P
Pianofish
Guest
These are both great perspectives that I hadn’t thought of. Thank you both!
I welcome book suggestions! Thank you!
I am trying to read more writings of the saints so this is an excellent suggestion. Thank you.
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Why Evil and Suffering Don’t Disprove God (Condensed)
by Brandon Vogt
strangenotions.com/why-evil-and-suffering-dont-disprove-god/
"Christians have consistently pointed out that because of God’s unique, metaphysical position, beyond space and time, he can have morally justifiable reasons to allow certain acts of pain and suffering—reasons that we’re just not privy to. Just as we allow our children to experience darkness and hurt sometimes when we know it will bring about a greater good, God could have good reasons to permit apparently heinous acts. (Note: I’m not arguing here that God necessarily does have good reasons in any specific case, only that there’s no logical reason why he couldn’t have good reasons to permit evils in general, reasons we’re just not aware of.)
"…There is no logical contradiction between an all-loving, all-powerful God who permits evil in the world. To deny this, an atheist would HAVE to show definitively that God could NOT have morally justifiable reasons for permitting evil in any circumstance. And since we’re in no position to judge whether God has such reasons, the existence of evil (i.e., pain, suffering, abuse, etc.) simply does not pose a strong argument against God’s existence.
"[The atheist making this argument] attempts to shift the burden of proof onto theists, challenging them to disprove his argument against God, instead of assuming the burden himself—instead of marshaling his own evidence in support of his own claims.
“But the theist is under no such responsibility. If [the atheist] claims that the existence of evil is logically or evidentially incompatible with God’s existence, he needs to show why. It won’t suffice simply to demand that theists show how God and evil co-exist. To say it another way, it’s fallacious to make a positive claim and then demand others disprove your claim—you have to provide evidence yourself! This is precisely why atheists won’t allow Christians to say, ‘God exists! And if you don’t agree, you have to show why he doesn’t exist!’”
T
tweedlealice
Guest
King James Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
ISAIAH 45:7
God doesn’t want Chattie Cathi dolls. I love you God, I love you God, etc. We have to have a choice. He gave us sunshine and rain. He gave us love and hate or love and lust. We must discern the goodness and choose. The love and lust is hard to tell. One will last and one will break your heart. Both feel good. Lucifer the angel of light. Where did the pride come from.
Being a Christian is not easy. One must study and pray. Don’t forget fasting. Don’t look at me for that one. Weighing in at =====pounds in this corner. Some evil can only be cast out by fasting and prayer. But the Love of God that passes all understandings is unbelievable. Nothing can compare to this love affair w Jesus. Amen:heart:
P
Pianofish
Guest
Thank you so much for sharing this, Randy. This is extremely helpful.
S
schaeffer
Guest
I have truly never understood this argument against God.
Why MUST God be all warm and fuzzy? For tens of thousands of years people have believed in all manner of gods who did all sorts of not nice things, yet they were no less “God” to them because of it.
So what if God allows evil? How does that make him not God?
If people find themselves unwilling or unable to believe in or worship God because he lets (or causes) painful things to happen, that’s on them. It doesn’t make God any more or less real.
The whole line of apologetics and theology that try to make God out to be a nice guy seems misguided to me. How anyone can read the Bible and come to that conclusion is beyond me.
The idea that God has to prove to us that he is worthy of worship makes no sense, he doesn’t have to answer to anyone, he is God.
Why MUST God be all warm and fuzzy? For tens of thousands of years people have believed in all manner of gods who did all sorts of not nice things, yet they were no less “God” to them because of it.
So what if God allows evil? How does that make him not God?
If people find themselves unwilling or unable to believe in or worship God because he lets (or causes) painful things to happen, that’s on them. It doesn’t make God any more or less real.
The whole line of apologetics and theology that try to make God out to be a nice guy seems misguided to me. How anyone can read the Bible and come to that conclusion is beyond me.
The idea that God has to prove to us that he is worthy of worship makes no sense, he doesn’t have to answer to anyone, he is God.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
If I read you correctly, this view that God is lessened or a lesser God if he allows things to occur which we perceive to be “bad” would be something like arguing that a lion is “bad” because it devours living things and the occasional human being.
