Theodicy/Problem of Evil

[seveda]

“[free will] does not answer the problem of the so-called “natural evils””

I believe it does. Because man reject God, God distances Himself from us and also from the world (in both the spiritual and material sense). Lack of God means evil. So although the world was created perfect, this perfection was lost due to sin. God does not want to impose Himself on us when we (as demonstrated by sin) don’t want Him fully - we and the world have Him partially and are therefore only partially good/perfect. To have God is synonymous to being good/perfect.

I think God has all the right to fully distance Himself from us (or with other words, to take all good from us). I can hardly imagine a parent who would give all sorts of presents to a child even if he/she is continuously insulting him/her - and yet it is exactly this that we expect God to do. If He gives us a not fully perfect world, we should rather be thankful for what He gives, knowing that we deserve far less or even nothing.

 

[R_Daneel]

The “problem of evil” actually has several layers.

First, it should be noted that not all “evils” are problematic. When a doctor causes pain, suffering and discomfort to prevent or cure some greater problem, it is usually called “necessary evil”, and no one says that such pain, suffering and discomfort is not justified. Of course, in this case the sufferer and the beneficiary are the same. Still, it can be questioned if the pain caused is really necessary or maybe the doctor went overboard. If he causes precisely the necessary amount of pain, there is absolutely no problem. If, however, the pain caused is too large, that “extra” pain is not necessary, it is gratuitous pain. And gratuitous pain cannot be justified. The point is that the gain must be greater than the suffering.

The next problem occurs, if the sufferer and beneficiary are not the same. It cannot be justified to cause pain and suffering to person “A”, so that the benefits will be reaped by person “B”. The greater good for “B” may very well be huge, compared to the suffering “A” must endure, but if “A” did not consent to the procedure, it cannot be justified. Example: it cannot be justified to draw blood (a renewable bodily resource) from “A” - without his consent - just to save “B”-s life. Our right to our bodily integrity is so deeply established that we do not consider it permissible to cut up a dead body to harvest organs, unless the person has given prior permission to do it.

Next comes the problem of unrelated reward. If the greater good is not logically related to the prior pain and suffering, then the suffering will not be “retroactively” justified by the reward, no matter how great the reward might be. Example might be: “a child is raped and murdered. She cannot reap any greater good from this experience - in this life. Even if one assumes that she will be rewarded in the hereafter, that reward cannot justify to allow the rape and murder - since they are not logically related”. The suffering she had to endure was “unnecessary evil”.

Yet another problem is the “natural evil”, which is not really “evil”, but pain and suffering due to natural causes. Again, one cannot see any “greater good” coming out of these instances. Usually they are not defended on this ground, rather it is asserted that they are the consequence of the “original sin”. Observe the change of tactics. The apologists agree that these sufferings do not lead to greater good, therefore they belong to the “gratuitious evil” category. Yet, it does not seem to bother them.

To sum it up: the “problem of evil” is really the problem of “unnecessary, gratuitious evil”. God’s alleged “goodness” only allows justifyable pain and suffering, but not the gratuitous kind. And the obvious existence of unnecessary, gratutious evil, which cannot be justified on any grounds simple refutes that God is “good”. To allow unnecessary, gratutious evil is not the sign of moral goodness. At best, God is indifferent, at worst, God is evil - provided, of course, that he exists.

The final “argument” at this point is to shout down the questioner with the Biblical quotation (or its equivalent) about the clay talking back to the potter. (Isiah 45:9 - "Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘He has no hands’?) Which is, of course, just another variant of the “might makes right” type of argument, which is also ethically unjustifyable.

 

[R_Daneel]

To be precise, my post was a conslusion not an objection. To prove your claim – "there is no ‘good’ without “evil”-- give examples of evil from which no good has or ever will come.

Hold it. That is not my claim, it was the claim of the original poster, and I argued against it. I explicitly maintain that “evil” is not necessary for “good” to exist. Please read the post above, where I gave an analysis of this problem.

This is also nonsense. You apparently don’t understand the difference between innate freedom that freedom which is God-given and circumstantial freedom that which is determined by fate. Read Boethius.

As to physical evils, in a finite world upon whose resources human temporal life is dependent, in order to add immortal human life requires terminating existing temporal human life in this world. This action serves to increase the number of immortal human beings in existence – a good thing, don’t you think?

