ARTICLE: The Goodness of Evil

[STR Ambassador]

The Goodness of Evil

When I stopped by a friend's workplace a couple of days ago, he asked me if God knew that Adam was going to fall. I said yes, of course God knew. He isn't surprised by anything. Because He never learns anything, nothing catches Him off guard.

Then he asked, if God knew Adam was going to fall, why couldn't he think up a better plan for dealing with it than He did. If God could have kept Adam from falling, why didn't He?

It's an interesting question, and it deserves a response.

This is a very understandable kind of question when we're in the midst of troublesome times. If we look around our world, we're immediately aware of disappointment, pain, dissatisfaction, suffering and difficulty in our own lives. Even if things are going well for us, we see a lot of nasty stuff in other people's lives. We read the papers, or watch the ten o'clock news, or pick up one of the news weeklies. We don't have to go very far to get all the bad news. It's everywhere.

Not infrequently, the thought crosses our mind: If there is a God, why doesn't He do something about this? Why does He allow such awful things?

Four years ago when I was in India, I was asked by a young college student named Kavita, "Why all the suffering?" The sweep of her hand took in the poverty-stricken city of Madras. "Why did God do this? Especially, why do the children have to suffer so?"

My first response was that, in the case of the suffering in India, God didn't do that, Hinduism did it. Hinduism—its world view—was for the suffering she witnessed in the city.

But the larger question could still be asked: Why couldn't God do a better job?

Many people have objected to the existence of God based on suffering and evil. The reasoning goes like this: If God were a good God, He would want to do something about the problem of evil. If God were powerful, He would be capable of changing things. Yet evil still exists, so God's either not good (He doesn't care about the suffering), or He's not powerful (He couldn't do anything about it even if He did care). In either case, people couldn't worship a God like that.

Christians often shudder when they hear this objection, and those who offer it seem to be on solid ground. This argument is offered as a defeater to the Christian view of God. It holds that there's something contradictory about what Christians teach about the nature of God. It's an understandable objection, but it's actually an objection that defeats itself.

The objection depends on two things being true.

One is that objective good exists. That's why the skeptic says, "If God were good…" Apparently he believes in the concept of goodness, or he would not this question. But where did he get this idea of "good" such that they could say if God had this quality, He would act in a certain way? What kind of person fulfills the requirements of goodness?

The second thing the objection depends upon is that objective evil also exists. The skeptic says, "If God had this quality (goodness), He would do something about badness." Badness--evil--must exist objectively, too.

Now these are telling statements. It's going to be very hard to make any sense out of the notion of goodness or badness if one is a relativist and holds there is no objective good or evil, that all morality is personal, dependent on subjective tastes. It's also going to be very hard to make any sense out of the notion of goodness or badness if God does not exist. Without God there is no objective standard of good that must be in place to complain about real evil.

This is why I've argued that the presence of evil in the world is one of the best arguments for the existence of God. We can't call anything evil unless we have a standard. C.S. Lewis said, "I wouldn't know about crooked unless I knew what straight was." Crooked is a deviation from straight. Evil is a deviation from good. But where is the good in a world without God?

Where is the good? What's the standard for good?

The question itself, although used to argue against the existence of God, seems to require the existence of God before the question can even be asked.

Having made that point, I still must face another fact, though. The problem of evil doesn't go away just because any attempt to use it as proof of atheism falls prey to contradiction. All that shows is that the person who can really raise the question must be a theist. One must be committed to the idea of God as a source of good, from which any departure is called evil, before he can complain about the problem of evil. Yet the complaint remains.

The careful theist will not deny God's existence because of suffering, but he may be tempted to a different conclusion. When C.S. Lewis lost his wife Joy Davidman--after living most of his life as a bachelor and only a few short years as a married man--Lewis didn't question God's existence; he questioned God's character. Lewis knew too much to deny God, but his personal pain made him think that God was cruel.

Even as theists we still struggle with the problem of evil. Why does God allow it? How can we call Him good if He actually plans for it? I think the key to the answer has to do with perspective. There is something God values that we don't value as much as He does. That which God values is a greater good than what we value.

When my friend first challenged with this question, I said, "I've got an answer for you, but I have a feeling it's not going to be very satisfying. The reason it's not very satisfying is that human beings value different things from what God values. What we value, at least in the moment, is pleasure, or conversely, the absence of pain. We don't like to hurt. We like to feel good. But that's not God's priority."

Of course, there's nothing wrong with wanting to feel good. It's built into our natures to prefer pleasure rather than pain. The problem is when pleasure becomes the highest good. This is happening more and more, as our foundational views of the world change radically, moving away from a Christian world view. We're less and less concerned with those things that are genuinely valuable, and are concerned mostly with the pleasure principle, what I call it "happiness as ethics." Whatever makes me happy, or makes me feel good, that's really what's important.

God values something different, though. I think He values pleasure, but that's not what life is all about. I think what God is doing is raising up a certain kind of people to spend eternity with Him. He's raising up certain type of individuals, people He's conforming to the image of Christ, to put it in biblical terms.

I guess you could think of it like this: If you were a person who valued sports highly, then you'd want to hang out with people who were athletic. If most of your friends were becoming couch potatoes because that was easier than going through the effort of working out—the pain, the sweat, the sacrifice—you might arrange some way to get them moving. You'd get them off the couch, because you knew that after a while, once they were forced to work out, they'd be better off.

There's a sense in which that's true, spiritually speaking. God is making a people fit for eternity. A world in which no evil ever existed is not the best possible world to accomplish that goal. The best possible world is one in which evil is allowed for a season, and then evil is overcome. The overcoming creates a certain type of soulish development that results in a certain type of person that could not be developed otherwise.

I've talked about this before. There are many ways we grow in our souls that would not be possible if evil were not a part of the world, like bearing up under unjust suffering, being patient, and exercising mercy and forgiveness, to name a few.

None of these things could be done, of course, if we didn't live in a fallen world. We can't develop the virtue of forgiveness if there's nothing to forgive. We can't develop the virtue of bearing up under injustice if there is no injustice to bear up under. To follow our analogy, it's much like doing certain types of physical exercises to build our body. We produce a specific kind of body by specific exercises. The same seems to be true with spiritual exercise. It produces a certain type of person.

"I get it," you respond. "What you're saying is that God allowed evil so we could grow from it. Seems like a pretty big price to pay for a little growth."

That's a fair comment. Is the good that comes out of the evil that God allows really going to be better than the bad that's experienced by so many? The only person who could answer that question is God. We can't answer that, especially in the midst of our own pain.

Women who've had children know what this is like. In the middle of childbirth she's thinking, "Nothing is worth this agony." In the midst of delivery, women say all kinds of awful things (especially about their husbands) that they later feel bad about. But after the birth pains are over and the child is born there's joy and excitement (and a few apologies). It was all worth it.

