The Optimist Argument Against the Problem of Evil

[FCCopleston]

tonyrey writes:

God does not foresee or predict because God always knows everything that is knowable.

Omniscience is not a modal property.

You continue:

Let me repeat once again that God knows what people decide but that is quite different from anticipating their decisions before they make them. Do you believe free will is a natural or supernatural power?

So, a timeless God must wait before sometime makes a decision before He knows it???

(Without reference to possibility and necessity ) God knows all true propositions but no one except God knows the full scope of all true propositions. Therefore we cannot know for certain what is intrinsically unknowable.

This is an nonsensical as TheTrueCentrist’s view that everything God does is random. If this is the case, then you must concede that you do not know whether it is possible for God to know free decisions. Therefore, you must let God’s revelation tell you. Do you know what it tells us? It tells us that God knows the beginning from the end, that He knows all things. It does not say that He knows all possible things. The fact that we regard certain things impossible for God to know does not mean that God does not know them.

Do you believe the evil in the world is excessive - given the fact of free will?

I believe that there is an apparent excess of evil. But, given God’s nature and revelation, I do believe that He has good reasons for allowing it.

In that case it is irrational to believe in God - a view which is certainly consistent with the view that this not the best of all possible worlds…

How does that follow? I merely stated what the arguments suggest. I did not say that I thought they were sound arguments.

 

[FCCopleston]

Sorry was just tryin to say “hi”. I did not mean to post all that other stuff

Dang it. I thought you just really liked my post

 

[FCCopleston]

^Yeah. Given the fact that Scripture predicts the Messiah in the Old Testament, and that many prophecies were fulfilled, it seems reasonable to conclude that God doesn’t just act randomly. In fact, in the Scriptures we see a long plan of salvation throughout history, starting with Israel even up until today.

Also, we know from design arguments that the fine-tuning of the universe is such that it’s vastly improbable that a universe which would give rise to intelligent, moral, free, and spiritual creatures just happened by chance. We can use the same argument to argue that God didn’t just choose this universe randomly and by chance.

Right. What is important here is that we contextualize “the argument from evil,” and do not give it precedence over the mountains of evidence which support the existence of a good God who does not act randomly–especially when there is no inconsistency or anything incoherent about affirming the existence of both God and evil.

 

[tonyrey]

Okay. I think we have some agreement here.

However, how does God know that, for example, person X will go to heaven, but not know that person X will choose to go to heaven? How can He not even predict this, knowing that person X will be in heaven?

I have anticipated that question:

God knows our decisions but that is quite different from knowing our decisions before we make them. My reasoning is based on the fact that by giving us free will God shares His power with us. We can reject Him and frustrate His Will for all eternity. Surely that in itself is evidence that our power of choice is supernatural and inexplicable.

 

[FCCopleston]

I have anticipated that question:

God knows our decisions but that is quite different from knowing our decisions before we make them. My reasoning is based on the fact that by giving us free will God shares His power with us. We can reject Him and frustrate His Will for all eternity. Surely that in itself is evidence that our power of choice is supernatural and inexplicable.

So, if God must wait for us to choose to know our decision, is He not timeless?

 

[tonyrey]

Why should I believe that God is totally good?

Randomness allows us to fully explain the problem of evil. God chose this world at random from the set of all possible worlds. Since the majority of possible worlds will contain some evil and some good, it is likely that a world chosen at random will have some mix of the two. That is exactly what we observe. God also randomly decided he would give us a chance for repentance through Jesus, but also that he would randomly destroy people like in the great flood or Sodom and Gomorrah, prematurely ending those people’s opportunities for repentance. He told us to love one another, but also created at least one person for whom it “would be better for him if he had never been born,” hardly a loving action. He encourages compassion and non-violence, but also tells his people to slaughter and “show no mercy” to the Canaanites, Amorites, etc. These all seem like random and arbitrary decisions to me.