In what way does this reply pertain to the problem I posted? As to your second paragraph, it would benefit from some evidence that there is an “immortal soul”, and that God could not directly create those immortal souls into heaven.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

So I am answering a friend’s questions about Catholicism. Now, I’m typically more concerned about learning what I believe and whatnot rather then diagnosting all of these hypothetical situations. But heres what he gave to me (and I had never heard of “theodicy” before this):

What should I say to this?

Thanks,
Snakemauler

Christ referred to this question with His statement in Matthew 18:6-7 “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in teh depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom they come!”

Christ’s statement implies a judgment in which these actions will be punished, but at the same time the liberty is necessary for this to happen. The ability to do evil is dependent on freedom. If God removed our freedom to do evil, He would have to remove our freedom altogether."

That terrible tragedies will occur because of this freedom is obvious. They happen every day. But the Christian promise is that these things will be judged.

Christ’s execution itself was unjust, and the result of both human and satanic evil.

The whole point of His resurrection was to prove that evil did not have the final say; that there was a resurrection, and whatever befell us now, it was not the end.

Neither men nor the devil could completely destroy Him.

The rapist may do the damage. But in the end, he doesn’t get away with it.

Long ago God made a decision to give us freedom. He’s sticking to it. That means, for Him, witnesssing things like child rape, and not interfering. But you can bet your bottom dollar He doesn’t forget it. The day the rapist dies, he finds out that he was seen all right.

 

[wwilligan]

Tell you friend that God has already done something. He created you. He created your friend. He created you both to do His work in the world.

When Jesus prepared his disciples for his Ascension He told them that is was better for them that He go to the Father. He told them they would do even bettter works than He had done because the Holy Spirit would be sent to them. Jesus told them that if they asked for anything from the Father in His name it would be given to them.

See also the Letter to the Epheasians 2:10

 

[jinminn]

Quite the interesting thread. Here are some thoughts:

1) Where it began: the fall

• The Church supports evolution or at least states that this is science’s domain. Since the current body of evidence strongly supports us having evolved from prior species, we can assume that the transition from ape → man was extremely gradual.
• Given this, at some point in the past, there should have been a point at which either A) the world was perfect, free from flesh eating bacteria and natural disasters or B) we were somewhere protected from all of these harms.
• One also has to show that man had the capacity to fully understand god’s ordinances and commands such that with a fully formed comprehension and will he could choose such as to warrant eternal punishment and the introduction of evil into the world (if A from above) or into his life (if B from above).
• There should be archaeological evidence to support these changes if A; perhaps not if B, although B rests on more precarious ground since god would have created natural disasters from the start.

2) The redemption answer

• Most problem of evil defenses seem to fall short in my opinion. They rest on severe hypotheticals, possible worlds, and essentially say god-couldn’t-have-done-it-any-other-way. This is circular. in other words: god is all good → but evil exists → it couldn’t have been any other way because we believe god is good (start from beginning). It’s a presupposing argument that already seeks to defend a hypothetical good god rather than looking at the evidence first and working toward an best explanation.
• The fall-back apologetic is usually to suggest that it’s all okay because Jesus died for our sins and took on the same suffering we endure. As R Daneel suggest, however, pain endured by another for us still does not actually remove the suffering we endure.
• On a further note, I find it odd that Adam (or barely conscious man-ape) incurred evil and suffering into the world on my behalf, literally transitioning the world from a previously awesome state to a horrid state and that he did this without my consent. Jesus, who also died for my sins without my consent, however, does not effect an immediate change upon the world. I find this odd.

3) Best-explanation comparison

• At the end of the day, things come down to the best explanation of the facts when one is seeking objectivity. Regarding ‘evil’, which is the best explanation?

A) All ‘evil’ (perceived as bad occurrences, pain, suffering on various levels, etc.) occurs via probabilistic methods to all people at all times and in all places?

B) All ‘evil’ entered the world through a ‘fall situation’ yet was not removed from the world by a redemption, and it exists because an all-powerful, all-knowing, omniscient god could not have done things any other way?