When we experience the torments of this world, we think, "What could possibly justify going through this kind of thing?" The only one who could answer that question is someone who sees the end from the beginning, who knows all the options and sees the balance. There's only one person who can do that: God. He has decided that it's worth all the hardship, difficulty and suffering.

So when people say that if God were really good, He would want to get rid of all the evil and suffering, I have one response. No, if God were really good, He'd want the best possible world eventually, not the best world today. If the best possible world can only result from a world in which there's sin for a season, then a good God would be morally obliged to allow evil. Rather than taking the pain of sin and evil away, He would allow it because of His goodness.

I realize this explanation is not going to satisfy us all the time, especially when we're in the middle of terrible hardship. But if we pause, reflect, and try to rise above it, if we see things from God's perspective—if we reflect on how in the past things have been used for our benefit—I think it changes the picture dramatically.

After all, what's the alternative? We look at a world in which there seems to be suffering and evil and hardship, and we ask "Why?" We're not satisfied with the idea that God may be using this for good. It doesn't resonate with our desire for happiness, pleasure, and freedom from pain in the moment. So we reject God outright.

What are we left with? If God is not involved, making good out of evil, then all is lost. All hardship and suffering is for naught. Evil isn't evil; it's just stuff. Human misery isn't tragic; it's just stuff. It's just what happens, and there's no redemptive element, no hope, no silver lining behind the dark cloud. There's nothing, because it's all just stuff.

You see, the alternative isn't very satisfying, is it? That's why I'm willing to stick with God on this one. It's actually quite good news. It does make sense, and if we focus in on that, when we realize that even evil can be used for great good in our lives, then when we get into stormy times it can lift us above the clouds.

Stand to Reason - Training Christians in knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I don't know the protocols for this section of TWEB, so if my atheist rebuttal is inappropriate please advise.

I was surprised at how this reaction to the argument from evil has led the STR Ambassador to propose religious ideas surprisingly similar to the Mormon view of the purpose of evil and my former concept of God being less than an Omnibeing.

I will respond to this partly from my former believing point of view (tagged as JOHN MORMON), but mostly from my current atheist point of view (tagged as POWELL). The pro-religious views I post are not necessarily orthodox Mormon theology.

STR Ambassador:

The Goodness of Evil

When I stopped by a friend's workplace a couple of days ago, he asked me if God knew that Adam was going to fall. I said yes, of course God knew. He isn't surprised by anything. Because He never learns anything, nothing catches Him off guard.


JOHN MORMON:
God fully expected Adam to fall so that the rest of us could come down to Earth, but I don't think God absolutely knew that he would since Adam had his free will. Adam could have refused to partake of the forbidden fruit. If Adam had done that then God would have to use a plan B.

STR AMBASSADOR:
Then he asked, if God knew Adam was going to fall, why couldn't he think up a better plan for dealing with it than He did. If God could have kept Adam from falling, why didn't He?

It's an interesting question, and it deserves a response.


JOHN MORMON:
God wanted Adam to fall so that the rest of us could gain physical bodies. There may be theoretically superior plans to the one God applied to this Earth, but it was surely the best plan He was able to use at the time.

STR AMBASSADOR:
. . . We don't have to go very far to get all the bad news. It's everywhere.

Not infrequently, the thought crosses our mind: If there is a God, why doesn't He do something about this? Why does He allow such awful things? . . . Why couldn't God do a better job?

Many people have objected to the existence of God based on suffering and evil. The reasoning goes like this: If God were a good God, He would want to do something about the problem of evil. If God were powerful, He would be capable of changing things. Yet evil still exists, so God's either not good (He doesn't care about the suffering), or He's not powerful (He couldn't do anything about it even if He did care). In either case, people couldn't worship a God like that.


POWELL (atheist):
Actually, the argument is usually phrased in terms of an OmniGod. If God were ALL GOOD and ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING then why is there evil or suffering? Since it may be the case that some minimum amount of evil is necessary for the very existence of good, the criticism is often rephrased as "why is there unnecessary evil?"

STR AMBASSADOR:
Christians often shudder when they hear this objection, and those who offer it seem to be on solid ground. This argument is offered as a defeater to the Christian view of God. It holds that there's something contradictory about what Christians teach about the nature of God. It's an understandable objection, but it's actually an objection that defeats itself.

The objection depends on two things being true.

One is that objective good exists.


POWELL:
Not so. There needs to be some reasonable agreement among people that some things are good (or better) and others are bad (or worse). In other words, "If God were good like we mean people being good, . . ."

STR AMBASSADOR:
That's why the skeptic says, "If God were good…" Apparently he believes in the concept of goodness, or he would not this question.


POWELL:
To believe that the term "good" is a useful one is not synonomous with believing that there is objective good.

STR AMBASSADOR:
But where did he get this idea of "good" such that they could say if God had this quality, He would act in a certain way? What kind of person fulfills the requirements of goodness?


POWELL:
Interesting side questions.

STR AMBASSADOR:
The second thing the objection depends upon is that objective evil also exists.


POWELL:
Again, not so. There must be sufficient agreement among moral agents that some things are evil (or worse than what is better).

STR AMBASSADOR:
The skeptic says, "If God had this quality (goodness), He would do something about badness." Badness--evil--must exist objectively, too. Now these are telling statements. It's going to be very hard to make any sense out of the notion of goodness or badness if one is a relativist and holds there is no objective good or evil, that all morality is personal, dependent on subjective tastes.


POWELL:
Relativists don't seem to have that much trouble.

STR AMBASSADOR:
It's also going to be very hard to make any sense out of the notion of goodness or badness if God does not exist. Without God there is no objective standard of good that must be in place to complain about real evil.


POWELL:
Who says one needs an absolutely "objective" standard to justifiably complain? Won't "generally accepted" moral standards suffice?

STR AMBASSADOR:
This is why I've argued that the presence of evil in the world is one of the best arguments for the existence of God.


POWELL:
Perhaps if God is an evil demon, but not if He's an Omnibeing.

STR AMBASSADOR:
We can't call anything evil unless we have a standard.


POWELL:
Fine, but a "standard" is not necessarily an "absolutely universal objective standard."

STR AMBASSADOR:
C.S. Lewis said, "I wouldn't know about crooked unless I knew what straight was." Crooked is a deviation from straight. Evil is a deviation from good. But where is the good in a world without God?


POWELL:
Where it has always been, in the minds of human beings.

STR AMBASSADOR:
Where is the good? What's the standard for good?


POWELL:
The standard should be what our best modern ethicists have come up with.

STR AMBASSADOR:
The question itself, although used to argue against the existence of God, seems to require the existence of God before the question can even be asked.


POWELL:
I disagree. I can imagine people living in a universe without God asking those kinds of questions.

STR AMBASSADOR:
Having made that point, I still must face another fact, though. The problem of evil doesn't go away just because any attempt to use it as proof of atheism falls prey to contradiction. All that shows is that the person who can really raise the question must be a theist.


