The Strongest Argument against an Omnipotent Good God?

[mtoddm]

Imagine right now that there is a room and in this room a man is severely abusing a 3-year-old girl. If any one of us saw this going on we would do anything in our power to stop it. But God is there, and He can do anything, but He does nothing. Are we more compassionate than He is?

We can take it further and say that this girl grows up with horrible memories of the abuse and chooses to engage in all sorts of mortal sins to help herself feel better. When she is 25 she dies in the midst of committing yet another mortal sin. She dies without sanctifying grace and so goes to Hell.

To me this scenario is the strongest argument to be made against our Christian God. Not that I find it valid, mind you, it’s just the best argument I can think of if I was inclined to reject Christianity.

We have to be ready with solid answers for the strongest arguments against our Faith, and then we will be more confident against other lesser objections.

—todd
catholicsojourner.blogspot.com

 

[awatkins69]

Indeed, the problem of evil is probably the strongest argument against God’s existence. It’s probably as close as you can get to “proving there is no God”. While I think it can be solved from a logical and metaphysical point of view, I don’t know if it’s sufficient from a totally human and emotional point of view. Plus, other people can probably present it better than I could, and might even offer alternatives. So I guess all I can say from my point of view is that it’s a good idea to look at the problem.

 

[JohnDamian]

Suffering; along with Concupiscence are products of our fallen nature which even baptism does not remove.

The acts described by yourself are evil acts; as evil comes as the product of free will; which is a gift from God. It would be evil for God to compel the will; and it is clear that he does not directly surpress the volition or nolition of individuals; for Even Job’s wife was free to “curse God and die”.

It would be a cruelty of God to compel a praxis against our wills; and thus there is no example of him doing such; moreover it would be a cruelty of God to elicit a violition of our will against our own elective dispositions; and so God does not do that - for God is incapable of Evil.

This is the case because of the following; for Omnipotence to be possible; a thing cannot be evil - this is so because evil things are nihil (nothing); and to be capable of anything or *omnina *(everything); an agent must be capable of aliquid (something); but he need not be capable of nihil. For the genus of evil is contrary to the genus of good; and the genus of good is what can be predicated of the genus of aliquid; wheras evil is characterised by a nihilism. So; God does not have the power to be evil.

God does not have the power to compel us against our will; or to force our will; for this would be evil; which God is not capable of.

God did not have to act; insofar as to give us free will - but as he has acted insofar as to give us free will; then he cannot take this back; for that would be evil. Nor can he change his past action insofar as to make it not so that we did not gain free will; for that too would be evil.

 

[Myqyl]

My response to such an argument would be 2 fold.

1 ~ We can not say that she would go to hell… That is not for us to say… The argument assumes facts not in evidance… I would recommend that the person making this argument should read Scripture and study our faith more closely before rejecting it. I would usually also throw in that I can understand why they might have made this mistake since our Faith is often misrepresented, by the media and by many of the faithful…

2 ~ Our inability to “understand” God’s actions or lack of action defending a child does not make God mean, uncaring or lacking Omnipotence… It simply shows we lack understanding. We have as much chance to understand the plans, means and methods of God as a toddler has of understanding quantum physics.

I often follow up the 2nd point with a story of a table… The diningroom table in my Grandparent’s house has been the centerpiece of many people’s lives. A couple of my aunts and uncles were born on it… My Grandfather died at it… More advice, food, and playing cards have passed over that table then could ever be counted. In many ways it is responsible for the loving, nurturing, functional family I grew up in… But it wasn’t always a table. Once it was a tree… A very happy tree, that birds and animals made their homes in… That lovers sat under… But one day a terrible thing happened to the tree. It got cut down, dragged to a mill and was ripped to pieces… But without those terrible things happening to that innocent tree, it could never have fulfilled it’s higher purpose of being a table and the foundation of a loving family. Sometimes bad things have to happen for good things to happen. We can’t understand… Luckily it seems that God does…

That’s my 2 cents…

God bless!

 

[R_Daneel]

Imagine right now that there is a room and in this room a man is severely abusing a 3-year-old girl. If any one of us saw this going on we would do anything in our power to stop it. But God is there, and He can do anything, but He does nothing. Are we more compassionate than He is?

