If Stephen Fry Met God - Revisited God & Problem of Evil

[TGHusker]

I wanted to revisit this thread with a lengthy response. I've taken several weeks to "digest" the topic and come up with this "essay" if you will.. You can see the original discussion wt this link. I pick up my thoughts from there.

Original Thread

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/74397-if-stephen-fry-met-god/

 

Due to the length of my post, I'm dividing it into 4 posts for 'readability' all though they all address the same topic and should be read as a 'whole'.

 

Post # 1:

 

 

God and the Problem of Evil & Suffering

I’ve been thinking long and hard about this subject since HuskerX posted it. I am neither a theologian nor a philosopher but I am a thinker – or try to be. And this topic has given me a lot to think about. So, I did some research with the few related books that I have as well as the Bible. There are a lot of rabbit trails one can go down on a subject like this and we have done a good job of going down those trials (in the original thread). But I want to get back to the main topic of the thread: The existence of God and the existence of suffering in this world.

Let’s make it personal. We don’t have to talk about kids with cancer, or eye eating bugs, etc to bring this discussion home. We all experience suffering/evils directly or indirectly almost every day. For me, my wife has been dealing wt debilitating pain for 21 years, which has greatly affected her quality of life. I, personally, have a medical condition I have to deal with daily. My twin brother died 3 days after birth. I’ve had relatives who: died of cancer, heart attacks & strokes, had legs torn off by a combine, drowned, injured in war, fight long term illnesses, and others who have been abused and who were abusers. I have as well as relatives have been affected by ‘acts of god’ – the calamities of nature. So suffering affects all of us, Christian and non-Christian.

 

Also, we are all skeptics in one way or another. Even believers have moments of doubt (“I believe, help me with my unbelief”). Skeptics range from ‘near belief’ all the way to atheism. On some topics I’m a skeptic – certain political views, certain religious views for example. Thus, I like to think all of us are on the same journey – the journey of finding truth in our lives and a world view that makes sense of life. It does no good to show the arrogance of thinking you have cornered the truth on knowledge. There are many brighter lights that have debated this subject throughout the centuries then those of us on this forum. For every ‘believer’ who has become an unbeliever, there are atheists who have become believers – at the highest level of this debate. So criticism of another person’s belief in ‘an invisible friend’ only shows unfounded arrogance in my opinion. Instead we should respect each other’s path they have walked. We aren’t all that different and we can gain from each other in different ways if we allow ourselves the freedom to ‘listen’.

 

In this discussion, the burden of proof seems to me to be wrongly placed on the Christian alone. I think the skeptic also has much to prove (skeptic: again just a general term to describe the non-believer – not meant to be derogatory – we all are skeptics as I note above). With this topic there is an emotional and an intellectual component that needs to be looked. I think we experience pain (our own or observed), react to it emotionally. We then make an intellectual decisions about suffering, life, and God.

 

It is the skeptic or atheist who claims that the coexistence of God and suffering is impossible or improbable. If so, then it is up to them to support their conclusion and prove that God cannot have or does not have a good reason for permitting the suffering in the world. I would ask the skeptic, “Are you saying it is impossible for God and the suffering in the world to both exist or are you saying that it’s merely improbable that God and suffering both exist?

 

The skeptic often compares God & suffering to the ‘irresistible force and the immovable object” both cannot exist at the same time. They claim that the following 2 statements are logically inconsistent:

1. An all loving, all powerful God exists
2. Suffering exists

However, the 2 statements have no explicit contradictions between them – the statements are not opposite of the other. Perhaps the skeptic believes there’s an implicit contradiction – there then must be a hidden assumption(s) that would bring out the contradiction and make it explicit. Those assumptions most likely are:

1. If God is all powerful, He can create any world that he wants.
2. If God is all loving, He prefers a world without suffering. Therefore, it would follow that the world has no suffering. But that contradicts #2 – suffering exists. Therefore, God must not exist.

But are the assumptions of #3 & #4 true?

1. Let’s look at #3 If God is all powerful, He can create any world that he wants. Is that necessarily true? Well, not if it’s possible that people have free will. It’s logically impossible to make someone do something freely. God’s being all powerful does not mean that He can bring about the logically impossible – for there is no such ‘thing’ as the logically impossible. Since it’s possible that people have free will, it turns out that #3 is not necessarily true. For if people have free will, they may refuse to do what God desires. So there will be any number of possible worlds that God cannot create because the people in them wouldn’t cooperate wt God’s desires. We know it’s possible that in any world of free persons with as much good as this world, there would also be a much suffering.