POWELL:
Absurd. Atheists are not really just ignorant or deceptive theists. Let me assure you, sir, that I don't believe in your God. In fact, I believe that your God does not exist.

STR AMBASSADOR:
One must be committed to the idea of God as a source of good, from which any departure is called evil, before he can complain about the problem of evil. Yet the complaint remains.


POWELL:
Not so. Some concepts of God allow for Him to do that which is good because He knows it is good, rather than that whatever God does is good by definition.

STR AMBASSADOR:
The careful theist will not deny God's existence because of suffering, but he may be tempted to a different conclusion. When C.S. Lewis lost his wife . . .


POWELL:
I think that's a typical step towards stronger skepticism of God based on suffering. When I contemplated suicide and decided that God had done nothing significant to prevent me, I did not immediately conclude that God did not exist, but rather that either God didn't care about me like I had believed or maybe He didn't exist. If God did exist it was as if He didn't. Later, I came to conclude that God probably did not exist. I went from "God is good for me" to "God is neutral towards me" to "God maybe doesn't exist" to "God probably does not exist."

STR AMBASSADOR:
Even as theists we still struggle with the problem of evil. Why does God allow it? . . . That which God values is a greater good than what we value.

. . . We like to feel good. But that's not God's priority.

. . . I think what God is doing is raising up a certain kind of people to spend eternity with Him. He's raising up certain type of individuals, people He's conforming to the image of Christ, to put it in biblical terms.

. . . God is making a people fit for eternity. A world in which no evil ever existed is not the best possible world to accomplish that goal. The best possible world is one in which evil is allowed for a season, and then evil is overcome. The overcoming creates a certain type of soulish development that results in a certain type of person that could not be developed otherwise.


POWELL:
This suggests that God is not Omnipotent. If God were Omnipotent then He could just make us the kind of Christ-like people that He wanted. If God does not have that power, but must allow us to struggle trying to become that way, then your argument might work.

STR AMBASSADOR:
. . . We can't develop the virtue of forgiveness if there's nothing to forgive.


POWELL:
Perhaps you can't "develop" it without that condition, but you could have it innately, right? Did God have the virtue of forgiveness before we existed or did He develop it later?

STR AMBASSADOR:
. . . Is the good that comes out of the evil that God allows really going to be better than the bad that's experienced by so many? The only person who could answer that question is God. We can't answer that, especially in the midst of our own pain.


POWELL:
I can answer that: it's often not better.

STR AMBASSADOR:
. . . God. He has decided that it's worth all the hardship, difficulty and suffering.


POWELL:
He's decided that it's worth it to Him or to us? Why doesn't He ask us if it's worth it to us or if we prefer a different way?

STR AMBASSADOR:
So when people say that if God were really good, He would want to get rid of all the evil and suffering, I have one response. No, if God were really good, He'd want the best possible world eventually, not the best world today.


POWELL:
I think that's assuming that future good is more valuable than present good.

STR AMBASSADOR:
If the best possible world can only result from a world in which there's sin for a season, then a good God would be morally obliged to allow evil. Rather than taking the pain of sin and evil away, He would allow it because of His goodness.


POWELL:
That's a big "if." I can imagine better worlds than the present one. Why can't God? For example, I see no compelling reason why God's good purposes would require good men to go to war against other good men.

JOHN MORMON:
My Mormon grandfather believed that if we had continued training in our pre-mortal existence for a few more thousand years, maybe wars of this type would have been avoided. Perhaps we were in a hurry to get physical bodies and God obliged our request.

STR AMBASSADOR:
. . . If God is not involved, making good out of evil, then all is lost. All hardship and suffering is for naught. Evil isn't evil; it's just stuff. Human misery isn't tragic; it's just stuff. It's just what happens, and there's no redemptive element, no hope, no silver lining behind the dark cloud. There's nothing, because it's all just stuff.

You see, the alternative isn't very satisfying, is it? That's why I'm willing to stick with God on this one. . . .


POWELL:
Argument from undesirable consequences. Because you don't want your life to be merely what genetics and experience make of it rather than also what God has planned for you, therefore you argue that God must exist and must have a plan for your life. I think you should seek good evidence that God exists and, if He does, that He has a good plan for you rather that believing it so much so because it feels good to do so.

John Powell

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I received an email from another non-theist who frequents this board that described most of STR's posts as geared at helping theists more okay with them theism, rather than apologeticking with non-theists.

I think that rather than claiming that objective truth is needed to judge the reality of evil, that moral realism is more adequate. There exists relatively absolute absolutes that preexist us and that serve as standards from which our behavior can be judged.

So when we point to the evil of the Nazi Holocaust this goes beyond our group judgment that this was socially undesirable...

However, it can be observed that the moral ideals that ought to govern our lives can be somewhat vague and they may in specific instances conflict or need to be resolved then.

So the pragmaticist position would be to affirm a thorough-going fallibism that certainly applies to the ecclesiastical and secular(private and public) leadership of the past and the present, while at the same time affirming the need for leadership/rules to govern our lives.

One way to consider is through the "Problem of Order"...

This paragraph is taken from "Further Limits to Chicago School Doctrine" by Warren Samuels as found in "The Chicago School of Political Economy" edited by Warren Samuels. A very interesting book.

The problem of order in any society, following Joseph Spengler [1948]"The Problem of Order in Economic Affairs," Southern Economic Journal 15 (July):1-29., is that of the continuing conflict of autonomy, coordination, continuity, and change. Stated somewhat differently, it is the problem of freedom versus control, including hierarchy vs. equality, and continuity vs change. In one respect it is the problem of the organization and control of the economic system, including the distribution of power; in another, it is the creation, revision, and balancing of values to guide organization and conduct. Order is a process, not a condition; it is something which is continually worked out, not acheived once and for all time. Most if not all social and moral philosophy, including speculation and theory with regard to the economic role of government, tends to presume a specific resolution or concept of the "problem" of order. To be ideological in this context is to take a position on the elements of the problem of order.

dlw

[John Powell]

DLW2003:
I received an email from another non-theist who frequents this board that described most of STR's posts as geared at helping theists more okay with them theism, rather than apologeticking with non-theists.


POWELL:
Thanks. They are certainly welcome at TWEB in that role. If they don't want to defend their religious claims against an informed opposition, I won't try hard to pressure them.

DLW2003:
I think that rather than claiming that objective truth is needed to judge the reality of evil, that moral realism is more adequate. There exists relatively absolute absolutes that preexist us and that serve as standards from which our behavior can be judged.


POWELL:
Fine. There are effectively "universal" moral standards that have probably applied in all existing societies.

STR2003:
So when we point to the evil of the Nazi Holocaust this goes beyond our group judgment that this was socially undesirable...