B, in my opinion, is extremely lacking. William Lane Craig takes the ‘best possible world’ approach all the time, but it’s really just a faith statement. ‘Since I believe in an all-good god, I will believe that this world is the best.’ Literally you have to argue (with literally no evidence whatsoever), that god could not have saved even ONE more person in this world.

Just extend this to miracles for a moment. With chance, it is supremely easy to answer both why 67 miracles have occurred at Lourdes since 1864 when 5,000,000 visit it each year. I do not consider them miracles, but rather inexplicable healings. If 5MM have been coming for 10 years only, this is a rate of 0.000134% for healings. Now search google for the phrase ‘crash pilgrims catholic’ and read some headlines. With natural probabilities for crash rates, I have an extremely good explanation for both inexplicable disappearing of disease and inexplicable occurrences of Catholic pilgrims dying on their way to or from a holy site.

The believer will no doubt love to cite the 67 Lourdes miracles, yet cannot provide any satisfactory answer about the death of those specifically traveling to receive healing from a holy site who never made it. If you did the google search, the top result is a headline featuring the death of 97 Polish pilgrims… one inexplicable crash of specifically intentioned individuals is already enough to overwhelm the Lourdes healing rate from the past 145 years.

Think again to the natural vs. supernatural explanation. Which has better explanatory power? The defender will probably come up with something akin to god being responsible for the miracles but the human condition being responsible for the crashes. I find this to be a pathetic response.

Lastly, regarding the ‘free-will’ defense, this (as stated) does not say anything about suffering and harm incurred when no will was applied (to just-born children, animals, etc.). Also, embark on a ‘thought experiment’ about why you currently believe in god or why your belief was strengthened. Can you think of any ‘answers to prayer’ or ‘small miracles’ that reinforced your belief? How was this not god’s intervention despite your free will? You most likely believe he chose not to remain absent/silent. You will probably respond that it’s one’s choice to see it as a miracle or to deny it, yet given your state as a believer, the fact that you are a product of your genes, environment, and previous experiences… it is unlikely that you would have seen this otherwise, correct? Did god override your free will with this small miracle?

If not, then why not answer more prayers to provide a tangible response to pain caused by sickness, disease, and hunger? This would not override our free will and actually would bring many more to believe in him.

 

[redhen]

Yet another problem is the “natural evil”, which is not really “evil”, but pain and suffering due to natural causes. Again, one cannot see any “greater good” coming out of these instances. Usually they are not defended on this ground, rather it is asserted that they are the consequence of the “original sin”. Observe the change of tactics. The apologists agree that these sufferings do not lead to greater good, therefore they belong to the “gratuitious evil” category. Yet, it does not seem to bother them.

I’ve seen this defense as well, it presumes that were no carnivores before Adam and Eve, which flies in the face of the anthropological and paleontological evidence.

The final “argument” at this point is to shout down the questioner with the Biblical quotation (or its equivalent) about the clay talking back to the potter. (Isiah 45:9 - "Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘He has no hands’?) Which is, of course, just another variant of the “might makes right” type of argument, which is also ethically unjustifyable.

Nice one, I had forgotten about it. I usually reference Job 38:4; “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?”.

Good summary.

 

[redhen]

Given this, at some point in the past, there should have been a point at which either A) the world was perfect, free from flesh eating bacteria and natural disasters or B) we were somewhere protected from all of these harms.

B is taken up by the philosopher Peter van Inwagen, in his essay The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil:A Theodicy.

For an explanation of this van Inwagen interprets biblical scripture so that the Fall (Adam excluded from paradise) “involved a grave diminution of our cognitive powers” (Adler 766). According to van Inwagen, prelapsarian humans somehow were “able to protect ourselves from earthquakes and tornadoes” (Adler 766). This statement would be laughable if the inability to mount a credible theodiciy was not so tragic.

Adler, Jonathan, and Catherine Elgin. Philosophical Inquiry: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2007. Print

 

[ThomasToo]

B is taken up by the philosopher Peter van Inwagen, in his essay The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil:A Theodicy.

For an explanation of this van Inwagen interprets biblical scripture so that the Fall (Adam excluded from paradise) “involved a grave diminution of our cognitive powers” (Adler 766). According to van Inwagen, prelapsarian humans somehow were “able to protect ourselves from earthquakes and tornadoes” (Adler 766). This statement would be laughable if the inability to mount a credible theodiciy was not so tragic.

