Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I spent 35 years making excuses for God , however unlikely the evidence suggests should it exist God is indifferent towards the creation at the very best. Like its something he should of destroyed but didn't have the heart to do it .

 

[cottage]

I spent 35 years making excuses for God , however unlikely the evidence suggests should it exist God is indifferent towards the creation at the very best. Like its something he should of destroyed but didn't have the heart to do it .

'Making excuses for God.' Yes that is exactly how it comes across, but obviously God, if he exists, needs no defending and so it is theists attempting to justify and rationalize their beliefs in a human invention. And this is why evil and suffering is such a problem for theists. It would be illogical to worship an indifferent God, and yet nobody can deny that evil and suffering exists. We can invent God, but we can't make evil and suffering disappear; therefore some means of justifying suffering has to be found in order to protect our beliefs. Enter free will. Unfortunately, that doesn't work either, for if God is omnipotent then free will doesn't logically imply the necessary existence of evil and suffering; it can only exist because God stipulates that it must. And that of course demonstrates, at the very least, that God is indifferent to his creation's suffering.

 

[CG Didymus]

'Making excuses for God.' Yes that is exactly how it comes across, but obviously God, if he exists, needs no defending and so it is theists attempting to justify and rationalize their beliefs in a human invention. And this is why evil and suffering is such a problem for theists. It would be illogical to worship an indifferent God, and yet nobody can deny that evil and suffering exists. We can invent God, but we can't make evil and suffering disappear; therefore some means of justifying suffering has to be found in order to protect our beliefs. Enter free will. Unfortunately, that doesn't work either, for if God is omnipotent then free will doesn't logically imply the necessary existence of evil and suffering; it can only exist because God stipulates that it must. And that of course demonstrates, at the very least, that God is indifferent to his creation's suffering.

The usual excuse I hear is the old, "We choose evil." "We turned away from him, so he gave us what we wanted." This would imply that he's not only not all-merciful, but also not all-knowing. It would also imply that he set up the "test" to see what would happen and had his "perfect" plan of redemption in place in case we did fall. Too bad he didn't make his perfect plan clear until Jesus. And, considering how many Christian interpretations of that plan there are, he didn't even make that very clear.

 

[CG Didymus]

I spent 35 years making excuses for God , however unlikely the evidence suggests should it exist God is indifferent towards the creation at the very best. Like its something he should of destroyed but didn't have the heart to do it .

I didn't make excuses. I entertained doubts. But, while I was believing the best I could, I could feel the love, the peace, and the security of knowing, that I knew the truth. Trouble is, I felt that way as a tree loving, new age kind of hippie. After that, as a free spirited Baha'i, knowing that the spirit of God had returned to Earth in Baha'u'llah to guide into a better world. And then, as a born again Christian. But that wasn't enough. Some Christians told me I needed to make one more step and get baptized by the spirit and speak in tongues. All those belief systems contradict each other, but, while I was believing, they all worked for me. So, the question I had to ask myself, were any of them real, or were they all imaginary? Something that I, to a point, convinced myself, was real? But thank God that I never totally committed 100% to any of them.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

But I don’t presume that at all. My argument is that there is no all merciful and omnipotent God, and no case can be made to the contrary without running to a contradiction. For if the argument is made that by granting free will we can become enlightened or closer to God, or whatever, then that is to make a case for evil and suffering being necessary. And there are two things wrong with that. Firstly it is false: evil and suffering only exist because an omnipotent God caused and intended for those things to exist and not because of any logical compulsion. Secondly, there is the absurd consequence where free will is being given a higher moral worth than the alleviation or prevention of suffering; on this account the murder of a child, as an act of free will, takes precedence over the child’s suffering and death. Well, I’m sorry, but that is an obscene principle and not an example of mercy.

Well boo-fricking-hoo. I believe evil and suffering are intrinsic to the universe, why? Because that is the way the dice rolled.

If you want animals, that is a living species they will need a nervous system and with that nervous system they will be subject to pleasure and pain, satisfaction and suffering, what some would consider good and evil.

So God decided not to create a universe that is all sunshine, rainbows and lollipops. Don't go boo-hooing about it just because God does not cater to everybodies whim but prefers to let the chips fall where they may. Live with it. You don't think it's fair? Well here is some news for you:

LIFE ISN"T FAIR!!!

Never has been and never will be.

