How do Christians reconcile the problem of evil?

[manitouscott]

Thank you for challenging my thoughts on this.

God's focus is on eternity, not the present. You have to remember that past present and future are seen not as a straight line to Him, but all at once. Human suffering is terrible to us because we are linear. To God our time is meaningless. Our suffering is not His choice though, read on.

Your definition of love is human; it is conditional, mercurial and it's focus is on providing comfort and ease.

The Father's love is focused on our eternal lives; He wants us with Him for eternity. This does not mean He will allow us to avoid pain at all costs, even if we see our children raped or murdered. His love is not focused on protecting us from temporal pain. Your human perspective of time is not shared by the Creator.

His love means He allows us to choose, we have free will and He does not interfere with free will, even when it kills our children.

There is evil in this world, whether you accept it or not, Satan is in charge down here, and God has allowed this, because that is what mankind chose.

You remember, He wanted us to live in perfect harmony with Him. Humanity chose to reject Him. As a result, mankind was plunged into a fallen state, and as the Bible says, nature fell with mankind. Tornadoes, tsunamis, floods are all a result of nature's fallen state. When Jesus returns, nature will be redeemed with mankind.

Does God love us? Yes, Yes, Yes. He has given us a way to spend eternity with Him through Jesus Christ.

Does love mean no pain, suffering, death, torment, rape, torture, burning, scarring, disembowelment, human torches, gas chambers, wars? No. God loved us enough to give us Free Will, and these things are the result of mankind's free will.

Could God stop all of this? Of course He could. He is the reason that the matter and energy needed for the "Big Bang" was created out of NOTHING. But stopping all this is not His will. He wants us to become sons because we choose to believe.

He takes no pleasure in the fallen state of humanity, but to take away our free will and make us choose the right way would make us tin soldiers who were incapable of choosing to follow His path of our own free will.

 

[Akureyri]

I'm guessing that this comment pertained to the following:

I ask, which one of these three you believe to be true.

A) God does not love us enough to stop calamities such as tornadoes, rapes and tsunamis
B) God is incapable of stopping calamities such as tornadoes, rapes and tsunamis
C) You have never thought about the logical invalidity of the problem of evil

No, it was pertaining to your failure to think it through properly. I've stated to you three times now that you are wrong to consider only two options. You are refusing to think about that.

Other than there being no god, what are the other options and how can you be sure the other options don't fall under the umbrella of one of the options I listed?

Well, we may have different ideas of what "love" means. If that's true, then it would appear you would take option A (God doesn't love us enough) to reconcile the problem of evil. Am I correct?

Nope. His method of identifying and convicting evil may seem peculiar, but it is perfectly effective.

So is it correct you believe God does love the nine million children under the age of five who get eaten away by diseases each year enough that he would save them if he could?

Better worded, does God love a rape victim enough that he would prevent the the rape from having occurred if he had the power to do so?

This is an issue of definitions. If a god exists and it can do anything, then if it does nothing to save innocent people from calamities, then it doesn't love them. Likewise, if such god loves the people and the calamity occurs, then by definition, it is incapable of doing anything.

Is there a particular reason you're not being straightforward with me? The answer you're giving - while appreciated - does not provide me enough information to discern if you reconcile this by A, B or C. Would you think it would be safe to assume the willful lack of an A or B answer would likely mean a C answer in this case? Remember, there are no other available options.

You are wrong, there is another option which I have shown you three times and you refuse to hear it.

Once again, what is the other option and how can you be sure it doesn't fall under the umbrella of one of the options I presented?

Do you reconcile it by asserting:
A) God can't do anything
B) God doesn't love everyone
C) You don't think about this logical invalidity


Please understand, I'm referring to a god which Christians have posited as being able to do anything and to love everyone.
-If God can do anything, then in the presence of mass calamities and mass suffering, then by definition he doesn't love everyone
-If God loves everyone, then in the presence of mass calamities and mass suffering, then by definition, he is incapable of doing anything

You just don't seem to want to see the big picture.

This isn't necessarily about a big or small picture or whether or not I see it. This is about how Christians who posit a god that can do anything and loves everyone reconcile the logical invalidity of this in the presence of mass calamities and/or mass suffering.