Adler, Jonathan, and Catherine Elgin. Philosophical Inquiry: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2007. Print

So according to van Inwagen we had superpowers…?

 

[jinminn]

He told them they would do even bettter works than He had done because the Holy Spirit would be sent to them. Jesus told them that if they asked for anything from the Father in His name it would be given to them.

Just reread this and it is the perfect example of the lack of predictability and repeatability in supernatural defenses to god’s apparent lack of intervention.

(1) Jesus has promised that we would do better works than he had done
(2) Jesus healed the blind, made the lame walk, and raised from the dead
(3) Jesus promises are true and to be fulfillfed
(4) His followers should do better works than healing the blind, making the lame walk, and raising from the dead (from 1, 2, and 3).

Or…

(1) If you ask anything of the Father in Jesus’ name, it will be given
(2) I will ask for the healing of an amputated limb
(3) I will receive a regrown limb as a result

Anyone in their right mind, however, can see that though the conclusions follow logically, they do not follow evidentially. In other words, the promises do not manifest themselves via evidence… or at least not in the form of the ‘face-value’ evidence. I say ‘face-value’ because some argue that god answers prayers, but does the work in the intercessor rather than in the individual needing healing. This is, again, unsatisfactory and requires a scriptural rewrite. The verse should read:

"Ask anything of the Father in my name and it will be given to you if:

• it is ambiguous enough to possibly have unknown natural causes
• I decide that it has been long enough since the last miracle performed such that my response rate and chance look identical
• if other believers decide that you are a ‘true Christian’ have ‘real faith’ have no ‘unrepentant sins’ and any other qualifications they decide you need… but this will only become evident after they observe whether I answer the prayer or not
• lastly, if all other conditions are met… I will still only answer the prayer if it is also the will of the Father and me… and the Holy Spirit."

This is how that simple, beautiful passage is manifest today. If they were manifest via their simple, undoctored and non-reinterpreted meanings, many more would believe.

An attempt to put Jesus’ words to the test may be found HERE. Yes, god can’t be tested (but others have done so in the Bible) and ‘saw through the test’ (yet he saw through tests in the Bible and answered anyway…), but at the end of the day, receiving prayers was exactly like not receiving prayers.

Lastly, I issue a challenge to provide a scripture in which healing was specifically requested of Jesus and he did not provide it, even if he reprimands them first for doubt. Hint: it does not exist (‘he could do no works because of their lack of faith’ does not count as it is general and does not provide a specific documentary of what was asked, if it was an individual or a ‘hey, walk on water for me’ challenge, etc.). I’m only accepting answers in which a person sought physical healing for themselves or a loved on. He always delivers.

Fulfilling prayer requests in Biblical fashion would be the ultimate answer to evil, as even if at the end of the day god lacked infinite power, we would still have a very nice set of evidence showing his infinite love acting in observable, finite ways in the world. This would be worthy of worship.

 

[o_mlly]

Hold it. That is not my claim, it was the claim of the original poster, and I argued against it. I explicitly maintain that “evil” is not necessary for “good” to exist. Please read the post above, where I gave an analysis of this problem.

Then we agree: good is necessary; evil is contingent. Haven’t we been here before?

In what way does this reply pertain to the problem I posted? As to your second paragraph, it would benefit from some evidence that there is an “immortal soul”, and that God could not directly create those immortal souls into heaven.

You didn’t read Boethius yet, have you? If not, start with the pagan Plato on evidence for the immortal soul. And we believe God did create immortal souls into heaven. But those souls also possessed intellect and free will and were tested as well. We call them angels.

 

[antoniont1]

So I am answering a friend’s questions about Catholicism. Now, I’m typically more concerned about learning what I believe and whatnot rather then diagnosting all of these hypothetical situations. But heres what he gave to me (and I had never heard of “theodicy” before this):

What should I say to this?

Thanks,
Snakemauler

As others have said, the problem of evil (PoE) has many aspects to it…

Moral evil: Choice by men (e.g. the raping case) - I think the freewill defense is pretty good at it: the possibility for us to do evil does not mean God is responsible
As for why God doesn’t stop the rapist, God can stop him but He may not want to since He may want to allow the rapist the chance to stop it himself, or He may want to allow some greater good (so the raping becomes a necessary evil).

