Ahh the classic, the problem of evil. Stated simply by Epicurus as follows:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.”
In this episode, we’ll explore two ideas, omnibenevolence, and another interesting idea, omnimalevolence.
Omnibenevolence, one of — as far as I know — the first realized, and first questions attributes of deity. The fundamental argument of this much researched idea is that if God is omnibenevolent, and ostensibly created the universe, then why did he bother to create evil? To borrow a common sentiment from religion, I’ll quote the Bible, specifically 2 Peter:
“The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.” [1] (Emphasis Mine)
This God, seemingly, wants only good for people; yet allows apparently countless thousands die, and not only die, but suffer in eternal hellfire.
Let me just say, if this is the God I’m supposed to believe in, let alone serve, then I want no part in it. I refuse to work for anyone that is so morally bankrupt that — even though he has the ability — won’t save these people, it’s despicable.
However, we cannot attack this problem without a good definition of what omnibenevolence is, so lets define it as follows:
-
Omnibenevolence is defined as being unable to withhold oneself from doing good. That is, in any situation, an omnibenevolent being will choose the ethical answer.
Similarly, we’ll define Omnimalevolence as the opposite of the above, that is, to always choose the unethical answer.[2]
So how does this idea fare logically? Well, first, we may see some correlation between omniscience and this, since always choosing the ‘correct’ ethical answer requires knowledge of that answer. We leads us to ask the ‘hard’ questions, like gay marriage, or abortion, or the death penalty. When is it ethically ‘correct’ for us to kill someone as penalty for crimes committed? We’ve shown that these questions have no ‘right’ answer. So how could a omnibenevolent god make the right choice?
Similarly, if god is incapable of doing evil, then that idea flies in the face of omnipotence and free will. If we say god is capable of everything, and in the same breath say that “it is impossible for God to [lie]“[3] (to borrow from the bible again), this is a trivial contradiction, and one of the most glaring ones in the bible. The common counter argument is that “God simply chooses not to lie, and has promised that he never will.” But to that I ask, if the bible is the divine, literal, true word of God, why didn’t it say that? The issue here comes down to certain groups wanting to have they’re oil and burn it too. They say that the bible is the literal truth, so we point out a contradiction. They then say that that part was metaphorical, and so we tell them about their former position, and now they’re in a bind. You can’t say something is literal, and then tell me that parts are metaphorical, and that you’re the only one who knows the literal from the metaphorical. It’s a scam. It gives you a license to make the text say whatever you want.
To be honest, the omnibenevolence problem is fairly unassailable, it’s an ethical problem, and ethics are generally subjective. I think I’m going to stop, with the note that the few arguments I did present here also apply in the opposite direction, for omnimalevolence. In any case, a nice short post on omnibenevolence never hurt anyone.
Before I go, a quick summary, so far we’ve shown that omniscience is not much more than incredible intelligence, omnipresence doesn’t really work out, and we offered an admittedly weak argument for the case against omnibenevolence. I’ve got only one or two more to go. (I’m still considering the case for omnipotence, as that’s the real big one, and I’m digging up another interesting one, I hope.)
Not sure what I’ll do for my next series, any suggestions are welcome.
[1] 2 Peter, 3:9 NRSV. I use the NRSV for two reasons, firstly, My sister (A Theology Grad Student) mentioned that it is the Bible most commonly used among her academic colleagues. Secondly, it seems that we atheists tend to prefer translations like the KJV or the NKJV. When in fact these translations are typically only used by radicals in the Christian religion. When we confront those subgroups, using the translation they use is just fine. However, I think it would be unfair to use a version as dated and — as far as I’m concerned — prejudicial, in a setting such as this. Reference retrieved from http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=2Peter+3
[2] As usual, I have to enter the disclaimer, if you don’t define this particular attribute in this particular way, that’s fine. You’ll have to judge for yourself if the arguments presented here apply. I aim to choose a definition which gets the general sentiment of the idea.
[3] “… in which it is impossible that God would prove false,” Heb 6:18, NRSV. http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Hebrews+6
I confess, I barely read any of this … I will tomorrow or in a day or two … but just wanted to toss a thought in here …
I don’t know if you’ve heard this before or not, but it’s been said that evil is not the inability or unwillingness or lack of benevolence on the part of God, but merely the absence of God.