I think you wanted to say “omnibenevolence” rather than omnipotence, or maybe combined the two… and also add omniscience to it.

The best way to look at the so-called defences is to contemplate the tale of the twelve officers. Look at this webpage: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html it tells you all the bogus ways this dilemma is supposed to be resolved.

 

[Luke_K]

"From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed an on the third day be raised. Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.” He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” Matt 16:21-23

And later when Jesus was hanging on the cross, the people mocked him saying things like “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us…If he is the Son of God, let him come down from there!..He could save others, but he could not save himself…”

Why does God allow great evil to be done to good people when he could stop it at any time? Why did God allow great evil to be done to himself when he could have stopped it at any time? Therein lies the heart of Christianity and the only possible response to the problem of evil. Somehow, our suffering makes us like unto God himself, who was betrayed, humiliated, tortured, and killed. That is glory.

Of course, I don’t speak from experience. I have not had to watch a young child of mine be abused and killed. I have not been sent to a concentration camp and witnessed my kinsmen led to the gas chambers. Where is God then? He is hanging, bloody, pierced, suffocating, and humiliated on a cross, yet poised to rise again from it all. That does not fully answer the question, but I think it can provide us with enough reason to have faith until all is revealed.

We can take it further and say that this girl grows up with horrible memories of the abuse and chooses to engage in all sorts of mortal sins to help herself feel better. When she is 25 she dies in the midst of committing yet another mortal sin. She dies without sanctifying grace and so goes to Hell.

To me this scenario is the strongest argument to be made against our Christian God. Not that I find it valid, mind you, it’s just the best argument I can think of if I was inclined to reject Christianity.

We have to be ready with solid answers for the strongest arguments against our Faith, and then we will be more confident against other lesser objections.

—todd
catholicsojourner.blogspot.com

The problem with that argument is that you created an imaginary scenario and placed yourself as judge. Who are you to say that a person actually exists who only went to hell because of trauma she had of evil when she was a child? Unless you know of an actual case of that happening, which you can’t know, then that argument is pointless. It’s a moot hypothetical scenario.

 

[mtoddm]

The problem with that argument is that you created an imaginary scenario and placed yourself as judge. Who are you to say that a person actually exists who only went to hell because of trauma she had of evil when she was a child? Unless you know of an actual case of that happening, which you can’t know, then that argument is pointless. It’s a moot hypothetical scenario.

Peace brother : ) - of course it is a hypothetical question, put forth by a hypothetical atheist - but I can tell you that they do put forth questions just like this to us believers - and telling the atheist that his question is “moot” and “pointless” won’t get you too far with him -

I wasn’t stretching things too far because if she did indeed die without sanctifying grace, she could not go to Heaven, as our Faith teaches - I was not judging a real person

I like the comment earlier about “omnibenevolence” - I focused in on God’s omni-Goodness and His Omni-potence because in the mind of the critic, these two cannot coexist in God given the scenario put forth, even the first part of it -

Either God is All-loving but not All-powerful, and so cannot intervene to protect the little girl even though he wants to, or He is All-powerful and not All-good, since he allows it to happen even though He could stop it - such is the argument

However, in my mind, as I’ve contemplated over this scenario, and I have for several years, even if entirely true as stated, despite seeming on the surface to contradict the concept of an all-powerful all-loving God, actually does the opposite:

It manifests in a profound way that God is indeed All-Loving, that He loves us infinitely, and it also manifests that He is All-Powerful, His power is infinite -

It proves that He is All-Loving by demonstrating, as said eloquently before, that we have freewill - Our freewill is proof that God loves us, even when we abuse our freewill and disobey Him - if He held us in shackles and gave us no freedom to act on our own, He would not love us - also only those free to reject Him can truly love Him

Of course the man who chose to abuse the child was exercising his gift of freewill by committing sin, and so God allows this to occur - He is grieved, but honors (and loves) the man and allows his creature the freedom to act - He is not finished with him though and will love Him and attempt to move him by grace to repentance for the rest of his life -