Natural “evil”: I don’t think it is evil at all. The natural occurrence of natural events is derived from the interaction of stuff in the world according to the laws of physics. Pain is necessary for survival: a lack of pain will lead to sooner death, and I don’t think we should rely on angels to save us from falling to death or drowning or from cutting ourselves intentionally or unintentionally. If God would rather intervene every now and then, what is the point of setting up the laws of physics?

If God always stop evil from happening, it’s just like a parent controlling every move of the child as well as the environment - more cases of allergies develop in “more developed” countries, and the more you control your child the less mature s/he becomes

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

I think it goes back to the Garden. Man’s desire for a “Knowledge of Good and Evil” was not just a desire to know in the abstract what evil is but, rather, to experience evil. We want to experience evil. Otherwise we would never be tempted. Because of this, all of us are potential Stalins. The fact that we aren’t has more to do with lack of opportunity and the Grace of God than personal responsibility and “character”.

In the example of the rapist above, we don’t identify with the one doing the evil but all of us commit evil and that evil - even our evil - leads to suffering for somebody. Even the child in the above example has or will commit evil which will lead to someone else’s suffering.

So, God, to alleviate suffering, could wipe out the entire human race and start over.

Instead, God chooses to suffer with the rape victim and raise them to new life. That is how God starts over. God suffers and dies with us so that God can raise us to new life in which there is no evil and every tear is wiped away.

Plotinus hinted that Evil is remedied by the Soul’s experience of Love (or God, since God is Love). Every Evil experienced carries within it the opportunity to experience greater Love. Without experiencing the hell of suffering, we would never know (in the sense of experience) the depth of God’s love - a love that goes to hell with us and brings us all the way back - safely home with God.

 

[jinminn]

For an explanation of this van Inwagen interprets biblical scripture so that the Fall (Adam excluded from paradise) “involved a grave diminution of our cognitive powers” (Adler 766). According to van Inwagen, prelapsarian humans somehow were “able to protect ourselves from earthquakes and tornadoes” (Adler 766).

Wow. I had no idea. I have been meaning to make a graph of natural vs. supernatural explanations progression through time for morals and god’s intervention… and now for intelligence. For, these types of theodicies and understandings (i.e. of the fall), require one to compare:

Morals

• Natural: we started from 0 and have been gradually getting better and better
• Supernatural: we started from infinity, then plummeted, and now are getting better and better with the help of the one god… but people in other religions are also getting better… and instinctual moral values are almost unanimous while which god ‘planted them in the heart’ is never agreed upon…

God’s intervention

• Natural: has always been 0
• Supernatural: was at infinity (walked with god), then dropped a little (but god would still talk directly to them), then was pretty constant for a long time (waging wars, burning wetted down piles of hay, writing on walls, walking among us doing miracles), and now has dropped to only inexplicable chance occurrences.

Intellect

• Natural: we have progressed from animals and this matches up extremely well with all archaeological evidence (discovery of tools only for certain hominids, art, more sophisticated materials for others, etc.)
• Supernatural: we were intelligent enough to fend for ourselves and avoid all disasters, then plummeted to moronic levels and have re-learned everything since. Though there was no evidence of any technological advancement akin to ours today in any others, pre-fall humans were sophisticated enough to ward off nature though we have no clue how to do this today…

Does one see that, if plotted, the natural explanations have either a flat line or a nice linear or even slightly exponential curve? Yet the supernatural explanation requires an absolutely crazy deviation from all known extrapolations. In other words, to plot what we know from current knowledge on a graph would extrapolate back to a hypothetical posited value for whatever the first man was like in terms of morals, god’s tangible presence in his life, and intellectual ability… yet Christians believe that this extrapolated graph would be absolutely false because in every case there is a monstrous spike or aberration from anything expected… but no evidence exists to support hypotheses about intellect, moral behavior, and god’s actions.

It requires one to toss out the window what one knows about anthropology and archeology for the sake of getting god in the picture. This, to me, seems to be where science actually does meet theology. I see the two as irreconcilable.