Yeah, that contradicts the omnipresent, but again, we must see the spiritual …
God can be everywhere but not impact everywhere he is. He does not walk into lives uninvited, nor does he bust through walls in imposition. He is there willing and able, but if someone doesn’t ask him for help, he’s not going to force it.
Then there are also deeper questions, such as, what if what we see as evil is not evil to God?
If we get really deep into it, we’ll see that everything comes down to this battle between God and Satan. In war there are always casualties.
Plus some other thoughts but my brain is fried from a long day and I might regret not reading back through this tomorrow, but oh well …
Comment by brandonsneed — May 1, 2008 @ 5:41 am
I noted in the post that this question is very hard to answer, because evil is fairly hard to define, benevolence is hard to define, and both ideas are ethical questions, so trying to approach the problem logically is at best incredibly difficult, and normally damn near impossible.
It’s my opinion that omnibenevolence is impossible, I base this on the simple heuristic that “anything omni is probably bunk”, it make’s little sense to me that something can be maxed out on goodness. I think the real problem, and maybe I should have noted this in the post, that omnibenevolence/omnimalevolence is really a false dichotomy in a way. OB/OM is a continuum, and without going into detail, it’s a continuum without endpoints, so that you can get really really close to being omnibenevolent, or omnimalevolent, but never actually get there.
In anycase, it’s time for class..
Comment by jfredett — May 1, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
“The common counter argument is that “God simply chooses not to lie, and has promised that he never will.” But to that I ask, if the bible is the divine, literal, true word of God, why didn’t it say that? The issue here comes down to certain groups wanting to have they’re oil and burn it too.” Another problem with this “logic” is that they use the following circular reasoning:
1. The Bible contains the Word of God
2. The Bible says that God doesn’t lie
3. Therefore the Bible is infalliable/inerrant
See the nice shiny circle?
Comment by Alex — July 30, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
Oh and did Epicurus (a new philosopher I can look up and read about, goody!) actually set the problem of evil out like that, or was that you paraphrasing it? Either way, I’ve never seen the problem of evil displayed in a clever yet succinct way like that. That’s really awesome!
Comment by Alex — July 30, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
That is a real quote from Epicurus, it’s actually a bit longer. You might also look at Lucretius, who was the quintessential materialist philosopher.
The bible actually does note (in Thessalonians, iirc) that it is “Impossible for God to lie.” or something similar. However, that does boil down not only to circular reasoning, but given that I noted the Novikov self-consistency principle was invalid (I suppose thats a hidden axiom of the system there) in our system, then you end up with another problem of a conflict between God’s promise not to lie, and his Immutability, which I didn’t bring up, because tbh, immutability is just boring as hell. It’s also fairly simple to refute by actually examining the bible, and noticing exactly how often the God of the old testament flip-flops between loving and hating israel.
Yahweh was bipolar.
For reference though, you may be interested in the documentary “Atheism: A rough history of disbelief” which is fantastic, and has loads of good quotes, as well as the addendum 3 hours of interviews called “The Atheism tapes”
Comment by admin — July 30, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
“Yahweh was bipolar.” Rofl classic!
Thanks for the documentaries, I shall try and find them sooner or later. But right now I’m off to the Project Gutenberg to see if I can find me some Epicurus. (I’ve already downloaded plenty of philosophy from there, from Plato to Bertrand Russell).
Comment by Alex — August 2, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
*This is a long one but this is some of what I found on the subject
The Omnibenevolent God. Also I would suggest this Site by Perry Marshall, particularly this part http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm, Titled “The Atheist’s Riddle: 30+ Skeptics Attempt To Solve It”
——————————————————————————-
*The concept of omnibenevolence stems from two basic ideas of God: that God is perfect and that God is morally good. Therefore, God must possess perfect goodness. Being perfectly good must entail being good in all ways at all times and towards all other beings — but there remain questions. First, what is the content of that goodness and second what is the relationship between that goodness and God?
As for the content of that moral goodness, there is quite a bit of disagreement among philosophers and theologians. Some have argued that the basic principle of that moral goodness is love, others have argued that it is justice, and so on. By and large, it seems that what a person believes to be the content and expression of God’s perfect moral goodness is highly, if not entirely, dependent upon the theological position and tradition that person is arguing from.
