OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: The Evidential Problem of Evil by Jin Roh

[Trout]

Jin Roh

The Evidential Problem of Evil

God and the Problem of Definitions

What are the stronger forms of the problem of evil placed before the theist? The logical problem is indeed dead and deservedly laid to rest. The evidential problem is different. Like Voltaire, we recoil at moral evils and ask if it is really likely whether or not God exists at all. Rowe has one specific approach to the argument: he asks, in effect, how is it possible that a supremely powerful and a supremely good God can co-exist with all kinds of evil? His answer is that that it is not likely that God would exist at all. His argument depends on “restricted theism” as opposed to “expanded theism,” advocated by any world religion. I contend that it is inappropriate for Christians to respond to the problem of evil in terms of “restricted theism.” Additionally, expanded Christian theology, specifically that of Jurgen Moltmann, dramatically changes the question of God’s relationship to moral evil (the evil caused by human activity) as well as weakens many of Rowe’s points. For the sake of brevity, I will limit my responses to suffering under moral evil only.
Rowe’s Restricted Theism

Rowe frames his argument with a clear question: “[other] grounds for belief in God aside, do the evils in our world make atheistic belief more reasonable than theistic belief? ” In other words, Rowe wants to (and correctly, I think) deal with the problem of evil by itself, rather than wandering off into peripheral arguments. Given no arguments or issues at all, the probability of God’s existence is 0.5. Given evil, the probability is lower. Certainly, other arguments could shift the odds in favor of theism, but these are arguments placed aside while dealing with evil.

Rowe continues to frame his argument within “restricted theism.” He contrasts this with “expanded theism.” This framework, he explains, is used to avoid confusion of what he means by the term “theism”:
Theism is the view that there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good being (God). We can call this view restricted theism. It is restricted in that it does not include any claim that is not entailed by it. So, theism itself does not include any of the following claims: God delivered the ten commandments to Moses, Jesus was the incarnation of God, Muhammad ascended into heaven. These are claims made in specific theistic religions; thus they are expanded theism.

Rowe does this for two reasons. First, he wants to set up the argument in the most generous way possible. With restricted theism in mind, theism is more likely because it does not depend on the truthfulness of many of the claims of expanded theism. Secondly, he wishes to make clear the terms of a fair response: “philosophers who wish to defend theism ought not to suppose that the assumption of theism entitles them to assume any of the special claims associated with their own particular theistic religion.” I will argue later why these terms are not fair.

Rowe’s Argument

Rowe presents his argument very simply with three propositions:

(1) There exist horrendous evils that all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good being would have no justifying reason to permit.
(2) An all-powerful, all knowing, perfectly good being would not permit an evil unless he had a justifying reason to permit it. Therefore,
(3) God does not exist.

Rowe then explains the conditions in which a theist may respond to this argument. No one, whether non-theist or theist, denies (2). Most theists will attempt to refute (1). In arguing such, Rowe very quickly places the burden of proof on the theist. He sharpens his argument with vivid examples of evil. We can all imagine Rowe’s example of a brutally raped and murdered girl. Rowe wants us to wonder how God can co-exist with this. What great goods demand that God permit these kinds of things to accomplish them?

The majority of Rowe’s argument is an evaluation of responses to the evidential argument. His initial argument depends primarily on God’s all-loving characteristic and God’s all-powerful characteristic. In reply, the theist appeals to the third “omni”: God’s all-knowing and infinitely surpassing intellect. The argument says, “Given that God’s mind infinitely transcends ours, is it really at all likely that the goods for the sake of which he permits much horrendous suffering will be goods we comprehend?” God, like a good parent, permits his children to suffer a painful , but necessary, surgery. The child does not and cannot completely understand why. Yes, we do not know the reasons (I will call these “noseeum” reasons), but it seems likely given, God’s all-knowing characteristic and his all-loving characteristic, that they are there.

Rowe finds this very unconvincing for several reasons. First, he finds noseeum reasons problematic, perhaps even offensive. If we don’t know those reasons, then they cannot be included in our evaluation of “rationality.” Secondly, he judges the good parent analogy unsatisfactory. Certainly, a good parent will allow a child to suffer a painful surgery, but only after exhausting every other option. For an all powerful being, there is no such thing as exhausting every other option. “The theistic God has unlimited power and knowledge,” Rowe writes. Therefore, there is simply no such “necessary evils.” Finally, even if there is some necessary evil for the theistic God, this God would comfort his children in times of this great suffering. God’s children would experience special assurances of love and concern. This is not the picture that Rowe sees:
But since countless numbers of human beings undergo prolonged, horrendous suffering without being consciously aware of God’s presence or any specials assurance of his love and comfort, we can reasonably infer either that God does not exist or that the good parent analogy is unable to help us understand why God permits all the horrendous suffering.
Rowe’s belief that “God,” if he exists, is apparently unsympathetic towards his creation cannot be emphasized enough.

Rowe’s argument is best summed up into these steps. (1) We should define “God” as the supremely powerful, loving, and knowing being with nothing else added to it. (2) It seems unlikely that God would exist given the amount of evil he apparently permits. (3) God could have justifying reasons for evil, but these are irrational noseeum reasons, and (4) the “good parent analogy” is insufficient due to God’s infinite resources and apparent indifference. I will now begin my response to Rowe.
Rowe’s Wrong God

The lynch-pin of Rowe’s argument is “restricted theism.” Is it appropriate or even possible for Christians to respond in terms of “restricted theism”? It is certainly possible, but I think it is a mistake for Christian philosophers to do so. Rowe, and presumably many Christians with him, believes that this is the central definition of God shared by all three of the great monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). To argue against this definition of God is to argue against God in any expanded, robust, theology. I disagree and think that Rowe sets up something very close to a straw man in doing so.

Strawmen are results of misunderstanding definitions, so one should be clear about the definition of “God” in Christianity. An ancient Christian concept is “the law of praying is the law of believing.” Thus, a church service in any traditional, liturgical, setting might give someone a clue to what sort of God Christians believe in. When in such a church service, people do not say “we believe in the three omnis” and then go home. Instead, one of the famous creeds might be recited –such as the Apostle’s, Nicene, or Athanasian Creed.

