This problem of The existence of Evil and the existence of God at the same seems to come up here on AG, more than any other argument against Christianity, (which i find odd since there are better arguments out there...) so I thought i'd just make one topic on the subject, to centralize the debate. Christians please add or change anything i'm about to say, atheists/agnostics have a swing at what i'm about to put forward, and if anyone has a different way of looking at it, please go ahead.
Here's the argument, usually, 1.God exists. 2.God is omnipotent and omniscient. 3.God is all-benevolent. 4. All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. 5. All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. 6. Evil still exists 7. Therefore, God does not exist or he is not omniscient/all-benevolent.
The problem with this argument is #5. The word immediately. As with most people's thought process, why does evil still exist?? You must keep in mind of this. How can you possibly constrain a time frame to an eternal being? God is not bound by time, we know from the several prophecies within the bible assigning days or years to a specific event have rarely come in those human time periods, we must therefore assume that Immediately to a being outside of time means absolutely nothing. We know by the following
"3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Revelations 21:3-5
that Evil will end on earth, and that is all that is required of God. He will, according to our finite universe, eventually abolish all evil from the earth.
The problem with this argument is #5. The word immediately. As with most people's thought process, why does evil still exist?? You must keep in mind of this. How can you possibly constrain a time frame to an eternal being? God is not bound by time, we know from the several prophecies within the bible assigning days or years to a specific event have rarely come in those human time periods, we must therefore assume that Immediately to a being outside of time means absolutely nothing. We know by the following
Well, I'm one of those atheists, so here's my swing. ;-)
I completely understand what you're saying, and it is an interesting perspective, but I still find it flawed for the following reason: I don't think it does or SHOULD matter if said eternal being does not exist in a finite environment, he/she/it should still abolish evil if benevolent.
After all, considering how Christians believe that God interferes with daily life, even in trivial things, he obviously knows how to step into a finite world, and how to interfere with said world. Therefore, he would be constraining himself to that time frame and consequently be able to abolish evil immediately upon its conception. Besides, wasn't he supposedly around when he made Lucifer?
After all, considering how Christians believe that God interferes with daily life, even in trivial things, he obviously knows how to step into a finite world, and how to interfere with said world. Therefore, he would be constraining himself to that time frame and consequently be able to abolish evil immediately upon its conception. Besides, wasn't he supposedly around when he made Lucifer?
First off, Lucifer wasn't created evil. He submitted to temptation, and evil overtook him. Second, you have to consider how evil came into the world. It came when Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil. After this happened, God could have just mindwiped these pitiful humans and pretend nothing happened. Why didn't he? Because he is just and good.
So why doesn't God step in today? I believe that is a matter of asking the wrong question. The fact of the matter is, he did, he has, and he will. He sent his son down to confront evil head-on; God did not shy away and seek to detach himself from evil, he attacked sin directly and conquered it. Every moment right now, he attacks evil. Every moment, someone's suffering has been relieved, whether through a righteous work or through the Holy Spirit. But most importantly, he will be the final answer to evil in that final return, because he will be back.
One way you can refute the omniscient and benevolent argument is say that we are living in a perfectest world. That is, the world is not perfect, but cannot be any better. This is because any attempt to make a single thing better will cause damage to other areas.
This is because the world is made of natural laws. So for example...
if someone threw a rock at a window, God, being benevolent should stop it. But for God to stop that event, he would have to stop gravity which causes the worse of things. Thus, everything is at its best.
The problem with this is that it calls for the world to be viewed in a natural sense. So all those things about Jesus curing the blind and such would have to be false.
One way you can refute the omniscient and benevolent argument is say that we are living in a perfectest world. That is, the world is not perfect, but cannot be any better. This is because any attempt to make a single thing better will cause damage to other areas.
This is because the world is made of natural laws. So for example...
if someone threw a rock at a window, God, being benevolent should stop it. But for God to stop that event, he would have to stop gravity which causes the worse of things. Thus, everything is at its best.
The problem with this is that it calls for the world to be viewed in a natural sense. So all those things about Jesus curing the blind and such would have to be false.
Drace, have you ever read Candide? It is the perfect satirical attack on the "best of all possible worlds." Even the first chapter totally discredited Leibniz, who basically said the same thing you said.
Furthermore, the example you gave has no context. Was the stone thrown at the window with malicious intent? Was it an accident? The stone hitting a window is an anomaly, with no intrinsic moral value attached to it. But let us say that the stone was thrown maliciously. Could God just stop it in midair? Yes, he could. But everything you do has repercussions. Is it not possible that a benevolent and omniscient God would tolerate short-term evil for a long-term good?