 

[Akureyri]

Thank you for challenging my thoughts on this.

God's focus is on eternity, not the present. You have to remember that past present and future are seen not as a straight line to Him, but all at once. Human suffering is terrible to us because we are linear. To God our time is meaningless. Our suffering is not His choice though, read on.

Your definition of love is human; it is conditional, mercurial and it's focus is on providing comfort and ease.

The Father's love is focused on our eternal lives; He wants us with Him for eternity. This does not mean He will allow us to avoid pain at all costs, even if we see our children raped or murdered. His love is not focused on protecting us from temporal pain. Your human perspective of time is not shared by the Creator.

His love means He allows us to choose, we have free will and He does not interfere with free will, even when it kills our children.

There is evil in this world, whether you accept it or not, Satan is in charge down here, and God has allowed this, because that is what mankind chose.

You remember, He wanted us to live in perfect harmony with Him. Humanity chose to reject Him. As a result, mankind was plunged into a fallen state, and as the Bible says, nature fell with mankind. Tornadoes, tsunamis, floods are all a result of nature's fallen state. When Jesus returns, nature will be redeemed with mankind.

Does God love us? Yes, Yes, Yes. He has given us a way to spend eternity with Him through Jesus Christ.

Does love mean no pain, suffering, death, torment, rape, torture, burning, scarring, disembowelment, human torches, gas chambers, wars? No. God loved us enough to give us Free Will, and these things are the result of mankind's free will.

Could God stop all of this? Of course He could. He is the reason that the matter and energy needed for the "Big Bang" was created out of NOTHING. But stopping all this is not His will. He wants us to become sons because we choose to believe.

He takes no pleasure in the fallen state of humanity, but to take away our free will and make us choose the right way would make us tin soldiers who were incapable of choosing to follow His path of our own free will.

If our eternal life is more important than our temporal life and our temporal life is just a blip in time compared to our eternal life, why wouldn't it make sense for God to still see that our suffering during our temporal life is kept to a minimum - especially if he is capable of doing anything, including eliminating mass suffering?

 

[dhh712]

If our eternal life is more important than our temporal life and our temporal life is just a blip in time compared to our eternal life, why wouldn't it make sense for God to still see that our suffering during our temporal life is kept to a minimum - especially if he is capable of doing anything, including eliminating mass suffering?

It all goes back to this being a world in a fallen state: we chose the world, we did not choose God. That He loves us so much that He does give us so many wonderful things even though His presence from the world is largely shut out of it attests to the enormity of His compassion for us. Some people have to suffer more than others and some people's suffering can be unbearable to the point where they kill themselves. It's a sad, sad world.

I don't know why this was the way He wanted it. His ways are incomprehensible. I can never convince anyone on my own of the Christian God, the one true God. That takes the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Yet to me it is obvious that there is a God (or god to those who are non-Christians). To conclude otherwise, it seems we would exist in a state of absurdity (not being able to know anything). The way I look at it is that once it is realized that nothing can be known without a source of knowledge (God), it is obvious that there is a God (or god to those who are not yet converted). Without the Holy Spirit enabling someone to beleive in God however, most would perhaps become deists. And it is so understandable to me to imagine such people, and others who perhaps are agnostic say, "If I did come to the realization that there is a God, I would not worship the Christian God."

 

[starlightbright]

simple, they blame God. God gets the flack for all of it, bc ppl are too immature to own up to their own mistakes.

 

[Akureyri]

simple, they blame God. God gets the flack for all of it, bc ppl are too immature to own up to their own mistakes.

If so, then this appears as if it would be a reckless and/or careless God. Why worship such a god that doesn't even appear to care?

 

[Messy]

If God can do anything, then why didn't he prevent the tornadoes?

He can't do just anything now. The atmosphere changed because of the flood and the earth changed because of sin.

I'm not the one positing a god. I'm asking about the god others have posited. Perhaps you can tell me why God doesn't punish those who hurt others rather than punish people in such an arbitrary/random manner that is no different than if there were no god.

He doesn't punish anyone. He does that in the end, when He judges them according to their deeds.

Please explain how things like tornadoes and tsunamis are evil.

They are not evil, but a result of man being evil. Not the people that live now, but Adam sinned. Before he sinned everything was in perfect harmony.

