The Problem of Evil

[dhh712]

I was having a very good discussion on the problem of evil in the Exploring Christianity forum and I thought I would move part of it here. Please join in on the discussion.

(Italics are my posts, green text the reply to it, plain text my answer to the reply)
Originally Posted by dhh712
I don't see any point of contradiction. God's benevolence doesn't depend on His loving everyone; that would reduce His standards to humanity's standards of benevolence (or one standard of benevolence if some portion of humanity equals benevolence to loving everyone). I trust God is benevolent because that is what the Bible says He is and I have experienced it in my own life. When I say we I do mean Christians (or I should say they should trust that God is benevolent. Sometimes when we are going through times of suffering it is difficult to see His benevolence. That's why it is ultimately based on trust).

Do you trust that God is benevolent when he sits there and does nothing to stop a rapist from raping an innocent child? Just how would God be benevolent towards that child by doing nothing to prevent the rape when he's fully capable of preventing the rape?

Though it may appear that way to us, God's benevolence may not be defined in the way that our benevolence is. His love may not be the same (some times) as our what our idea of love is. It may appear He doesn't care. What is actually occurring is the unfolding of His plan, which apparently sometimes involves people being raped.


To answer your question, I don't know the mind and specific details of the plan of God so I can't answer the question for you.

The question was:
Does God love child rape victims enough to prevent rapists from raping them?

So what would happen to God's plan if he did stop a rapist from raping a child?


Apparently, it was in His plan to stop the rapist; He then had a God-glorifying reason for it to be that way.

All I do know is that whatever happens to a person who has been raped it is has all happened for a greater God-glorifying purpose and that answer usually isn't satisfying, especially to unbelievers.

So what you're saying is that God wouldn't be able to accomplish some kind of greater good if he stopped the rapist from raping the child. Do you not realize by saying this, you are asserting that God's omnipotence would be somehow diminished if he were to prevent the child from getting raped. Just how would you know that God's omnipotence would be diminished if he were to stop a rapist from raping a child?

Apparently it wouldn't have been the best way that would have been accomplished. I don't see how His omnipotence would be diminished. All that is diminished is our expectation that His will revolves around our being immeasurably fulfilled in this world by the things we think will fulfill us.


Also, the child rape victim could possibly not be someone God loves, there unfortunately is always that chance being how there is biblically-documented evidence that God has not loved every single person He has ever created.

So you're saying God may think the child deserves to be raped. That God doesn't care enough to prevent an assault as heinous as child rape. Is that correct?

One thing I should have clarified is that we deserve nothing less in this world than the eternal wrath of God. It seems that a lot of unbelievers have this idea that they deserve something other than this, like a nice happy life. The fact that some of us (a good percentage most likely) aren't experiencing suffering at all times in our lives is something which we should be exceptionally grateful for.

Like I said before, it may seem to us that He doesn't care. What actually is going on is the unfolding of His plan which will result in the greatest good which will be the most God-glorifying of all ways in which it could have unfolded. Most likely we will not ever know how all the suffering in our lives will have been worked into that plan. Hopefully it is one of the things which our Lord will reveal to us when we are with Him eternally.

 

[PsychoSarah]

A lot of people try to pawn that off on free will when evil acts are not prevented by god. But what of the free will of the victims, it isn't their will to be raped or murdered, etc. So if god doesn't intervene in such acts, it is viewing the will of the rapists as more valid than that of the victims. Even better, god could arrange it so that these criminals experience some sort of event that changes them and makes them lose the desire to harm others, and even I stills the desire to help prevent future rapes and murders, rather than just dumping these people in hell.

 

[Bjornke]

This truly doesn't have anything to do with benevolence.

The answer is simple: God created us in His own image, which meant that we are conscious thinking people, with a personality of our own. Secondly, we have free will to choose and do as we please. Part of being crated in God's image is the ability to choose for ourselves what we do.

When Adam and Eve ate the apple and became aware of evil, the truth of good and bad, they inadvertently, allowed themselves the option of choosing evil.

Since this world is fallen, men have the ability to choose Evil. Men also have free will, that is independent of the will of God, unless one aligns themselves with the Will of God.

What this means, is that, while God most certainly can interfere and prevent rape, He does not, as that would remove the "free will" aspect of man.

God can impact you're thinking, emotions, and choices. However, at the end of the day, YOU must choose to act on those things or not. It is quite likely that God places many stumbling blocks along the path of the wicked to prevent evil and harm, but because they are wicked, they ignore these feelings, or stumbling blocks, and continue with their evil intention.

This world has Evil in it because we are fallen. And since we were created with Free Will, it is our choice whether or not harm or love.

God doesn't wish to for evil to continue or to occur.

