How do you reconcile an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God?

[loopholes]

How do you reconcile an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god with the existence of suffering/evil on earth?

 

[2ndRateMind]

OK, I'll pick up this challenge, so we can see where it's heading:

How do you reconcile an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god with the existence of suffering/evil on earth?

The standard response is that the 'problem of evil' is resolved by having God obey His own moral laws. Thus, the thinking goes, God could intervene to eradicate suffering, but chooses not to, in the interests of some greater good.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[loopholes]

The standard response is that the 'problem of evil' is resolved by having God obey His own moral laws. Thus, the thinking goes, God could intervene to eradicate suffering, but chooses not to, in the interests of some greater good.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

Thank you for your response.

What is this "greater good"?

 

[2ndRateMind]

Thank you for your response.

What is this "greater good"?

The trite answer is 'God knows'. But you deserve better than that. I have put some thoughts on this on your other thread, about suffering.

But there is more. If God interfered every time we made some mistake that caused some evil, how could we ever learn by our mistakes, and how could we ever learn to resist temptation? In such a situation we could not grow and mature and become moral agents in our own right.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[loopholes]

If God interfered every time we made some mistake that caused some evil, how could we ever learn by our mistakes, and how could we ever learn to resist temptation? In such a situation we could not grow and mature and become moral agents in our own right.

How do you know some god isn't interfering all of the time?
Must suffering exist in order for one to learn?
Is suffering necessary for one to grow and mature?
What is the ultimate goal for this kind of learning?

 

[ebia]

How do you reconcile an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god with the existence of suffering/evil on earth?

You can't reconcile naieve, self-paradoxical, concepts like omnipotent, ... with themselves, let alone anything else. They are (flawed) terms from greek philosophy - adequate as a quick shorthand so long as one doesn't think they are good descriptions of anything.

When we see the power of God in action to put right all the suffering and evil in the world it looks like a young Jewish peasant speaking and acting against the systems and being crucified for his trouble....

 

[unkern]

Because freewill exists so does evil, we are given the choice to love God. There you go I just saved you hours of debating, lol

 

[OldChurchGuy]

How do you reconcile an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god with the existence of suffering/evil on earth?

A question which has plagued theologians for centuries. I don't know that there is a sufficient answer. For me, suffering is a reminder that we as fellow humans have not done enough for our fellow man.

Probably not much of an answer but it's what comes to mind right now.

If I may ask, what prompted the question?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

 

[loopholes]

You can't reconcile naieve, self-paradoxical, concepts like omnipotent, ... with themselves, let alone anything else. They are (flawed) terms from greek philosophy - adequate as a quick shorthand so long as one doesn't think they are good descriptions of anything.

I agree ebia. But why does the bible try to describe God in such a way? And why is there so many Christians that don't agree (or understand) what you just stated?

(I'm pretty much asking for your personal opinion, but I'm interested in what it is)

 

[loopholes]

Because freewill exists so does evil, we are given the choice to love God. There you go I just saved you hours of debating, lol

Were you actually serious here?

 

[loopholes]

A question which has plagued theologians for centuries. I don't know that there is a sufficient answer. For me, suffering is a reminder that we as fellow humans have not done enough for our fellow man.

Probably not much of an answer but it's what comes to mind right now.

I appreciate your honesty.

If I may ask, what prompted the question?

I've asked the question several times and I still haven't gotten a logical answer. I usually get the free will response or some other bogus answer. I just wanted to see if anyone could make sense of it. But I'm pretty much on the same page as ebia, so this will probably be my final time to ask the question. I just don't see how anyone can give such traits to a supreme being and find it logical and rational.

 

[ebia]

I agree ebia. But why does the bible try to describe God in such a way?

It doesn't. The bible mostly talks about the power of God in poetry (eg in the Psalms, or Isaiah). It occasionally uses phrases in context like "with God nothing is impossible" but reading a phrase like that as the same kind of absolute statement implied by a technical term like omnipotence is a bit silly.