So you're saying you reconcile this by saying God is incapable of doing anything. Am I correct?

He's not incapable of doing anything. He is capable of judging the earth, He could send another flood if He wanted, but He doesn't want to and promised He'd never do that again. But He is patient and doesn't judge the nations before everyone had a chance to get saved. The end will come after everyone has heard the gospel. But He gave the dominion over the earth to mankind. So He only does something when He gets a legal invitation through prayer. If He could just do whatever He wanted, the multitudes would have been healed before Jesus came. He had to become a man and pray God's will be done on earth in order to save and heal people. His will is that everybody gets saved and that everyone is healthy. Jesus went to heaven and told the disciples to do what He did. We have to do the same works as He: pray that people get saved, heal the sick.

 

[starlightbright]

If so, then this appears as if it would be a reckless and/or careless God. Why worship such a god that doesn't even appear to care?

because he has a plan.

 

[manitouscott]

If our eternal life is more important than our temporal life and our temporal life is just a blip in time compared to our eternal life, why wouldn't it make sense for God to still see that our suffering during our temporal life is kept to a minimum - especially if he is capable of doing anything, including eliminating mass suffering?

You make a good point. And it is good to remember that suffering was NOT part of His original plan. We chose it.

My answer is from my own experience; If I had never suffered in my life, I had everything handed to me, never had to work or slave for a boss who is unfair and mean, yadda yadda, I would have never had a need for God. That is what Jesus was talking about when He said how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom, not impossible, but hard, because the rich man does not have as much need of a savior.

And in my christian walk, suffering is one thing that makes me turn to God and say "Abba, Father, please help me" on a regular basis.

 

[Akureyri]

He can't do just anything now. The atmosphere changed because of the flood and the earth changed because of sin.


He doesn't punish anyone. He does that in the end, when He judges them according to their deeds.


They are not evil, but a result of man being evil. Not the people that live now, but Adam sinned. Before he sinned everything was in perfect harmony.


He's not incapable of doing anything. He is capable of judging the earth, He could send another flood if He wanted, but He doesn't want to and promised He'd never do that again. But He is patient and doesn't judge the nations before everyone had a chance to get saved. The end will come after everyone has heard the gospel. But He gave the dominion over the earth to mankind. So He only does something when He gets a legal invitation through prayer. If He could just do whatever He wanted, the multitudes would have been healed before Jesus came. He had to become a man and pray God's will be done on earth in order to save and heal people. His will is that everybody gets saved and that everyone is healthy. Jesus went to heaven and told the disciples to do what He did. We have to do the same works as He: pray that people get saved, heal the sick.

Thanks for explaining that you reconcile it by believing that God can't do anything.

 

[Akureyri]

You make a good point. And it is good to remember that suffering was NOT part of His original plan. We chose it.

Humans didn't choose for there to be earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis.

My answer is from my own experience; If I had never suffered in my life, I had everything handed to me, never had to work or slave for a boss who is unfair and mean, yadda yadda, I would have never had a need for God. That is what Jesus was talking about when He said how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom, not impossible, but hard, because the rich man does not have as much need of a savior.

And in my christian walk, suffering is one thing that makes me turn to God and say "Abba, Father, please help me" on a regular basis.

So how do you reconcile it?
Do you believe God can't do anything?
OR
Do you believe God doesn't love everyone enough to prevent mass calamities?

 

[manitouscott]

Humans didn't choose for there to be earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis

It was the choice of humans to attempt to be like God. While they did not directly say "Hey Abba, can we have some serious destructive forces to make our lives more interesting?", they made a choice and one of the consequences has been nature's fallen state (a situation that our Lord will remedy when He returns)


[QUOTESo how do you reconcile it?
Do you believe God can't do anything?
OR
Do you believe God doesn't love everyone enough to prevent mass calamities? ][/quote]

I will concede to your point only to a certain extent and answer that God doesn't love everyone IN THE SENSE THAT YOU MEAN to prevent mass calamaties. (or mass mis spellings in my case). I do believe God can do anything, so certainly not the first option.

In my first post, I explained my own conception of God's love. His love is extended to us in so far as we have been given free will. His love does not mean he protects us from pain and suffering all the time.