Your argument is based on a literal interpretation of the Old Testament which is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

So, even though the Bible says that Christ was slain before the foundations of the world were laid, and even though Israel was given continual promises of Christ, and even though God became a man, suffered for our sins, died for our sins, and was raised again for our sins, and even though God has promised to return on the Last Day and to judge the living and the dead, and even though He has promised eternal joy to those have been given faith in Christ, that all of this is random?

Yes, I gave several examples of God commanding apparently contradictory actions. “Show no mercy” etc. These are easily explained through randomness, but if we take the view of constant goodness, we must conclude God is always merciful, according to Jesus, unless you’re talking about Amorites according to Deut 7:1-2. Or the Amalekites according to 1 Sam 15.
Liars, says revelation, will be cast into the lake of fire. Unless that liar is Jehu in 2 Kings 10:18-30 I suppose.

And even though we have very good reasons for trusting in the reliability of Scripture (99.7% accuracy, internal evidence, external evidence, etc.), and even though there exists objective moral values which we call moral and immoral, and even though there is no inconsistency between God and evil, and even though there is no incoherency in God allowing a free decision to actualize sin, and even though God has given us His commands, all of this is random?

Randomness is not the inference to the best explanation here. Randomness is an excuse not to look for the best explanation.

Historical accuracy is separate from being the word of God. The word of God is separate from moral truth as he may “have good reasons” for deceiving us.

I will believe that there is no inconsistency between God and evil as soon as you explain the “good reasons for God allowing the actualization of evil.” Tell me what those reasons are and I will believe you.

Simply assuming that God is good is not constructive either. If you never seriously consider the alternatives, then your faith in God’s goodness can not be well informed.

 

[FCCopleston]

Your argument is based on a literal interpretation of the Old Testament which is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father.

Do you assume to know more than Christ? (this would not be the first time).

 

[tonyrey]

So, if God must wait for us to choose, is He not timeless?

He doesn’t have to wait. He knows what we choose but He does not make up our minds for us. Within our own realm we are independent “prime movers” made in His image and likeness.

 

[FCCopleston]

Yes, I gave several examples of God commanding apparently contradictory actions. “Show no mercy” etc. These are easily explained through randomness, but if we take the view of constant goodness, we must conclude God is always merciful, according to Jesus, unless you’re talking about Amorites according to Deut 7:1-2. Or the Amalekites according to 1 Sam 15.
Liars, says revelation, will be cast into the lake of fire. Unless that liar is Jehu in 2 Kings 10:18-30 I suppose.

Historical accuracy is separate from being the word of God. The word of God is separate from moral truth as he may “have good reasons” for deceiving us.

I will believe that there is no inconsistency between God and evil as soon as you explain the “good reasons for God allowing the actualization of evil.” Tell me what those reasons are and I will believe you.

Simply assuming that God is good is not constructive either. If you never seriously consider the alternatives, then your faith in God’s goodness can not be well informed.

God’s commands in the Old Testament were not random. You just have an apparent dislike for context.

I did not say that historical accuracy proves that Scripture is the word of God, I said it provides us with good reasons for trusting it to be.

You already conceded that there was no necessary inconsistency between God and evil.

I do merely assume that God is good. I know it from 1) experience of God’s grace, 2) the natural knowledge of God, 3) the revelatory word of God

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

^Yeah. Given the fact that Scripture predicts the Messiah in the Old Testament, and that many prophecies were fulfilled, it seems reasonable to conclude that God doesn’t just act randomly. In fact, in the Scriptures we see a long plan of salvation throughout history, starting with Israel even up until today.

Also, we know from design arguments that the fine-tuning of the universe is such that it’s vastly improbable that a universe which would give rise to intelligent, moral, free, and spiritual creatures just happened by chance. We can use the same argument to argue that God didn’t just choose this universe randomly and by chance.

There were a lot of older scriptures that were rejected as not divinely inspired. It seems very possible to me that the people making up the bible simply rejected any works which made predictions not fulfilled by Christ. In other words, if you have enough old predictions, some of them are bound to apply. Just like modern day fortune tellers, they make enough predictions that some of them turn out correct by pure chance.