Some religious traditions focus upon God’s love, some focus upon God’s justice, some focus upon God’s mercy, and so on. There is no obvious and necessary reason for preferring any one of these to any other; each is as coherent and consistent as another and none rely upon empirical observations of God which would allow it to claim epistemological precedence.
Another understanding of the concept of omnibenevolence focuses upon a more literal reading of the word: a perfect and complete desire for goodness. Under this explanation of omnibenevolence, God always desires what is good, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that God ever actually tries to actualize the good. This understanding of omnibenevolence is often used to counter arguments that evil is incompatible with a God which is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent; however, it is unclear how and why a God who desires the good would not also work to actualize the good. It is also difficult to understand how we can label God as “morally good” when God desires the good and is capable of achieving good but doesn’t bother to actually try.
When it comes to the question of what sort of relationship exists between God and moral goodness, most discussions are over whether goodness is an essential attribute of God. Many theologians and philosophers have tended to argue that God is indeed essentially good, which means that it is impossible for God either to will evil or to cause evil — everything that God wills and everything that God does is, necessarily, good.
A few have argued contrary to the above that while God is good, God is still capable of doing evil. This argument attempts to preserve a broader understanding God’s omnipotence; more importantly, however, it makes God’s failure to do evil more laudable because that failure is due to a moral choice. If God does not do evil because God is incapable of doing evil, that would not seem to merit any praise or approval.
Another and perhaps more important debate over the relationship between moral goodness and God revolves around whether moral goodness is independent of or dependent upon God. If moral goodness is independent of God, then God does not define moral standards of behavior; rather, God has simply learned what they are and then communicates them to us.
Presumably, God’s perfection prevents him from incorrectly understanding what those standards should be and therefore we should always believe what God informs us of them. Nevertheless, their independence creates a curious alteration in how we understand the nature of God. If moral goodness exists independently of God, where did they come from? Are they, for example, co-eternal with God?
In contrast to this, some philosophers and theologians have argued that moral goodness is entirely dependent upon God. Thus, if something is good, it is only good because of God — outside of God, moral standards simply do not exist. How this came to be so is itself a matter of debate. Are moral standards created by a specific action or declaration of God? Are they a feature of reality as created by God (much as mass and energy are)? There is also the problem that, in theory, raping children could suddenly become morally good if God wished it.
Is the notion of God as Omnibenevolent coherent and meaningful? Perhaps, but only if standards of moral goodness are independent of God and God is capable of doing evil. If God is incapable of doing evil, then to say that God is perfectly good simply means that God is perfectly capable of doing what God is logically restricted in doing — a wholly uninteresting statement. Moreover, if standards of goodness are dependent upon God, then saying that God is good reduces to a tautology.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Evil Conflicts with the Existence of God: God Doesn’t Care or God Doesn’t Exist
One of the most popular and perhaps most effective arguments against both the existence of gods and believing in gods is known as the “Argument from Evil.” It’s a popular argument because it’s not one which requires a great deal of sophistication or philosophical education to understand. It’s effective because even the weakest forms of the argument make a strong case that gods, or at least any beings that look very much like the gods people tend to believe in, probably don’t exist.
Many people who end up as atheists are inspired to take a much harder look at their religion and their theism after being forced to face the problem of evil and suffering in the world. Thus, even if the argument doesn’t disprove gods, it starts people down the road of questioning and skepticism.
Logical and Deductive Arguments from Evil
The earliest formulation of the Argument from Evil comes from the Greek philosopher Epicurus, writing in the early 3rd century BCE:
Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot,
or he can but does not want to,
or he cannot and does not want to,
or lastly he can and wants to.
If he wants to remove evil, and cannot,
he is not omnipotent;
If he can, but does not want to,
he is not benevolent;
If he neither can nor wants to,
he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent;
But if God can abolish evil and wants to,
how does evil exist?
This is a logical or deductive Argument from Evil because it attempts to show that the existence of God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. There are many variations on this but there is also another category called the evidential or inductive Argument from Evil. Arguments of this type merely try to demonstrate that the existence of God is highly unlikely given the existence of amount of evil in the world.