To give us free will, then remove consequences or prevent our choices from harming us due to bad decisions (and yes, nature being in it's fallen state is man's choice) would not be love, it would be like a parent who never let's a child learn from failing and trying again.

I cannot choose an answer from your list of two options without altering the options, sorry.

 

[Akureyri]

It was the choice of humans to attempt to be like God. While they did not directly say "Hey Abba, can we have some serious destructive forces to make our lives more interesting?", they made a choice and one of the consequences has been nature's fallen state (a situation that our Lord will remedy when He returns)

So how do you reconcile it?
Do you believe God can't do anything?
OR
Do you believe God doesn't love everyone enough to prevent mass calamities?

I will concede to your point only to a certain extent and answer that God doesn't love everyone IN THE SENSE THAT YOU MEAN to prevent mass calamaties. (or mass mis spellings in my case). I do believe God can do anything, so certainly not the first option.

In my first post, I explained my own conception of God's love. His love is extended to us in so far as we have been given free will. His love does not mean he protects us from pain and suffering all the time.

Then he doesn't really love us.

To give us free will, then remove consequences or prevent our choices from harming us due to bad decisions (and yes, nature being in it's fallen state is man's choice) would not be love, it would be like a parent who never let's a child learn from failing and trying again.

I cannot choose an answer from your list of two options without altering the options, sorry.

It is very clearly misleading to say God loves everyone if God is capable of preventing mass calamities but does nothing while having the power to prevent such calamities.

It is also very misleading to say God can do anything if he loves everyone.

I don't think there is anyone in this thread (other than me) who doesn't reconcile it by using a different construct of God - one in which he doesn't really love us or in which he isn't capable of doing anything.

 

[manitouscott]

Akureyri I get it. It is misleading if I use your definition of love. By that standard, you are right, God has to be fit into one of those categories.

It is not my job to get you to understand God's love, it is the job of God Himself.

Just consider that there a lot of christians out there who have gone through terrible, horrifying, unimaginable things and have come to know Christ or have relied on Christ all through the trials. They even looked around at times and said "Where are you now, God? Do you even exist?" because it is in our nature to question.

Never the less they believe in God, not out of blind faith, but out of a faith that sees more clearly than some people will ever see.

Peace.

 

[Akureyri]

Akureyri I get it. It is misleading if I use your definition of love. By that standard, you are right, God has to be fit into one of those categories.

It is not my job to get you to understand God's love, it is the job of God Himself.

Just consider that there a lot of christians out there who have gone through terrible, horrifying, unimaginable things and have come to know Christ or have relied on Christ all through the trials. They even looked around at times and said "Where are you now, God? Do you even exist?" because it is in our nature to question.

Never the less they believe in God, not out of blind faith, but out of a faith that sees more clearly than some people will ever see.

Peace.

Have they rationally and intelligently evaluated the claims and come to a conclusion not based strictly on "unimaginable things", but through reason and logic?

 

[manitouscott]

I can only speak for myself, as someone who has gone through bad things in this life and come to faith.

Logic and reason are why I did not come to faith until I was 33 years old.

What finally convinced me was what I consider to be the most logical and reasonable line of thoughts I had ever had.

Growing up I always wondered 2 things: where does the universe end, and where did all the matter and energy come from anyways, it can't come from nothing.

I learned the scientific method in school. It taught me to form conclusions based on the available evidence until better evidence allows a change in conclusion. Changing one's mind based on the evidence at hand is logical and rational in science.

There is no good theory on where energy and mass came from, not that makes sense without a billion factors being accepted as prerequisite to the theory.

A creator who is infinite in nature is the most logical and reasonable conclusion, not because I don't want to think, but because I have thought, and wondered, and looked, alot, and I see no better option.

Once I accepted this, I began to study in earnest without all of my bias and preconceptions. The word began it's work and I saw that there is real power in it, not just fluff.

There are many things I don't understand, but there are many I do understand with the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Akureyri]

I can only speak for myself, as someone who has gone through bad things in this life and come to faith.

Logic and reason are why I did not come to faith until I was 33 years old.

What finally convinced me was what I consider to be the most logical and reasonable line of thoughts I had ever had.

