Christians: How do you reconcile the problem of evil?

[Hetta]

So free will entails the ability to do things - not just the ability to decide to do things. Correct?

For example, if you decide to exercise your free will to go to the rodeo and I stop you by forcing your car off the road into a ditch, then I have messed with your free will. Right?

Yes.

 

[Akureyri]

Yes.

By your definition of free will, it only exists if what you set out to do actually ends up happening.

If you plan on going to the mall, but a friend of yours invites you to the movies and you end up going to the movies with your friend, by your definition, your friend messed with your free will. Now let's say your friend was actually planning on going to the movies by his/herself, but accidentally called you on the phone and now felt obligated to invite you to the movies. You accepted. Now you have messed with your friend's free will. Correct?

This isn't the type of free will I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ability to freely make choices. For example, if you are faced with an A/B choice, you could choose either A or B.

 

[prov1810]

If God can do anything, then he could prevent the chains and gags from existing.

These are the extraordinary measures God would have to use to prevent people from harming each other. The scenario in the OP is one incident in the world. But evil abounds in this world and you haven't considered what life would be like if God intervened all the time.

 

[Hetta]

By your definition of free will, it only exists if what you set out to do actually ends up happening.

If you plan on going to the mall, but a friend of yours invites you to the movies and you end up going to the movies with your friend, by your definition, your friend messed with your free will. Now let's say your friend was actually planning on going to the movies by his/herself, but accidentally called you on the phone and now felt obligated to invite you to the movies. You accepted. Now you have messed with your friend's free will. Correct?

This isn't the type of free will I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ability to freely make choices. For example, if you are faced with an A/B choice, you could choose either A or B.

Your example doesn't make sense. The friend had free will to not invite you to the movies but to make an excuse and hang up. They chose to invite you. You have done nothing to them by accepting. They also have the free will to call you later and say they don't feel well and can't go after all.

Yes, everyone has choices, not even necessarily A and B. There are varying degrees of choices.

I don't know where this is going. I don't understand what you're getting at.

 

[golgotha61]

As it is logically impossible for an all-loving (or all-good) and all-powerful God to exist in the presence of mass suffering or mass calamity, how do you reconcile this?

You have made an unproven statement. God is love as Scripture attests and proves, also God is omnipotent as Biblical evidence witnesses to. And, I know that suffering exists as history and experience demonstrate. Since what I have presented is fact as demonstrated by the Biblical and existential witnesses, your assertion that God does not exist is false and not logical at all.

You have predicated the non-existence of God on the existence of suffering and your statement asserts that since suffering exists, God does not exist. This is horribly circular. If you had not made the appeal to logic, a form of appeal to authority, and simply asked a question, these problems that I have just outlined would not exist. Your posit is illogical on several fronts.

 

[Honest Al]

As it is logically impossible for an all-loving (or all-good) and all-powerful God to exist in the presence of mass suffering or mass calamity, how do you reconcile this?

Do you change your construct of God such that he either isn't all-loving or all-powerful?

OR

Do you just not think about it?

Hi Akureyri,

I think you ask a valid question. (And I think many people have given you some valid answers.) But I'd like to try to answer you a little differently.

#1--I believe that God is infinitely wiser and more knowlegeble than any of us, and some day He will make known to us His reasons for doing (or not doing) as He has; and I believe all will be convinced that God was right and just in all that He did.

#2 and going along with #1--Since we humans are so fallible, and so limited in our understanding, we need to try to remind ourselves that our knowledge and conclusion of things may not be as correct and accurate as we think.

#3 and very briefly--I believe there is a very real need for God to allow sin (and I would include the Devil) to reveal itself as the totally evil thing it is.

#4 and most importantly to me--We need to wholeheartedly seek the true God. (There are certainly many false ones out there; including within Christianity.) (And I certainly believe the true God is found within the Bible.) When we truly find and know Him we'll know enough to know that we can completely and forever trust Him.

God Bless, (and keep searching for answers)

P.S.--And walk in whatever light you have (then God will send you more light)

"Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne. {Psalms 97:2 NIV}

 

[Akureyri]

These are the extraordinary measures God would have to use to prevent people from harming each other. The scenario in the OP is one incident in the world. But evil abounds in this world and you haven't considered what life would be like if God intervened all the time.

What do you think life would be like if God intervened to stop all instances of rapists raping children?

 

[Akureyri]

Your example doesn't make sense. The friend had free will to not invite you to the movies but to make an excuse and hang up. They chose to invite you. You have done nothing to them by accepting. They also have the free will to call you later and say they don't feel well and can't go after all.

Yes, everyone has choices, not even necessarily A and B. There are varying degrees of choices.

I don't know where this is going. I don't understand what you're getting at.

It seems as if you think free will can be affected by the interference of someone other than the one exercising free will. When I say free will, I mean the ability to freely make a decision. For example, I am faced with an A/B choice. I freely choose A. That's a freely made choice. When I try to carry out the actions of choice A at a later point in time and you interfere, I don't believe you have interfered with my free will - as you didn't impede my ability to freely make decisions.

