Why God allows evil

[pc_76]

I now just think evil is a circumstance, but the existence of "free will" is irrelevant to the problem.

Come on, do some here really believe that free will is the cause of evil directly?

 

[Kylie]

I now just think evil is a circumstance, but the existence of "free will" is irrelevant to the problem.

Come on, do some here really believe that free will is the cause of evil directly?

People argue that free will allows people to choose to do evil things.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I haven't read through everything in this thread, but what I read reveals to me that there's a lack of clarity about several concepts.

1. "Evil"

We tend to categorize acts is good, neutral, bad, and then there's the really bad stuff we label "evil." But this concept is false. It means that we can be OK with a world that has neutral actors, and perhaps a little bit of "bad" actors, but we really don't want a world with "evil" actors.

But the problem is this: How do we define "evil"? Or perhaps more to the point, how do we define "sin" (since "evil" is just and extreme form of "sin")?

We ask "why does God allow Evil?" but the more significant question is this: "Why does God allow sin at all?"

Well, the answer is best found in a more accurate definition of "sin."

Sin is not a list of things you can't do. Sin is actually defined by the person of God Himself, for there is no sin in Him and He is completely good. Consequently, "sin" is any decision that is contrary to the nature of God, the character of God, the will of God, the values of God, or God's design.

So, if we ask "why does God allow sin?" then we are really asking why God allows anything contrary to His own person.

The problem of evil goes back to the fact that God created people with the ability to make decisions about the course of history that stick. It's part of being created as moral beings... and being created in His image. We were called to "have dominion"... a calling that requires decision-making power. The decisions made by mankind "stick."

It's self-evident that God created mankind with the capacity to choose something other than God.

God has all authority... ALL authority is His and his alone. That authority is the power to make decisions about the course of history that "stick." We call this God's Sovereignty.

It's not possible for God to be totally sovereign and for man to have any authority of his own to make decisions that "stick." And this is the logical conflict between the sovereignty of God vs. the free will of man.

But the resolution between the two is really quite simple....

Authority can be delegated. The delegated authority still belongs to the One who delegated it, but the authority is actually exercised by the one to whom it was delegated! God can take back that authority at any time (it's called death) and there's always accountability to the one whose authority it really is as to how that authority was exercised (called "judgment").

This means that the "free will" of man is actually delegated authority to make decisions that "stick."

Here's what this means...

In order for man to genuinely have the power/authority to make decisions that "stick," God had to also give man the capacity to make such decisions... even if they are contrary to Who He is or what His will is. That's a reality. Man can sin. God does not automatically rescind the delegated authority the first time that authority is misused.

Man can sin...(God allows it). And man can sin egregiously... (God allows that, too). The egregious sin we call "evil," but the problem is still only a matter of degree.

God allows evil because He made us in His image, which includes the delegated authority to make decisions. And we have the capacity to make decisions contrary to His will and character.

This is the perspective that brings resolution to these questions to me. Maybe it will contribute to this discussion.

 

[ruthiesea]

Irrelevant. I don't see how you can justify God's inaction like this. Why is it okay for God to let free will be, but it's not okay when I do it?

We all continuously exercise free will. It is when we chose to do evil that gets us in trouble. G-d has shown us how to be righteous. Without free will His words become meaningless. We could all ignore G-d because without free will we would all be righteous. We would have nothing to strive for and life would become meaningless. There would be no sin, and therefore no personal growth.

 

[Kylie]

We all continuously exercise free will. It is when we chose to do evil that gets us in trouble. G-d has shown us how to be righteous. Without free will His words become meaningless. We could all ignore G-d because without free will we would all be righteous. We would have nothing to strive for and life would become meaningless. There would be no sin, and therefore no personal growth.

This does not address the issue.

I used the example of my daughter getting kidnapped because I let her walk off by herself, not wanting to stop because to stop her would interfere with her free will to walk off.

Could I defend myself by saying to the police, "I taught her how to be safe and not walk off." Of course not.

So I'm not quite sure how your response was actually meant to answer my question. Why is it that when God lets bad things happen to people, his followers say that it's because God doesn't want to interfere with our free will and they say it's good, but if I let something happen to my daughter because I don't want to interfere with her free will, I can't defend myself the same way?

Let me make it simple for you.

X kills Y. Z saw it and could have stopped it, but decided not to because Z doesn't want to interfere with X's free will, even if that means X will commit murder. Can Z justifiably defend their inaction with the claim that they didn't want to interfere with X's free will?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

This does not address the issue.

I used the example of my daughter getting kidnapped because I let her walk off by herself, not wanting to stop because to stop her would interfere with her free will to walk off.

Could I defend myself by saying to the police, "I taught her how to be safe and not walk off." Of course not.

So I'm not quite sure how your response was actually meant to answer my question. Why is it that when God lets bad things happen to people, his followers say that it's because God doesn't want to interfere with our free will and they say it's good, but if I let something happen to my daughter because I don't want to interfere with her free will, I can't defend myself the same way?

Let me make it simple for you.

