that He has the perogative to withdraw His "hand" from any particular situation, or will, or existance, or "thing", thus making it "evil".

Let me propose an example that I suggest illustrates the problem with this concept. A charitable person gives $10 to someone in need. The needy person uses it to buy food for his family. The giving is deemed "good" by God who endorses it in whatever sense you meant by having His hand in it. The next day the donor repeats his gift to the same person, who uses it in exactly the same way. This time, God withdraws His "hand" (lets not discuss why He does so, I want to focus the example as much as possible). According to you the giving is now "evil". We note that exactly the same act, with exactly the same consequences has been labelled "good" on one day and "evil" on the next. So exactly how did the essential "goodness" or "evilness" of the action change? Remember that I'm specifying that the exact course of action is the same in all relevant ways.

[sacre]

Alien, adjective or noun, we cannot and will not ascribe to God any Evil, by any definition. The logical progression is this:

God, by definition, is the uncreated Creator. As the Source, He embodies all perfection (ontologically and teleologically), because that which is created cannot BE or have more purpose than that which created. Therefore, God is the standard for everything that is positive. He is the standard for order, for purpose, for morality, for truth, etc. This is backed up by the Bible as well (I don't think I need to point out exactly where). Besides, this discussion could not take place and would not have taken place as much as it has unless we had previously agreed to the premise that the Bible is inerrant and contains complete truth. I just threw the rest of that stuff in for free.

So then, because God could not be the source of Evil (we have already covered this in past posts, although I don't think George has replied yet, so I will not go through the argument again unless it is necessary), then Evil must either be, as you say, an adjective, or, as I say, an absence of Good. Let me take it from my standpoint first, and respond to your analogy.


A charitable person gives $10 to someone in need. The needy person uses it to buy food for his family. The giving is deemed "good" by God who endorses it in whatever sense you meant by having His hand in it. The next day the donor repeats his gift to the same person, who uses it in exactly the same way. This time, God withdraws His "hand" (lets not discuss why He does so, I want to focus [on] the example as much as possible). According to you the giving is now "evil". We note that exactly the same act, with exactly the same consequences has been labelled "good" on one day and "evil" on the next. So exactly how did the essential "goodness" or "evilness" of the action change? Remember that I'm specifying that the exact course of action is the same in all relevant ways.

First of all, I would deny outright that we are judged based on our actions. Instead, I would argue that we are judged based on our natures. Let me explain this with your example. We are given a certain set of commands (let's take this beneficence as an example), and we are judged according to whether or not we fulfill it, period. If this is the case, people who are morally "good" enough will choose to follow the commandment, and we will have a right standing with God. Those who are not morally "good" enough will rebel, and therefore not have a right standing with God. What decides whether or not a man is morally "good" enough? That is, what is the source of the action but the nature itself, and the will therein. We can see this paradigm in Matthew 7:

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'"

Incidentally, we see that we are all "bad trees", because we all bear "bad fruit". So then, we are all under condemnation for having evil natures. What is it to us if a thorn bush produces thorns? We expect it, and even do not curse the thorns, but the very existance of the thorn bush. In the same way, we should not curse the actions, whether good or bad, but instead the nature from which it they had their being.

Regards,
R.

[Alien]

Sacre: Besides, this discussion could not take place and would not have taken place as much as it has unless we had previously agreed to the premise that the Bible is inerrant and contains complete truth. (Emphasis added)

I've searched the previous thread and come up with the following:


George: Underpinning this discussion are our respective belief systems. I am hoping you agree that the truth of the Bible is something taken on faith and that a result of that faith is the conviction that it is entirely True. However, there are those of us who do not consider the Bible purely divine Word. For a point to be valid, we need either evidence from outside the Bible or evidence from within that is logically self-evident.


Sacre: Side note: I cringe every time I hear someone refer to the basis of my belief as "faith", although it is. The Westminster divines gave three necessary parts to a real faith. The first is knowledge (notitia), the second is assent (assensus), and the third, volition (fiducia). Clearly, the "faith" is not "blind" by any means, but founded securly on the revelation of God (the source of all knowledge). Perhaps you already understand my position, but I guess it can't hurt to beat it into the ground.

These seem to be the nearest I can find to your and George's discussion of Biblical inerrancy. Neither seems to constitute an agreement to accept inerrancy as a premise to your discussions, quite the contrary in fact. But I may have missed something or even misunderstood you.

Perhaps George will comment on this.

In any case I will, if I may, wait for George's next reply before answering your points. If I am to be constrained to a premise of Bible inerrancy, then I may not continue. As I said before, given your premises, your case is pretty much "made".

As an aside, I have been coming more and more to the conclusion that theists and non-theists cannot have a meaningful discussion without one or the other side accepting (for the sake of argument) at least some of the other's premises. My visit here has been enlightening in many ways! :)

[sacre]

There wasn't so much of a discussion on the subject of Biblical inerrancy as a statement by me and an assumed concession by George for the sake of discussion. My statement preceded the paragraph that you quoted:


If we agree that God has authority, the next step is to ask, "is the Bible the Word of God?" This is obviously a bigger question than what this thread (or maybe 50 threads) can handle, so we are left with conceding one way or another for the purpose of the discussion. If we say that the Bible is not the pure Word of God, then I have no purpose in this discussion. If we say it is the pure Word of God, then the we are left with your first debate topic, and that is, which categories to specific OT laws fall into, which could be a fruitful discussion.

By continuing the discussion (which I was only willing to do if we start from the premise of inerrancy), we have a defacto understanding that it is from this standpoint. Without that, I'm afraid I just don't have much to add (as if I have much to add anyway).

To tell you the truth, I haven't much thought about this type of subject without the premise of inerrancy firmly in place. It might be interesting to see what you would come up with. However, for me, I would no longer have any purpose for these intellectual discussions if I gave up that premise, and therefore I must decline to speculate on such matters. Furthermore, I would no longer have any purpose at all, if what the Bible says about the Christ is untrue. Anyway, I don't mean to get off the topic. I'm also interested in what George has to say, because I, like you, believe my case to be made also.

Godspeed,
R

[Cephas]

As an aside, I have been coming more and more to the conclusion that theists and non-theists cannot have a meaningful discussion without one or the other side accepting (for the sake of argument) at least some of the other's premises. My visit here has been enlightening in many ways! :)How about, they cannot have a meaningful discussion, period?

Non theists and theists alike have too much to lose by accepting the other's premises. Non theists don't want to be converted and theists don't want to be deconverted; at the same time, (some) non theists want to deconvert others while (some) theists want to convert others.

If they didn't, why would they make threads such as "Christianity is illogical" or "undisputable proof of the Bible's accuracy"?