 

[Akureyri]

You have made an unproven statement. God is love as Scripture attests and proves, also God is omnipotent as Biblical evidence witnesses to. And, I know that suffering exists as history and experience demonstrate. Since what I have presented is fact as demonstrated by the Biblical and existential witnesses, your assertion that God does not exist is false and not logical at all.

If God exists and is omnipotent in the presence of mass suffering and mass calamity, then it means that God doesn't love the victims of mass suffering and mass calamities enough to do anything to protect them. This means he is a malevolent and sadistic God. So I ask how you can go to sleep every night knowing that you worship a malevolent and sadistic God?

You have predicated the non-existence of God on the existence of suffering and your statement asserts that since suffering exists, God does not exist. This is horribly circular. If you had not made the appeal to logic, a form of appeal to authority, and simply asked a question, these problems that I have just outlined would not exist. Your posit is illogical on several fronts.

No. The existence of mass suffering and mass calamity means an all-powerful & all-loving God cannot exist. How do you reconcile this?

 

[Hetta]

It seems as if you think free will can be affected by the interference of someone other than the one exercising free will. When I say free will, I mean the ability to freely make a decision. For example, I am faced with an A/B choice. I freely choose A. That's a freely made choice. When I try to carry out the actions of choice A at a later point in time and you interfere, I don't believe you have interfered with my free will - as you didn't impede my ability to freely make decisions.

Yeah, I'm really not following you at all, so I'll leave you to your investigation.

 

[golgotha61]

If God exists and is omnipotent in the presence of mass suffering and mass calamity, then it means that God doesn't love the victims of mass suffering and mass calamities enough to do anything to protect them. This means he is a malevolent and sadistic God. So I ask how you can go to sleep every night knowing that you worship a malevolent and sadistic God?

I am not going to attempt to answer any of your questions that are based on illogical assumptions and are not supported by reasons of logic. You have not made any proofs that would require defense. You are simply making accusations, demanding that these accusations be treated as truth and then challenging us to disprove and unproven premise: Illogical.

No. The existence of mass suffering and mass calamity means an all-powerful & all-loving God cannot exist. How do you reconcile this?

You still fail the tests of logic and you have yet to prove your first premise. You have not cleared the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and circular reasoning. In fact, you are just repeating the circular reasoning pattern.

Understand something friend, without logic, truth is unobtainable and dialogue is meaningless. Fix your flawed logic and we will continue. Otherwise I will assume that this premise or yours is meaningless and we can end this charade.

 

[Akureyri]

I am not going to attempt to answer any of your questions that are based on illogical assumptions and are not supported by reasons of logic. You have not made any proofs that would require defense. You are simply making accusations, demanding that these accusations be treated as truth and then challenging us to disprove and unproven premise: Illogical.



You still fail the tests of logic and you have yet to prove your first premise. You have not cleared the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and circular reasoning. In fact, you are just repeating the circular reasoning pattern.

Understand something friend, without logic, truth is unobtainable and dialogue is meaningless. Fix your flawed logic and we will continue. Otherwise I will assume that this premise or yours is meaningless and we can end this charade.

1) We know that evil exists. (examples are a rapist raping a child, a tornado ripping through Joplin, Missouri, a typhoon striking a populated area of the Philippines).
2) Christians claim God can do anything, meaning he is capable of preventing evil
3) Christians claim God loves everyone, meaning that he would want to prevent evil

If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 can't be true
If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 can't be true
If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 can't be true

Since we know that evil exists, then either #2 or #3 must not be true. So either God doesn't love everyone or he can't do anything.

 

[golgotha61]

1) We know that evil exists. (examples are a rapist raping a child, a tornado ripping through Joplin, Missouri, a typhoon striking a populated area of the Philippines).
2) Christians claim God can do anything, meaning he is capable of preventing evil
3) Christians claim God loves everyone, meaning that he would want to prevent evil

If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 can't be true
If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 can't be true
If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 can't be true

Since we know that evil exists, then either #2 or #3 must not be true. So either God doesn't love everyone or he can't do anything.

#2 is not true and either is #3; more to the point they cannot be held as truth statements. This is the point of the fruitlessness of your OP, which is illogical because it is contingent on non-proven premises. Actually, #3 is a conclusion for which you have not provided any premises to support it. #2 is false for the same reason, it is not a premise, it is a conclusion based on non-revealed premises.

Also, you have misstated #2. The Christian believes that God is omnipotent which is not the same as saying "God can do anything." Your conclusion ("either God doesn't love everyone or he can't do anything") is a false dilemma; logical fallacy. The last part of your conclusion I will accept as a typo, since surely you did not mean God cannot do anything, which of course He can. Even I can do something and I cannot be truthfully charged with not being able to do anything.

Do you seek meaning in this thread?

 

[prov1810]

What do you think life would be like if God intervened to stop all instances of rapists raping children?

It seems like it would be a world without rape. Just a shot in the dark.