X kills Y. Z saw it and could have stopped it, but decided not to because Z doesn't want to interfere with X's free will, even if that means X will commit murder. Can Z justifiably defend their inaction with the claim that they didn't want to interfere with X's free will?

Kylie, that's a thoughtful and interesting analogy. And it does make some sense.

However, the analogy is not as defining to the argument as it may seem at first.

How "bad" does something have to be for you as a parent to step in and prevent it? Will you stop your daughter for going outside to play at all so they she never steps on a thorn or gets stung by a bee? Will you never let her play with neighbor girls so that she never says anything unkind to one of the other girls, or so she is never subject to the unkindness of others?

How much "evil" will you allow her to personally experience before you step in and prevent it? How bad is "too bad" to allow? Don't you see that granting free will at all means that God has to allow the choices made by those free-will agents to "stick" and that they face the consequences of their choices?

And then there's the volition of your daughter... Suppose that she rebels against your authority and runs away... then she makes not just one but dozens or hundreds of choices that are contrary to your will for her. Are you to blame for those choices? Can you stop them? Should you?

These points, I believe, show how your illustration/analogy doesn't really help us grasp the full scope of the problem of free-will.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

A thought occurs: Why is interfering with someone's execution of acts a violation of their free will? They are still free to will. I tentatively assert that interference with one's actions are not a violation of will. Doing and willing are not synonymous.

This is just playing with semantics.

"Free will" is not about "will" or "wanting" or some mental state of preference... it's about the authority to make choices that stick. It's the capacity to make an independent decision and execute an action that actually becomes a historical fact.

So... preventing someone from doing something actually IS a violation of their "free will"... if it prevents them from acting.

If someone is not free to act contrary the the will of another, they do not have "free will."

 

[zippy2006]

A thought occurs: Why is interfering with someone's execution of acts a violation of their free will? They are still free to will. I tentatively assert that interference with one's actions are not a violation of will. Doing and willing are not synonymous.

And presumably your conclusion is that God could allow evil acts of will while prohibiting evil actions?

Your technical distinction isn't problematic, but there is inevitably an organic connection between will and action. Certainly God could have created in such a way that evil wills are not allowed to be carried out, but that would be a rather strange bifurcation of the human person. The free will defense assumes the organic connection between will and action. Included in its definition of "free will" is also the normal ability to carry out one's will through actions.

 

[zippy2006]

Why is it that when God lets bad things happen to people, his followers say that it's because God doesn't want to interfere with our free will and they say it's good, but if I let something happen to my daughter because I don't want to interfere with her free will, I can't defend myself the same way?

Your daughter is a child, and as her guardian you share a responsibility in her actions and her development. When she becomes an adult this will no longer be the case. We might even say that she doesn't have authentic, unrestricted free will until she becomes an adult. The free will defense concerns adults, not children.

 

[Ken-1122]

I haven't read through everything in this thread, but what I read reveals to me that there's a lack of clarity about several concepts.

1. "Evil"

We tend to categorize acts is good, neutral, bad, and then there's the really bad stuff we label "evil." But this concept is false. It means that we can be OK with a world that has neutral actors, and perhaps a little bit of "bad" actors, but we really don't want a world with "evil" actors.

But the problem is this: How do we define "evil"? Or perhaps more to the point, how do we define "sin" (since "evil" is just and extreme form of "sin")?

We ask "why does God allow Evil?" but the more significant question is this: "Why does God allow sin at all?"

Well, the answer is best found in a more accurate definition of "sin."

Sin is not a list of things you can't do. Sin is actually defined by the person of God Himself, for there is no sin in Him and He is completely good. Consequently, "sin" is any decision that is contrary to the nature of God, the character of God, the will of God, the values of God, or God's design.

If God is completely good, why didn’t he make US completely good? Had he done that sin would not be a problem.

So, if we ask "why does God allow sin?" then we are really asking why God allows anything contrary to His own person.

The problem of evil goes back to the fact that God created people with the ability to make decisions about the course of history that stick. It's part of being created as moral beings... and being created in His image.

How come being made in his image didn’t include being made completely good?

It's self-evident that God created mankind with the capacity to choose something other than God.

Had God created us completely good, we would still have the capacity to choose something other than God, we just wouldn’t choose to.

God has all authority... ALL authority is His and his alone. That authority is the power to make decisions about the course of history that "stick." We call this God's Sovereignty.

It's not possible for God to be totally sovereign and for man to have any authority of his own to make decisions that "stick." And this is the logical conflict between the sovereignty of God vs. the free will of man.

Had God made us completely good, we would choose to do his will so this would be possible.

But the resolution between the two is really quite simple....

Authority can be delegated. The delegated authority still belongs to the One who delegated it, but the authority is actually exercised by the one to whom it was delegated! God can take back that authority at any time (it's called death) and there's always accountability to the one whose authority it really is as to how that authority was exercised (called "judgment").

This means that the "free will" of man is actually delegated authority to make decisions that "stick."

Here's what this means...

In order for man to genuinely have the power/authority to make decisions that "stick," God had to also give man the capacity to make such decisions... even if they are contrary to Who He is or what His will is. That's a reality. Man can sin. God does not automatically rescind the delegated authority the first time that authority is misused.