 

[tonyrey]

Your argument is based on a literal interpretation of the Old Testament which is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father.

I shall give you an opportunity to withdraw that remark. Otherwise I shall report it as an infringement of rule 1.

 

[FCCopleston]

He doesn’t have to wait. He knows what we choose but He does not make up our minds for us. Within our own realm we are independent “prime movers” made in His image and likeness.

Is this not totally different from what you have been saying this entire time???

Before, you were saying that God could not even know or predict our free decisions. Now God does know our free decisions, but He just doesn’t “make up our minds for us”?

 

[FCCopleston]

I shall give you an opportunity to withdraw that remark. Otherwise I shall report it as an infringement of rule 1.

Since you have changed your position on God’s knowledge of free decisions, then I will withdraw my remark.

EDIT: Do you presume to know more than Christ? (If so, *this *will be the first time)

 

[tonyrey]

Is this not totally different from what you have been saying this entire time???

God knows our free decisions but He does not know them** before they occur.** Do you believe God makes up our minds for us?

 

[tonyrey]

Since you have changed your position on God’s knowledge of free decisions, then I will withdraw my remark.

EDIT: Do you presume to know more than Christ? (If so, *this *will be the first time)

Do you presume to know more than Christ? If not on what basis do you ask why I do?

 

[FCCopleston]

There were a lot of older scriptures that were rejected as not divinely inspired. It seems very possible to me that the people making up the bible simply rejected any works which made predictions not fulfilled by Christ. In other words, if you have enough old predictions, some of them are bound to apply. Just like modern day fortune tellers, they make enough predictions that some of them turn out correct by pure chance.

Then you have not done any sufficient study of the history of the Biblical texts, Old or New. You have demonstrated throughout our discussion that you do not have any adequate theological knowledge, and that you have no desire to speak honestly about theological matters. You have no interest in taking seriously the Biblical records. You simply want to play the skeptic.

Thanks for the discussion (prior to the last few posts). I am bowing out.

In Christ (the true revelation of the Father),
FCCopleston

 

[FCCopleston]

Do you presume to know more than Christ? If not on what basis do you ask why I do?

I believe it was because you were talking like Marcion.

The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament.
Christ affirmed the Old Testament* jot and tittle*. You, apparently, do not.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I do merely assume that God is good. I know it from 1) experience of God’s grace, 2) the natural knowledge of God, 3) the revelatory word of God

1. Why would your experience of God’s grace trump an atheists non-experience of it? Perhaps God randomly allows some people to experience it and others not to.
2. From what I’ve seen, “natural knowledge” relies heavily on your personal perception of the world as well. “The world is good and beautiful, therefore so is its creator” is the proclamation. However someone who experienced nothing but pain their whole life would likely conclude “the world is suffering, therefore its creator is a sadomasochist.” I admit that both of these experiences exist and therefore conclude that God is neither good nor evil. If there were some legitimate proof of a christian-like God, the world would have significantly fewer religions. Finally, unless natural knowledge provides you with the reasons that God allows evil to occur, you do not truly understand what it means to say that God is good.
3. I say that enough contradiction can be found in scripture to suggest inconsistency in God’s goodness. You claim I take things out of context, but I disagree. If you mean the “context of God’s plan” then we may conclude that immoral actions can be justified if done in the name of a good cause, i.e. the ends justify the means.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Then you have not done any sufficient study of the history of the Biblical texts, Old or New. You have demonstrated throughout our discussion that you do not have any adequate theological knowledge, and that you have no desire to speak honestly about theological matters. You have no interest in taking seriously the Biblical records. You simply want to play the skeptic.

Thanks for the discussion (prior to the last few posts). I am bowing out.

In Christ (the true revelation of the Father),
FCCopleston

You have demonstrated a reluctance to rectifying my allegedly lacking knowledge. I conclude that you are either unable to, or you do not wish to. If you are unable to you are in no position to criticize, if you do not wish to then you are not actually interested in having a discussion.