Why not blame the rapists? Even for a theist, this is the obvious thing to do. There are victims of horrible crimes who never lost their faith in God. Some of them became Christians after these things happened to them. Your challenge, which is an attempt to show that Christians are insensitive to suffering, is clueless because there are many Christians who can tell you what suffering is. They know it firsthand.

They don't have an answer to the question. They don't need it.

 

[Joshua260]

1) We know that evil exists. (examples are a rapist raping a child, a tornado ripping through Joplin, Missouri, a typhoon striking a populated area of the Philippines).
2) Christians claim God can do anything, meaning he is capable of preventing evil
3) Christians claim God loves everyone, meaning that he would want to prevent evil

If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 can't be true
If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 can't be true
If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 can't be true

Since we know that evil exists, then either #2 or #3 must not be true. So either God doesn't love everyone or he can't do anything.

In order for your logic to succeed, you must still prove that there is absolutely no reason that God might have to allow these things to happen. Unless you are omniscient yourself, I seriously doubt you will ever succeed in doing that.

Did you know that there are several examples of suffering in the bible and sometimes the people who suffered or witnessed others suffering did not understand it either (although sometimes reasons are given for our benefit).

This Epicurean argument you keep referring to really carries no thrust at all with Christians. I personally think the Epicurean argument is one of the worst challenges to Christianity. It seems like the only ones who find it persuasive are other atheists.

 

[Hammster]

As it is logically impossible for an all-loving (or all-good) and all-powerful God to exist in the presence of mass suffering or mass calamity, how do you reconcile this?

Do you change your construct of God such that he either isn't all-loving or all-powerful?

OR

Do you just not think about it?

Your premise is wrong because we do have an all-powerful God who exists in the presence of evil.

 

[DennisTate]

As it is logically impossible for an all-loving (or all-good) and all-powerful God to exist in the presence of mass suffering or mass calamity, how do you reconcile this?

Do you change your construct of God such that he either isn't all-loving or all-powerful?

OR

Do you just not think about it?

My belief at this time is that time itself is not limited to being linear but as many Ezekiel 37 style resurrections as necessary can be done by the G-d of Abraham in order to lead more and more and more of us to salvation.

A lesson in Yom Kippur that we Christians tend to miss….. is that all of the selfish, foolish and unwise things that we do and think…… can be turned around by G-d into an asset……. eventually!!!!????

This could be referred to as the Bill Wilson Effect…. after one of the major founders of the Alcoholics Anonymous movement!

 

[MLEN]

Since we know that evil exists, then either #2 or #3 must not be true. So either God doesn't love everyone or he can't do anything.

God has done something and he does love everyone. He sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross to free us all from the eternal death we would have had to endure for our own sins. Jesus, took our sins upon himself. But because Jesus was sinless those sins could not kill him, unlike how we can die eternally because of our sins.

Thus, through Jesus we can have eternal life if we accept that he loves us enough to take our sins away from us. This means that anyone who dies while believing in Christ will not remain dead, but will one day rise to live eternally with God. Nothing on this earth can permanently doom a believer in Christ. On the day he returns for those who love and believe in him they will live with God forever from that day on in a perfect world where will be no more dying, pain or sorrow.

Won't you please believe and accept Jesus as your Savior from sin and death, and gain eternal life today Akureyri? He loves you personally and wants you to have a freeing, loving relationship with him.

 

[Akureyri]

#2 is not true and either is #3; more to the point they cannot be held as truth statements. This is the point of the fruitlessness of your OP, which is illogical because it is contingent on non-proven premises. Actually, #3 is a conclusion for which you have not provided any premises to support it. #2 is false for the same reason, it is not a premise, it is a conclusion based on non-revealed premises.

Also, you have misstated #2. The Christian believes that God is omnipotent which is not the same as saying "God can do anything." Your conclusion ("either God doesn't love everyone or he can't do anything") is a false dilemma; logical fallacy. The last part of your conclusion I will accept as a typo, since surely you did not mean God cannot do anything, which of course He can. Even I can do something and I cannot be truthfully charged with not being able to do anything.

Do you seek meaning in this thread?

Many Christians I've encountered claim that God can do anything and loves everyone. If you disagree with those Christians, then you are not in the camp of people from whom I desire a reconciliation on the problem of evil. But for those Christians who claim that God can do anything and that God loves everyone, I ask how they reconcile the problem of evil.

 

[Akureyri]

It seems like it would be a world without rape. Just a shot in the dark.

Why not blame the rapists? Even for a theist, this is the obvious thing to do. There are victims of horrible crimes who never lost their faith in God. Some of them became Christians after these things happened to them. Your challenge, which is an attempt to show that Christians are insensitive to suffering, is clueless because there are many Christians who can tell you what suffering is. They know it firsthand.

They don't have an answer to the question. They don't need it.

If you had the power to stop rapists to rape children, would you? Of course you would. Why then are you more morally solid than God - who doesn't stop the rapists from raping the children?