Emphasized, often to the point of repetitiveness, is the idea the Jesus is the human incarnation of God. Jesus Christ is both God and human. This is something that Rowe excludes explicitly. The Athanasian Creed states, “what the Father is the Son is” and the Nicene creed states that Jesus is “one in being with Father.” St. Athanasius himself made clear how close the connection between “Word of Wisdom” (Jesus Christ) and “God” must be understood:
When, then, the minds of men had fallen finally to the level of sensible things, the Word submitted to appear in a body, in order that He, as Man, might centre their senses on Himself, and convince them through His human acts that He Himself is not man only but also God, the Word of Wisdom of the true God.
For Christians, whatever can be said about the human being Jesus, can also be said about God. It is not enough to state that Jesus is God’s fleshy avatar, God’s human puppet, or the first literal child born from God. Christians must believe that Jesus is God. Rowe fails to understand the implications of asking Christians to suspend this creedal belief. In doing so, he asks Christians to caricature their own position. Christians do believe in the three omnis, but if “God” is reduced to those three things and nothing else, it is not the God that Christians recognize.

Another critical point of understanding is the Trinity. Christians normally accept this concept as beyond the scope of human understanding, which is why it is notoriously difficult to talk about. This doctrine means that Christian believe, as the old hymn puts it, God in three persons. God is often referred to as “The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.” This should strike people as strange. Skeptics often wonder if Christians are really monotheists, after all is it one or three?
The best way to explain this is to say that “three persons” and “one God” are two different referents. The former refers to distinctions in God and the later refers to unity. This is something like describing a cube’s (the unity) length, width, and height (the distinctions). However, any analogy feels vulgar, and I must reiterate that the Trinity is properly called a mystery, an aspect of God that goes well beyond human understanding.
The phrase “Jesus is God” is best understood in this context. Jesus is as divine as the Father and the Holy Spirit, but is distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. He is not the same is person as the Father or the Holy Spirit. Thus, there are relations in the Trinity. This is important to note, because the God-the-Son (Jesus) interacts with God-the-Father in a way that analogous to human relationships. How this happens becomes clearer later in this paper.
Passus Sub Pontio Pilato

The Incarnation and Trinity have serious implications for the problem of evil. Much of the problem of evil assumes that God passively watches suffering, but is untouched by it and cannot experience it as we do. Yet given the incarnation, we find that God suffers horrendous evil via the crucifixion. If Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, than God suffered under Pontius Pilate. God became a victim. There is indeed great suffering in world history, but God is not detached from it. “God brought suffering history into his own history.” Thus God cannot be understood (as the restricted theism might lead us to believe) as aloof and dwelling where suffering cannot touch him.

One can even go further: through the distinctions and relations of the Trinity, God-the-Son suffers an abandonment from God-the-Father. Jesus’ last words were “my God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” Moltmann explains, “we shall never be able to get used to the fact that at the centre of the Christian faith there is this cry of the God-forsaken Christ for God .” As mysterious and unexpected as this is, it illustrates God’s intimate connection with any of those who suffer moral evil:

At the centre [of Christianity] is the experience of God of the God-forsaken Christ…The passionately loving Christ, the persecuted Christ, the lonely Christ, the tortured Christ, the Christ who suffers under God’s silence –this is our brother, the friend to whom we can entrust everything because he knows everything and has suffered everything that can happen to us.
In short, because of the incarnation and the crucifixion, God not only willingly experiences suffering, but suffers under moral evil with his creation. A God who suffers cannot be understood within restricted theism, for this goes far beyond the three omnis, but this is the God of Christianity. Because of this, the entire argument of God and the problem of evil must be reframed.
Signs of Noseeum

Recall Rowe’s initial argument. Rowe argued that most theists hold that “God has a justifying reason for permitting each and every horrendous evil.” Theists appeal to God’s omniscience in order to argue that those justifying reasons may exist, but are so far beyond us that we do not know them. Rowe rejects this because an omnipotent God never runs out of resources, and an all loving God would surely give us some kind of sign of comfort if that were the case.

What a theist needs to show is that there may be an unknown necessity of evil to achieve greater goods that God could not have accomplished any other way. The theist can never point to a specific noseeum reason, but can at least find ways to show that they are probable. This is similar to how an Astronomer may never see a planet outside our solar system, but can observe stars that seem to be affected by the gravity of an orbiting object. First, we should get clear about the kind of evils we see. Rowe submits two things (raped girl and a burned deer) as examples of the phenomena of evil in this world. Further examples could provide us with a list. Now given robust Christian Theology, we add something to the list of evils: the crucifixion and suffering of God. If God himself took upon suffering, would he not have incredibly good, though perhaps incomprehensible, reasons for permitting the moral evil that caused it?

This presents a much stronger version of the good parent analogy; one that implies a necessity of evil. Instead of the analogy of a child undergoing an incomprehensibly painful surgery and the parent permitting it, we now have both the child and the parent undergoing the painful surgery. It is now as if the parent undergoes surgery, without anesthesia, to remove a kidney for the child, and then nearly dies in the process. The parent will go through such great lengths only when there is no other option. So it is with God. An omnipotent being would not have suffered evil unless there was no other way, thus evil must be kind of noseeum necessity for God’s good.

But what about the parent comforting the child? Rowe stresses this point more than once. Because there are so many people who suffer without a sense of God’s presence, Rowe writes, “I suggested that we have further reason to doubt God’s existence.” The theist, in his view, can only reply that there are still further noseeum reasons for God not being consciously present to everyone.

Rowe is not acknowledging the many people who do feel a sense of God’s solidarity and presence in times of great suffering. Moltmann vividly describes the horrendous evil that he suffered as a German soldier during the Second World War:
I look back to July 1943, when I lay under the hail of bombs that rained down on my home town of Hamburg, annihilating 80,000 people in a storm of fire. In what seemed like a miracle, I lived, and I still don’t know today why I am not dead too, like my companions…My question was: My God, where are you? Where is God?

It was these experiences that launched Moltmann’s theology. It was not until he was a prisoner of war and after suffering a deep depression, that he converted to Christianity. It was on upon these experiences that he later reflected later:
People who believe in a God who suffers with us, recognize their suffering in God, and God in their suffering, and in companionship with him find strength to remain in love and not become bitter, in spite of pain and sorrow.