 

[Bjornke]

A lot of people try to pawn that off on free will when evil acts are not prevented by god. But what of the free will of the victims, it isn't their will to be raped or murdered, etc. So if god doesn't intervene in such acts, it is viewing the will of the rapists as more valid than that of the victims. Even better, god could arrange it so that these criminals experience some sort of event that changes them and makes them lose the desire to harm others, and even I stills the desire to help prevent future rapes and murders, rather than just dumping these people in hell.

This is the common misconception of Atheists.

Since we all have Free Will, we have have the choice to smother the will of others. In other words, it wasn't the will of a woman to be raped, so she fought back, kicking and screaming. But the man is physically stronger and able to hold her down. Their will power is equal here: They're both wanting the opposite things, and are both fighting for it, with all their will. The difference here then becomes physical. A man is strong enough to physically bind.

Additionally, manipulation can play hand in hand here as well. It is possible to manipulate someone's mind to have their will to allow such heinous crimes to occur without fight. This is a truly evil act. Molestation often happens this way. Where someone's thinking is manipulated into "it's okay for me to touch you here..."

That then happens to dampen someone's will since they now believe (falsely) that what is about to happen may not be bad.

---

This is hard for many who hold God responsible for everything. And I understand that dilemma: How can the creator of us, allow us to destroy ourselves. Does He not care?

I use to have the problem too. There's no words here I can use to convince you God does care, and that he hasn't stepped out, but is in the playing field with us.

This is matter of whether or not you have faith to believe.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This is the common misconception of Atheists.

Since we all have Free Will, we have have the choice to smother the will of others. In other words, it wasn't the will of a woman to be raped, so she fought back, kicking and screaming. But the man is physically stronger and able to hold her down. Their will power is equal here: They're both wanting the opposite things, and are both fighting for it, with all their will. The difference here then becomes physical. A man is strong enough to physically bind.

Additionally, manipulation can play hand in hand here as well. It is possible to manipulate someone's mind to have their will to allow such heinous crimes to occur without fight. This is a truly evil act. Molestation often happens this way. Where someone's thinking is manipulated into "it's okay for me to touch you here..."

That then happens to dampen someone's will since they now believe (falsely) that what is about to happen may not be bad.

---

This is hard for many who hold God responsible for everything. And I understand that dilemma: How can the creator of us, allow us to destroy ourselves. Does He not care?

I use to have the problem too. There's no words here I can use to convince you God does care, and that he hasn't stepped out, but is in the playing field with us.

This is matter of whether or not you have faith to believe.

I assure you me being atheist is not the result of a lack of desire to believe.

The tree was of the knowledge of both good and evil, not just evil. Adam and Eve wouldn't have known goodness either, so they wouldn't have known that listening to god was more good than listening to the serpent. And why the heck did the tree have to be there anyways? It didn't, god could have easily put it out of reach, made its fruit unappealing, or even made it not bear any fruit at all. Nothing about the fall was the responsibility of Adam and Eve.

 

[fireof god98]

A lot of people try to pawn that off on free will when evil acts are not prevented by god. But what of the free will of the victims, it isn't their will to be raped or murdered, etc. So if god doesn't intervene in such acts, it is viewing the will of the rapists as more valid than that of the victims. Even better, god could arrange it so that these criminals experience some sort of event that changes them and makes them lose the desire to harm others, and even I stills the desire to help prevent future rapes and murders, rather than just dumping these people in hell.

if god is all powerful would he not know by giving people free will that the person being raped would be raped but gave us free will anyway?

 

[Chany]

Psycho Sarah, you want to know how changing society to believe in determinism would change our lives?

People would stop using the free will argument against the problem of evil for starters.

The whole "unfolding of his plan" argument does not make sense either, as it would be a case of the ends justifying the means, something that most moral absolutist systems would see as wrong. If killing an innocent person is always wrong, then killing an innocent person is always wrong, regardless of the sentient being doing the killing.

I also find it funny how God apparently loves people enough to die for them, but, in the end, things have a God-glorifying reason for happening, as if God would need glorifying.

 

[Ken-1122]

I was having a very good discussion on the problem of evil in the Exploring Christianity forum and I thought I would move part of it here. Please join in on the discussion.

(Italics are my posts, green text the reply to it, plain text my answer to the reply)
Originally Posted by dhh712
I don't see any point of contradiction. God's benevolence doesn't depend on His loving everyone; that would reduce His standards to humanity's standards of benevolence (or one standard of benevolence if some portion of humanity equals benevolence to loving everyone). I trust God is benevolent because that is what the Bible says He is and I have experienced it in my own life. When I say we I do mean Christians (or I should say they should trust that God is benevolent. Sometimes when we are going through times of suffering it is difficult to see His benevolence. That's why it is ultimately based on trust).