 

In order for true love to exist, true free will must exist.God’s fore knowledge does not control our actions.In the same way, that I knew with 90% accuracy that my wife was going to pick the pistachio nut ice cream when we walked into the ice cream shop (because I know her intimately – her tastes for ice cream included, and I saw the sign “new pistachio ice cream”) – I still didn’t control her choice – I knew it but it was still her free will choice.God, even with greater certainty, knows our actions but still allows us the freedom to choose according to our free will.God doesn’t remove the choice of our action ( or the consequences –good or bad)or gives us the appearance of a choice.For real love to exist – real choices have to be made.

 

1. Let’s look at #4: If God is all loving, He prefers a world without suffering. Is this a proper assumption? God could have overriding reasons for allowing the suffering in the world. We all know of cases in which we permit suffering in order to bring about a greater good. While the skeptic might say that an all-powerful God would not be so limited and could bring the greater good directly without suffering; I would counter that given freedom of the will that may not be possible. It may very well be the case that a world with suffering is on balance better overall than a world with no suffering. Can the skeptic prove that free will is impossible and that it’s impossible that a world with suffering would be better than a world with no suffering? It is very plausible that God and suffering are logically consistent.

Consider a 5^th Statement:

 

1. God could not have created another world with as much good as, but less suffering than, this world, and God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the suffering that exists.

Given human freedom, God’s options are restricted and it may be that a world with as much good as the actual world, but with less suffering wasn’t an option.Nevertheless, God has good reasons for the suffering He allows.If statement 5 is possibly true, then it shows that it’s possible that God and suffering both exist.We may not understand why a good God would allow terrible suffering.But this just establishes that if there is a God, we do not know everything he knows. Why should this surprise us? You may disagree wt this premise but it does not contradict the others.To disprove the God of the Bible exists, the skeptic must demonstrate there can be no moral justification for an all- good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God to allow evil.Has this been proven?NO. This doesn’t mean the question isn’t valid, only that a question is not the same as a proof.

 

We as finite individuals are not in position to say that it is impossible that God lacks good reasons for permitting the suffering in the world.We would all agree that much suffering in the world looks unjustified.Can we say, however, that when suffering looks unjustified is it really unjustified?I don’t believe we can say this with confidence.We are limited in space & time, in intelligence & insight & wisdom.The God of Christianity sees the end of history from its beginning & providentially orders history to His ends through man’s free decisions & actions.Suffering that appears pointless within our limited view may be justly permitted through God’s fuller view.

[TGHusker]

Post #2

The Chaos Theory (a mathematical sub-discipline that studies complex systems) tells us that that nature most often works in patterns, which are caused by the sum of many tiny pulses.For example, it has been said that the flutter of a butterfly’s wings in Africa may set in motion forces that will eventually create a storm over the Atlantic.A couple of movies come to mind immediately: “Sliding Doors” tells how a woman’s life tracks in 180 degree different paths if she makes it through the train’s sliding doors.“It’s a Wonderful Life” – we all know how Bedford Falls would have become sin city without George Bailey.Little decisions, little changes in life causes a ripple effect that can be felt by many years from now and in places far away. Given the complexity of life, we are in no position at all to judge that God has no good reason for permitting some instance of suffering to affect our lives.It isnot surprising that much suffering seems to be pointless.Just because you or I can’t see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to occur, doesn’t there can’t be one.Hiding within hard core skepticism is an enormous faith in one’s own cognitive abilities.If our mind can’t see it or conceive good answers to suffering then there must not be any.This, my friend, is blind faith in oneself. It could be very possible that from God’s vantage point, there are good reasons for the suffering we experience. If you have a good great & transcendent enough God to be mad at because he hasn’t stopped evil & suffering, then you have at the same time a God great & transcendent enough to have good reasons for allowing it to continue – reasons that you can’t know of.You can’t have it both ways.

The Bible tells us in Ephesians 1:11 that “God works all things after the counsel of His will” (notice it doesn’t say after my limited counsel or your limited counsel). Romans 8:28-29 tells us that '²⁸ And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. ²⁹ For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren."

For the Christian, we can choose to allow suffering to transform us into Christ likeness. We can chose to either be bitter or be better.

 

C.S. Lewis said, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”In some ways, we need pain so that we are not overcome by the evil that we would choose were it painless.He alerts us to the fact that there are better things than misery.

[TGHusker]

Post # 3

 

 

I want to quote at length from Timothy Keller’s book, “The Reason for God” chapter 2 ‘ How could a Good God Allow Suffering?’Quote: “ Evil and Suffering May be (If Anything) Evidence for God.Horrendous, inexplicable suffering, though it cannot disprove God, is nonetheless a problem for the believer in the Bible.However, it is perhaps an even greater problem for nonbelievers.C.S. Lewis described how he had originally rejected the idea of God because of the cruelty of life.Then he came to realize that evil was even more problematic for his new atheism.In the end he realized that suffering provided a better argument for God’s existence than one against it. (quoting Lewis now) ‘My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of ‘just’ and ‘unjust’? … What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. Bit if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too – for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies… Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.’