It is simply in the nature of a lion to eat smaller, tasty morsels.
It could be argued that it is simply in the nature of God not to be amenable to our expectations in the same way that it is not in the nature of lions to live up to our expectations for them. Why should imposing our “view” of things on God be any more compelling, binding on reality or convincing to anyone than imposing our view of proper decorum where lions are concerned?
S
schaeffer
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
:tiphat:Thank you so much for sharing this, Randy. This is extremely helpful.
B
bryce1012
Guest
I’m a little late to the party, but I’m curious as to what this thought experiment is intended to reveal. Could someone perhaps guide me down that road a bit?
I don’t think the problem is that a god “must be all warm and fuzzy.” As you rightly point out, plenty of people have worshiped vengeful, wrathful gods. The problem, ultimately, is one of knowing this Christian God.
Imagine you had never before seen a cow. One day I happen to tell you of my experience with cows – growing up on a dairy farm, I’ve got lots of that.
Of course you’re interested and ask me to describe these “cows” to you. There are a lot of things I could say about cows – they’re about 5 feet tall, full grown, and standing on four legs. They’re black and white spotted. They’ve got an udder with four teats, out of which we can extract milk. They’ve got horns, unless of course said horns were previously removed. They moo.So far, this is a consistent description. Hopefully it would give you a good (though quite basic) mental image of what a “cow” is. But then I continue describing. “Cows are six inches tall. And they do not give milk. And they have eight legs.”
Now how does your mental picture look? Are you having trouble formulating this in your head? Are you maybe even starting to wonder if I’m not making this “cow” thing up out of whole cloth? Even if I’m not lying, I’m probably at the very least quite confused… because an animal cannot be both five feet tall, and also six inches tall. It cannot simultaneously give milk, and not give milk. It cannot have both four legs and eight legs.
A cow could have four legs. Or, it could have eight legs. Neither of these things is inherently impossible – but they are contradictory. And our cow must have either one or the other.
Similarly, then, a god can be all-loving and all-merciful. Alternately, a god can be arbitrarily wrathful and capriciously vengeful. But so far as our puny little brains can comprehend, no god can be both things simultaneously. And this collision between the two images of god is what leads many to wonder if the people describing him aren’t maybe a little confused.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hold on a second! You’ve already made an unreasonable leap, here: you’ve presumed that a different definition of cows is in the works. That’s not what’s being asked here. Rather, what’s being asked is what we should conclude when our expectations don’t match our observations. So, your thought experiment would work if it went in this direction, instead:The problem, ultimately, is one of knowing this Christian God.
Imagine you had never before seen a cow. One day I happen to tell you of my experience with cows – growing up on a dairy farm, I’ve got lots of that.
… But then I continue describing. “Cows are six inches tall. And they do not give milk. And they have eight legs.”
But then you say, ‘wait – I needed milk last week, and didn’t get any, and my children went hungry. I looked way out in the field and saw eight legs on animals that were six inches tall. Clearly, I wasn’t looking at cows, right?’ Then I continue describing: “Cows are six inches tall when you look at them from 100 yards away. Cows have eight legs when you don’t realize that you’re looking at two cows standing next to one another. Cows don’t give milk when they’re not pregnant and lactating.” It’s not that you aren’t seeing a cow; it’s that you’re misinterpreting what you’re observing.
Yep; maybe the people are confused. On the other hand, it may just be that the interpretations they draw from their observations are what are in error. That doesn’t imply that God is at fault or is deficient; but it could imply that their assertions are mistaken…
B
bryce1012
Guest
You’re right. I departed a bit from the original topic, because schaeffer’s claim regarding a god that allows evil didn’t address the objection that is, in many cases, actually being made.
I would absolutely agree that people’s interpretations are mistaken. I would absolutely agree that people misinterpret what they observe. But admitting this doesn’t solve anything – indeed, it compounds the problem! Given these conflicting and confused portrayals, how are we supposed to come to know the truth?It’s not that you aren’t seeing a cow; it’s that you’re misinterpreting what you’re observing.