Do you trust that God is benevolent when he sits there and does nothing to stop a rapist from raping an innocent child? Just how would God be benevolent towards that child by doing nothing to prevent the rape when he's fully capable of preventing the rape?

Though it may appear that way to us, God's benevolence may not be defined in the way that our benevolence is. His love may not be the same (some times) as our what our idea of love is. It may appear He doesn't care. What is actually occurring is the unfolding of His plan, which apparently sometimes involves people being raped.


To answer your question, I don't know the mind and specific details of the plan of God so I can't answer the question for you.

The question was:
Does God love child rape victims enough to prevent rapists from raping them?

So what would happen to God's plan if he did stop a rapist from raping a child?


Apparently, it was in His plan to stop the rapist; He then had a God-glorifying reason for it to be that way.

All I do know is that whatever happens to a person who has been raped it is has all happened for a greater God-glorifying purpose and that answer usually isn't satisfying, especially to unbelievers.

So what you're saying is that God wouldn't be able to accomplish some kind of greater good if he stopped the rapist from raping the child. Do you not realize by saying this, you are asserting that God's omnipotence would be somehow diminished if he were to prevent the child from getting raped. Just how would you know that God's omnipotence would be diminished if he were to stop a rapist from raping a child?

Apparently it wouldn't have been the best way that would have been accomplished. I don't see how His omnipotence would be diminished. All that is diminished is our expectation that His will revolves around our being immeasurably fulfilled in this world by the things we think will fulfill us.


Also, the child rape victim could possibly not be someone God loves, there unfortunately is always that chance being how there is biblically-documented evidence that God has not loved every single person He has ever created.

So you're saying God may think the child deserves to be raped. That God doesn't care enough to prevent an assault as heinous as child rape. Is that correct?

One thing I should have clarified is that we deserve nothing less in this world than the eternal wrath of God. It seems that a lot of unbelievers have this idea that they deserve something other than this, like a nice happy life. The fact that some of us (a good percentage most likely) aren't experiencing suffering at all times in our lives is something which we should be exceptionally grateful for.

Like I said before, it may seem to us that He doesn't care. What actually is going on is the unfolding of His plan which will result in the greatest good which will be the most God-glorifying of all ways in which it could have unfolded. Most likely we will not ever know how all the suffering in our lives will have been worked into that plan. Hopefully it is one of the things which our Lord will reveal to us when we are with Him eternally.

So you believe the atrocities of Treblinka during Nazi Germany was all a part of God's plan? Do you really believe as Hitler claimed (in his book Mein Kamph)that he was simply doing God's work?

KEn

 

[PsychoSarah]

Psycho Sarah, you want to know how changing society to believe in determinism would change our lives?

People would stop using the free will argument against the problem of evil for starters.

The whole "unfolding of his plan" argument does not make sense either, as it would be a case of the ends justifying the means, something that most moral absolutist systems would see as wrong. If killing an innocent person is always wrong, then killing an innocent person is always wrong, regardless of the sentient being doing the killing.

I also find it funny how God apparently loves people enough to die for them, but, in the end, things have a God-glorifying reason for happening, as if God would need glorifying.

Actually, I view ideas of fate or predestination as losing all hope for humanity, for if humanity was destined to make mistakes, there would be no preventing them. It takes away our ability to improve. I think that if humanity really tried, if we were united in some way as a species rather than scattered into separate nations, that we could make earth so much better than it is today.

 

[quatona]

Actually, I view ideas of fate or predestination as losing all hope for humanity, for if humanity was destined to make mistakes, there would be no preventing them.

Well, humanity also seems to be destined to avoid, prevent, correct and learn from mistakes.

It takes away our ability to improve.

Doesn´t follow. First of all, making mistakes is not only the very prerequisite for improving, but also the method to improve.

I think that if humanity really tried, if we were united in some way as a species rather than scattered into separate nations, that we could make earth so much better than it is today.

Yes, and being destined to make mistakes is no conflict whatsoever with making the world a better place than it is today.

 

[brightlights]

I think that the freewill defense fails as an adequate response to the problem of evil. The "greater good" defense is better. It goes something like this:

1. If God is all powerful then he is able to prevent gratuitous evil
2. If God is good then he would desire to prevent gratuitous evil
3. Evil exists
4. Therefore God must have some adequate purpose in permitting evil. The evil that exists is not gratuitous

Premise 4 is to say that the existence of evil brings about something better than if evil would've never entered into the story. What is this greater good? The Bible says that the revelation of Christ is the greater good. Evil serves to show that God is a just judge and that he is a merciful redeemer in Christ. Evil shows us the depth of God's mercy and justice -- something we wouldn't have seen without the presence of evil.