Regarding the woman, even if she does indeed go to Hell as a result of her mortal sins in reaction to her horrible childhood experiences, the operative statement in the scenario in my first post was that “she chooses to engage in all sorts of mortal sins…” This acknowledges that she could have chosen otherwise, to not commit mortal sins - she was not forced to do it by her past - there are plenty of people who experience horrors in life at the hands of evil men and yet respond to God’s grace and become better than they would have been otherwise, not worse - this woman had that opportunity, and chose not to respond to the grace available to her - God’s love is not disproved, but affirmed in a powerful way

As far as God’s power, if he simply forced His perfect will in the world by brute strength, by the sheer immensity of His infinite might, this would be impressive, but it would be beneath God - that would be the way Satan would act if he was All-powerful

No, God’s way is far deeper and more wondrous - God is so All-Powerful that he can create millions upon millions of independent autonomous creatures with true free wills, a vast number of whom will chose to behave in direct opposition to His Will, from Satan all the way down to you and me - and yet despite all the resistance and outright rebellion by His creatures, He not only accomplishes His perfect Will, but he accomplishes it in a more glorious way because of the very presence of evil, by using the very attacks against Him as the corner pieces of His beautiful design - hence the power of the image of Jesus dying on the Cross, as noted by someone above - The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is God’s definitive answer to the problem of evil - All things, even the most evil, resound through all eternity to the glory of God, a God who is infinite love and infinite power -

just a few of my thoughts on the matter - feel free to add your own
—todd
catholicsojourner.blogspot.com

 

[Sarpedon]

Imagine right now that there is a room and in this room a man is severely abusing a 3-year-old girl. If any one of us saw this going on we would do anything in our power to stop it. But God is there, and He can do anything, but He does nothing. Are we more compassionate than He is?

There is a difference between action and choice. Actions can be stopped by anyone with the right resources. Dealing with free choices is a different matter. I can stop the abuser from carrying out his crime, but I can’t change his choice to attempt it.

The problem of evil centers around why God allows evil acts to occur. There are several key points that relate to this:

1. The only final good for man is perfection as a human being in a relationship with perfect being itself.
2. This can only be achieved by free choice and action. God is unable to directly control free choice.
3. This introduces an element of instability. Moral evil does not need to exist, yet God cannot stop it from being created by us.
4. However, God can stop the manifestation of the evil will from occurring, i.e. the actual action. For example, while God cannot compel a free will to restrain from shooting, He can stop the bullet.
5. While God cannot control a free will, He can influence that free will. Therefore, He allows manifestations of willed evil to occur in order to shape and influence free human persons toward their good. When this is understood on a global scale throughout all time, the grand scheme of God’s project is beyond human comprehension.

It’s like a juggling act. God is trying to convince free individuals on a global scale to act in the way that is best for them, but this sometimes necessitates allowing the manifestation of evil as a means of bringing this about.

In your example, saying “anything in our power” is key. God does everything in His power to bring free individuals toward their good, but sometimes this involves allowing suffering. For example, I would not charge toward the child abuser if he had a knife to the child’s throat. While I am allowing evil to occur by my inaction, there is simply no other option available to me.

 

[Sarpedon]

Ms. K had been slowly raped and murdered by a common thug over the course of one hour and fifty-five minutes; but when I found out that the ordeal had taken place in plain sight of twelve fully-armed off-duty police officers, who ignored her terrified cries for help, and instead just watched until the act was carried to its gruesome end, I found myself facing a personal crisis.

And this is why those examples are irrelevant. A fully armed police officer is fully capable of stopping the rape and murder. An unarmed civilian standing by is not. For the civilian, assistance is beyond his or her power.

These fables are irrelevant for a simple reason, which is stated right at the beginning in the part of I quoted- assistance is fully within the power of the officers. They can help the victim.

God cannot change our free wills. That’s so simple I’m not going to dwell on it. However, this does not address the actual outcome of the will. While God cannot stop a will from choosing to shoot, that doesn’t mean He couldn’t stop the bullet from flying. This is a point theists often fail to understand.