Growing up I always wondered 2 things: where does the universe end, and where did all the matter and energy come from anyways, it can't come from nothing.

I learned the scientific method in school. It taught me to form conclusions based on the available evidence until better evidence allows a change in conclusion. Changing one's mind based on the evidence at hand is logical and rational in science.

There is no good theory on where energy and mass came from, not that makes sense without a billion factors being accepted as prerequisite to the theory.

A creator who is infinite in nature is the most logical and reasonable conclusion, not because I don't want to think, but because I have thought, and wondered, and looked, alot, and I see no better option.

Once I accepted this, I began to study in earnest without all of my bias and preconceptions. The word began it's work and I saw that there is real power in it, not just fluff.

There are many things I don't understand, but there are many I do understand with the help of the Holy Spirit.

You arrived at your belief using a fallacious argument known as Argument from Ignorance.

Argument from ignorance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2010)


Bertrand Russell, whose teapot analogy is often used to illustrate the argument from ignorance[citation needed]
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.[citation needed] See also Occam's razor (assume simplicity over complexity).
Contents [hide]
1 Overview
1.1 Basic argument
1.2 Matters of confusion
2 Related terms
2.1 Contraposition and Transposition
2.2 Absence of evidence
2.3 Evidence of absence
2.4 Negative evidence
2.5 Null result
3 Related arguments
3.1 Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination
3.2 Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic)
4 Distinguishing absence of evidence from evidence of absence
4.1 Formal argument
5 Examples
5.1 Absence of evidence
5.2 Negative results
5.3 Evidence of absence
5.4 Arguments from ignorance
5.5 In the field of science
5.6 Principles in law
6 Origin of the term
7 Sources
8 See also
9 References
10 External links
Overview[edit source | editbeta]

Basic argument[edit source | editbeta]
Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not “wait” upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone. And the true thrust of science and rational analysis is to separate preconceived notion(s) of what reality is, and to be open at all times to the observation of nature as it behaves, so as truly to discover reality. This fallacy can be very convincing and is considered by some[2] to be a special case of a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail to consider alternatives. A false dilemma may take the form:
If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and (b) false things can never be proven. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true. Therein lies the fallacy.
To reiterate, these arguments ignore the fact, and difficulty, that some true things may never be proven, and some false things may never be disproved with absolute certainty. The phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be used as a shorthand rebuttal to the second form of the ignorance fallacy (i.e. P has never been absolutely proven and is therefore certainly false). Most often it is directed at any conclusion derived from null results in an experiment or from the non-detection of something. In other words, where one researcher may say their experiment suggests evidence of absence, another researcher might argue that the experiment failed to detect a phenomenon for other reasons.
Matters of confusion[edit source | editbeta]


Carl Sagan beside a Viking model
See also: Evidence of absence
Much confusion about arguments from ignorance can be caused when one side of a debate forgets that we often possess evidence of absence in practice.
The ignorance fallacy is sometimes confused (or combined) with logically valid contrapositive arguments. Contrapositive arguments rightly utilize the transposition rule of inference in classical logic to conclude something like: To the extent that C implies E then Not-E must also imply Not-C. In other words, if a cause always leads to an effect, then absence of the expected effect is evidence of absence of the cause. For example, if the causal proposition that If it's raining outside then the streets will be wet is assumed, then it can be assumed that if the streets are not wet then it is not raining outside. The inference that it cannot be raining outside because the streets are not getting wet is exactly as true, or perhaps exactly as untrue, as the original proposition. The statements are logically equivalent.
Carl Sagan explains in his book The Demon-Haunted World:
Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.[3]
For instance, absence of evidence that it rained (i.e. water is the evidence) may be considered as positive evidence that it did not rain. Again, in science, such inferences are always made to some limited (sometimes extremely high) degree of probability and in this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the positive evidence should have been there but is not.
Arguments from ignorance can easily find their way into debates over the existence of God. It is a fallacy to draw conclusions based precisely on ignorance, since this does not satisfactorily address issues of philosophic burden of proof. But null results are not ignorance and can be used as evidence to achieve a given burden of proof.
Related terms[edit source | editbeta]