Logical or deductive forms of the Argument from Evil are both the strongest and the weakest, depending on how you look at them. They are the strongest because they can decisively disprove the existence of God; they are the weakest because God has to be defined very narrowly and specifically in order for the argument to get anywhere. These forms of the argument disprove a particular sort of god, but not many others. Obviously the existence of a malevolent or weak god wouldn’t be disproved here. The existence of the ancient Norse or Egyptian gods also wouldn’t be disproved by this argument.
Evidential and Inductive Arguments from Evil
Evidential or inductive forms of the Argument from Evil don’t try to show that the existence of gods is impossible, just improbable. This means that even if you accept the argument, you aren’t forced to reject the existence of any gods; you are, however, forced to regard the existence of gods as highly unlikely, and therefore probably not worth believing in.
Such an argument might, for example, argue that a sufficiently benevolent and powerful being that warrants the label “god” would be able to at least reduce the amount of suffering in world — not eliminate it entirely, just reduce it. Therefore, the existence of any unjustified and unnecessary suffering indicates that such a being probably doesn’t exist. Such forms of the Argument from Evil don’t generally justify denying the existence of gods, but it does justify rejecting belief in the existence of gods and being an atheist.
Theodicies: Responding to the Argument from Evil
Theists recognize that arguments from Evil are among the most powerful a theological arguments that can be offered, both from a logical and an intuitive perspective, so significant effort is invested in countering them. Responses to such arguments are called “theodicies,” or a vindication of the justness and holiness of God in the face of evil.
Theodicies in response to deductive forms of the Argument from Evil try to show that the existence of evil in the world is not logically incompatible with God’s love and power. Common means for doing this are to argue that evil is necessary for the existence of free will, virtues, and other qualities we humans need. Theodicies in response to inductive forms of the Argument from Evil may have to argue that each instance of suffering is indeed justified and necessary — not an easy task because even a single unjustified instance of suffering is potentially enough to render the existence of a god too unlikely to bother with.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
God: Omnipotence vs. Evil
Is the existence of evil compatible with the existence of an omnipotent god with the ability to desire to eliminate evil? That seems unlikely and many atheological arguments have been based upon just that. A solid argument makes the existence of the traditional God unlikely at best - and belief in it unreasonable.
Here is a formal statement of the contradiction between omnipotence and the existence of evil:
1. God is omnipotent. (premise)
2. God is perfectly good. (premise)
3. A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can. (premise)
4. There is no limit to what an omnipotent being can do. (premise)
5. An omnipotent being can eliminate evil completely. (from 4)
6. A good omnipotent thing will eliminate evil completely. (from 3 - 5)
7. The existence of a good omnipotent being is inconsistent with the existence of evil. (from 6)
8. Therefore, the existence of God is inconsistent with the existence of evil. (from 7 - 9).
Premises #1 and #2 express commonly cited attributes of God as worshipped in traditional monotheistic religions, so they seem pretty secure. If they are challenged, it would only be in order to construct a radically different concept of God which would have to be addressed separately.
Premise #3 seems unassailable. Although one might dispute exactly how far a being can eliminate evil, there is little reason to think that a being would refrain from eliminating as much evil as possible and still be “good” in any coherent sense. If we were confronted with a human being who didn’t bother to stop evil even though it was well within their power to do so, it would be difficult for us to describe them as a “good” person.
The strength of premise #4 turns on how one defines “omnipotence.” Does it include the ability to eliminate evil or is there some logical impediment? Some theists will rationalize away the concept of omnipotence until it doesn’t accomplish much beyond what is “logically possible” and “what is consistent with God’s nature,” thus rendering God not much more “omnipotent” than a person is. If this line of argument isn’t followed, then it would be difficult to argue that eliminating evil is outside the power of God, creator of the universe.
Statements #5 and #6 are actually quite strong — most theists will agree that #5 is true but argue that God has some very good reason for not completely eliminate evil. Some say that evil exists because of free will, others say that evil exists so that we can acquire important virtues. Such arguments and known as theodicies and do not question the logical structure of the argument above; instead, they purport to explain why #6 is not true in the case of their god even though #5 is (and, by extension, #3 and #4).
This argument demonstrates that it isn’t enough to simply say that omnipotence and the existence of evil are contradictions. We need to include a number of additional premises: that good and evil are opposed to each other, that good eliminates evil whenever possible, and that omnipotence doesn’t allow for any limits.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Does God exist? Here are six straight-forward reasons to believe that God is really there.