This kind of memoir is not unique to one German theologian. Examples abound in the lives of Catholic saints, Anabaptist martyrs, imprisoned Chinese Christians, and South American priests. Rowe is correct in pointing out that this kind of feeling is not universal, but these examples do serve to weaken his point. Theists need not necessarily be on the defensive on this point. In raising the “no comfort” objection, Rowe and others should also explain the instances in which comfort is given. Surely, we should not expect people to feel closer to God after suffering moral evil if Rowe is right. Rather, we would expect people like this, who a far better acquainted with moral evil than anyone should wish to be, to support his claim.

My response to Rowe is summarized in three points. First, Christians cannot respond to the problem of evil on the basis of restricted theism, for this is not accurate and complete picture of the Christian God. Whatever can be said on those terms can only be said about some other hypothetical deity. Secondly, given robust Christian theology, the question of evil is no longer “why does an all powerful all loving ‘god’ allow such horrible evil to happen in his creation?” but rather “why did an all powerful all loving God endure such horrible evil with his creation?” With the second question in mind, noseeum reasons seem much more likely, and (in contrast to Rowe’s objection) God does provide reassurances and consolation to those who suffer.
Objections

One of the strongest objections a non-theist could raise might be worded this way: “You have done a good job in pointing out the unintended straw man of restricted theism. Yet, does not your argument depend on an equally contentious point, namely, God suffering? Your own theological tradition has long held that God does not suffer. Is it not more accurate to say the human nature of Jesus suffered, but not the divine nature which remains impassible, in other words, unable to suffer?” I reply that even though the traditions of Aquinas and Anselm hold that God cannot suffer, I must defer to Moltmann and Luther. I will argue from tradition to defend this move.

The early Christians had to oppose a standing tradition in regard to the Incarnation. Is it really true that the divinity could take the form of matter? The habitual thinking of the time held that this was a horrible confusion of category. Divine things, by definition, are never material things according to Hellenistic thought. Yet Christians felt they needed to assert incarnation –even if it is foolishness to the Greeks. To this end, they said that Mary was “theotokos” –the bearer of God. This was strange, but it follows logically. Christ was born. Christ is God. Therefore God was born. Why then do Christians (of any stripe) try to preserve God’s impassibility? If it is correct to say “Mary; the mother God” because Jesus was born, than it seems equally accurate to say, “God suffered” because Jesus suffered –regardless of how controversial this may be.

Objectors may insist that I am being far too flippant with long standing dogma. After all, part of the idea of impassibility is to preserve omnipotence. The Christian God is supposed to be all-powerful. Now I assert that he suffers at the hands of his enemies –who he created. Have I not lost omnipotence? Surely, the creator and sustainer of the universe cannot be beaten or harmed by the termites of his creation.

Marilyn McCord Adams has an interesting response. She carefully examines and divides out many different views about God’s omni’s. One view, from Rolt, affirms omnipotence in a nuanced way. He states that God can conquer evil by absorption rather than imperviousness. God is so infinitely powerful, that he can suffer evil without losing integrity. So it is not that God is immune to harm or is feels it as deeply as we do, but that all the horrendous evil that humans can heap onto God will never diminish him. Adams seems to affirm this view. Yet at the same time, Adams also judges that God does possess the ability to create something out of nothing and annihilate anything that exists. God need not use this power to annihilate. Having it is enough to be omnipotent.

Another strong objection might be that if God truly feels the pain of humanity, would not that motivate him to end it by his great omnipotence? Simply put, why is pain continuing to persist? I believe that there are several lines of response to this objection. First, no defense on this issue has ever claimed that God is not motivated already. If he was not, he would not be all loving. The defense I am presenting is that the noseeum reasons for God’s co-existence with moral and evil is far more likely to be present if God took suffering on himself. Secondly, God’s all loving characteristic may restrain his omnipotence. God could smite every last torturer, rapists and murder, but God’s infinite love may prevent him from doing so. Such a smiting may cause an uprooting of the wheat with the tares. Finally, Christianity may recognize that suffering and pain exist now, but not believe that it is permanent, essential, aspect of the human condition. Besides the Creedal statements about Jesus, the Christian Creeds all contain an affirmation of the perfect world to come.

I must now move on to the more powerful objection –the lack of a sense of comfort from God. Even if there are examples of many people experiencing God’s comfort, why not everyone? This is indeed an interesting question. Consider Jurgen Moltmann and Jean Paul Sartre. Both were influenced by Hegel and similar German thinkers. Both experienced the violent and horrific epicenter of World War II. Moltmann was a German soldier imprisoned by the Scottish. Sartre was a French soldier imprisoned by the Germans. Their very similar experiences profoundly affected their later thought. Why then did one become a deeply committed Christian, and the other an atheist’s atheist? The problem of moral evil is now shifting towards a problem of hiddeness.

This problem of divine hiddeness goes well beyond the scope of the paper, but I can give two possibilities that could be worked out further. First, experiencing the Christian God’s comfort necessitates a conversion, and conversions involve a subjective human response. Innumerable psychological and sociological aspects will either encourage or impede a conversion. So what makes a Sartre or a Moltmann involves much more than suffering and God’s existence. There can be no universal explanation of why one person may experience God and another does not. This objection can only be really approached on the subjective, existential, level.

Secondly, divine hiddeness could also be explained by noseeum reasons. While it appears that I am playing into Rowe’s hands, a similar argument against the divine hiddeness problem could be fleshed out within Christian tradition. Recall the last words of Jesus that were mentioned earlier, “My God, My God, why have you abandoned me?” With an understanding of Incarnation and the Trinity, Christians can reply that God too, understands and undergoes human loneliness and distance from God. For God-the-Son feels a great distance from God-the Father. This would give us signs of noseeum reasons for divine hiddeness in the same way we see signs of noseeum reasons for moral evil and suffering.
Conclusion

In this paper I have argued for two main things. First, I have argued that those who believe in the “expanded theism” of Christianity should not be expected to shrug off their creedal commitments when dealing with the God and the problem of evil. Rowe, while being generous and doing so in good will, still expects theists to re-define their own God when in philosophical court. Secondly, the evidential problem of evil must be reframed in light of the Christian. Any apologist or detractor must deal with the suffering God among the list of evils and suffering. This fact weakens many or Rowe’s arguments and strengthens the objections against the evidential argument. However this line of reasoning leads us beyond the evidential problem and into the problem of hiddeness. Such a discussion requires another paper in itself.