Contraposition and Transposition[edit source | editbeta]
Contraposition is a logically valid rule of inference that allows the creation of a new proposition from the negation and reordering of an existing one. The method applies to any proposition of the type If A then B and says that negating all the variables and switching them back to front leads to a new proposition i.e. If Not-B then Not-A that is just as true as the original one and that the first implies the second and the second implies the first.
Transposition is exactly the same thing described in a different language.
Absence of evidence[edit source | editbeta]
Absence of evidence is the absence, or lack of, any kind of evidence that may show, indicate, suggest, or be used to infer or deduce a fact.
Evidence of absence[edit source | editbeta]
Main article: Evidence of absence
Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that can be used to infer or deduce the non-existence or non-presence of something. For instance, if a doctor does not find any malignant cells in a patient this null result (finding nothing) is evidence of absence of cancer, even though the doctor has not actually detected anything per se. Such inductive reasoning is important to empiricism and science, but has well established limitations. The challenge thus becomes to try to identify when a researcher has received a null result (found nothing) because the thing does not exist (evidence of absence), and when one simply lacks proper means of detection (absence of evidence).
Negative evidence[edit source | editbeta]
Negative evidence is sometimes used as an alternative to absence of evidence and is often meant to be synonymous with it. On the other hand, the term may also refer to evidence with a negative value, or null result equivalent to evidence of absence. It may even refer to positive evidence about something of an unpleasant nature.
Null result[edit source | editbeta]
Null result is a term often used in the field of science to indicate evidence of absence. A search for water on the ground may yield a null result (the ground is dry); therefore, it probably did not rain.
Related arguments[edit source | editbeta]

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination[edit source | editbeta]
Arguments from incredulity take the form:
P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.
These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.
Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic)[edit source | editbeta]
Arguments from self-knowing take the form:
If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
If P were false then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be false.
In practice these arguments are often fallacious and rely on the veracity of the supporting premise. For example the argument that If I had just sat on a wild porcupine then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore I did not just sit on a wild porcupine is probably not a fallacy and depends entirely on the veracity of the leading proposition that supports it. (See Contraposition and Transposition in the Related terms section in this article.)
Distinguishing absence of evidence from evidence of absence[edit source | editbeta]

Absence of evidence is a condition in which no valid conclusion can be inferred from the mere absence of detection, normally due to doubt in the detection method. Evidence of absence is the successful variation: a conclusion that relies on specific knowledge in conjunction with negative detection to deduce the absence of something. An example of evidence of absence is checking your pockets for spare change and finding nothing, but being confident that the search would have found it if it was there.
Formal argument[edit source | editbeta]
By determining that a given experiment or method of detection is sensitive and reliable enough to detect the presence of X (when X is present) one can confidently exclude the possibility that X may be both undetected and present. This allows one to deduce that X cannot be present if a null result is received.
Thus there are only two possibilities, given a null result:
Nothing detected, and X is not present.
Nothing detected, but X is present (option eliminated by careful research design).
To the extent that option 2 can be eliminated, one can deduce that if X is not detected then X is not present and therefore the null result is evidence of absence.
Examples[edit source | editbeta]

Absence of evidence[edit source | editbeta]
(These examples contain or represent missing information.)
Statements that begin with "I can't prove it but…" are often referring to some kind absence of evidence.
"There is no evidence of foul play here" is a direct reference to the absence of evidence.
"There is no evidence of aliens, and therefore, aliens do not exist" appeals to an absence of evidence
Negative results[edit source | editbeta]
When the doctor says that the test results were negative, it is usually good news.
Under "Termites" the inspector checked the box that read "no".
The results of Michelson–Morley's experiment reported no shift at all in the interference pattern.
Evidence of absence[edit source | editbeta]
(These examples contain definite evidence that can be used to show, indicate, suggest, infer or deduce the non-existence or non-presence of something.)
A biopsy shows the absence of malignant cells.
The null result found by Michelson–Morley's famous experiment represents "strong evidence" that the luminiferous aether was not present.
One very carefully inspects the back seat of one's car and finds no tigers.
The train schedule does not say that the train stops here at 3:00pm on a Sunday.