Far as I am concerned, if you don't like our universe of pain and suffering with it's intended pleasures and joys, you can just go pack your **** up and move to a universe that is all sunshine and lollipops.

Or you could just grow up.

 

[cottage]

Well boo-fricking-hoo. I believe evil and suffering are intrinsic to the universe, why? Because that is the way the dice rolled.

If you want animals, that is a living species they will need a nervous system and with that nervous system they will be subject to pleasure and pain, satisfaction and suffering, what some would consider good and evil.

So God decided not to create a universe that is all sunshine, rainbows and lollipops. Don't go boo-hooing about it just because God does not cater to everybodies whim but prefers to let the chips fall where they may. Live with it. You don't think it's fair? Well here is some news for you:

LIFE ISN"T FAIR!!!

Never has been and never will be.

Far as I am concerned, if you don't like our universe of pain and suffering with it's intended pleasures and joys, you can just go pack your **** up and move to a universe that is all sunshine and lollipops.

Or you could just grow up.

Oh, well I wasn’t really expecting an explosion of frustration and anger as a response. <laughs> And I certainly wasn’t complaining about the way the world happens to be; so it is quite clear to me that you’ve missed the point of what I’m saying.

Now with regards to the mechanics of life: In the natural world of our universe, heat, precipitation, oxygen and nitrogen etc supply our needs for life; objects degrade and die and new objects appear from the old constituents and then grow to maturity, ensuring the continuity and the cyclical balance of life. That is the reality.

And among this complex and wonderfully diverse collection of living things we humans exist as higher order primates that form attachments with one another and live in complex groups in which there are values, rituals, and social norms. And unlike other animals we have ethical standards, are capable of empathy and a willingness to help and see the best in others. So there is much that is good in the world. But nevertheless it is a sad fact that this is a world where animals kill other animals, men kill animals, and men kill each other. There are also the so-called metaphysical evils as natural disasters, and destructive diseases and pathogens that cause suffering and deaths. So that is also the reality.

No one can deny that these things, horrific as they are, may be necessary in some sense for the continued existence of our planet since that is the way it functions. So if there is a Creator then he created the universe to be as it is, and he is self-evidently indifferent to the suffering he created. But once again, if God is omnipotent then it is self contradictory to state that (A) God had to create any world necessarily, and (B) that necessarily he had to create this particular world as it is. To maintain either of those statements as true is to undermine God’s omnipotence, and it must therefore be false. Or - there is no omnipotent God! The world is the way it is. God is a fiction.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Oh, well I wasn’t really expecting an explosion of frustration and anger as a response. <laughs> And I certainly wasn’t complaining about the way the world happens to be; so it is quite clear to me that you’ve missed the point of what I’m saying.

Now with regards to the mechanics of life: In the natural world of our universe, heat, precipitation, oxygen and nitrogen etc supply our needs for life; objects degrade and die and new objects appear from the old constituents and then grow to maturity, ensuring the continuity and the cyclical balance of life. That is the reality.

And among this complex and wonderfully diverse collection of living things we humans exist as higher order primates that form attachments with one another and live in complex groups in which there are values, rituals, and social norms. And unlike other animals we have ethical standards, are capable of empathy and a willingness to help and see the best in others. So there is much that is good in the world. But nevertheless it is a sad fact that this is a world where animals kill other animals, men kill animals, and men kill each other. There are also the so-called metaphysical evils as natural disasters, and destructive diseases and pathogens that cause suffering and deaths. So that is also the reality.

No one can deny that these things, horrific as they are, may be necessary in some sense for the continued existence of our planet since that is the way it functions. So if there is a Creator then he created the universe to be as it is, and he is self-evidently indifferent to the suffering he created. But once again, if God is omnipotent then it is self contradictory to state that (A) God had to create any world necessarily, and (B) that necessarily he had to create this particular world as it is. To maintain either of those statements as true is to undermine God’s omnipotence, and it must therefore be false. Or - there is no omnipotent God! The world is the way it is. God is a fiction.

Non sequitur!

I don't see how the world being the way it is detracts omnipotence from God.

The problem of evil is one of the weakness arguments against God ever.

 

[cottage]

Non sequitur!

I don't see how the world being the way it is detracts omnipotence from God.

But that’s the very point: it doesn’t, unless it is insisted that God had no option but to create the world the way it is! Or, if it is maintained that God all merciful and omnibenevolent and in which case he is willing but unable.

The problem of evil is one of the weakness arguments against God ever.