 

[jinminn]

@IgnatiusJReilly:

• Mary did not desire participation in evil. Did she have free will? Why or why not?
  — I do not desire many things (eating feces, for example)… has god removed my free will for this to be the case?
  — If not, could he have implanted stronger desires to do good than are currently present such that we would choose more good than we currently do?
• Your response, as has been pointed out already, does not justify suffering that has nothing to do with the will, namely that of babies and animals. It only responds to why I will suffer if I pridefully seek to race my car for a thrill and have an accident.
  — Your answer requires us to connect the state of humanity with the answer for natural disasters and sickness in the young and helpless.

I would be satisfied with a god who allowed evils incurred by choices (driving recklessly) to persist but removed illnesses through prayer repeatably and predictably. Wouldn’t this (as i stated early) conclusively demonstrate his infinite love and goodness even if he couldn’t ‘do it all’ (by removing even accidents caused by our choices)?

Why wouldn’t he do this? He had no trouble doing this in the Bible and promised that it would be even better once his Spirit came. I see no such occurrence and in fact see a case of god’s presence diminishing in our world. It does persist strongly in third world countries, like Africa, which may tell you something…

 

[Yab_Yum]

There are only two possible explanations for the existence of evil:

i) karma; or

ii) Satan’s freedom is more valuable than all the suffering in the entire world combined.

 

[R_Daneel]

Then we agree: good is necessary; evil is contingent. Haven’t we been here before?

Actually I don’t think either one is “necessary”. Both are possible (or contingent), but of course good is preferable to evil. As for your question, sorry, but I don’t remember.

You didn’t read Boethius yet, have you? If not, start with the pagan Plato on evidence for the immortal soul.

No I have never heard of him, before you mentioned. Plato was a smart fellow for his age, but his ideas do not hold a lot of water any more.

And we believe God did create immortal souls into heaven. But those souls also possessed intellect and free will and were tested as well. We call them angels.

Right on.

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

@IgnatiusJReilly:

• Mary did not desire participation in evil. Did she have free will? Why or why not?
  — I do not desire many things (eating feces, for example)… has god removed my free will for this to be the case?
  — If not, could he have implanted stronger desires to do good than are currently present such that we would choose more good than we currently do?

Yes. I believe Mary had free will and chose true happiness in doing the will of God.

We don’t do a lot of evil because of the Grace of God, but I believe that, given the same life experiences as the crack head, you and I would most likely be crack heads. The problem is that we are not free nor do we see things clearly. We are all morally blind and need to be healed of this blindness.

We wouldn’t do evil if we didn’t desire good. Everybody wants to be happy. The only way to be happy is to experience perfect Love - to experience God, if you will. We seek to be happy by other means and that pursuit leads to evil and suffering.

@IgnatiusJReilly:

• Your response, as has been pointed out already, does not justify suffering that has nothing to do with the will, namely that of babies and animals. It only responds to why I will suffer if I pridefully seek to race my car for a thrill and have an accident.
  — Your answer requires us to connect the state of humanity with the answer for natural disasters and sickness in the young and helpless.

My response had more to do with the existential response to suffering. I believe that the only real remedy to the experience of suffering is the experience of Love. But, there’s no way to measure something like love, so I guess there’s no real scientific evidence for it. There are a lot of things like that, though. For example, suffering… How do you scientifically measure that? And failing that measurement, is there real evidence for it?

@IgnatiusJReilly:

I would be satisfied with a god who allowed evils incurred by choices (driving recklessly) to persist but removed illnesses through prayer repeatably and predictably. Wouldn’t this (as i stated early) conclusively demonstrate his infinite love and goodness even if he couldn’t ‘do it all’ (by removing even accidents caused by our choices)?

Why wouldn’t he do this? He had no trouble doing this in the Bible and promised that it would be even better once his Spirit came. I see no such occurrence and in fact see a case of god’s presence diminishing in our world. It does persist strongly in third world countries, like Africa, which may tell you something…

The god you would be satisfied with wouldn’t be a god at all. If response to prayer could be tested and measured then that would be a natural event and not a miracle. I don’t see how that would prove anything.

As to God diminishing in our world. I disagree. I still see people living as though there is “purpose” even though there is no evidence for such a thing. I still see people living as though there is “hope” for something better - even though the evidence suggests that all species go extinct. I hear people talking about “love” as though it is a real, measurable thing. People live as though there is such a thing as “good” even though I’ve never heard of a way to measure that or run experiments on it. Folks may talk about being materialists and having no faith, but I don’t see them living that way. As long as people have that sort of faith, I don’t see God diminishing at all.