However, there is a powerful catch to this. The highest human good is moral perfection. An omnibenevolent God would do anything necessary to achieve this moral perfection for his creatures. However, God cannot directly will such perfection, for it must be chosen by the free agent. While God cannot directly force a free will to choose something, He can employ very powerful persuasion.

So, as an omnibenevolent being, God does all in His power to persuade human beings to achieve their own best interest. However, sometimes this involves allowing evil actions and consequences to happen. Such things are sometimes necessary to achieve virtue.

Would you expect an omnibenevolent God to deny His creatures the things that will persuade them to achieve their own happiness?

 

[R_Daneel]

And this is why those examples are irrelevant. A fully armed police officer is fully capable of stopping the rape and murder. An unarmed civilian standing by is not. For the civilian, assistance is beyond his or her power.

I agree that it is quite improbable for the civilian to successfully step in and prevent the act. But the argument (second officer) is presented by some people, neverthless.

These fables are irrelevant for a simple reason, which is stated right at the beginning in the part of I quoted- assistance is fully within the power of the officers. They can help the victim.

And I am sure you are aware that the policemen are equated to God in these scenarios.

God cannot change our free wills. That’s so simple I’m not going to dwell on it. However, this does not address the actual outcome of the will. While God cannot stop a will from choosing to shoot, that doesn’t mean He couldn’t stop the bullet from flying. This is a point theists often fail to understand.

I agree. The “will” in and by itself causes no problem for others if there is no ability to carry it out.

However, there is a powerful catch to this. The highest human good is moral perfection.

This is not obvious. First, moral perfection is not defined. Second, a benevolent being would act in the best interest of others, even if those others cannot comprehend it. The best “thing” that can happen to humans is to be with God - this is the theist view. Therefore God’s benevolence would compel God to do anything and everything to make this happen (using force if necessary) - even if are unable to comprehend it. (Take the example of a parent who knows better than the child and “forces” that child to eat “spinach”. )

 

[tonyrey]

Imagine right now that there is a room and in this room a man is severely abusing a 3-year-old girl. If any one of us saw this going on we would do anything in our power to stop it. But God is there, and He can do anything, but He does nothing. Are we more compassionate than He is?

I think this is one of the weakest arguments! How would God intervene every time a person is going to commit a crime? By some type of interference with the mind of the person like hypnosis or a leucotomy? In either case it would defeat the whole purpose of sharing His power with us. We would no longer be able to choose for ourselves what to believe and how to live. In effect we would be amoral robots! If we were compelled to do only what is good, right and just we would all be reduced to neutral agents without moral or spiritual value. Without evil goodness becomes an illusion…

 

[awatkins69]

I think this is one of the weakest arguments! How would God intervene every time a person is going to commit a crime? By some type of interference with the mind of the person like hypnosis or a leucotomy? In either case it would defeat the whole purpose of sharing His power with us. We would no longer be able to choose for ourselves what to believe and how to live. In effect we would be amoral robots! If we were compelled to do only what is good, right and just we would all be reduced to neutral agents without moral or spiritual value. Without evil goodness becomes an illusion…

Yes, but R Daneel makes a good point that God could allow us to do what evil we want without allowing it to hurt others. Further, he says that if God is a loving Father then He would make His grace irresistible with every person because it is for their good, in a manner analogous to a mother who makes her child eat their spinach, because it is for their good. These are valid questions in my opinion.

 

[tonyrey]

I think this is one of the weakest arguments! How would God intervene every time a person is going to commit a crime? By interfering with the mind like performing a leucotomy or hypnosis? In either case it would defeat the purpose of sharing His power with us. In effect we would be amoral robots! If we were compelled to do only what is good, right and just we would all be reduced to neutral agents without moral or spiritual value. Without evil goodness becomes an illusion…

 

[R_Daneel]

I think this is one of the weakest arguments! How would God intervene every time a person is going to commit a crime? By interfering with the mind like performing a leucotomy or hypnosis? In either case it would defeat the purpose of sharing His power with us. In effect we would be amoral robots! If we were compelled to do only what is good, right and just we would all be reduced to neutral agents without moral or spiritual value. Without evil goodness becomes an illusion…

This the argument of the first officer… infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html

 

[JohnDamian]

Further, he says that if God is a loving Father then He would make His grace irresistible with every person because it is for their good, in a manner analogous to a mother who makes her child eat their spinach, because it is for their good. These are valid questions in my opinion.