 

[manitouscott]

Now, would it be an ignorant argument to believe in gravity? Because I have no proof that gravity is why an apple falls from a tree. You can't prove that it is because of a force, only that it happens and we believe that it is because of a force that objects exert on one another. But you cannot bottle up gravity and say, "Look, here it is, gravity". We can measure it's effects, we can see it's result, but how do we know it exists? Because no one has proven otherwise, therefore we believe it. This is what science calls a theory, because all the evidence points to it being true and there is no evidence to say otherwise. But try to prove that gravity exists. All you can do is prove that objects fall to the ground, you cannot show anyone gravity and say, look here it is.

I know what you may be thinking, "But gravity is a Law". If you are, you are partially right. Newtons law of gravity tells what happens between two objects when they are attracted by gravity. It does not say "gravity exists for sure and here is why". Gravity itself is still a theory.

The evidence that God exists is everywhere we look. Until there is proof of how all this matter could just poof itself into existence, the only explanation that makes sense is God. It would be harder for me to accept current ideas (and that is all they are) about big bang, multi dimensional universe, etc. than it would for me to accept an explanation that makes sense.

I see your point about argument from ignorance. It sounds like a description of scientific method to me. (I note that the wikipedia article is written about debating, not about scientific exploration) Idea->test->result->conclusion based on evidence that either supported or refuted idea->more testing/exploration until final conclusion may become law. For me, it is enough that creation explains the evidence I see around me better than any other explanation, from there I continued my investigation into the word of God and a personal relationship with Him.

One thing to remember, this belief is a starting point. It is everything that has happened since I started to believe that has really solidified my belief.

I really do not expect to change your mind, Akureyri, and you cannot change mine. (Gotta love internet forums) As your wikipedia article says, the burden of proof is on the person presenting the idea, and I cannot prove to you what God can. I like your way of thinking and how you view this topic. Your analytical way of thinking resonates with me. I am praying that seeking may lead you further into God's territory.

Peace.

 

[Akureyri]

Now, would it be an ignorant argument to believe in gravity? Because I have no proof that gravity is why an apple falls from a tree.

Gravity is merely a term applied to a force that can be observed and measured. The analogy fails, as the Christian god cannot be observed and measured.

You can't prove that it is because of a force, only that it happens and we believe that it is because of a force that objects exert on one another. But you cannot bottle up gravity and say, "Look, here it is, gravity". We can measure it's effects, we can see it's result, but how do we know it exists?

Because it can be observed and measured.

Because no one has proven otherwise, therefore we believe it. This is what science calls a theory, because all the evidence points to it being true and there is no evidence to say otherwise. But try to prove that gravity exists.

Let go of an object that is heavier than air and you'll see that it always goes towards the ground. That is proof.

All you can do is prove that objects fall to the ground, you cannot show anyone gravity and say, look here it is.

Gravity is merely the term applied to the force of an object falling to the ground.

I know what you may be thinking, "But gravity is a Law". If you are, you are partially right. Newtons law of gravity tells what happens between two objects when they are attracted by gravity. It does not say "gravity exists for sure and here is why". Gravity itself is still a theory.

Gravity is merely the term applied to the force of an object falling to the ground.

The evidence that God exists is everywhere we look.

What is your definition of God? Please remember that evidence is subjective. Your standards of evidence may differ from mine. Do you believe proof that God exists can be found everywhere we look?

Until there is proof of how all this matter could just poof itself into existence, the only explanation that makes sense is God.

That is a blatant use of the argument from ignorance fallacy. See the Argument from ignorance entry at Wikipedia.
"there is no explanation, so therefore God"

It would be harder for me to accept current ideas (and that is all they are) about big bang, multi dimensional universe, etc. than it would for me to accept an explanation that makes sense.

Why does attributing everything you don't know to a god make sense? What happens when something goes from unknown (God) to known (not God)?

I see your point about argument from ignorance. It sounds like a description of scientific method to me. (I note that the wikipedia article is written about debating, not about scientific exploration) Idea->test->result->conclusion based on evidence that either supported or refuted idea->more testing/exploration until final conclusion may become law.

Then why did you go right ahead and commit this fallacious argument? Until there is proof of how all this matter could just poof itself into existence, the only explanation that makes sense is God.

For me, it is enough that creation explains the evidence I see around me better than any other explanation, from there I continued my investigation into the word of God and a personal relationship with Him.