By Marilyn Adamson
Just once wouldn’t you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God’s existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, “You just have to believe.” Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.
But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks…all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.
When it comes to the possibility of God’s existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, “You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you.”2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God’s existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider…
1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God’s design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
The Earth…its size is perfect. The Earth’s size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth’s position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4
Water…colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You’ll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5
Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.
Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.
Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
Ninety-seven percent of the Earth’s water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6
The human brain…simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.
The eye…can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages — simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain — the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?
Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, “The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion…The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen.”9
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, “the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade…and the universe was filled with light.”10
The universe has not always existed. It had a start…what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn’t change — on earth or in galaxies far from us.
How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
“The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn’t have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence.”11
Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, “Why nature is mathematical is a mystery…The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle.”12
4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell’s behavior.
All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It’s made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billions of these letters in every human cell!!
Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13
Why is this so amazing? One has to ask….how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person’s body should develop.
Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.
5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don’t believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people…to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.
I didn’t realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn’t escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God’s existence, my prayer began with, “Ok, you win…” It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.
I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, “I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued.” C.S. Lewis said he remembered, “…night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England.”
Lewis went on to write a book titled, “Surprised by Joy” as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God’s existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.
6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you’ll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you’re looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.
He said, “I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”14 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, “follow my words and you will find truth.” He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me.”15
What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can’t do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people…blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects…created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature…walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I’m telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you’re seeing.16
Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.
Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, “I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.”17 This is God, in action.
Does God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We’re told that “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”18
God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth’s perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ. If you need to know more about Jesus and reasons to believe in him, please see: Beyond Blind Faith.
If you want to begin a relationship with God now, you can.
This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be forgiven by God and come into a relationship with him, you can do so right now by asking him to forgive you and come into your life. Jesus said, “Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock. He who hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him [or her].”19 If you want to do this, but aren’t sure how to put it into words, this may help: “Jesus, thank you for dying for my sins. You know my life and that I need to be forgiven. I ask you to forgive me right now and come into my life. I want to know you in a real way. Come into my life now. Thank you that you wanted a relationship with me. Amen.”
God views your relationship with him as permanent. Referring to all those who believe in him, Jesus Christ said of us, “I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.”20
So, does God exist? Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way.
Comment by Thomaslee — October 9, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
I promise I’ll get to this someday, but quite frankly, it’s _very long_, and I have other things that require my time. I’ll refer you to, well, _every other person_ who has debunked the Information Theory argument (that takes care of the site you linked to first). It stems from a fundamental misunderstanding, and thus misapplication, of the mathematics of information theory. To be put simply, IT doesn’t work that way. As for the rest of it, I’ve got homework to do, so I haven’t read it, but I’ll try to write a critique-in-blog-post sometime in the future.
Comment by jfredett — October 9, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
How about we make a trade, You suggest a few sites to me and I will read them,and you give Perry Marshall a chance, I mean 30+ well-learned atheists could not refute him, on subject he wasn’t even an expert on. I have actually started reading this discussion, and think you should give it a chance.
Quote by Perry Marshall
“The discussion continued for more than 4 months and 300 posts. At the end, nearly all participants dropped out, having failed to topple my proof or produce any new objections that had not already been addressed. In the course of a very detailed and vigorous discussion my argument did not suffer the slightest injury.”
Comment by Thomaslee — October 9, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
I’ll try to come up with a few. In the interim, sure I’ll give Perry a chance, however, let me ask this — sure, maybe the participants dropped out, but that does not mean his argument “wins” — it may be, as is often the case, that valid arguments _were_ presented, and instead of accepting them, he held to his _dogma_ instead of accepting a counterproof. The reason I am dismissive is because I know about how information theory is applicable, and it is _not applicable_ to biology in the way Creationists attempt to apply it. I can confirm that I have been in discussions which I have simply stopped having simply because the person on the other end had stuck their fingers in their ears, and refused to actually argue the point.
As I mentioned though, I have other things more pressing than debunking a likely misuse of information theory, but I’ll put that on the list in any case.
Comment by jfredett — October 9, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
Is it Ok if I put “the problem of evil” another way?