Works Cited
Adams, Marilyn McCord. Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God. London: Cornell University Press, 1999.
Athanasius. On the Incarnation. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1996.
Jaeger, John David. "Jurgen Moltmann and the Problem of Evil." The Asbury Theological Journal, 1998: 5-14.
Moltmann, Jurgen. Jesus Christ for Today's World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.
Rowe, William L. "An Exchange on the Problem of Evil." In God and the Problem of Evil, by William L. Rowe, 124-158. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2001.

[Mattmulligan]

The problem of evil is not ruly a problem in the sense that it only exists within human psyche. And in the case of a theist what we may consider as evil God may consider as good in some way, we canno clearly define what is mean by good and evil.

[freeksngeeks]

Given no arguments or issues at all, the probability of God’s existence is 0.5.

I disagree. The probability that an all-knowing, all-powerful being exists, and that that being has always existed is so fantastic that the probability of it being true approached zero.

You might as well say the same about fairies and Santa Claus.

[Religion=Cult+]

Given no arguments or issues at all, the probability of God’s existence is 0.5.

I disagree. The probability that an all-knowing, all-powerful being exists, and that that being has always existed is so fantastic that the probability of it being true approached zero.

You might as well say the same about fairies and Santa Claus.

Exactly; or zombies, the Easter Bunny, and the Irish Bloody Bones Bogeyman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Bones.

[tomsawyer25]

That's an excellent essay. I have a few thoughts on the subject of divine hiddeness that you mentioned at the end. I have heard this frustration from my brother, who is an atheist. He seems to sincerely demand that God, if He exists, ought to make himself known clearly to us. Like perhaps a sign by the side of the road. My response is generally along the lines of -- Perhpas God already has. Please keep your eyes out.

There really is something relational going on in how much we can "see" God. Afterall, doesn't some part of divine hiddeness relate to our own love of the carnal and our own depravity? Wouldn't we be much more aware of the signs, so to speak, if we were not focused on ourselves? There could also be a purposeful level to divine hiddeness also. Afterall, as a people who have at some times known God, we can tend to take His existence, His care and His blessings for granted. Hiddeness, in a sense, demands that we are not so selfish. That we honestly seek God and yearn for Him. Therefore, how can we complain that God is "absent", when it is really our own hearts which are?

[tomsawyer25]

Exactly; or zombies, the Easter Bunny, and the Irish Bloody Bones Bogeyman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Bones.

Do you really believe that? Isn't it equally as odd to believe that everything came from nothing? Show me a person who really believes that everything came from nothing and they seem just as odd in my eyes as someone who believes in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. What makes that belief rational, afterall?

[Religion=Cult+]

Do you really believe that? Isn't it equally as odd to believe that everything came from nothing? Show me a person who really believes that everything came from nothing and they seem just as odd in my eyes as someone who believes in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. What makes that belief rational, afterall?

I know some here will flame me, accusing me of utter ignorance. I'm used to it now; but again, how do you explain God's existence? Because the Bible says so? What about the Koran? That he must be the uncaused "first cause." That's as irrational as saying that at some point approximately 15 billion years ago, all the matter and energy in the universe existed in one point, and a tremendous explosion, the Big Bang, caused the beginning of the universe. To say God caused the Big Bang is as irrational as saying that it just happened. WE DON"T KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED. Perhaps some day we will know, and the mystery will be solved. It is simply my position that we don't know, and the Christian God is a poor answer to the question.

What existed prior to the Big Bang is a completely unknown and a matter of utter speculation. I'm very willing to concede that it's possible that some higher power caused the universe, I just think the evidence for a Christian God unreliable at best, and completely loopy at worst.

[freeksngeeks]

Do you really believe that? Isn't it equally as odd to believe that everything came from nothing? Show me a person who really believes that everything came from nothing and they seem just as odd in my eyes as someone who believes in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. What makes that belief rational, afterall?

This is an example of the excluded middle. Just because we do not believe in the Christian god, and in an unlikely story about original sin and a god sending his son to be murdered so as to appease himself does not mean we believe that we know how "we" all happened.

We just do not accept your explanation. It's just too fantastic to believe.

[Jin-Roh]

Given no arguments or issues at all, the probability of God’s existence is 0.5.

I disagree. The probability that an all-knowing, all-powerful being exists, and that that being has always existed is so fantastic that the probability of it being true approached zero.

You might as well say the same about fairies and Santa Claus.

Talk about missing the point. This hardly deserves a reply, but I think you missed the "Given no arguments or issues at all" clause in the sentence.

[freeksngeeks]

Talk about missing the point. This hardly deserves a reply, but I think you missed the "Given no arguments or issues at all" clause in the sentence.

Well that's just nonsense! Cloaking the claim in a shroud of caveats makes the claim a nonsense.

[tomsawyer25]

This is an example of the excluded middle. Just because we do not believe in the Christian god, and in an unlikely story about original sin and a god sending his son to be murdered so as to appease himself does not mean we believe that we know how "we" all happened.

We just do not accept your explanation. It's just too fantastic to believe.

Thanks for your reply. Well, it's hard to speak of a "middle" as you call it since you haven't made clear what you believe and why. Nor does every subject really have a middle. As far as the evidence goes, even beyond any acceptance of scripture, I find that a Creator who cares for His creation is far more supported than a non-existant or uncaring one, which I find, as you say, "fantastic".

As far as sin coming into the word, do you deny that sin exists? Why? I find that most people who do deny that sin exists end up explaining something very similar using different words. So what we are left with is that either a) God made mistakes in His creation, b) sin isn't really bad at all or c) we bring sin into creation through out choice and that sin is ongoing.

Loosely speaking, it is option "c" which is something like original sin. I believe in c) and find options a) and b) bordering on ridiculous. A) and b) would force me to accept an incompetant creator or to accept the grandest amoral philosophy and also an uncaring creator. Do you really think that the first two options are superior to the third? Why?