Yep; maybe the people are confused. On the other hand, it may just be that the interpretations they draw from their observations are what are in error. That doesn’t imply that God is at fault or is deficient; but it could imply that their assertions are mistaken…
I can examine a cow for myself. I can come to understand the reality of a cow, and I can come to understand how the various (mis)interpretations came about. But I can’t do that for God.
So when we are faced with expectations that don’t meet reality, all we are able to do is try and come up with another interpretation. And the cycle repeats, and repeats, and repeats.
F
fred_conty
Guest
Well, if there is no God because of all the bad, who then is accountable for all the good?
If they look at a dead man’s eyes, then they must also look into a baby’s eyes.
That is the delima they must decide…what do they want to see, and what do they want to overlook?
May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I would think that absolutely the opposite is true! When someone realizes that they’ve misinterpreted the data, they move from a point where they have invalid conclusions toward a point where they re-examine and re-interpret. In other words, they move from certain error to the possibility of apprehending the truth!
To be honest, for a deist, I think you’re right: this would seem to be a truly hopeless and horrifying recognition. After all, if all one had was one’s own observations, then your conclusion (“the cycle repeats and repeats and repeats”) is not an irrational one. (True, one might hope that, on the second or third or fourth try, one gets it right. But, with what confidence might one assert that?)
However, for one who believes in God as a personal deity, who shares His self-revelation with the world, and engages humanity in the process of deepening their relationship with Him, this isn’t the dead end that the deist fears. Rather, the Christian, knowing that he has erred, turns again to God – in His Word, in His sacraments, in His Church. By doing so, the Christian has access not simply to his own personal perceptions of the ‘cow’ (so to speak) but, more profoundly, to the farmer himself, who promises to help him understand what he sees.
B
bryce1012
Guest
From a personal standpoint, yes – knowing that you might have misinterpreted things is a good and necessary step towards the truth. It’s when we open up to a more universal, collective standpoint that the misinterpretation causes problems. Because there are a lot of interpretations out there, all claiming they can help you see reality. So now we have to first determine which interpretation(s) are most accurate, and THEN we can move on to refining those interpretations. We run the risk of being led astray by those whose interpretations are actually LESS accurate than our own.
I think you’re trying to apply a non-Deist paradigm over the top of a Deist worldview here, and thus misunderstanding. This recognition that we cannot know who or what created us all is not terrifying to me at all, because I don’t believe it makes much difference. Others are welcome to debate how many legs the cow has – but I don’t see how the question ultimately matters. It is only if you believe in a personal, interventionist being that not knowing this God becomes scary.
Again, though, we ultimately keep circling back to this same question. How do we verify that we’re actually talking to the farmer? How do we verify that he actually possesses true knowledge of the cow, and that he is conveying it accurately?However, for one who believes in God as a personal deity, who shares His self-revelation with the world, and engages humanity in the process of deepening their relationship with Him, this isn’t the dead end that the deist fears. Rather, the Christian, knowing that he has erred, turns again to God – in His Word, in His sacraments, in His Church. By doing so, the Christian has access not simply to his own personal perceptions of the ‘cow’ (so to speak) but, more profoundly, to the farmer himself, who promises to help him understand what he sees.
You claim your understanding of God is true because it squares with what the Church teaches. So how do we know that the Church’s understanding of God is true? Because God established it? Because the Bible said so? That’s begging the question. All of these are ultimately self-referential, and to my mind no better than Islam giving us a true understanding of Allah, because the Quran says so.