POWELL:
Right, we should be justified in criticizing those actions based on other modern social groups. However, barbaric ancient peoples may have supported the kinds of things the NAZI's did.

The rest of what you wrote I tended to agree with except for one statement that stood out. Perhaps in the specific context it's ok.

DLW2003 (quoting):
. . . Order is a process, not a condition; it is something which is continually worked out, not acheived once and for all time. . .


POWELL:
I think "order" can be properly understood to be a condition. Whether a state of order is permanent is not relevant to the definition. That would be akin to claiming that "stationary" or "moving" or "cold" or "hot" are processes rather than conditions, because they are things which are continually worked out, not acheived once and for all time.

John Powell

[Da Lone-Warrior]

DLW2003 (quoting):
. . . Order is a process, not a condition; it is something which is continually worked out, not acheived once and for all time. . .
”

POWELL:
I think "order" can be properly understood to be a condition. Whether a state of order is permanent is not relevant to the definition. That would be akin to claiming that "stationary" or "moving" or "cold" or "hot" are processes rather than conditions, because they are things which are continually worked out, not acheived once and for all time.

But the point of viewing things as processes is that we don't treat things as settled once and for all. As such, just as the economy changes with new technologies and products emerging and old ways of doing things fading, so are the ways we work out the conflicts that ubiquitously emerge between us reworked out...

Often times solutions that may have made sense in the past, are worth reconsidering. For instance, take the legal definition of when human life begins as at birth. It may have made sense in the past, but one doesn't have to believe human life begins at conception, to be own to reconsidering when it should begin in the present in light of our increased ability to observe the process of fetal development...

dlw

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I'm not criticizing the usefulness of wisely dealing with the dynamics of changing conditions, but with trying to redefine, without just cause, the word "order" that historically has meant a kind of condition to no longer mean that, but to mean "process."

John Powell

[Da Lone-Warrior]

John Powell:

POWELL:
I'm not criticizing the usefulness of wisely dealing with the dynamics of changing conditions, but with trying to redefine, without just cause, the word "order" that historically has meant a kind of condition to no longer mean that, but to mean "process."

John Powell

Its just that order has been traditionally viewed as a-historical like a watch, when in fact the order that prevails is not so fine-tuned and a product of historical circumstances and subject to revision.

That is why it is preferable to view it as process...

I.e., as a Christian I do not feel compelled to defend all of Christian History in how we have governed ourselves and our relations to others, such as the Jews, because I accept how the Bible did not set out an infallible blue-print for how we are to let our lights shine in this world.

And yet, I see no reason why to believe that secular movements are not prone to the same mistakes and there is much truth and wisdom in the Bible and Jesus does seem to have claimed divinity for himself and his life's testimony has independent witness in addition to the radically altered lives of his disciples after his death... All this in an environment that would inherently be hostile to any humans claims to divinity...

dlw

[dizzle]

John, your posts are welcome as they are done with respect to our guest ministry.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

John please feel free to start a post elsewhere reposting our dialogue and informing me of it.

dlw

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Perhaps that won't be necessary since we may be coming to a reasonable conclusion on this issue.

If your quote had said "it's preferable to think of order as a process" instead of claiming that "order is not a condition" then I probably would have left it alone.

Thanks DeeDee.

John Powell

[STR Ambassador]

A comment was made that it looks like Stand to Reason is trying to make Christians more comfortable with being rational Christians. That is part of our purpose, but not at the expense of a good argument.

Our mission is focused on training Christians so most things are geared to a Christian audience focusing on the kinds of challenges Christians receive. Most of these articles are derived from our radio program that is a caller format for Christians and non-Christians, so have an audience in mind that is interested in discussing the issues challenging Christianity.

We are just as anxious to take on a bad argument for Christianity that Christians use as we are challenges from non-Christians. There are enough good arguments that we don't need to rely on bad ones, and that just makes Christianity vulnerable to a strong response.

Our goal is not comfort; it's equipping Christians with good arguments to make a defense. Our main audience is Christians, which you may be discerning; but our hope is that Christians, well-equippped, will then engage non-Christians in a lively and sound discussion.

STR Ambassador

[Da Lone-Warrior]

What criterion is used to judge whether an argument is good or bad?

How does this relate to your defending of "classical" Christianity?

dlw

[STR Ambassador]

dlw,

The criterion of judging arguments is logic, rationality, and evidence. God is a rational being and so our goal should be to confirm our beliefs as closely to His by clear reasoning. Believe as many true things as possible; and reject as many false things as possible. "Faith seeking understanding" is the heritage of the church from the earliest years when great minds sought to work out theology in as much details as rationally and humanly possible.

Ultimately, we cannot believe what we hold to be irrational. Christians and non-Christians alike must be compelled to belief through rationality.

STR Ambassador

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Today @ 10:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=202082#post202082)
STR Ambassador:

dlw,

The criterion of judging arguments is logic, rationality, and evidence. God is a rational being and so our goal should be to confirm our beliefs as closely to His by clear reasoning. Believe as many true things as possible; and reject as many false things as possible. "Faith seeking understanding" is the heritage of the church from the earliest years when great minds sought to work out theology in as much details as rationally and humanly possible.

Ultimately, we cannot believe what we hold to be irrational. Christians and non-Christians alike must be compelled to belief through rationality.

STR Ambassador


yes, but there also is the non-rational... That which ultimately requires a leap of faith.

There also is the problem of deductive reasoning, whereby the final conclusion of our logical reasoning stems from the assumptions made. Also, typically speaking which evidence is conclusive is not self-evident. As McGrath I believe points out the evidence that lays the ground for "good" theories often has a lot of seemingly contradictory evidence surrounding it.

Being consistent doesn't imply having truth.

The Bible isn't a bundle of logical propositions. The systematic theology of the Protestants following their break with RCatholicism served as the basis for much division. This had the tragic consequence that Christianity was not able to fight the rise of nationalism and the deadly wars it caused.

As such, rationality cannot serve as the basis for defending our faith. An over-emphasis on rationality has been argued as responsible for the development of atheism/agnosticism in many protestant countries.

dlw

[STR Ambassador]

There are good points that you brings up, but they (again) aren't the issue under discussion in this thread.

There are problems in epistemology that deserve serious attention. In response to one of your first postings, I made some suggestions for good books that engage these issues. Hard questions require hard answers; and hard answers often take a great deal of time and space to work through. That's why I suggested the books I did.

But every human being every day uses rationality to live his life and does it successfully almost all of the time. There are problems in epistemology, but there is mostly success. Inordinate focus on the problems skews things out of perspective. Problems don't mean rationality works most of the time.

That's all I have to say on this topic for now since it's not the point of the article. Postings pertinent and relevant to the topic are welcome.