And why is there so many Christians that don't agree (or understand) what you just stated?

Because we all suffer from the human tendancy to think they know what God is like and to try to fit the biblical picture into that.

 

[Zunalter]

Let me attempt to tackle your question, or at least give us both a starting point for our conversation:

When God created Adam and Eve, there was no suffering. They both had communion with God and everything was good. They were given 1 rule: do not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But after a while, to make a long story short, they disobeyed God and ate from that tree, causing sin to enter the world. One of the consequences of sin is suffering.

Now that was a broad, 30,000 feet kind of answer. I am much better at Q&A style writing, so when that little paragraph above prompts some questions, please let me know what they are so we can get to the specifics of your dilemma.

Also, I have a question for you: Let's say that you never can come to a satisfying answer to this question, what do you foresee the consequences as far as your faith goes? Atheism, maybe just a rejection of Christianity, any insights?

 

[loopholes]

It doesn't. The bible mostly talks about the power of God in poetry (eg in the Psalms, or Isaiah). It occasionally uses phrases in context like "with God nothing is impossible" but reading a phrase like that as the same kind of absolute statement implied by a technical term like omnipotence is a bit silly.



Because we all suffer from the human tendancy to think they know what God is like and to try to fit the biblical picture into that.

So what do you view as the purpose(s) of the biblical stories? Stories with moral teachings?

 

[loopholes]

Let me attempt to tackle your question, or at least give us both a starting point for our conversation:

When God created Adam and Eve, there was no suffering. They both had communion with God and everything was good. They were given 1 rule: do not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But after a while, to make a long story short, they disobeyed God and ate from that tree, causing sin to enter the world. One of the consequences of sin is suffering.

Maybe you should read your fellow christian Ebia's posts in this thread. I'm getting tired of arguing with the christians who take the bible literally when I really don't think it should be taken that way myself.

Also, I have a question for you: Let's say that you never can come to a satisfying answer to this question, what do you foresee the consequences as far as your faith goes?

I lack faith towards religions and gods. Faith is the belief in something that lacks enough factual evidence (proof).

Atheism, maybe just a rejection of Christianity, any insights?

Christianity, maybe just a rejection of Judaism?
I just reject one more god than you do

 

[Zunalter]

Maybe you should read your fellow christian Ebia's posts in this thread. I'm getting tired of arguing with the christians who take the bible literally when I really don't think it should be taken that way myself.

Well, that doesn't necessarily surprise me, but a Bible that can only be read subjectively and interpreted with whatever flavor you want to give it isn't really worth reading. Also, if you automatically ignore answers based on a literal reading of the Bible, it seems to point to an insincerity in your question:

Since you find the concept of an omnipotent, omnipresent God and your observation of evil incongruous, it would seem that any answer that harmonized these two concepts would challenge your framework. Your response seems to suggest that you will only accept an answer within your current framework, which is intellectually dishonest.

I lack faith towards religions and gods. Faith is the belief in something that lacks enough factual evidence (proof).

Sorry, I was under the impression that you were a seeker, not an outright atheist. But as to your definition of faith, the word "enough" is a subjective term, because "enough" is a different quantity for everyone. In these cases, I generally say 2 things:

1. What would be "enough" proof in your mind?
2. Proof is different than Persuasion.

Christianity, maybe just a rejection of Judaism?
I just reject one more god than you do

If I had a dollar for every time I heard that...

 

[Brian-M]

I too have seen this question asked many times before, but never yet heard an adequate reply.

Claiming that he has some mysterious plan just avoids the question.

Claiming it's necessary in order for free will ignores all the suffering, death and horror which stems from natural causes.


Claiming it is a result of eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good And Evil doesn't explain it. Disease, famine and natural disasters were not among the punishments God bestowed upon Adam and Eve for eating the fruit. Toil, painful childbirth and eventual death were.