 

[Chany]

Actually, I view ideas of fate or predestination as losing all hope for humanity, for if humanity was destined to make mistakes, there would be no preventing them. It takes away our ability to improve. I think that if humanity really tried, if we were united in some way as a species rather than scattered into separate nations, that we could make earth so much better than it is today.

I agree. A unified humanity would be much better than a separate one arguing amongst itself. I believe, however, that determinism does not equate to fate in the same way predestination does. Our responses are determined, but that does not mean our fate is automatically sealed in the same sense that a predestinationalist or fatalist is.

 

[bhsmte]

I think that the freewill defense fails as an adequate response to the problem of evil. The "greater good" defense is better. It goes something like this:

1. If God is all powerful then he is able to prevent gratuitous evil
2. If God is good then he would desire to prevent gratuitous evil
3. Evil exists
4. Therefore God must have some adequate purpose in permitting evil. The evil that exists is not gratuitous

Premise 4 is to say that the existence of evil brings about something better than if evil would've never entered into the story. What is this greater good? The Bible says that the revelation of Christ is the greater good. Evil serves to show that God is a just judge and that he is a merciful redeemer in Christ. Evil shows us the depth of God's mercy and justice -- something we wouldn't have seen without the presence of evil.

Or two other possibilities:

God is not a personal God and could care less about what happens in people's lives.

God does not exist at all.

 

[Chany]

I think that the freewill defense fails as an adequate response to the problem of evil. The "greater good" defense is better. It goes something like this:

1. If God is all powerful then he is able to prevent gratuitous evil
2. If God is good then he would desire to prevent gratuitous evil
3. Evil exists
4. Therefore God must have some adequate purpose in permitting evil. The evil that exists is not gratuitous

Premise 4 is to say that the existence of evil brings about something better than if evil would've never entered into the story. What is this greater good? The Bible says that the revelation of Christ is the greater good. Evil serves to show that God is a just judge and that he is a merciful redeemer in Christ. Evil shows us the depth of God's mercy and justice -- something we wouldn't have seen without the presence of evil.

You assume that gratuitous evil is necessary and that an able and willing God would not prevent all evil. The word "gratuitous" is unnecessary and only indicates circular reasoning. Why wouldn't a God prevent all evil if he was willing and able?"

The fact that you refer to the conclusion as a premise does not bode well for you. 4), or the conclusion, does not logically follow. You assume the very thing the argument of evil is meant to disprove- the existence of the Abrahamic God, or of any all-loving and all-powerful deity. The conclusion can also read: "There is no all-loving and all-powerful God".

Your syllogism isn't a valid argument. I'm not sure if it is even an argument, considering only 4) is new, and that 1),2), and 3) are the problem of evil dilemma. 4) is only a response.

You also assume that evil is necessary to show us the depths of God, or that it is ultimately good for us to fully understand certain aspects of God. Likewise, again, if there are certain objective standards, no one, not even God, can cross them without committing evil. Forcing people to suffer for some ultimate goal sounds like the ends justifying the means. The means, forcing people to suffer greatly, is immoral (at least by the traditional Christian standard). I could go on, but I don't feel like writing an essay when so many have already been done.

Here's a good parable though to indicate the absurdity of twelve claims theists make on the problem of evil:

The Tale of the Twelve Officers

Also, the Bible says so is not a good indicator of philosophy, but of theology.

 

[fireof god98]

The deist god would have no problem with the probleam of evil

 

[Chany]

The deist god would have no problem with the probleam of evil

Good thing we aren't discussing the deist god, but the Abrahamic god.

 

[Resha Caner]

The tree was of the knowledge of both good and evil, not just evil. Adam and Eve wouldn't have known goodness either, so they wouldn't have known that listening to god was more good than listening to the serpent. And why the heck did the tree have to be there anyways? It didn't, god could have easily put it out of reach, made its fruit unappealing, or even made it not bear any fruit at all. Nothing about the fall was the responsibility of Adam and Eve.

So ... do you think "the problem of evil" is a logical problem for the existence of gods, or could it just mean the gods are incompetent?

 

[Chany]

So ... do you think "the problem of evil" is a logical problem for the existence of gods, or could it just mean the gods are incompetent?

Can I answer, or am I impeding upon a discussion?

 

[Resha Caner]

Can I answer, or am I impeding upon a discussion?

I don't mind if you answer.

 

[quatona]

I find it somewhat curious that we are told that God isn´t giving us manifest evidence for His existence so that we must take it on faith, and at the same time we are told that God had to create manifest evil so that we know that He is good.