Do you care whether or not this is true?

One thing to remember, this belief is a starting point. It is everything that has happened since I started to believe that has really solidified my belief.

Please provide some examples of things which happened that helped solidify your belief.

I really do not expect to change your mind, Akureyri, and you cannot change mine. (Gotta love internet forums) As your wikipedia article says, the burden of proof is on the person presenting the idea, and I cannot prove to you what God can.

Perhaps getting me to believe may be easier than you think. Answer the following three questions and we'll potentially move forward with changing my mind:
1) Does your God know everything I am thinking of?
2) Does your God want me to believe he exists?
3) Can you communicate back and forth with your god?

I like your way of thinking and how you view this topic. Your analytical way of thinking resonates with me. I am praying that seeking may lead you further into God's territory.

Answer my three questions and we'll see where we go.

 

[Spaceman 3]

Hi Akureyri...

I've posed a similar question in another thread - 'The Anatomy Of A Talking Snake' in 'Physical & Life Sciences', in 'Society'.

It's something that I find incredibly interesting & fundamental to my understanding.

I directly & simply asked "where does evil come from", to which I recieved a reply that "evil comes for the devil". According to my understanding, I found this particular answer unsatisfactory, so I replied that "assigning evil to the Devil, does not answer the question of where evil comes from."

I then received a reply that I should "tell that to Jesus" quoting the following scripture:

“He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.” – (John 8:44 1 John 3:8).

This scripture was used in order to enforce what was initially stated by the poster - that evil comes from the Devil.

This was my reply (below):

EZEKIEL Ch.28

13Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

The King of Tyre:​

At first glance, the prophecy in Ezekiel 28:11-19 seems to refer to a human king. Tyre was the recipient of some of the strongest prophetic condemnations in the Bible (Isaiah 23:1–18; Jeremiah 25:22; 27:1–11; Ezekiel 26:1–28:19; Joel 3:4–8; Amos 1:9,10). Tyre was known for building its wealth by exploiting its neighbors. Ancient writers referred to the city of Tyre as a city filled with unscrupulous merchants. Tyre was a center of religious idolatry and sexual immorality. The biblical prophets rebuked Tyre for its pride brought on by its great wealth and strategic location. Ezekiel 28:11-19 seems to be a particularly strong indictment against the King of Tyre in the prophet Ezekiel’s day, rebuking the king for his insatiable pride and greed.​

However, some of the descriptions in Ezekiel 28:11-19 go beyond any mere human king. In no sense could an earthly king claim to be “in Eden” or to be “the anointed cherub who covers” or to be “on the holy mountain of God.” Therefore, most Bible interpreters believe that Ezekiel 28:11-19 is a dual prophecy, comparing the pride of the King of Tyre to the pride of Satan. Some propose that the King of Tyre was actually possessed by Satan, making the link between the two even more powerful and applicable.​

Before his fall, Satan was indeed a beautiful creature (Ezekiel 28:12-13). He was perhaps the most beautiful and powerful of all the angels. The phrase “guardian cherub” possibly indicates that Satan was the angel who “guarded” God’s presence. Pride led to Satan’s fall. Rather than give God the glory for creating him so beautifully, Satan took pride in himself, thinking that he himself was responsible for his exalted status. Satan’s rebellion resulted in God casting Satan from His presence and will, eventually, result in God condemning Satan to the lake of fire for all eternity (Revelation 20:10).​

Like Satan, the human King of Tyre was prideful. Rather than recognize God’s sovereignty, the King of Tyre attributed Tyre’s riches to his own wisdom and strength. Not satisfied with his extravagant position, the King of Tyre sought more and more, resulting in Tyre taking advantage of other nations, expanding its own wealth at the expense of others. But just as Satan’s pride led to his fall and will eventually lead to his eternal destruction, so will the city of Tyre lose its wealth, power, and status. Ezekiel’s prophecy of Tyre’s total destruction was fulfilled partially by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 29:17-21) and ultimately by Alexander the Great.​

Recommended Resource: The Serpent of Paradise by Erwin Lutzer.​

Read more: Is the King of Tyre prophecy in Ezekiel 28 referring to Satan?​

So... I ask again - where did evil come from?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm still awaiting a reply...