Since bad things happen, there is no God

[AnimalSpirits]

Yes. That does not, however, imply that all interpretations of the Bible are inerrant. Your assertion about Isaiah 45 is one such inaccurate interpretation.

You could say this about literally anything.

My posts are inerrant, but maybe your interpretations of them aren’t. It is literally impossible to disprove this if you’re willing to bend over backwards far enough (declaring that particularly tough parts are metaphors, for example.

1=2.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Since bad things happen, there is no God

Since good things happen, there IS a God.

If the same exact same logic can be used to arrive at opposite conclusions, there must be some flaw in the logic. We need not understand the nature of the flaw to understand that it is flawed.

Others have explained the nature of the flaw, but the existence of the flaw is self-evident by the fact that the same logic can “prove” opposite conclusions.

If there were no good (and no possibility of good), then the premise would not be flawed. But we know this is not the case.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Since good things happen, there IS a God.

If the same exact same logic can be used to arrive at opposite conclusions, there must be some flaw in the logic. We need not understand the nature of the flaw to understand that it is flawed.

But the logic doesn’t work in reverse. If the universe was random and uncaring, we’d expect a mix of good and bad. But if it was created and ruled over by a caring spiritual overlord, we might expect said overlord not to write needless cruelty into his or her universe.

 

[Gorgias]

You could say this about literally anything.

True, but you wouldn’t always be correct in saying so.

My posts are inerrant, but maybe your interpretations of them aren’t. It is literally impossible to disprove this if you’re willing to bend over backwards far enough (declaring that particularly tough parts are metaphors, for example.

1=2.

Here’s the thing, though: if we’re talking about your assertions, my interpretations of your assertions, then there’s always the possibility that I’m right and you’re wrong or vice versa. Therefore, it’s a matter of logic and discernment for us, as we try to decide who has it right and who has it wrong.

In the matter of Scriptural interpretation, though, we’re in a different ballpark. Jesus created His Church, and put the apostles in charge of it, and told them that He was going to protect it, and that He would send the Holy Spirit to them to guide them. So, we’re not in “1=2” territory here. Rather, we have to assert either that Jesus does what He said He would do, or that He was a liar (or, alternately, is powerless to do what He promised, which is ultimately just another way of saying that He lied). It’s really only one or the other. So, we say that Jesus does do what He promised, and therefore, when the Church speaks authoritatively on a matter of faith and morals, it cannot err.

You and me, though? Oh, yeah, we can get it wrong, and we do, all the time!

 

[AnimalSpirits]

It’s really only one or the other. So, we say that Jesus does do what He promised, and therefore, when the Church speaks authoritatively on a matter of faith and morals, it cannot err.

Why not evaluate the individual claims on their own merits?

And I was speaking metaphorically when I said 1=2, of course.

 

[Gorgias]

Why not evaluate the individual claims on their own merits?

In any context in which there is authority and authoritative teaching/laws, is it ever a case of “evaluating claims on their merits”? I mean, do your kids look at your rules of the house and say, “well, Dad, I’ll abide by your rules as long as my evaluation of the rules on their merits pan out”? (And would that make a bit of difference, anyway, if they concluded that they didn’t like them?) Would it work if you looked at the police officer writing you a ticket and replied, “I’m sorry, but I’m not gonna accept your authority; rather, I’ll evaluate your actions on their individual merits”?

No; authority is… well… authoritative. Either Christ spoke authoritatively (in which case we accept His assertions) or He did not (in which case we do not accept them). “Evaluating individual claims on their merits” is simply another way of saying, “I don’t accept the authority of Christ.” That’s quite the claim…

 

[Tomdstone]

Rather, we have to assert either that Jesus does what He said He would do, or that He was a liar (or, alternately, is powerless to do what He promised, which is ultimately just another way of saying that He lied). It’s really only one or the other.

I don’t think so. I think that there could be some middle ground. For example, Jesus said:
Call no man Father.
Do you take that literally, or do you see that there is some middle ground whereby we can call our dad father.
There are a lot of statements in the Bible that are not taken at their face value, but nevertheless offer some insight into a given situation.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Rather, we have to assert either that Jesus does what He said He would do, or that He was a liar (or, alternately, is powerless to do what He promised, which is ultimately just another way of saying that He lied). It’s really only one or the other.

I don’t think so. I think that there could be some middle ground. … There are a lot of statements in the Bible that are not taken at their face value, but nevertheless offer some insight into a given situation.

Tom,

Yes, you’re correct in noting that there are many statements in the Bible that call for great care in their interpretation.

Yet, that’s not the context of what I was addressing in my statement that you quoted. The context there was the inerrancy of the Church’s interpretation of Scripture. My assertion was simply that the Church – having been founded by Christ, and given authority, and being promised His protection – interprets the Scriptures without error (when they do so on matters of faith and morals). Yes, there are places where a certain literalism is called for, and others in which a ‘face value’ interpretation isn’t well-conceived. The proper interpreter of Scripture, though, is the Church in her teaching authority given by Christ.

 

[James82]

For me the buck stops at free will.