[$cirisme]

Excellent article. :thumb:

Dee Dee posted your Sixty Second Theodicy article a while back that is somewhat similar... and I must say that the few articles I've read from STR impresses me greatly. I don't normally browse sites like STR, but I'm going to have to start. :smile:

[Mikeb]

I have not read all the posts above, so someone may have said this before, but that is the WORST explanation of evil I have ever heard. Let's see.. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, for the edification of the faithful and the purification of the world..

I prefer the "all stuff" alternative to a God as perverse and sadistic as you describe him.

Might I suggest an appeal to the mystery of God as the explanation, i.e. we don't know his ends.. and then shut up about it. At least the possibility of Good still exists and you have excaped smearing God with your strange notions of morality. Hopefully God's Good, although mysterious, will be more enlightened than your own.

[seer]

It seems to me that this not only makes evil necessary, God must have necessarily created men to sin. Therefore no genuine responsibility exists. It also means (as your title suggests) that evil is ultimately good - for it produces a good end. I have little problem with either premise, but I think that is where this logically leads.

[LGM]

John Powell has done an excellent job debunking this article and I concur with all he has posted here.

As I take a step back though, what strikes me is the wanton hubris of articles like this.

As MikeB mentioned in his post, why is it that certain Christians, in response to difficult questions, have a hard time saying those three little humble words?

I don't know. or
Only God knows.

I guess it's because the whole purpose of sites like STR are to fill this void, and speculate and invent authoritative sounding answers like this, so that their questioning, "theologically naive" Christian brothers can have at least a plausible sounding answer to this age old theological question.

Its interesting to watch a Christian progress through the stages of being filled with questions like this, to being confident in giving answers as god's own personal spokesperson here on earth. It is a very powerful satisfying feeling, as I have experienced it.

So lets look at an alternative approach:

08-18-2003 @ 07:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=189316#post189316)
STR Ambassador:
When I stopped by a friend's workplace a couple of days ago, he asked me if God knew that Adam was going to fall.

I said.... hmmm, thats a very interesting question. I really don't know, There is nothing in Genesis that gives us any indication of that. But I guess if you assume that God as an Omnibeing knows everything that has happened, and will ever happen, than the answer must be yes.


Then he asked, if God knew Adam was going to fall, why couldn't he think up a better plan for dealing with it than He did. If God could have kept Adam from falling, why didn't He?


Again, I really don't know the answer. Only god knows the answer to that.


Its unfortunate that the myriad authors and redactors of the Genesis mythology could not have provided us a complete detailed biography of YHWH in a "pre-Genesis" book. Where he came from, what he was doing before creation, what his true nature and intentions are, what material properties he has, what he can and can't do, why he allows evil to exist, why he allowed the whole Garden of Eden scene to unfold the way it did, a more detailed explanation for the flood, etc. etc.

But unfortuantely, all we have in Genesis is a collection of discrete narative stories linked together with YHWH as this mysterious protagonist.

So because the stories often times raise so many more questions than they answer, we need priestcraft, theologians and apolegetics to fill this void through their own (often contradictory)speculations and musings.

It is always comforting when someone can ask a question for which there is no known answer, but someone else can answer with authority like this:


My first response was that, in the case of the suffering in India, God didn't do that, Hinduism did it. Hinduism—its world view—was for the suffering she witnessed in the city.


The arrogance of this repsonse is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

If people would stop wasting their precious time speculating on why YHWH allowed Adam to fall, and instead roled up their sleeves and did what they could do to end suffering, the world would be a much better place. This is the simple calling of Christ's core teaching, and one that can be shared by all mankind, no matter what their theology or lack thereof. This is something that many hands-on Christian charities provide throughout the world today.

So the simple answer to why does YHWH allow evil in the world?

I don't know, but together we can do our best to make the world a better place. Lets get to it.

-peace and understanding
LGM

[seer]

If people would stop wasting their precious time speculating on why YHWH allowed Adam to fall, and instead roled up their sleeves and did what they could do to end suffering, the world would be a much better place.This is the simple calling of Christ's core teaching, and one that can be shared by all mankind, no matter what their theology or lack thereof.

Actually that is completely untrue. It wasn't Christ core teaching. He never suggest that we should or could end suffering in the world. His core teaching was that in fact mankind would get worse until the end. His teachings rather focused on indivdual salvation and righteousness - moral uprightness. Which of course includes helping the poor and outcast. But He did not, in any sense, teach a social gospel.

[dizzle]

I guess it's because the whole purpose of sites like STR are to fill this void, and speculate and invent authoritative sounding answers like this, so that their questioning, "theologically naive" Christian brothers can have at least a plausible sounding answer to this age old theological question.

LGM, this comment is wrong on several levels. First housekeeping-wise.... this area is carved out where STR is our invited guest. I personally request that you treat them with the respect due to an invited guest ministry, this area is much more highly moderated than others where much more colorful language flies. I am not saying you have crossed the line, this is more of a friendly reminder as we can get used to some of the looser rules elswhere, and as said, STR's mission is geared more towards Christian to Christian dialog and equipping not full-out apologetical debates with nontheists, though of course that will necessarily be a part.

Now onto the specifics - "invent" and "authoritative sounding" are a loaded word. They have invented nothing, but provided a Christian perspective on this issue. As far as "theologically naive" I take personal offense. I am a longtime supporter and reader of STR, and I am hardly theologically naive.

I invite you LGM to call Greg Koukl on his radio ministry. You do not need to be in his broadcast area, but merely call in at the proper time.

[LGM]

Today @ 06:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=205702#post205702)
Dee Dee Warren:
LGM, this comment is wrong on several levels. First housekeeping-wise.... this area is carved out where STR is our invited guest. I personally request that you treat them with the respect due to an invited guest ministry, this area is much more highly moderated than others where much more colorful language flies.


I apologize if my post was out of line in this forum DeeDee. As an ex-Christian I still maintain a great respect for much of the wisdom of Jesus and the many fine Christian people who follow his teachings.

My point was that when I was a Christian leader and a teacher, I was faced with questions like this many times. And I can remember going to places like STR for the "answers" and passing them on with great pride as if I had just looked up the capital of North Dakota.

I then saw the movie "Rudy", and a great scene in that movie is where Rudy is struggling to get into Norte Dame and seeks the counsel of a Priest as to why God isn't helping him... The old Preist tells Rudy through all his years as a priest he's become sure of two things. "There is a God, and I am not Him."

After that, I got more and more comfortable with saying "I don't know" or "there are many different opinions on the answer to that question", or "you'll have to ask God for the answer yourself"

So the point of my post was not to be deragatory to your guest (although I realize I was, and I apologize)...my point is when does it make more sense to simply say "I don't know", in answer to difficult theological questions?

peace, understanding and apologies,
LGM

[dizzle]

Many thanks LGM :thumb:

[Blake Reas]

The problem of evil is real but only for the theist. The Atheist does not have any grounds to posit the existence of good or evil. All attempts to base it on some rationalistic system doesn't hold water.