Man can sin...(God allows it). And man can sin egregiously... (God allows that, too). The egregious sin we call "evil," but the problem is still only a matter of degree.

God allows evil because He made us in His image, which includes the delegated authority to make decisions. And we have the capacity to make decisions contrary to His will and character.

This is the perspective that brings resolution to these questions to me. Maybe it will contribute to this discussion.

Again; had God made us completely good; without the desire to sin, there would have been no problem to fix in the first place

 

[Ken-1122]

Your daughter is a child, and as her guardian you share a responsibility in her actions and her development. When she becomes an adult this will no longer be the case. We might even say that she doesn't have authentic, unrestricted free will until she becomes an adult. The free will defense concerns adults, not children.

Actually even as adults, we don't have authentic, unrestricted free will, the law prevents it. Children are prevented from breaking the parents rules, adults are prevented from breaking society's rules.

 

[Kylie]

Kylie, that's a thoughtful and interesting analogy. And it does make some sense.

However, the analogy is not as defining to the argument as it may seem at first.

How "bad" does something have to be for you as a parent to step in and prevent it? Will you stop your daughter for going outside to play at all so they she never steps on a thorn or gets stung by a bee? Will you never let her play with neighbor girls so that she never says anything unkind to one of the other girls, or so she is never subject to the unkindness of others?

How much "evil" will you allow her to personally experience before you step in and prevent it? How bad is "too bad" to allow? Don't you see that granting free will at all means that God has to allow the choices made by those free-will agents to "stick" and that they face the consequences of their choices?

And then there's the volition of your daughter... Suppose that she rebels against your authority and runs away... then she makes not just one but dozens or hundreds of choices that are contrary to your will for her. Are you to blame for those choices? Can you stop them? Should you?

These points, I believe, show how your illustration/analogy doesn't really help us grasp the full scope of the problem of free-will.

My attitude towards what you ask of me is that if it's going to have any longer term affects on my daughter, then I'll step in. Stepping on a thorn, or being stung by a bee, or being called names by other children are unlikely to have a long term effect. And before you talk about the effects bullying can have, I wouldn't let my daughter spend time with another child who is constantly teasing and bullying her.

Now, let me ask you the same question. How "bad" does something have to be for God to step in and prevent it? Will he stop children being rounded up and separated from their parents like the way the USA is doing now? Will he stop humans from destroying the environment and wiping out countless different species? Will he stop brutal regimes from executing innocent people?

Because so far he hasn't done a thing to stop this. Are we to assume that this is acceptable to God?

 

[Kylie]

Your daughter is a child, and as her guardian you share a responsibility in her actions and her development. When she becomes an adult this will no longer be the case. We might even say that she doesn't have authentic, unrestricted free will until she becomes an adult. The free will defense concerns adults, not children.

So if, when my daughter is a grown woman, she tells me that she wants to use her free will to commit murder, I should go and let her?

I can imagine it now. I get called in to court, and I get asked, "Now, Kylie, you had the opportunity to stop your daughter from killing this person, and yet you chose not to. Why would you not act to prevent this crime?"

And, you (as my legal counsel) would advise me to say, "Because if I did so, I would be interfering with her free will. I couldn't very well do that, could I?"

 

[Ken-1122]

Now, let me ask you the same question. How "bad" does something have to be for God to step in and prevent it? Will he stop children being rounded up and separated from their parents like the way the USA is doing now?

When a parent is acting in a way, or doing things that is abusive to the child, separating the child from the parent is not bad.

 

[Kylie]

When a parent is acting in a way, or doing things that is abusive to the child, separating the child from the parent is not bad.

I'm talking about the children who are being separated from their parents for no reason other than they are migrants. Thousands more migrant children separated under Trump than previously known

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm talking about the children who are being separated from their parents for no reason other than they are migrants. Thousands more migrant children separated under Trump than previously known

Yeah they call themselves migrants, but they are just trying to play into the loop hole that allows them to get into the country without waiting in line and they are endangering the lives of children in the process

 

[zippy2006]

Actually even as adults, we don't have authentic, unrestricted free will, the law prevents it. Children are prevented from breaking the parents rules, adults are prevented from breaking society's rules.

They are not prevented, they are deterred via punishment.

 

[zippy2006]

So if, when my daughter is a grown woman, she tells me that she wants to use her free will to commit murder, I should go and let her?

That doesn't follow at all. What follows is that if your daughter commits murder as an adult you do not bear the responsibility that you would if she were a child. Non sequitur.

 

[Ken-1122]

They are not prevented, they are deterred via punishment.

What's the difference between not having authentic, unrestricted, freewill vs having restrictions on your free will via punishment?

 

[Ken-1122]

That doesn't follow at all. What follows is that if your daughter commits murder as an adult you do not bear the responsibility that you would if she were a child. Non sequitur.

It follows because even though her daughter is an adult, she should do everything in her ability to prevent her daughter from committing the act, even though she isn't legally responsible for her daughters actions.