If God were to intervene every time something ‘bad’ were to take place free will would be negated. This is not to say that he does not suggest and point us in the right direction, much like Lucifer and his host suggest the opposite.

Think about something you love (this worked for me); would you want that person to do everything as you saw fit, or the ability to make it’s own conscience decisions? Even if some/many/all of this person’s actions were to your sorrow. One is love the other is enslavement.

 

[Tomdstone]

For me the buck stops at free will.

If God were to intervene every time something ‘bad’ were to take place free will would be negated. This is not to say that he does not suggest and point us in the right direction, much like Lucifer and his host suggest the opposite.

Think about something you love (this worked for me); would you want that person to do everything as you saw fit, or the ability to make it’s own conscience decisions? Even if some/many/all of this person’s actions were to your sorrow. One is love the other is enslavement.

Once again, I think there is possibility for middle ground. Also, the free will argument does not seem to work when you are talking about pain and suffering experienced by children under three years old.

 

[ericc]

I’ve been asked “how can there be a God when there is so much evil (bad stuff, sickness, disappointment, tragedy, etc) in the world? Why would a god allow such terrible things to happen?” and I’ve never been successful in answering this. I’ve used free will before, but that still doesn’t satisfy the question of why God “lets” these things happen. I’ve thought about the idea that we do not live in a utopia, and if we did, then no one would ever need to learn anything or improve. There should be some level of “inequality” in the world. I know what i am trying to get at with this response but haven’t been able to completely formulate it. Does anyone have good suggestions on responding to this question? To be clear, this is not a question that I struggle with; it’s a question I struggle answering for others who struggle with believing in God.

Assuming that if God wants to create a world, he will create a world that is maximally good. The good can be a single or more objectives such as happiness, love, freedom etc To create such a world, some evil is necessary, otherwise, it won’t be maximally good.

1. Freewill is often touted as an explanation. Because without freewill, one can’t love. We will all be robots, mindless machines. We can’t choose for ourselves. We only exist.
2. The world should be a logical world. Meaning, it observes certain rules. If you cut yourself with a knife, the knife will not automatically turn to putty in order to preserve you from hurting. Bacteria and viruses exist to decompose and may cause diseases if you are exposed to it. If you intentionally or unintentionally expose yourself to bad stuff, drugs, radiation, bad living, bad company, you will have an adverse impact, to your own body and mind, your DNA, which may lead to future generations suffering from damaged DNA. The laws of genetics and many other sciences must hold. So if 2 parents with a unique combination of DNA resulted in weak children, one shouldn’t blame God for creating a consistent world. Because an inconsistent world will lead to insanity eventually, which is not maximally good
3. Hence we shouldn’t expect a God that intervenes all the time to prevent evil. If you build a house in an hurricane area, expect to get hit. If you choose to stay in an earthquake zone, do expect earthquakes. If you engage in dangerous or unhealthy habits, expect consequences. Typically, young children and defenseless persons are portrayed to show how “bad” God is in allowing bad things to happen to them. But we all know that is to maximise the sensationalization. One always try to find fault with someone else, God or no God. Sometimes, they blame themselves. But oftentimes, they fingerpoint God as the cause of their misery. Eitherway, even if there is no God, someone or something gets blamed. Bad weather? God’s fault. But what if the abuse of the environment over the centuries by people leads to today’s bad weather, who is to blame? You cut down trees, a love affair with your automobiles, wanton disregard of the environment do lead to consequences of drought, livelihood affected, families affected, polluted environment etc

4)And lastly everyone dies. Sooner or later. It is bad of God to take away someone dear to you where the timing is inopportune. Surprisingly, when “bad” people gets it earlier, you say God is just. Hence, whether God is good or bad depends on the the timing which one deems appropriate. Hence, logically it doesn’t make sense that God gets a bum rap. If someone you don’t particular like gets a call from God (like Osama/Hitler/insert a person name that you don’t like), some may clap their hands in glee. But his family does not share the same feeling as you. My point is, God’s sense of timing is not of yours. He allows certain things to happen at certain times. Why? No one knows his plans. But it is fair to say that he should have something in mind that he thinks fitting for his WILL.

1. Hence, there is God because there is so much more good than evil in the world. There is more peace and harmonious living than war and wretched living in this world. An indicator is the world’s population. It is ever increasing. A bad and rotten world should show a decline, eventually.

Sorry for the long post but I hope it covers sufficient grounds to give God benefit of the doubt.

 

[Ignatius]

I’ve been asked "how can there be a God when there is so much evil (bad stuff, sickness, disappointment, tragedy, etc) in the world? .

That is a non sequitur.

1. God not only exists but created everything that is
2. There is, in fact suffering.
   Therefore, Suffering is not incompatible with God.

Ask them, how, exactly, is suffering incompatible with God. God Himself became man and suffered and died.

 

[James82]

That is a non sequitur.

1. God not only exists but created everything that is
2. There is, in fact suffering.
   Therefore, Suffering is not incompatible with God.

Ask them, how, exactly, is suffering incompatible with God. God Himself became man and suffered and died.

Good point!