The Atheist argument in a very simple form runs something like this:
(1) God is omnibenevolent (all good)
(2) God is omnipotent (John Powell's OmniGod:lol: )
(3) There is Evil in the world (evil happens)
(4) therefore God does not exist. Or is evil, or less than powerful.

(1)If God is omnibenevolent and all powerful he would not allow evil in the world. If evil exist God is either not all good, all powerful, or worse he does not even exist (:.)There is evil in the world so either God is not all powerful, He is evil, or he does not exist.

I submit (4) God has a perfectly good reason for the evil in the world. Even though we cannot explain why it is there it is used for some further end. This is put in better terms in Greg Bahnsen's article on the subject. Basically he says Evil comes down to being an emotional argument for the Atheist. And it does not pose a logical problem for the Theist with the addition of (4). I am just starting to read philosophy so forgive me for the rough nature of my post :hi:.

Just for kicks I would like to ask any Atheist if they have ever entertained the idea of an evil omnipotent God? Just curious because everytime I read an atheistic argument they always presuppose that he does not exist and do not address the other two options. Just curious :huh:

In Christ,
Blake

[LGM]

09-08-2003 @ 08:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206282#post206282)
Blake Reas:
The problem of evil is real but only for the theist. The Atheist does not have any grounds to posit the existence of good or evil. All attempts to base it on some rationalistic system doesn't hold water.

This is utter nonsense.
The "grounds to posit the existence of good and evil" applies similarly to all lucid people, no matter what their theistic beliefs. It's your highly evolved brain that allows you to ponder the actions of your species and normatively assign behaviours into categories like "good" and "evil". You may be surprised to learn that a fundamentalist Christan, a militant Islamist, and a liberal Deist, while all "theists", may assign very different things to these categories.



The Atheist argument in a very simple form runs something like this:
(1) God is omnibenevolent (all good)
(2) God is omnipotent (John Powell's OmniGod:lol: )
(3) There is Evil in the world (evil happens)
(4) therefore God does not exist. Or is evil, or less than powerful.


I think a more accurate atheist argument would be as follows:

1) There is "evil" in the world because the genes and memes of our phenotype, are competing to survive and reproduce in our biosphere and culturesphere. When these individuals, sub-groups, or cultural groups compete against each other, their behaviors are labeled "good" and "evil" by those groups based on the normative values of the group that is doing the labeling.

2) I don't believe your claims that YHWH is god.

3) Therefore I don't believe that YHWH is in any way responsible for "good" or "evil".


I submit (4) God has a perfectly good reason for the evil in the world. Even though we cannot explain why it is there it is used for some further end. This is put in better terms in Greg Bahnsen's article on the subject. Basically he says Evil comes down to being an emotional argument for the Atheist. And it does not pose a logical problem for the Theist with the addition of (4).

I would hope you'd agree that there is no emotion in the argument above. Yes?

I submit that your premise (4) is definitely required by any theist who needs to claim that their god is somehow repsonsible for allowing everything to happen the way it does. If this somehow conflicts with other attributes you assign your deity than you are very right to claim "we cannot explain why it is there". And I commend you for that humility.

Of course a pantheist or perhaps certain Deists could simply claim that the fact that genes and memes compete to survive and reproduce is just the mechanism that "god" uses to propogate life under changing environmental conditions..


Just for kicks I would like to ask any Atheist if they have ever entertained the idea of an evil omnipotent God? Just curious because everytime I read an atheistic argument they always presuppose that he does not exist and do not address the other two options.

:huh: ...there...I just "entertained it"...(evil omnipotent gods leave such a mess after they visit) :teeth:
Certainly as a Christian you've "entertained" the idea of "satan"?
Isn't he/it an "evil", marginally-potent god?
Since the terms "omnipotent" "good" and "evil" are so deliciously malable in the minds of our species, perhaps you should first do a better job defining your terms before you contemplate the existence of mythical creatures that have these attributes?

-peace and understanding,
LGM
...I always prefer to entertain the idea of a scientific, omnipotent god, with a wicked sense of humor as a fourth option...then the world makes perfect sense...

[Blake Reas]

09-11-2003 @ 03:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209113#post209113)
LakeGeorgeMan:


This is utter nonsense.
The "grounds to posit the existence of good and evil" applies similarly to all lucid people, no matter what their theistic beliefs. It's your highly evolved brain that allows you to ponder the actions of your species and normatively assign behaviours into categories like "good" and "evil". You may be surprised to learn that a fundamentalist Christan, a militant Islamist, and a liberal Deist, while all "theists", may assign very different things to these categories.




I think a more accurate atheist argument would be as follows:

1) There is "evil" in the world because the genes and memes of our phenotype, are competing to survive and reproduce in our biosphere and culturesphere. When these individuals, sub-groups, or cultural groups compete against each other, their behaviors are labeled "good" and "evil" by those groups based on the normative values of the group that is doing the labeling.

2) I don't believe your claims that YHWH is god.

3) Therefore I don't believe that YHWH is in any way responsible for "good" or "evil".


I would hope you'd agree that there is no emotion in the argument above. Yes?

I submit that your premise (4) is definitely required by any theist who needs to claim that their god is somehow repsonsible for allowing everything to happen the way it does. If this somehow conflicts with other attributes you assign your deity than you are very right to claim "we cannot explain why it is there". And I commend you for that humility.

Of course a pantheist or perhaps certain Deists could simply claim that the fact that genes and memes compete to survive and reproduce is just the mechanism that "god" uses to propogate life under changing environmental conditions..


:huh: ...there...I just "entertained it"...(evil omnipotent gods leave such a mess after they visit) :teeth:
Certainly as a Christian you've "entertained" the idea of "satan"?
Isn't he/it an "evil", marginally-potent god?
Since the terms "omnipotent" "good" and "evil" are so deliciously malable in the minds of our species, perhaps you should first do a better job defining your terms before you contemplate the existence of mythical creatures that have these attributes?

-peace and understanding,
LGM
...I always prefer to entertain the idea of a scientific, omnipotent god, with a wicked sense of humor as a fourth option...then the world makes perfect sense...

Thanks for the reply!

Blake

[Tim Holt]

TIM HOLT
STR Ambassador,

First, a couple of biographical points: I'm a Christian, I think that Greg Koukl's work at STR is excellent, and I'm inclined to believe both that the problem of evil can be solved and that the existence of moral facts implies the existence of God. That said, I have two criticisms of Greg's article.

In the article, Greg argues for the following two claims (among others): (1) In order to present the problem of evil an atheist must accept that objective evil exists, and (2) Objective evil can exist only if God exists, and so anyone who presents the problem of evil as a proof of atheism is to some extent confused. I don't think that Greg establishes the truth of either of these claims.