As a matter of fact it is recognised to be by far and away the strongest argument against the existence of God, which is why the greatest theologians and thinkers throughout history have never been able been able to overturn the contradiction.

Even the Bible’s writers, who knew they could ask believers to accept almost any absurdity such as talking snakes and donkeys, feeding five thousand with a few loaves and fishes, and hundreds of graves opening and their occupants all coming to life, etc, but they knew that evil and suffering was a fact they could not deny to believers when promoting an all loving God. And so they had to incorporate the facts the best they could. God sending his son to earth to pay for our sins was the best ploy they could come up with. But that failed. After all, it was God himself who made evil possible, and apparently Jesus didn’t even die! God brought him back to life and then whisked him back home. So it was a deception, a public relations stunt, especially as two-thousand years on the evil and suffering continues as before, completely unabated.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

But that’s the very point: it doesn’t, unless it is insisted that God had no option but to create the world the way it is! Or, if it is maintained that God all merciful and omnibenevolent and in which case he is willing but unable.



As a matter of fact it is recognised to be by far and away the strongest argument against the existence of God, which is why the greatest theologians and thinkers throughout history have never been able been able to overturn the contradiction.

Even the Bible’s writers, who knew they could ask believers to accept almost any absurdity such as talking snakes and donkeys, feeding five thousand with a few loaves and fishes, and hundreds of graves opening and their occupants all coming to life, etc, but they knew that evil and suffering was a fact they could not deny to believers when promoting an all loving God. And so they had to incorporate the facts the best they could. God sending his son to earth to pay for our sins was the best ploy they could come up with. But that failed. After all, it was God himself who made evil possible, and apparently Jesus didn’t even die! God brought him back to life and then whisked him back home. So it was a deception, a public relations stunt, especially as two-thousand years on the evil and suffering continues as before, completely unabated.

Oh really? It's the strongest argument against God? Please explain how it is even an argument against God in the first place.

 

[technomage]

Oh really? It's the strongest argument against God? Please explain how it is even an argument against God in the first place.

Cottage is not phrasing the argument poorly, but I did find myself somewhat confused by his phrasing. Put in its most simple form, the full Argument from Evil is thus:

1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibelevolent.
2. An omnipotent being would have the ability to prevent all evils.
3. An omniscient being would have the scope of knowledge to know when and where evil occurs, and the depth of knowledge to prevent all evils.
4. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
5. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then evil cannot exist, for God would prevent it.
6. Evil exists. (Logical contradiction.)

It is a rather simplistic argument, and only functions if taken as an absolute.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Cottage is not phrasing the argument poorly, but I did find myself somewhat confused by his phrasing. Put in its most simple form, the full Argument from Evil is thus:

1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibelevolent.
2. An omnipotent being would have the ability to prevent all evils.
3. An omniscient being would have the scope of knowledge to know when and where evil occurs, and the depth of knowledge to prevent all evils.
4. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
5. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then evil cannot exist, for God would prevent it.
6. Evil exists. (Logical contradiction.)

It is a rather simplistic argument, and only functions if taken as an absolute.

It is a strawman, that's what it is.

 

[technomage]

It is a strawman, that's what it is.

Yes, but that's not all it is. Ever heard someone say "Let me take your statement to its logical conclusion"? The Problem of Evil demonstrates that logic cannot always be used in such a fashion.

But do understand, the synopsis I gave above is only the simplest form--there are other, more involved, versions of the Problem of Evil that _do_ actually make for good arguments.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

But do understand, the synopsis I gave above is only the simplest form--there are other, more involved, versions of the Problem of Evil that _do_ actually make for good arguments.

Not for Gnostics or those in the Vedic Traditions.

 

[technomage]

Not for Gnostics or those in the Vedic Traditions.

It doesn't generally work anywhere outside the Abrahamics.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It doesn't generally work anywhere outside the Abrahamics.

So it is an argument against a religious tradition and not God.

 

[technomage]

So it is an argument against a religious tradition and not God.

In its modern formulation, it was developed and used almost exclusively within a Western cultural context: many of those who attempt to use it are barely even aware that any religion besides Christianity even exists.

 

[cottage]

The Problem of Evil (also known as the Inconsistent Triad). In very simple terms there cannot exist evil and a benevolent, omnipotent God.

However, the problem may also be expressed, as ‘evil exists because’:

1) God can do nothing to prevent it occurring.