Continuing Keller’s thoughts: Lewis recognized that modern objections to God are based on a sense of fair play and justice.People, we believe, ought not to suffer, be excluded, die of hunger or oppression.But the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak – these things are all perfectly natural.On what basis then does the atheist judge the natural world to be horribly wrong, unfair, and unjust?The nonbeliever in God doesn’t have a good basis for being outraged at injustice, which, as Lewis points out, was the reason for objecting to God in the first place. If you are sure that this natural world is unjust and filled with evil, you are assuming the reality of some extra-natural (OR supernatural) standard by which to make your judgement.The philosopher Alvin Plantinga said it like this: ‘Could there really be any such thing as horrifying wickedness if there were no God and we just evolved? I don’t see how. There can be such a thing only if there is a way that rational creatures are supposed to live, obliged to live… A secular way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort… and thus no way to say there is such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness, and not just an illusion of some sort, then you have a powerful.. argument for the reality of God.’

Keller continues: In short, the problem of tragedy, suffering, and injustice is a problem for everyone.It is at least as big a problem for nonbelief in God as for belief.It is therefore a mistake, though understandable one, to think that if you abandon belief in God it somehow makes the problem of evil easier to handle.….

Keller continues: ‘So what if suffering and evil doesn’t logically disprove God? I’m still angry. All this philosophizing does not get the Christian God ‘off the hook’ for the world’s evil and suffering.’ In response philosopher Peter Kreeft points out that the Christian God came to earth to deliberately put himself on the hook of human suffering.In Jesus Christ, God experience the greatest depths of pain.Therefore, through Christianity doesn’t provide the reason for each experience of pain, it provides deep resources for actually facing suffering with hope and courage rather than bitterness and despair.End quoting Timothy Keller.

From the beginning of time God had a response to the risk of creating man with free will, a free will to love and a free will to choose evil.That response was Jesus Christ & through Him, God Himself, would meet the consequences of the risk head on and in due time we will know in full and injustice will be corrected by justice and sorrow will be replaced by joy.While it might seem that the problem of suffering is the greatest objection to the existence of God, at the end of the day,God is the only solution to it.If God doesn’t exist, thenwe are locked without hope in a world filled with pointless & unredeemed suffering.Christians believe that God is the final answer to the problem of suffering, for He redeems us from all of this evil and he takes us into the everlasting joy of an incredible good- fellowship with Him.

[TGHusker]

Post # 4

 

Norman L Geisler addresses the issue of evil in his book “When Skeptics Ask”.I’ll now quote at length from chapter 4 ‘Questions about Evil’ as he does a better job than I can in addressing the topic.Quote:

What is Evil? What is the nature of evil? We talk about evil acts (murder), evil people (Charles Manson), evil books (pornography), evil events(tornadoes), evil sicknesses (cancer, blindness), but what makes all of these things evil? What is evil when we look at it by itself? Some have said that evil is a substance that grabs hold of certain things and makes them bad (like a virus infection an animal) or that evil is a force in the universe (like the dark side of Luke Shywalker’s Force). But if God made all things, then that makes God responsible for evil. The argument looks like this:

1. God is the author of everything, 2 Evil is something, 3. Therefore, God is the author of evil.

The first premise is true.So it appears that in order to deny the conclusion we have to deny the reality of evil (as the pantheists do). But we can deny that evil is a thing, or substance, without saying that it isn’t real. It is a lack in things.When good that should be there is missing from something, that is evil.After all, if I am missing a wart on my nose, that is not evil because the wart should not be there in the first place. However, if a person lacks the ability to see, that is evil. Likewise, if a person lacks the kindness in his heart and respect for human life that should be there, then he may commit murder. Evil is, in reality, a parasite that cannot exist except as a hole in something that should be solid.

In some cases, though, evil is more easily explained as a case of bad relationships.If I pick up a good gun, put in a good bullet, point it at my good head, put my good finger on the good trigger and give it a good pull…. a bad relationship results. The things involved are not evil in themselves, but the relationship between the good things is definitely lacking something.In this case the lack comes about because the things are not being used as they ought to be. Guns should not be used for indiscriminate killings, but are fine for recreation.My head was not meant to be used for target practice.Similarly, there is nothing wrong with strong winds moving in a circle, but a bad relationship arises when the funnel of wind goes through a mobile home park.Bad relationships are bad because the relationship is lacking something, so our definition of evil still holds.Evil is a lack of something that should be there in the relationship between good things.