My first criticism of the article is that Greg treats the problem of evil as if the only kind of evil that exists is moral evil. The atheist cannot argue from the existence of moral evil to the non-existence of God, Greg argues, because there can only be moral evil if God exists. The problem of evil though, can be cast in entirely non-moral terms. This can be done by replacing references to God's moral goodness with references to God's benevolence, and references to moral evil with references to suffering. The result is as follows:

(1) If God exists then he is benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent.
(2) If God is benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent then he wants to, knows how to and is able to eradicate suffering.
(3) If God wants to, knows how to and is able to eradicate suffering then there is no suffering.
(4) There is suffering.
Therefore:
(5) It is not the case that God exists.

Instead of setting God's moral goodness and the existence of moral evil in opposition, this argument sets God's benevolence and the existence of suffering in opposition. It therefore does not presuppose the existence of any moral facts (objective or not), and so evades the argument of Greg's article entirely.

My second criticism of the article is that it is too quick in dismissing non-theistic objectivist ethical theories. Greg asserts, "Without God there is no objective standard of good that must be in place to complain about real evil." However, he doesn't offer any argument for this controversial claim. Why can there be no objective standard of goodness in a world without God? Many adherents of non-theistic objectivist ethical theories think that they have such a standard (e.g. utility maximisation) and that that standard is independent of God; nothing is said to persuade such people. I think that the article would have been improved if this argumentative gap had been bridged.

That said, it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to present a comprehensive refutation of the problem of evil in so short an article as Greg's. I certainly found what he said thought-provoking, and would be interested to know how he would either develop his argument to cover the points that I've raised or argue that his argument covers the points that I've raised as it stands.

Cheers,

Tim

[STR Ambassador]

Tim,

Thank you for your kind words regarding Greg and STR. I am glad that you found his article "thought provoking".

Your points are valid ones. As you stated, the entire problem of evil cannot be solved in such a short article. I would recommend a couple of articles by Greg that further explain his views and, I believe, address your concerns. I've provided the links below:

http://www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG0105.htm

and

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/ge-comm.htm

I hope these are useful to you!

STR Ambassador

[Tim Holt]

STR Ambassador,

Thanks for the links. The first certainly fills the argumentative gap that I highlighted, giving reasons for thinking that no non-theistic objectivist ethical system can do justice to our experience of morality. I'm glad to see that Greg has addressed this, even if not in the article posted at the top of this thread. I consider this criticism answered.

I still feel that the first of my objections--the objection that Greg's article assumes that the only kind of evil that exists is moral evil--hasn't been met, however. In the second article that you linked to, Greg uses the free-will defence to respond to the problem of evil. Famously, the free-will defence only seeks to reconcile the existence of God with the existence of moral evil. The existence of natural evil, i.e. evil which doesn't result from the free choices of moral agents, clearly isn't to be in this way. Some other theodicy is therefore necessary here; the restated problem of evil (see my previous post) stands unrefuted.

This wouldn't be a problem if Greg were writing only about moral evil. In that case I think that it would be reasonable to say simply that the problem of natural evil is beyond the scope of his article. However, his discussion isn't clearly limited in this way, at points speaking rather generally of suffering. Perhaps, then, my first point should have been that the article would have been improved had it clearly distinguished between the problem of moral evil and the problem of natural evil, and stated that its argument applies only to the former.

Thanks again,

Tim

[BeHereNow]

Please allow me to jump in a little late here. The first paragraph held a question for you, so here it is:

08-19-2003 @ 12:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=189316#post189316)
STR Ambassador:

The Goodness of Evil

When I stopped by a friend's workplace a couple of days ago, he asked me if God knew that Adam was going to fall. I said yes, of course God knew. He isn't surprised by anything. Because He never learns anything, nothing catches Him off guard.

We know God is omniscient from reading the Bible. However, do we know that God regularly consults his omniscience and doesn't simply make decisions based upon his infinite Wisdom instead?

IOW- what impetus does God have for asking himself, "Hmm.. I wonder what will happen if I do this..." every time he does something?

Under the supposition that God does not always consult his omniscience, the answer to your friend's query is easily solved. He might retort, "So God is not perfect, then." To that you'd say God acted perfectly in creation - he perfectly implemented free will and ability to communicate with him. Due to that, we are where we are, but God is still God.

(I admit this idea is new to me, and only recently picked up on it while reading C.G. Jung's Answer to Job, which presupposes biblical veracity.)

[Andy Howard]

Isa.45:7-God says "...I make peace and create evil"(KJV)and the word 'evil' here is translated from the Hebrew for 'adversity'. The Dragon is His adversary and like Pharaoh God raised the Devil up for the purpose of giving the revelation of the reality of God in the lives of mankind. Why? God says that we cannot look on His Face and live in Ex.33:20 and says that He made us "subject to vanity" for the purpose of hope.
And just as Christ knew who would betray Him as when He chose him(John 6:64)so God knew when He created Lucifer, who would be His adversary.
But since God knows our hearts according to Christ in Luke 16:15 and also our thoughts(Matt.9:4-response to hearing the thoughts of another individual)even before we have those thoughts according to Psa.139:4 -then we know why He is also able to predict the future(ie,prophesy). For as Gabriel says to Mary in Luke 1:37(and Christ said later to His disciples)-"With God nothing shall be impossible."
God makes a claim that He tests every heart alike in Psa.33:15 and is no respecter of persons according to Acts 10:34 & Matt.22:16,etc. How then could He prophesy concerning Jacob and Esau(before they were born) that "the elder shall serve the younger"?(Gen.25:23) That apparently happens because He tests the heart before birth and therefore is able to predict. How else could He prophesy the Beast system of Revelation 13? -unless He knew outcomes of the heart of each individual.
Now we are free to choose according to Deut.30:15 and He does not step in when we choose evil just as He did not interfere with Eve's choice. But her story (an allegorical foretype of life's choices)is there for our admonition just as is the 'wilderness' experience of Ancient Israel. But God can see what choices we will make in the future and therefore He gives testimonies of outcomes from Genesis to Revelation for our admonition today.
Notice that the Serpent does not preach against partaking of the "Tree of Life"(an allegorical type of Christ-John 5:24) but promotes partaking of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" which in essence is him(the Devil) because unlike the woman he knew the difference between good and evil and chose the evil in order to make a gain off of the woman's seed(Gen.3:15).
Now Eve's punishment is not death here(ie,Gen.3:16)but the suffering of childbearing and being made subjective to her husband(which unfortunately has been imposed on women ever since because of the spiritual vanities of men and organizations and because they have not understood the true relationship of love between Christ and the Bride). Paul predicts her deliverance through childbearing in I Tim.2:14-15. What Paul never actually understood(apparently) was that this revelation was about Zion having her children in Isa.66:8(Eve was an allegorical type of Zion who is persecuted). God is not giving physical women salvation for having physical babies or else He would be a respecter of persons since some do not have any babies.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Hi, I am new to the group.