Drace, have you ever read Candide? It is the perfect satirical attack on the "best of all possible worlds." Even the first chapter totally discredited Leibniz, who basically said the same thing you said.
No I haven't.
Furthermore, the example you gave has no context. Was the stone thrown at the window with malicious intent? Was it an accident? The stone hitting a window is an anomaly, with no intrinsic moral value attached to it. But let us say that the stone was thrown maliciously. Could God just stop it in midair? Yes, he could. But everything you do has repercussions. Is it not possible that a benevolent and omniscient God would tolerate short-term evil for a long-term good?
Does it matter what the intent of it was? The stone destroying the window represents 'evil'. It would cause the owner stress and God should not want such a thing to happen.
God couldn't just stop it in midair as that would interfere with the natural laws.
Is it not possible that a benevolent and omniscient God would tolerate short-term evil for a long-term good?
Well him being omniscient should be able to fix any short term evil as well as the repercussions.
Well him being omniscient should be able to fix any short term evil as well as the repercussions.
Every cause has an effect. Each cause will have a different effect. The question is, which one is best? Would cutting off a short-term evil when it has a long-term good be acceptable over just cutting off the whole thing completely?
Let's use the example of a rock hitting a window as an analogy. Let us say that a robber is attempting to break into a house, and thinking no one is inside, hurls a rock at the window. However, the owner happens to be in his house. The owner calls the police, who manage to catch the burglar. In this case, yes, the owner has stress from the window being broken. However, the long-term good is that he has managed to deliver justice to a wrongdoer, when other people might have been robbed of their precious belongings.
You did mention the "erfectest world." Is that not the "best of all possible worlds"?
I don't think it does or SHOULD matter if said eternal being does not exist in a finite environment, he/she/it should still abolish evil if benevolent.
Perhaps you should re-read the passage and what i said. God will end all evil and create a perfect world, he hasn't yet though, that was a major point of what i was saying...
After all, considering how Christians believe that God interferes with daily life, even in trivial things, he obviously knows how to step into a finite world, and how to interfere with said world. Therefore, he would be constraining himself to that time frame and consequently be able to abolish evil immediately upon its conception.
Just because he is working in the finite universe does not mean he "steps into it". In fact, that just doesn't work. A Being, assuming God/Deity is a being, can either be finite or infinite, not both. God can work his power in the finite realm, but can not all of the sudden be bound by time, if he were bound by time he would need all kinds of attributes he doesn't have (a lifespan, form/shape, mass). therefore my point still holds, he may decide to intervene on a daily basis, but that does not mean the ultimate goal must be decided every time he does, he is still timeless and still not bound to the concept of finite: "immediate".
No one said immediately. You put that in there >_>
Everyone implies immediately, in that they want the world to be perfect, now and those that put it in an argument ALWAYS use immediately. Scroll Down and find the arguments, the second argument expounds upon the first, and i got that from the second. (that means i didn't even create that argument up there).
Just warning you, this might be confusing because it's something that I can't exactly put into words correctly, haha:
Everyone that is arguing for Christianity here always says something along the lines of :
A Being, assuming God/Deity is a being, can either be finite or infinite, not both. God can work his power in the finite realm, but can not all of the sudden be bound by time, if he were bound by time he would need all kinds of attributes he doesn't have (a lifespan, form/shape, mass)
or
Every cause has an effect. Each cause will have a different effect.
These are perfectly understandable, natural laws of our universe. Which is exactly the problem.
God, if he exists, should be able to, at will, circumvent each and every law that we consider to be natural, obvious, or unavoidable. He should be able to produce an effect without a cause, a cause with no effect, to be infinite in a finite world, and to interfere with no repercussions. Omnipotence is exactly that principle: that a God would be all-powerful. Nothing should be able to stop him, even his own created laws.
razaki, Omnipotence is an iffy term. There are two things that actually inhibit God's true omnipotence (if we take the true meaning of the word). First of all, God can not create a rock so big he can't lift it. In that sense God isn't truly omnipotent. Secondly, God has to abide by his own attributes/character. God is all-good therefore he can not sin. God is just therefore he can not leave any deed unpunished. God is omniscient and therefore can not, not know. Taking this same line of thinking, God is Infinite and therefore can not be finite, he can use his power in the finite realm but he can not be finite.
That still does not address what I discussed. If God can do anything - EXPLICITLY described in the Bible - then he must, must be able to abolish evil at any moment. To do otherwise is malevolent, not benevolent.