As far as God dwelling among us, walking the walk and paying the price, understanding this demands some acceptance of revealed scripture. This I accept and you don't. However, it is not about God needing regular portions of blood. God sent His Son to dwell among us, and indeed to be murdered, because his is just, as well as because He has an enduring love for us. He gave His whole life. Which is what we should be doing. If a believer can not look at the cross and see himself, He is missing a big part of the point.

Besides, if God does not demand a price for sin, how is God good or just? Or do you believe God is amoral or unjust? You say that God was "appeasing" Himself. Alright. Well, doesn't justice need to be "appeased"? What other option is there? How does sinful humanity go to a holy God?

And I remind you again, that this is not a situation of God needing some particular quantity of blood. What came out of the death and resurrection included millions of people being brought to peace and intimacy with God. Millions of people who in experiencing this came to know the law of God. There is a multifold phenomenon going on here. I wouldn't categorize it too quickly according to one aspect.

One way that I see things, and this does require a regard for the Bible, is that God asks basically two things: the living sacrifice (our obedience to Him) and the blood of the lamb (an offering made to attone for our sin). What is interesting to me, is the Jesus, as the perfect living sacrifice, becomes the blood of the lamb. Obedience becomes the attoning sacrifice. They become merged. That's just one way of looking at things, but I think it has value.

As for myself, I can take a look at the world around me, as well as some things within me, and I know we need the blood of the lamb. Writing a check to charity and saying "I'm sorry" really isn't going to cut it. If there is peace between God and man it is through a far more profound method.

So anyway, what do you believe and why? What evidences support your belief? I strongly believe the evidence supports Biblical truth and would tell you why. What supports your belief?

Shalom

Tom

[freeksngeeks]

Tom

There are so many unsupported assertions and assumptions in your reply that I don't know where or how to start. I also suspect that the divide between us is so vast that we will never reconcile our separate views.

I know that I do not believe in the existence of a god, any god. Nothing I have heard or seen or experienced convinces me that there is a god. Do I know how we came to exist without some intervention? No. But that doesn't mean that we won't find out someday, and it doesn't mean that there was an intervention.

It also doesn't mean that I claim that there is no god, only that I don't have a belief that there is a god. In that sense I don't need any evidence because I am not making a positive claim.

Do I believe sin exists? I know that as human beings we have weaknesses and that we do don't always do the right thing. I don't call that "sin." I call that "not doing the right thing." Since I do not believe in a god I certainly do not believe I need to atone to a being for my transgressions. If necessary, I need to deal with people I have hurt, or live with my conscience, or have to answer to a court of law. I certainly find the concept of "original sin" bizarre and completely incredible.

So rather that needing support for my beliefs, rather I don't accept your evidence for yours.

Let me say finally that I find the christian god in particular to be so incredible that I can say that, more than just lacking belief in him, I strongly believe he doesn't exist. The whole concept of an interventionist god, who needed to sacrifice a human projection of himself as atonement for the sins of two people who never existed as just ridiculous.

[tomsawyer25]

If there are any unsupported claims in my letter then please mention what they are. Most of my piece was giving explanatory models and proposing questions by reason. I believe fairly few actual claims were made. Again, if they are unsupported, then mention them to me.

Perhaps there is a vast divide, and perhaps there isn't. Either way I believe in expaining my beliefs and answering your objections. Also in making objections to your claims. I think you are stepping back by refusing to take a positive position, whereby you can complain about the Biblical and philosophical things I reiterate, without ever having to make positive claims yourself. No offense instended, but I find this cowardly.

If you are "unconvinced" that there is a God, then there are really a limited number of other options. Either no creator or one who is not involved. As far as convincing evidence goes, why does not creation itself provide evidence for you? Is then matter a god? Are "laws" of nature gods?

Regarding an uninvolved creator, there are some problems: One needs some amount of involvement to create to begin with. Also, how does this hypothesis fit with the amount of peace and blessings most of us experience in our lives. Most people have comfort and even pleasure much of the time. Has your life been constant torture? Why?

Furthermore, most of our problems are either mental or manmade. We imagine them or we make them ourselves. Unloving creator? I don't think so. What about the firmly supported benefits of prayer and faith? Prayer and faith are lifegiving. Furthermore, how can our moral sense, our yearning for God and what believers call revelation fit with an uninvolved creator? If we are not built to relate to our Creator, then why these things?

You said "I don't call that sin, I call that not doing the right thing" Now, when I said that most people who deny sin simply expain something very similar with different words, this is precisely what I meant. Sin involves not doing the right thing, as well as the inner tendency to not do the right thing. As well as our choice being involved in doing it. There are several other things as well, but these are three enormous points. It appears to me that you agree with them, and hence you agree that sin exists. If you can agree with these three points, then what do you find "bizarre" about original sin?

As far as "trying" to do better and making things right that we have made wrong, you are again agreeing with the Bible on this. Somehow this uninvolved or nonexistant god that you speak of has done a wonderful job of placing some of his truth within you.

By the way, you did make a positive claim. You said "since I do not belive in a god". So I must ask: Does everything come from nothing?

It seems your comments on sin relate not to disbelieving in sin, but to our need for atonement. I want to first mention, that our need for an offering to come to God is there in the Bible from first to last. Even traditional Judaism, which strongly objects to needing Jesus's sacrifice, and which highly emphasized many and detailed life actions, also accepts that we certainly need an act of God's mercy to go to Him.

There are various angles through which to understand atonement, and if you are open to hearing them, I am happy to make a brief attempt at explaining them. Atonement, recognizes that we deserve punishment for sin, as God is righteous and holy. We could hardly expect peace with God without accepting that we deserve punishment. We can hardly accept intimacy with God if we deny who He is. Many people ask --Can't I make up for sin by writing a check to charity? Well, can a crimnal have all charges dropped if he writes such a check? Neither can we before of holy God. We are still guilty.

Atonement, is simultaniously a substitute for our life, as well as an act of intimacy with God, An act of knowing that we need mercy and an act of knowing better who God is. It seems reasonable to believe that if God is good and holy, that atonement is necessary. Mercy is an act of God and we participate in it. If God is not good or holy, of course, we are answerable to no one. I see no other options.