T
tweedlealice
Guest
Our Bible in Isaiah 45:7 says He did. He didn’t want Chatty Cathy dolls going around saying, " I Love you God." “I love you God.”, etc. He had to give us a choice. There is sunshine and rain. There is light and darkness. There is love and hate. There is honesty and deceit…Opposites ad infinatum. The bad is used by Satan to give us trials. God will not give us the bad stuff. Lucifer who was the most beautiful and loved angel turned prideful and wanted God’s spot. Where did the pride come from?? So he is prince of the earth. God may have created the evil but Satan uses and delivers it. God heals. Hope that helps.
tweedlealice
G
Gorgias
Guest
Actually, no. When your dad says, “you’re not allowed to take the car out tonight, period” and your mom “interprets” it for you saying, “remember, you can’t drive tonight!”, but all of your friends have twenty different interpretations (e.g., “sure you can take it!”, “he didn’t say you couldn’t take it this afternoon!”, “oh, that just means that you can’t take the car… but what about the SUV?”)… does the plethora of interpretations hinder you? Do you claim that you cannot “see reality” for all the claims? Do you have to “first determine which interpretation [is] most accurate”?
Of course not: you already know which one is accurate – the one that has been given to you authoritatively. So, in fact, you don’t have to judge whether “no car tonight” means “afternoon is ok, though” or “not car but SUV”, since these interpretations aren’t authoritative. So, you turn to the one with authority, and eschew all those without it.
Only if we give these other interpretations credence.
Fair enough; yet, in your example, you seemed to be implying that you had skin in the game over what a cow really looks like. If you don’t care about cows, then the whole example is moot. If you do, however, have a stake in knowing about cows (i.e., about God), then not having a way to find a reliable or authoritative answer… isn’t the least bit troubling to you?
Makes sense. Yet, you don’t care whether your conception is correct; only that, by playing ostrich, you can insulate yourself from concern?
I think the clearest answer is “because Jesus said so.” He was really here on earth; His claims to be God not only have meat on them, but also, His actions sufficiently backed up His claims. He started the Church, and directed the apostles vis-a-vis its authority. That isn’t sufficient to establish truth?
I’m also not certain that “begging the question” is a fair approach when asking the question “how can we know that God’s self-revelation is from God?” … If not from God Himself, from whom can we hope to have confirmation? If from anyone but God, could we reasonably claim that we even have ‘confirmation’?!?
What would a valid, non-self-referential affirmation look like to you, then?
B
bryce1012
Guest
Of course yes! Even if you do it subconsciously, you’re still evaluating, judging, deciding. Presumably - hopefully! - you’ll indeed settle on your parent’s “interpretation,” and quickly - but there are nonetheless still cognitive processes happening in the brain. To deny that is just silly.
I accept your premise, but not your conclusion; I acknowledge the authority of parents, given the nature of a parental relationship. (I also acknowledge that, if you fail to meet the expectations of parenting, such authority can and should be lost - but that takes us on a bit of a tangent.) I know who my parents are. Their existence and our relationship is not in dispute. God on the other hand … well, that relationship is a little less well-defined; as such, I find the authority of “God” and “the Church” to be similarly less concrete.
Of course. If you disregard those interpretations out of hand, they won’t trouble you at all. That doesn’t make them go away. Even if they are wrong, that they may make certain points or cause you to think about things in a different way that may be valuable to you.Only if we give these other interpretations credence.
Let me put it like this. Generally speaking, I care about the truth. So I try to spend my time and effort learning and knowing what I can.Fair enough; yet, in your example, you seemed to be implying that you had skin in the game over what a cow really looks like. If you don’t care about cows, then the whole example is moot. If you do, however, have a stake in knowing about cows (i.e., about God), then not having a way to find a reliable or authoritative answer… isn’t the least bit troubling to you?
Sometimes gaining knowledge is pretty easy, and straightforward. I’m a computer programmer by trade, and I can spend time learning a new programming language. As soon as I sit down and start to use it, I’ll know very quickly if I understand it correctly or not.
Other things are perhaps harder to grasp, but nonetheless there is truth to be found. There is testability, there is consensus, there is fact; more importantly, there is study, and correction when things are wrong.But the study of god is different. There is no consensus; there is no testability. Only history - useful in its own way, perhaps, but woefully lacking in so many others. Does this mean I don’t care about the truth of a creator? Of course not; if there is truth to be had I welcome it. But given our constraints as human, for now I choose to spend my time seeking knowledge elsewhere. Ultimately it’s a question of time management.
This might sound a bit petulant… but no, I guess for me it isn’t. If you accept the Bible’s claim that the Bible is an accurate depiction, then of course it will be; if you don’t, then it’s not. I’m not sure there’s much more than that to be said.