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-compassionate as Christians keep telling us, then why would he kill millions of people, mostly children, with malaria? Why would he force millions of people in famine-stricken countries to starve to death? Why would he allow children to be born with congenital diseases that cause them to die in screaming agony long before they even grow up?

 

[loopholes]

Well, that doesn't necessarily surprise me, but a Bible that can only be read subjectively and interpreted with whatever flavor you want to give it isn't really worth reading. Also, if you automatically ignore answers based on a literal reading of the Bible, it seems to point to an insincerity in your question:

The bible doesn't make any sense when it is taken literally. It does not relate to the reality of this world. You can't give an unknown higher entity traits as a human being. That is ridiculous.

Since you find the concept of an omnipotent, omnipresent God and your observation of evil incongruous, it would seem that any answer that harmonized these two concepts would challenge your framework. Your response seems to suggest that you will only accept an answer within your current framework, which is intellectually dishonest.

Exactly, the question cannot be answered logically in relation to this world. That was my point. I was just trying to show the "fundies" that their stance does not make any sense.

Sorry, I was under the impression that you were a seeker, not an outright atheist.

To be correct, I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

But as to your definition of faith, the word "enough" is a subjective term, because "enough" is a different quantity for everyone. In these cases, I generally say 2 things:

1. What would be "enough" proof in your mind?
2. Proof is different than Persuasion.

It takes factual evidence to conclude that something is true. A single ancient book cannot be taken as factual evidence just because it states so. This is why ebia's stance would be the correct one. Although, it would obviously still take faith to believe in God.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard that...

You would be the richest man in the world with all of the Agnostics/Atheists (rational people) there are...

 

[ebia]

So what do you view as the purpose(s) of the biblical stories? Stories with moral teachings?

In so far as it is possible given our limitions, it's the story, in a wide variety of genres, as to what God has done and is doing to put right what is wrong with the world. More specifically:
Genesis 1-2 is a description of how the world was always intended to be, in poetic liturgy (genesis 1) and myth type story (genesis 2).
Genesis 3-5 is a description of what is wrong with the world in story form.
Genesis 6-9 is an explanation of why evil cannot be wiped out by force, again in story form
Genesis 9-11 is a link from the above into...
Genesis 12 begins the story of how God will put the world to rights, with the call of Abraham and his family. A long, winding, story with as many steps backwards as forwards but climaxing in...
Matthew-John - the story of Gods climatic act to deal with evil and bring in his kingdom in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

Think of it as a 5 act play encompassing the entire history of creation - past present and future.
Act 1: Creation (Genesis 1 & 2)
Act 2: Fall (Genesis 3-11)
Act 3: Israel (Genesis 12-end of the OT)
Act 4: Jesus (The Gospels)
The book of Acts and the Epistles give us the opening scenes of Act 5, the act in which we live. Bits of Isaiah, 1 Cor 15, Rev 21-22, etc give us hints of how the play will come to an end. Our job is to improvise the bit in the middle, in character and continuity with what has gone before, and always with an eye on where the whole thing is going.

 

[ebia]

Well, that doesn't necessarily surprise me, but a Bible that can only be read subjectively and interpreted with whatever flavor you want to give it isn't really worth reading.

If you find that a problem, you have a problem - one that has nothing to do with whether given bits of the text are literal or not. One is always faced with the problem of interpretation - any communcation involves the active particpation of both speaker and listener. Saying "it's literal" doesn't get you out of that bind because (a) that is applying an interpretation to the text (literal is not the default mode of texts) and (b) there is always considerable further interpretation to do.

That's not to say that all truth is relative, or that any interpretation is as good as any other, but the cry that there has to be a single, unambiguous, answer determinable with easy certainty is wishful thinking. You don't get - can't get - that with any text beyond the trivial.

It's an approach that ignores what the text is, and instead says "I want X, and so I'm going to insist that the text is X, even though X is impossible". Instead of telling God what the bible should be (which usually also includes cutting and pasting it around to try and turn it into that) one is much better of dealing with what it is - and then finding so much the richer for that.