I don't see that your objection to Adam and Eve's existance really is an argument against atonement. Afterall, if these two primal actors in sin didn't ever exist, then you and I have done the same things ourselves. We all participate in the sin of Adam. All of us do. We are all responsible for that.

Once again, I will state that you are indeed making positive claims. You are claiming that either God does not exist, or that he is ninvolved in His creation. Can you support those claims? What parts of our lives and the natural world fit wither two of those hypothesis? If you find a lot that does not fit those claims, I would become more skeptical of them. If you find things which support the claims I am reiterating, please take those claims more seriously.

God is with you.

Regards,

Tom

Tom

There are so many unsupported assertions and assumptions in your reply that I don't know where or how to start. I also suspect that the divide between us is so vast that we will never reconcile our separate views.

I know that I do not believe in the existence of a god, any god. Nothing I have heard or seen or experienced convinces me that there is a god. Do I know how we came to exist without some intervention? No. But that doesn't mean that we won't find out someday, and it doesn't mean that there was an intervention.

It also doesn't mean that I claim that there is no god, only that I don't have a belief that there is a god. In that sense I don't need any evidence because I am not making a positive claim.

Do I believe sin exists? I know that as human beings we have weaknesses and that we do don't always do the right thing. I don't call that "sin." I call that "not doing the right thing." Since I do not believe in a god I certainly do not believe I need to atone to a being for my transgressions. If necessary, I need to deal with people I have hurt, or live with my conscience, or have to answer to a court of law. I certainly find the concept of "original sin" bizarre and completely incredible.

So rather that needing support for my beliefs, rather I don't accept your evidence for yours.

Let me say finally that I find the christian god in particular to be so incredible that I can say that, more than just lacking belief in him, I strongly believe he doesn't exist. The whole concept of an interventionist god, who needed to sacrifice a human projection of himself as atonement for the sins of two people who never existed as just ridiculous.

[freeksngeeks]

If there are any unsupported claims in my letter then please mention what they are.

1. I find that a Creator who cares for His creation is far more supported than a non-existant or uncaring one.

Even beyond scripture? Where is there any support beyond scripture? Of course, using scripture to support claims for a god is circular reasoning.

2. Loosely speaking, it is option "c" which is something like original sin.

I believe original sin is one of the more ludicrous claims arising from some forms of christianity. It assumes the actual existence of Adam and Eve, it assumes that because they ate of the forbidden fruit they were stained with "sin", and that all of mankind descending from them was marked with this sin. Then, god had to send himself in human form to earth to be murdered so that he would be appeased for all of that sin. Further, some forms of christianity claim that unless I believe in this, I will be tortured for eternity.

Some loving, some god!

3. God sent His Son to dwell among us, and indeed to be murdered, because his is just, as well as because He has an enduring love for us.

You claim this, you believe this, and that is your faith (belief without proof). As above, ludicrous. It is just to murder your son (actually yourself) as a sacrifice to yourself because two people - who never existed - ate forbidden fruit? I don't see how you translate this bizarre cult of death and human/god sacrifice into an enduring love for us. I would run a million miles from that kind of being.

4. And I remind you again, that this is not a situation of God needing some particular quantity of blood.

How do you know this? How can you claim to know the workings of the mind of a god? You can quote "revealed scripture" as much as you like, but there is no evidence that the bible is anything more than the collected works of some bronze-age goat herders. The new testament is mostly anonymous. Nobody knows who really wrote the gospels. Christianity - christ-worship - appears to be mostly the creation of Paul. What you call the bible today was the cobbled together collection of writings determined by human beings in the 4th century.

5. I know we need the blood of the lamb.

No, you don't. You believe this. Another unsupported assertion.

I think you are stepping back by refusing to take a positive position, whereby you can complain about the Biblical and philosophical things I reiterate, without ever having to make positive claims yourself. No offense instended, but I find this cowardly.

Wow! You make some claims, nearly all unsupported by any independent evidence. I say "I don't believe/accept that." That makes me a coward? I would have thought I was merely exercising my powers of reasoning and rational thought.

I believe in lots of things. I believe in the beauty of nature, I believe in the love I feel for familty and friends. I believe in science and what I can detect with my senses and by deductive reasoning. I believe in evolution which is fact as well as theory. If you merely claimed to believe in some god that we have no hope of knowing or understanding, and that this god created the universe, I would find that far less objectionable than your actual beliefs about an interventionist god and sin and sacrifice and heaven and hell.

Regarding an uninvolved creator, there are some problems: One needs some amount of involvement to create to begin with. Also, how does this hypothesis fit with the amount of peace and blessings most of us experience in our lives. Most people have comfort and even pleasure much of the time. Has your life been constant torture? Why?

I have no idea how life came to begin. I believe the theory of evolution explains how life changed over time. In the absence of any evidence, claims about gods needing to be the creator are not credible. There are billions of people on earth who have no peace and blessings. People who live with cold and hunger and disease.

Some of us have comfort and pleasure, sure. How does that become the largesse of a god? So my life has not been torture therefore there is a god? Sorry, that does not follow.

By the way, you did make a positive claim. You said "since I do not belive in a god". So I must ask: Does everything come from nothing?

Excuse me? My lack of belief in a god is not a positive claim. I did not say, nor do I believe, there is not/cannot be a god. I do not believe your claims. See above about my answer to "does everything come from nothing?"

There are various angles through which to understand atonement, and if you are open to hearing them, I am happy to make a brief attempt at explaining them. Atonement, recognizes that we deserve punishment for sin, as God is righteous and holy. We could hardly expect peace with God without accepting that we deserve punishment. We can hardly accept intimacy with God if we deny who He is.

Thanks but no thanks. Sin, original sin, virgin birth, sacrifice, atonement, god is righteous and holy, deserving punishment - all these things are so much like the ancient myths and superstitions of ancient people. There are tremendous parallels between the myths about Jesus and myths about earlier gods and personalities like Horus and Mithras and Buddha. That's all these are - elements of ancients myths. I have no time to waste on them.

We all participate in the sin of Adam. All of us do. We are all responsible for that.

No, we don't. There was no Adam, no Eve, no talking snake. Your god is a jealous god, a vengeful god, an evil god, and therefore not much of a god at all.

You are claiming that either God does not exist, or that he is ninvolved in His creation. Can you support those claims?