2) God is not aware that it is occurring

3) God doesn’t intervene in the occurrence

A direct contradiction is implied in each of the three examples: The first is not compatible with God’s omnipotence. The second is not compatible with God’s supposed omnipresence and omniscience (although, omnipresence and omniscience are generally considered a part of omnipotence). And the third is not compatible with the concept of a loving God.

The contradiction doesn’t depend upon morals, what we think is wrong, human emotions, or what God ordains.

P1. If God were all merciful there would be no suffering.

P2. There is suffering

Conclusion: Therefore there is no all merciful God.

P1 is a necessary truth; P2 is evidential. In order to disprove the conclusion it must be shown that P1 is false, i.e. that there can be suffering where there can be no suffering, which is absurd, or likewise to say suffering does not exist, which would be equally absurd since the objector acknowledges its existence in attempting to answer the problem of evil.

The contradictions that arise in God's stated attributes use the same logical format that gives us the concept of God, ie that (if he exists) he exists necessarily etc. So it is nonsensical to accept the defining essence of God and then deny it when it comes with a different logical expression but with the same structure and formality. An omnipotent creator, God causes and conserves the existence of everything. And a benevolent, loving God cannot send evil into the world. Those two sentences are analytic, that is to say each expresses the truth as subject and predicate, without having to go outside the proposition. And they are true because they cannot logically be false.

And the free will defence again (the main point I’ve been arguing)

But if God is the omnipotent creator, the cause of all existent things, and evil exists, then it does so only because God causes and sustains its existence, since nothing can exist independent of God’s will. And this brings us back to the inconsistent triad and the classic argument for the incompatibility between God’s omnipotence, benevolence and the problem of evil. The notion of an omnipotent, infinite, perfect and all-loving being that punishes his finite, imperfect creation for their created faults is an absurdity that stands on its own. But when the Free Will Defence is introduced, the apologetic compounds what is already illogical, since it wants to say that it is better for an omni-benevolent God not to be omni-benevolent than for humans not be able to choose evil. It also informs us that an ability to inflict suffering is of a greater moral worth than having that ability withdrawn or made impossible. Aside from the obvious contradiction, that argument is misleading since it assumes that free will must necessarily imply the existence of evil. It does not! Once again we need a timely reminder that if God exists then nothing exists but what God brings into being.

Of course it cannot be said that free will necessarily implies evil, because that presumes to dictate what an omnipotent being must create, which is contradictory. And yet, if free will does include evil then it can only be because the omnipotent Creator makes it so. Now if we hypothesise that there is a creator God then of course it/he must have the power to bring worlds into being, and it follows that as we continue to exist it can also be said that such a Being conserves and sustains the world. Given the hypothesis, neither of those premises is self-contradictory. We can even say the Being is omnipotent; and while this assertion cannot be inferred from the fact of our existence, as the Being need only be sufficiently powerful to create our existence, there is no contradiction in our supposing it. But what happens when we say ‘God is love’, or ‘God is perfectly good and moral’? Here we have contradicted ourselves; for we know that evil is factually evident? For if everything that God created was good, then nothing created by God was evil. So if every existent thing is good, then no existent thing is evil. Yet there is evil! Therefore, as some existent things are evil then not every existent thing created by God was good. And thus it is demonstrated that God the Creator is not a wholly good and beneficent being.

The above only apllies to classical theism, but there is no reason why a Supreme Being should be omnibenevolent or merciful. And in fact doesn't an indifferent God fit more acurately with reality?

 

[cottage]

So it is an argument against a religious tradition and not God.

It's an argument against the God of classical theism, that is to say one that is described as being omnipotent, omnibenevolent and necessarily existent. If that god isn't your god then your beliefs are unaffected by the argument.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It's an argument against the God of classical theism, that is to say one that is described as being omnipotent, omnibenevolent and necessarily existent. If that god isn't your god then your beliefs are unaffected by the argument.

And that makes it a weak argument against God, because it cannot address all god concepts.

 

[1robin]

Not for Gnostics or those in the Vedic Traditions.

Your meta-physical preference does not have any effect of how good an argument was. The concept 2 + 2 = 4 is true in any language, religion, culture, time period, or bias. The one place it isn't true is for Kraus, who said 2 + 2 = 5 by mangling some unrelated and experimental mathematics by making an absolute value a variable. He also said that the sum of every integer from 1 - infinity was 1/12th. However for the other 99.999999999999999% Truth is independent of whether it is convenient.