I am afraid though this seems correct at first glance it does not stand up to scrutiny. The mother in your analogy is only doing this because the child does not realise; or has not internalised the information that the spinach is good for them. A better analogy would be a mother forcing her grown up child to eat spinach; whilst this is a good end - the means of coercing the will of the individual is an ultimatly evil act. Note here that I am specifically mentioning a “compulsory” rather than an “incentivized” presentation.

What is more true to the case is that the adult child knows that the spinach is good for him; and if he want’s to live at his mothers house he has to abide by her rules; yet she does not force him to eat the spinach; even if by an incentivized means she directs him in that manner with consequences. Likewise; God drives us with the incentive of Heaven to be good; we all know the difference between good and evil; yet we are not forced to do good for this would be a good end by an evil means; which God is not able to do; so ultimatly we can choose to do good and be rewarded; but we are free to reject this.

Yes, but R Daneel makes a good point that God could allow us to do what evil we want without allowing it to hurt others.

If we are too fully embrace the goodness of the world we must be in community with others; if we are in community with others it is possible for us as free agents to harm and hinder them. It is not that evil acts in themselves are anything; it is that evil acts are in accordance with the Church an absence of Good acts; when we live in community with other people and lack Good; we are evil. It is thus the case that the following;

For good to be full we must be in community; for good to be free it must not be compelled; for God to be good he must allow both the aforementioned; thus God (being Good) must allow us to have an absence of good; and by consequence be evil.

 

[awatkins69]

For good to be full we must be in community; for good to be free it must not be compelled; for God to be good he must allow both the aforementioned; thus God (being Good) must allow us to have an absence of good; and by consequence be evil.

Hmm.

To ask God to allow absolutely no possible evil is to ask God to not create. But being is a perfection, and if God is loving He would share this being? Also, is free will necessarily good?

Only problems I’m having is with the “fullness of creation/community” thing. Could you elaborate a little more? Also “for good to be free it must not be compelled”; why does it matter if good is free? Basically I’m not sure how God must allow the first two things for Him to be good.

 

[tonyrey]

This the argument of the first officer… infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html

Please present it yourself.

 

[R_Daneel]

I am afraid though this seems correct at first glance it does not stand up to scrutiny. The mother in your analogy is only doing this because the child does not realise; or has not internalised the information that the spinach is good for them. A better analogy would be a mother forcing her grown up child to eat spinach; whilst this is a good end - the means of coercing the will of the individual is an ultimatly evil act. Note here that I am specifically mentioning a “compulsory” rather than an “incentivized” presentation.

We shall never be “adults” in relation to God. The child analogy is correct.

To use force for the benefit of the “loved” one is acceptable, if the loved one cannot know or understand the consequences of the actions, and out of ignorance would make a fatal choice. And please, don’t tell me that the Church teaches whatever is right or wrong. That is not a valid objection. The Church is exactly as ignorant as everyone else is. The blind cannot lead the unsighted.

 

[JohnDamian]

We shall never be “adults” in relation to God. The child analogy is correct.

We have knowlege of Good and Evil. The Child analogy undermines the univocal nature of morality which we share with God.

To use force for the benefit of the “loved” one is acceptable, if the loved one cannot know or understand the consequences of the actions, and out of ignorance would make a fatal choice.

The manner in which we can use force is only in an incentivized sense; that is to say; we indirectly encourage the will by attributing positive or negative consequences to praxis – this is distinctly different from God forcing an act; because if God did that he would violate the primacy of the will. Humans cannot violate the primacy of another humans will; so in essence we can never force someone to do something. Forcing the action of another human being is a gravely disordered action; and deeply disturbing - it is contrary to natural law and it is an evil action; God being incapable of evil cannot do this.

And please, don’t tell me that the Church teaches whatever is right or wrong. That is not a valid objection. The Church is exactly as ignorant as everyone else is. The blind cannot lead the unsighted.