I would phrase the question a bit differently – more along the lines of “how can we know that revelation about God is true?” But ultimately you’re right that the objections are the same. Which kind of makes the question ultimately unanswerable.
Hence my current position.
I’ll warn you right off the bat: I’m not going to be able to provide a suitable answer for you. This is a question that I have been asked before, and it’s a question that I continue to ask myself to this day. Unfortunately it’s pretty much a restatement of the question above, the one we just decided doesn’t have an answer.
If I were to receive some personal revelation - a “vision,” if you will, of God speaking directly to me - I might chalk it up to some type of mental aberration. If I were to witness a “miracle,” I’d probably seek a physical, non-supernatural explanation. If some archaeological expedition claimed to uncover an ancient filmstrip of Jesus himself performing a bona fide miracle - well, I probably wouldn’t be alone in calling that a hoax.
So I don’t have an answer for you, unfortunately. But I wonder if you might be able to answer the counter-question: What would a valid refutation of the truth of the Church look like to you? Could there be any evidence or sign that would lead you to believe that Jesus was not who he’s claimed to be, and/or that the Church somehow does not hold the authoritative truth of God? Because in all honestly, if you can give me a good, solid answer to that, it would probably give me a pretty good place to start formulating my answer.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Aah, but that ‘evaluation’ isn’t on the merits of the interpretation – rather, it’s “is this an authoritative interpretation?”. Any other interpretation can be more properly characterized as “temptation” – that is, “does this interpretation, however unauthoritative, give me something I want at the expense of what I know I can have?”. To deny that this is what’s really going on… is just silly.
Of course, and that’s what gave rise to my comment: for a deist, this is a horrible conundrum! For a Christian, this is no big deal: we accept the evidence before us, and so the project is simply one of following authoritative interpretation.
Let’s go back to the car example. When my buddy says “he said night, not afternoon”… are you suggesting that this causes me “to think about things in a different way” that’s helpful or virtuous? The other interpretations, from my standpoint, are simply asking me to question an authority whom I hold as, well, authoritative! That’s not ‘valuable’… that’s ‘temptation’ (if not insubordination)… :sad_yes:
When a compiler tells you, unequivocally, whether your syntax is correct or not, that’s easy to do.
That’s because theology isn’t K&R; you can’t just look up a function definition in a library, or attempt to use it and get a compiler error or warning. That doesn’t mean that the “study of god” is untenable; it means that you have to apply the correct standard by which to approach it. If I went into the Louvre and asked them to verify the value of their paintings, by a standard as digital as a compiler, they’d look at me like I was a loon!
And, I think I would argue, knowing the truth about our creator, and our destiny, and our role in this life and the next … well, that should be pretty high on the action item list, I’d say.
Fair enough. So, we’re looking at Jesus, right? And, as we look at the Bible, we have to ask a reasonable question: if Jesus is the Son of God, come down to earth for our salvation, and to teach us about His ‘new covenant’ by which we should live and through which we’re saved… then are we really saying He’s so impotent that He could not ensure that His words were preserved sufficiently in order to teach humanity His lessons? If so, then your problem disappears (at least as far as the source material goes). If not, then you’re prejudging the material based on some other criteria – in other words, you’re judging Jesus by… well… what, again, really?
Well… you decided it doesn’t.
Here’s the thing, though: if you state that there’s insufficient means to verify Christian belief, and then you either don’t have a definition of sufficient (objective) proof – or worse, your means are something that is a priori impossible – then your claim to rationality goes right out the window. Telling me that observing a rainbow-excreting pink unicorn is the only means by which you’d consider accepting Christianity is really just saying, “sorry, dude… by definition, I refuse to listen to anything anyone has to say.”