Evil exists
“The existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God
Therefore, such a God does not exist”
Comment by Thomaslee — October 12, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
Well, that presumes that it is compatible with _all_ of those things. I contend that the existence of evil is incompatible with an omnibenevolent, near-omnipotent god. Eg, one that is “capable and willing” — omniscience doesn’t come into it really, I suppose you could argue that omniscience is necessary (or omnipresence in the same way) so that God “Knows” about all instances of evil, so– generally, yah, thats not a bad definition. However, the conclusion is a little strong for my tastes, I would “weaken” that to be “Therefore, a god with all of these properties simultaneously is not possible” — this emphasizes that a “different” god (one who is not omni-this or omni-that, but everything else) is possible, barring other ‘proofs’ (I quote because the proofs are not formal, and thus not “proofs” in the mathematical sense).
Barring those caveats, I’d be happy to argue with that as a definition of the “Problem of Evil” — in reality, it’s a theorem:
eg:
P1: Evil exists
P2: the Existence of evil is incompatible with a god who is Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent and (Omnipresent or Omniscient)
C: Thus no god exists which has this combination of properties.
–
Comment by jfredett — October 12, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
Ok here goes;
My first objection shows that the argument collapses because there is a contradiction between premise 1 and the conclusion. It touches on the presuppositions behind the argument from evil. For if an argument assumes in its premises what it denies in its final conclusion, it is self- defeating; this is precisely what occurs in any argument from evil.
In attempting to press his claim about evil, by premise 1, an atheist has assumed an ultimate standard of good. For if there is no standard, how can the atheist insist that a certain act or situation is evil? This standard must be beyond this world, otherwise, who defines what good and evil is-Stalin, Mother Teresa, Hitler? Evil presupposes an objective standard of good by which it is judged truly evil.
But what is evil is privation; in this sense blindness means the privation of sight.
When a man loses his sight, we know that it is an evil because he should have had sight to begin with. When we see a child in agony, we automatically know that it is an evil because the child should have been healthy.
Since we need to presuppose an ultimate standard of good with which to judge an act “evil”, we arrive right back at God. For it is His nature which is the only possible standard.
Without God we are just a complex arrangement of molecules, which evolved by time, chance and natural selection. Both “evil” and “good” acts become ultimately one set of molecules colliding with another. To escape this conclusion there must be a divine creator making us much more than mere molecules.
This point was vividly illustrated in Nazi Germany. Hitler took atheism to its ultimate conclusion. For with no standards, other than those of his own making or the making of his group, an individual has no reason to do other than seek his own benefit. Why should we care about the handicapped and others in need? Hitler followed Nietzsche’s and Darwin’s ideas that we should allow the weak to die and allow the strong to breed. For example, Darwin, after complaining that keeping unhealthy people alive in hospitals and asylums must be detrimental to the human race, concludes:
We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.
Some people argued that by allowing only the “fit” to breed, man would evolve into a race of supermen. For example, in Mein Kampf (i.e. My Struggle) Hitler quoted Nietzsche: “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.”
Also, at the 1946 Nuremberg Trials, some of the Nazi defendants protested that there was no law higher than their country’s by which to try them. By judging them, we implied that there was an absolute standard of good above any country’s law.
Hence, the atheistic argument from evil is self-defeating. For premise 1 must presuppose the existence of God while the conclusion denies that God exists. The fact of evil does not destroy the idea of God but rather supports it. So the notion of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God must be compatible with evil.
Thus, the theist does not need to defend God’s attributes because the argument from evil does not attack them. Note that the theist has not shown the conclusion to be false (although he should be able to do so by using other arguments). All the theist has done is shown that the atheist can’t use the argument from evil, because it is unsound, to prove that God does not exist. The theist has rendered the argument from evil useless to prove the atheist’s conclusion. The atheist must use other arguments to try and disprove God (futile as they may be).
Comment by Thomaslee — October 12, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
Tom, I want to push this discussion to the front page, so I’m going to write up a reply as a blogpost — this is good stuff. The arguments are not new, and I don’t (unsurprisingly) think they’re particularly valid (as you’ll see in my post) but it is fun to have them!
I’ll be posting the response in an hour or so- when I finish writing it.
/Joe
Comment by jfredett — October 12, 2009 @ 7:06 pm