I do not claim that god does not exist. I do not believe he does, but I do not claim he doesn't. Therefore I can take no position about his claimed involvement in creation. You can explain about a loving god, involved in the daily lives of all of us, to people who live in squalor and misery and hunger, to children who are raped by bad people, to the 250,000 victims of the tsunamis of a few years ago, to the victims of war.

Loving? Can't see it. Involved? Apparently not.

I am very happy thank you living a fulfilling life. I have family and friends and work and music and good food and dogs and cats. And I don't need a god or a bible to tell me how to behave. My morals come from the same place everybody else's morals come from - from our participation in human society.

Cheers
Rob

[tomsawyer25]

If there are any unsupported claims in my letter then please mention what they are.

1. I find that a Creator who cares for His creation is far more supported than a non-existant or uncaring one.

Even beyond scripture? Where is there any support beyond scripture? Of course, using scripture to support claims for a god is circular reasoning.

2. Loosely speaking, it is option "c" which is something like original sin.

I believe original sin is one of the more ludicrous claims arising from some forms of christianity. It assumes the actual existence of Adam and Eve, it assumes that because they ate of the forbidden fruit they were stained with "sin", and that all of mankind descending from them was marked with this sin. Then, god had to send himself in human form to earth to be murdered so that he would be appeased for all of that sin. Further, some forms of christianity claim that unless I believe in this, I will be tortured for eternity.

Some loving, some god!

3. God sent His Son to dwell among us, and indeed to be murdered, because his is just, as well as because He has an enduring love for us.

You claim this, you believe this, and that is your faith (belief without proof). As above, ludicrous. It is just to murder your son (actually yourself) as a sacrifice to yourself because two people - who never existed - ate forbidden fruit? I don't see how you translate this bizarre cult of death and human/god sacrifice into an enduring love for us. I would run a million miles from that kind of being.

4. And I remind you again, that this is not a situation of God needing some particular quantity of blood.

How do you know this? How can you claim to know the workings of the mind of a god? You can quote "revealed scripture" as much as you like, but there is no evidence that the bible is anything more than the collected works of some bronze-age goat herders. The new testament is mostly anonymous. Nobody knows who really wrote the gospels. Christianity - christ-worship - appears to be mostly the creation of Paul. What you call the bible today was the cobbled together collection of writings determined by human beings in the 4th century.

5. I know we need the blood of the lamb.

No, you don't. You believe this. Another unsupported assertion.

I think you are stepping back by refusing to take a positive position, whereby you can complain about the Biblical and philosophical things I reiterate, without ever having to make positive claims yourself. No offense instended, but I find this cowardly.

Wow! You make some claims, nearly all unsupported by any independent evidence. I say "I don't believe/accept that." That makes me a coward? I would have thought I was merely exercising my powers of reasoning and rational thought.

I believe in lots of things. I believe in the beauty of nature, I believe in the love I feel for familty and friends. I believe in science and what I can detect with my senses and by deductive reasoning. I believe in evolution which is fact as well as theory. If you merely claimed to believe in some god that we have no hope of knowing or understanding, and that this god created the universe, I would find that far less objectionable than your actual beliefs about an interventionist god and sin and sacrifice and heaven and hell.

Regarding an uninvolved creator, there are some problems: One needs some amount of involvement to create to begin with. Also, how does this hypothesis fit with the amount of peace and blessings most of us experience in our lives. Most people have comfort and even pleasure much of the time. Has your life been constant torture? Why?

I have no idea how life came to begin. I believe the theory of evolution explains how life changed over time. In the absence of any evidence, claims about gods needing to be the creator are not credible. There are billions of people on earth who have no peace and blessings. People who live with cold and hunger and disease.

Some of us have comfort and pleasure, sure. How does that become the largesse of a god? So my life has not been torture therefore there is a god? Sorry, that does not follow.

By the way, you did make a positive claim. You said "since I do not belive in a god". So I must ask: Does everything come from nothing?

Excuse me? My lack of belief in a god is not a positive claim. I did not say, nor do I believe, there is not/cannot be a god. I do not believe your claims. See above about my answer to "does everything come from nothing?"

There are various angles through which to understand atonement, and if you are open to hearing them, I am happy to make a brief attempt at explaining them. Atonement, recognizes that we deserve punishment for sin, as God is righteous and holy. We could hardly expect peace with God without accepting that we deserve punishment. We can hardly accept intimacy with God if we deny who He is.

Thanks but no thanks. Sin, original sin, virgin birth, sacrifice, atonement, god is righteous and holy, deserving punishment - all these things are so much like the ancient myths and superstitions of ancient people. There are tremendous parallels between the myths about Jesus and myths about earlier gods and personalities like Horus and Mithras and Buddha. That's all these are - elements of ancients myths. I have no time to waste on them.

We all participate in the sin of Adam. All of us do. We are all responsible for that.

No, we don't. There was no Adam, no Eve, no talking snake. Your god is a jealous god, a vengeful god, an evil god, and therefore not much of a god at all.

You are claiming that either God does not exist, or that he is ninvolved in His creation. Can you support those claims?

I do not claim that god does not exist. I do not believe he does, but I do not claim he doesn't. Therefore I can take no position about his claimed involvement in creation. You can explain about a loving god, involved in the daily lives of all of us, to people who live in squalor and misery and hunger, to children who are raped by bad people, to the 250,000 victims of the tsunamis of a few years ago, to the victims of war.

Loving? Can't see it. Involved? Apparently not.

I am very happy thank you living a fulfilling life. I have family and friends and work and music and good food and dogs and cats. And I don't need a god or a bible to tell me how to behave. My morals come from the same place everybody else's morals come from - from our participation in human society.

Cheers
Rob

1) When I say -- support beyond scripture -- I mean our very existance. If God could be describes as anything but God and but love then I would not expect to find a creation, I would not expect to find a creation which continues to be sustained, and I would not expect to find so many people living long lives with so many blessings. The next time you eat a nice meal, please ask yourself whether God could be hatered or apathy instead. The next time you feel you are such a "moral" person, ask youself whether a God of hatred or apathy would have made you that way. God is a God of love.