Cool question! I hadn’t thought about it, in those terms, before! Let me chew on the question for a while, and see what I come up with…
(p.s., my New Year’s resolution might have to become “stop using smilies so frequently”…)
T
tweedlealice
Guest
Hi,
Some of this dialogue is deep. It touches on," Is there a God." “Can you talk to the farmer (God) and can He talk to you?? Stephen Hawking discovered the BIG BANG THEORY. That does not negate God to me. I am into Intelligent design theory. The Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit w stories and allegories and Parables to teach humans at the level of their knowledge in a simpler time when most could not read or write. I had a book,” QUESTIONS FOR CATHOLICS IN THE NINETY’S". I wish it was still in print. I wasn’t smart enough to come up w the questions. One was," Was there more than one Adam and one Eve and the answer was yes. HMMM That made me feel better for Eve. Unless one is going to learn Aramaic or Arabic, Latin, or Greek., we have to trust the translation of smarter people than us. I look at trees and roses and how they have xyloems and phloems and synthesis of chlorophyll and it yells at me there is a God. I am a nurse and have seen the human body inside and out and how the organs work to make homo sapiens function. I believe in God. If we evolved as Darwin speculated, so God orchestrated it. I still feel there is some other way. The same beauty of creation that makes me believe will be used to define that there is not a God to another. Curious.
God, as I stated via scripture, created the light and the dark, the good and the evil. BUT HE DOES NOT DELIVER THE EVIL. That is why we have free will to chose. The scales tip either way. You place the weights on the good or the evil side. This is your soul choice. “The devil made me do it!” There is a natural world that has rain, snow and ice and car accidents can happen. We should chose not to go out in some weather. We live in a supernatural world. After an argument, you are angry. You get in your car and drive fast and have an accident, The devil could have made you do it.
To believe in God: Do you believe in the sun even if it isn’t shining?? There could be clouds covering it. Do you believe in love???Maybe you are not in a relationship at this time. Can you believe in God, even though He is silent??
When you immerse yourself in the Bible. When you are going to your church services. When you are involved w a prayer group, you will mature and then, you will hear His voice. It is quiet. It is in your heart and brings you peace. It will be in alignment w scripture.
Walking w Christ, your brother, is wonderful,
Allice
Some of this dialogue is deep. It touches on," Is there a God." “Can you talk to the farmer (God) and can He talk to you?? Stephen Hawking discovered the BIG BANG THEORY. That does not negate God to me. I am into Intelligent design theory. The Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit w stories and allegories and Parables to teach humans at the level of their knowledge in a simpler time when most could not read or write. I had a book,” QUESTIONS FOR CATHOLICS IN THE NINETY’S". I wish it was still in print. I wasn’t smart enough to come up w the questions. One was," Was there more than one Adam and one Eve and the answer was yes. HMMM That made me feel better for Eve. Unless one is going to learn Aramaic or Arabic, Latin, or Greek., we have to trust the translation of smarter people than us. I look at trees and roses and how they have xyloems and phloems and synthesis of chlorophyll and it yells at me there is a God. I am a nurse and have seen the human body inside and out and how the organs work to make homo sapiens function. I believe in God. If we evolved as Darwin speculated, so God orchestrated it. I still feel there is some other way. The same beauty of creation that makes me believe will be used to define that there is not a God to another. Curious.
God, as I stated via scripture, created the light and the dark, the good and the evil. BUT HE DOES NOT DELIVER THE EVIL. That is why we have free will to chose. The scales tip either way. You place the weights on the good or the evil side. This is your soul choice. “The devil made me do it!” There is a natural world that has rain, snow and ice and car accidents can happen. We should chose not to go out in some weather. We live in a supernatural world. After an argument, you are angry. You get in your car and drive fast and have an accident, The devil could have made you do it.
To believe in God: Do you believe in the sun even if it isn’t shining?? There could be clouds covering it. Do you believe in love???Maybe you are not in a relationship at this time. Can you believe in God, even though He is silent??
When you immerse yourself in the Bible. When you are going to your church services. When you are involved w a prayer group, you will mature and then, you will hear His voice. It is quiet. It is in your heart and brings you peace. It will be in alignment w scripture.
Walking w Christ, your brother, is wonderful,
Allice
O
oldcelt
Guest
Perhaps it is proof of the absence of the creator in its creation…post-creation. Seems quite logical to me.
John
John
- Status