I wanted to add a few thoughts on the subject. I will try to make this concise, not only for my sake, but yours. But in making it concise, one may aptly see that I have not covered everything and may object accordingly. I will say in advance that I am not covering everything and before you think that I am a moron for not covering a point that you find particularly important, please understand my purpose is not to write a book. You may send questions to this thread or to my private email.

First, regarding the topic of how could a loving God allow evil and suffering, the familiar answer of God creating mankind with free will and with that free will mankind sinned, has been addressed here already, I am sure.

Second, the topic of God allowing suffering as a tool for soul making has been discussed and what started the thread "The Goodness of Evil". Someone wisely mentioned that while the idea of soul making is a good defense for God allowing evil and suffering, it does not mean that evil must be present in order to have good. Indeed, God was good before He created, according to the Bible.

I would say the idea of soul making is good WHEN IT IS USED WITH THE TWO OTHER DEFENSES. The two other defenses, or rather, theodicies are, as already mentioned, the Free Will Theodicy and then the other which I would like to submit to you. It is called the Natural Law Theodicy.

Now, for the atheists, I can say that I don't expect to answer all of your questions about evil and suffering. That would require more than a simple post. For the Chrisians, I would very much like your critique on this--very much like your critique on this.

Back to the Garden of Eden. First, let me clarify some important things about the Garden. The Garden of Eden had physical boundaries. The Bible gives geographical place names (Gen. 2:10-14) for the location of Eden. We also know that the Garden of Eden had geographical boundaries because mankind was placed there from outside the Garden and then later expelled from it. We also know that Eden was a geographical location even after the Fall and that the Garden did not take up the whole location of "Eden" but was a Garden planted within that geographical region. (Gen. 4:16) In other words, (this is very important) THE WHOLE EARTH WAS NOT A PARADISE.

Perhaps we have all (most Christians, anyway) been of the persuassion that the whole earth was a miraculous paradise before the Fall of man. But this is clearly not the case. Again, the Bible mentions the geographic boundaries and also that mankind was created outside the Garden and placed there, then kicked out of it. It is a place that had boundaries. To say that the whole earth was a paradise is to say that the Garden of Eden had no boundaries.

So, what does this have to do with a Natural Law Theodicy? First, that God created physical laws with His wisdom for a particular goal in mind. He (God, not man) subjected the entire creation to these physical laws (I read "entire" to mean all of it, from the beginning, even before the Fall of man in the Garden). God not only miraculously designed the physical laws, but also miraculously designed out of these physical laws our universe. Ultimately, however, because of these physical laws, death and suffering are a natural by-product (remember the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics--its a good law but death and decay are natural by-products of it). Now, I submit that this is why God planted a miraculous Garden and in that Garden He planted the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life would have kept Adam and Eve alive forever, the text clearly says that. I mean, this is the reason God kicked them out of the Garden after they sinned so that they could not partake of the Tree of Life and live forever in their sinful state, right? Since partaking of the Tree of Life means one would have lived forever, according to the Biblical text, then I think it follows that without the Tree of Life, one would be subject to the natural law of physical death ALREADY IN PLACE. We see from the Scriptures that Adam did eventually die when he was prevented from partaking of the Tree of Life. Again, I am not writting a book here, but can you see what I mean?

Herein is my argument. God subjected the entire creation, from the very beginning, to physical laws. By placing Adam in the Garden after He specially created him, He kept him protected. It was a miraculous Garden, and I believe it would have been protected from natural disasters, as well. I see an examle of how even the natural order was subject to God's protection in the Garden is seen even in the temperature in Paradise. Mankind walked naked there and was in no need of warm clothing. I believe there is scriptural support that the Garden was miraculously protected.

You can see where I am going with this. IN THE GARDEN, mankind was supernaturally protected from natural disasters and death. But outside the Garden, the world was subject to the natural order. This natural order may seem "evil" to us, but it is not. Ask a nature lover how good the life cycles and the ecosystems are. Everything is in balance (untill irresponsible people harm the system, that is.) God created the earth to be very good, but we know it was not "perfect". He also created it to be a place of decision making about eternity.

If you compare it to Heaven, which is perfect, you see where even the Garden was not perfect. Mankind was able to fall from grace in the Garden, in Heaven he will not. In the Garden, mankind co-existed with Satan, in Heaven he will not. This world has NEVER been the best of all possible worlds, but it is a way to get to the best possible world--Heaven.

When mankind sinned, man was "kicked out" of the Garden to prevent him from partaking of the Tree of Life and living forever in his fallen, sinful state. (the actualization of death ultimately brings the possiblity of redemption in the cross of Christ) Thus, without the miraculous protection of the Garden that God Himself planted for mankind, mankind was then subject, for the first time, to the natural order. Mankind's fall did not disorder the system, but mankind's fall made him subject to the natural system.

Now, keeping in mind the idea of the importance of Free Will as has been defended already in prior posts as an answer for God allowing mankind to make choices to sin, if God now miraculously intervened every time something bad was about to happen, we would live in a world without predictability. Without predictabiliy in life, our morality would not be free. How could one practice his moral freedom to commit sins if his sins were always miraculously prevented by God?

The natural laws provide a backdrop for mankind to exercise his moral freedom. That is the point of all of this, the natural laws provide a backdrop for mankind to exercise his moral freedom.

If the greatest good is to love the Lord your God, and freedom is the only way to truly love God, (Free Will Theodicy explains this point), then our world with its natural laws is a world that suits that purpose.

I can only ask for your mercy in any potential responses.

[elderbanks]

IS THERE ANY GOOD IN EVIL? DOES THE FALL MAKE THE REASON MAN WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO KNOW WHY EVIL EXIST. THROUGH THE STUDY OF RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY. I THINK THAT WHEN WE READ ALL THE WRITTINGS FROM PEOPLE TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHY EVIL EXIST. STARTING IN THE EARLY DAYS BEFOR THE NEW TESTAMENT. THE READING IS GOING TO DEPEND ON WHAT LEVEL OF FAITH THE PERSON HAS ON GOD. NO MATTER HOW PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT A PERSON WHEN THEY TAKE THE TIME TO HARM THEM THEN THE REASON FOR GOODNESS GOES OUT THE WINDOW. iN MY WRITING ON THE ISSUE OF THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND THE WAY MEN THAT WRITE BOOKS TO EXPLAIN WHY PEOPLE DO THE THINS THEY DO. THERE IS INCONSISTENCY TO THE BELIEF THAT WITHOUT FAITH THERE IS NO UNDERSTANDING FOR GODS REASON TO CHATIZE HIS PEOPLE. THERE IS MANY WRITERS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE BOOK. CALLED THE BIBLE. THE GOODNESS OF EVIL IS SPARED BY GOD ONLY AND NO ONE ELSE. DOES THE IDEAL THAT EVIL STILL EXIST EVEN IF NO PERSON DOES ANY THING AGAINST THEM.