For the sake of this matter; as it involves God; do not be surprised if I invoke arguments or premises based upon the Church. Your counter-argument is an unfounded negation; you have no reason to believe that the Church is exactly as ignorant as everyone else; whilst I have only an unfounded belief in the Church; your negation is equally as unfounded. In fact; from my perspective the Church stands up for human rights more than any other organisation; so even from a secular standpoint it would make sense to invest in them the confidence that they are at least in general accurate at determining morality.

To ask God to allow absolutely no possible evil is to ask God to not create. But being is a perfection, and if God is loving He would share this being? Also, is free will necessarily good?

I agree that asking for God to allow no evil is to ask God not to create; it follows from this that as God has created; he values that creation more than any problems that are accidental qualities of it. Now; it is clear to myself that it is essentially the case that free will is necessarily good; otherwise it would be imprudent of God to allow it - this raises a number of questions; ie; Is free will a means or an end?

The answer to this is that free will is a means; which allows an agent to celebrate fully the goodness of the world; insofar as acting freely the following of Good is greater than acting under compulsion. However; evil actions are an accidental consequence of this; that necessarily act as a contrary choice for individuals; multiplying the greatness of Good volition.

Only problems I’m having is with the “fullness of creation/community” thing. Could you elaborate a little more? Also “for good to be free it must not be compelled”; why does it matter if good is free? Basically I’m not sure how God must allow the first two things for Him to be good.

Good implies a choice; a lorry is not a “morally good lorry” even if it carries needed medical supplies to people; likewise a lorry is not a “morally evil lorry” if it ran someone over. It is the act of volition that allows the goodness or badness to occur; for nothing mechanical is essentially good or bad.

This is why; for God to allow us goodness he must allow us freedom; likewise for God to allow us to exersise Good he must allow us a community to exersise good within - allowing us a community allows for a multiplicity of good acts; for what good acts outside of worship can we have outside of community? It is through community that we are able to have opportunities to exersise goodness; and likewise; the accidental consequence of potential evil.

 

[Sarpedon]

And I am sure you are aware that the policemen are equated to God in these scenarios.

Yes, but no intelligent theist claims that God’s benevolent nature could prevent the evil that He allows. Your article addresses some rather unsophisticated claims, but does not address a situation where the policemen have no power to stop the rape.

This is not obvious. First, moral perfection is not defined. Second, a benevolent being would act in the best interest of others, even if those others cannot comprehend it. The best “thing” that can happen to humans is to be with God - this is the theist view. Therefore God’s benevolence would compel God to do anything and everything to make this happen (using force if necessary) - even if are unable to comprehend it. (Take the example of a parent who knows better than the child and “forces” that child to eat “spinach”. )

1. We could easily define moral perfection, which involves metaphysics about being. That’s beside the point though. The argument against God because of evil assumes that God allows unnecessary evil. All that is required to refute this argument is to show why allowing evil can be in the best interest of those involved, which would necessitate a benevolent being allowing the suffering to achieve that best interest. You may disagree with our characterization of the best interest of humanity, but that doesn’t impact the coherence of our explanation. The debate would move away from the problem of evil toward the question of the human end. However, we are primarily discussing the problem of evil, not the human end.
2. Part of achieving the human end involves knowledge of what you are doing, so forcing a person to do something beyond their comprehension does not advance them toward any sort of enlightened understanding and a volitional response to that knowledge. God is not trying to just drill automatic robotic behaviors into us. He is trying to teach and lead us to both right action and right thought. That’s very difficult for complex and stubborn creatures like us. Thus, God sometimes has to use suffering and other means to lead us toward our end.

Keep in mind that suffering is not the only thing that God uses. God also uses enjoyable things, which is why pleasure was created. There are all sorts of things that influence people, and God uses those to help prod us along in the direction we ought to go. However, the main point is this- the history of the world is a two-way dynamic. On the one hand we have human choice, and on the other we have divine response to that choice. God is constantly interacting with and coaxing that human choice towards its end, although sometimes this goes in wild directions because of human choice.