2. I feel in addressing sin you are largely ignoring the points which I have made. The points which I made were to show that you yourself accept some of the main characteristics of our original sin. Afterall, do we not all do evil? Does it not continue in every generaltion?

What you are trying to do here is to say -- because there are consequences for our sin, this must argue against a God of love. But I say -- why blame our Creator for the consequences? We have done this, all of us, by our own choice. If God simply accepted this God would not be just. A righteous mand and Jeffry Dahmer could both just as easily waltz into God's kingdom.

God is just, and that is why he is repulsed by sin. People do not go away from God because they don't believe in the One God sent. They go away from God because they sin. God's Son is a chance to return.

3. Most of your words here are emotional ones, but I'll try to decipher a point. To begin with, yes it is my faith, and one based on evidence. Your belief is that no one could possibly need and offering to God, and that is also a faith, one without proof.

The problem you have with what I am saying is that you don't see that God could need an offering. Well, I would put it this way -- We owe God our lives, but we do not give them. An offering is a replecement, and it is also a powerful message to us of what we owe God and of God's mercy to us. God gave Himself as the perfect offering, one which is worthy. What you are causally referring to as murder, is the act of God taking the bullet for us. I am reminded of this Israeli professor who took a bullet for his class during the Virginia Tech shootings. Why be flippant about an act like this?

I would probably be more skeptical myself about the offering if I had not had a chance to see the enormous good that Christ's death brought to the world. It would be a mere concept to me. But I have seen the good that receiving that sacrifice has brought to countless people, including myself. So it is more that a theological concept in my mind. It is an act of God.

4. This is merely a collection of false claims. I honestly suggest you do the research. The evidence suggest that the Bible is extremely old. Some writers were clerly educated, some were simple working people. Despite its being written over many centuries and having dozens of authors, its theological consistency is enormous. Comparing the Isaaih scroll found among the Dead Sea scrolls with newer copies, one can clearly see that writings were transferred accurately over centuries. The Bible accurately decribes cultural norms, geography, battles and kings during the periods it describes. Both First Temple and Second Temple relics have been found.

The New Testament writings come from the decades after the death and resurrection. Even secular scholars would not accept the outragious claim that the NT writings come from the 4th century. It may not have been offically connonized until a later date, but the writings are early and most of the connon was accepted long before it became official. We have evidence of early Messianic Jewish and Christian communities from the 1st centry AD. Jesus as God is not merely a concept in the writings of Paul, buit are also found in the Gospels.

Please do the research.

5. My belief in the blood of the Lamb is a belief which says we do not earn our way to God. It is based on evidence, like most of our beliefs. One could not prove the claim, but neither could one prove the claim that we can earn our peace with God. Can you prove that our human goodness takes us to God?

I know we need the Lamb based on God's goodness and our sin. As well as God's revelation to us, which proves credible over and over. When something proves credible over and over, it is an authority.

My friend recently had his nephew murdered before he was even born. That is called abortion. The only people trying to stop this were believing Christians. The ones who wanted to do it were people who did not know the Lamb. I could go on and on with examples like this. God sends his righteouness to those who receive he Lamb. The cross brings atonement, it also brings light.

....what I was referring to as cowardly was your refusal to positively state your own position. It reflects a refusal to open your own beliefs up to scrutiny. None of them could you "prove" to a high degree using your cunning "rational" mind. Afterall, please prove to me that this world came from nothing. That God is uninvolved from creation. That our human goodness is all that we need. Where is the proof?

You do not follow what I am saying about blessings? My comment is that we all receive blessings. They are a sign of God's care for the world. I would surely doubt in a loving God is most of us lived in torture most of the time due to factors beyond human behavior. As it is, we all receive blessings, even despite our sometimes evil behavior. Would a God who does not care for us create a world like this? Even in poor areas of the world, people have love, forgiveness, food, a moral sense. And most of our difficulties are a result of human behavior.

To me this strongly argues for a God who cares for creation. Not one who does not. Even the intellectual sense which allows us parts of this discussion is a blessing from God. Why use it, then take it for granted? Please think of that as you enjoy your life.

The reason I continue to ask for your actual positive beliefs, is because you ought to be able to see that you have some. That you ought to be able to compare them side by side with others. Perhaps your belief is -- I don't care. But then I'd have to aks you what kind of a person wouldn't care to know who they are or where they come from. It's an odd characteristic for one portraying themselves as hightly raitional.

Everything does not come from nothing. It comes from a loving God.

The similarities between different religions means little to our discussion. There are similarities between all things in the world, yet it is the differences that count. Besides, if you have been reading from authors who promote the "similarities" ad nauseum, you are likely getting an exagerrated and distorted view of those things.

So don't refuse to deal with the subject based on so-called similarities. Either we need atonement or we do not. Either Jesus is the man He says He is, or He is not. Either we need peace with God, or we do not.

You claim that we don't participate in the sin of Adam? Honestly? Regardless of your belief that Adam does not exist, do we not all do evil? The claim that we all sin is far more supported than the claim that we do not. If God is just, sin takes us away from Him. If God is not just, then you and me and Ted Bundy all have the same relationship with our Creator.

You use the word vengeful, but don't forget the God offers mercy to all who sin. Even in the most ferocious critiques against Israel, God continually maintains the offer that Israel can come back to Him. There is a direction away from God, and a way back to Him.

You bring up murders, for example, to question God's goodness. But I would bring them up to question human goodness. God gave us a moral sense, and sent intructions on how to behave. Many generations down the line, human beings still murder. So I bring up murders to ask a different question -- Can people who do this have a right relationship with our Creator?

The number of people killed in the Asian tsunami is less that one quarter of those killed by abortion in the U.S. last year. It is a tiny fraction compared to human destruction across the globe. Perhaps it is a wave coming back at us. Head per head, it is far less than what we had coming.

I am glad that you have a happy life. Sincerely. Thank God for all of those blessings, as well as that moral sense which He gave you.

I do not accept, however, the equivalence between the general human moral sense and righteousness instilled by God. In example after example, I can see that believers in our Savior are the ones who stand by what is moral, as well as those who proactively do what is good. The good moral sense from the Bible, as wel as the proactive work done by believers, is powerful testimony for our need to receive goodness from God, rather than just relax on a few decent traits which God himself gave us. All goodness comes from God.

Take care

Tom