 

[jinminn]

Yes. I believe Mary had free will and chose true happiness in doing the will of God.

But she did not have concupiscence… so she did not have a tendency toward sin. Does this invalidate her free will at all? If not, then we could all, theoretically, have been created in this manner.

Regarding most of your other answers, they can be summarized as follows:

• Human suffering is the result of human choices
• I don’t know why other forms of non-choice-based suffering happens
• In either case, the only remedy is to experience love, which is God

In that case, it seems that pretty much any religious path (with a few exceptions) will do. Even ‘new age’ religions say the same. In other words, we need to be present to love in all places, spread love, channel love, blah blah blah. At the end of the day, i don’t see how any of these things support the existence of god, which is the point of the question. All they do is tell me how I can feel good despite the suffering that already exists. But how in the world did it get here in the first place?

We’ve already shown that god created Mary without a tendency toward evil and did not violate free will… so no we’re left with a plausible way god could have done better at the humanly-caused-suffering even if you didn’t address non-chosen-suffering (like sick babies and natural disasters).

The god you would be satisfied with wouldn’t be a god at all. If response to prayer could be tested and measured then that would be a natural event and not a miracle. I don’t see how that would prove anything.

Not in the least. If the name of Jesus was invoked to regrow the limbs of 5 amputees in a row, this would not be a ‘natural’ even in the sense that you claim. If Jesus’ name could be demonstrated to be predictive and repeatable, many, many, many more would believe.

I will also point out that the only reason you believe is because of an observed ‘miracle.’ Discounting all of the other healing miracles I referenced, you believe because of a resurrection ‘miracle.’ Are you telling me that if we had the knowledge today back then and stood outside the tomb with cameras and all sorts of other implements that Jesus wouldn’t have come out because it would have been ‘natural’? There are a lot of ways that god could reveal a supernatural dynamic to us today in more convincing ways than sensing ‘love’ and ‘purpose’ and ‘kumbaya’ in the world. People want to ‘see’ god. He has ample instances of being concerned with this in the past… but does not seem to be concerned with this anymore.

As to God diminishing in our world. I disagree. I still see people living as though there is “purpose” even though there is no evidence for such a thing…

I’m talking about tangible interaction. You can ‘see’ purpose, love, and whatever you want, but this doesn’t hold a candle to how god used to interact with humans. What in the world happened? This is what I mean by ‘diminished.’

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

But she did not have concupiscence… so she did not have a tendency toward sin. Does this invalidate her free will at all? If not, then we could all, theoretically, have been created in this manner.

Well, we weren’t all created to be the Mother of God. I think Catholic Theology still requires Mary to have been saved by Christ.

As to “why couldn’t we all be like this?” Perhaps we all one day will be like that.

In that case, it seems that pretty much any religious path (with a few exceptions) will do.

I believe that there is some truth in all religions but that the fullness of truth is in the Church.

At the end of the day, i don’t see how any of these things support the existence of god, which is the point of the question.

The proof of God is in the experience of God. If you haven’t experienced God yet, perhaps you will one day.

Not in the least. If the name of Jesus was invoked to regrow the limbs of 5 amputees in a row, this would not be a ‘natural’ even in the sense that you claim. If Jesus’ name could be demonstrated to be predictive and repeatable, many, many, many more would believe.

I don’t know that people would come to belief as a result of a bunch of magic. The Gospels record that many people who saw Jesus’ miracles, nevertheless, did not believe in Him. Besides, I don’t know that mere belief (in the sense that “I think there is a God”) is quite what God is looking for. So what if I think there is a God? The demons believe in God.

No, I believe what God wants is a loving relationship with us whereby we experience His love and we return it. And in returning it we become more like God. So that, at the end of the day, we Fall for wanting to be like God and God forgives us and makes us like Him.

I will also point out that the only reason you believe is because of an observed ‘miracle.’

Not just an observed miracle. An experienced miracle. Every moment in prayer and every Sunday at Mass. If you haven’t had the same experience, that doesn’t invalidate my experience.