 

Where did evil come from? In the beginning there was God and He was perfect. Then the perfect God made a perfect world. So how did evil come into the picture? Let’s summarize the problem this way:

1. Every creature God made is perfect. 2 But perfect creatures cannot do what is imperfect. 3. So, every creature God made cannot do what is imperfect.

But if Adam and Eve were perfect, how did they fall? Don’t blame the it on the snake because that just backs the question up one step. Some have concluded that there must be some force that is equal with God or beyond His control. Or maybe God just isn’t good after all. But maybe the answer lies in the idea of perfection itself.

1. God Made everything perfect
2. One of the perfect things God made was free creatures
3. Free will is the cause of evil
4. So, imperfection (evil) can arise from perfection (not directly but indirectly through freedom)

One of the things that makes men (and angels) morally perfect is freedom. We have a real choice about what we do. God made us that way so that we could be like Him and could love freely (forced love is not love at all, is it?). But in making us that way He also allowed for the possibility of evil. To be free we had to have not only the opportunity to choose good, but also the ability to choose evil. That was the risk God knowingly took. That doesn’t make Him responsible for evil. He created the fact of freedom, we perform the acts of freedom. He made evil possible; men make evil actual. Imperfection came through the abuse of our moral perfection as free creatures. When we sin, ultimately we (by our wills) are the cause of the evil we do.

Why Can’t Evil be Stopped? Why hasn’t God done something about evil? If He could and would do something, why do we still have evil? There are two answers for this question. First, evil cannot be destroyed without destroying freedom. As we said before, free beings are the cause of evil, and freedom was given to us so that we could love. Love is the greatest good for all free creatures, but love is impossible without freedom. So if freedom were destroyed, which is the only way to end evil, that would be evil in itself, because it would deprive free creature of their greatest good. Hence, to destroy evil would actually be evil. If evil is to be overcome, we need to talk about it being defeated, not destroyed.

The argument against God from evil makes some arrogant assumptions. Just because evil is not destroyed right now does not mean that it never will be. The argument implies that if God hasn’t done anything as of today, then it won’t ever happen. But this assumes that the person making the argument has some inside information about the future. If we restate the argument to correct this oversight in temporal perspective, it turns out to be an argument that vindicates God:

1. If God is all good, He will defeat evil
2. If God is all powerful, He can defeat evil
3. Evil is not yet defeated
4. Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil

This very argument used against the existence of God turns out to be a vindication of God in the face of the problem of evil. There is no question here that if it has not yet happened and God is as we suppose Him to be, that we simply haven’t waited long enough. God isn’t finished yet. The final chapter has not been written. Apparently God would rather wrestle with our rebellious wills to reign supreme over rocks and trees. Those who want a quicker resolution to the conflict will have to wait.

God could have created free creatures that would not sin. It is logically possible to have free will and not sin. Adam did it before the Fall. Jesus did it throughout His whole life. The Bible says that there will someday be a world in heaven where everyone has free will but there won’t’ be any sin. There is no problem wt the idea of such a world, but not everything that is logically possible becomes actually real. It is conceivable that free creatures would never sin, but getting it to happen is another matter. How could God have guaranteed that they would never sin? One way would be to tamper with their freedom. He could have programmed creatures to only do good things or distract them before they choose something evil thus changing their decision. But are such creatures really free? It’s hard to call a choice free if it was programmed so that there was no alternative. Distraction would not deal with the already existing evil motives in the decision that we were about to make. So a world where no one sins may be conceivable, but it is not actually achievable.

God could have created free creatures who would sin, but would all be saved in the end. Such a view suggests that God will save individuals no matter what He has to do. But we must remember that He cannot force them to love Him. Forced love is rape; and God is not a divine rapist. He will not do anything to coerce their decision. God will not save men at any cost. he respects their freedom and concurs with their choice. He is not a puppet master, but a lover wooing men to Himself.

Then why did God choose this world? Is this the best world God could have made? This may not be the best of all possible worlds, but it is the best way to the best world. If God is to both preserve freedom and defeat evil, then this is the best way to do it. Freedom is preserved in that each person makes his own free choice to determine his destiny. Evil is overcome in that, once those who reject God are separated from the others, the decisions of all are made permanent. Those who choose God will be confirmed in it and sin will cease. Those who reject God are in eternal quarantine and cannot upset the perfect world that has come about. The ultimate goal of a perfect world with free creatures will have been achieved, but the way to get there requires that those who abuse their freedom be cast out. God has assured us that as many as possible will be saved – all who will believe (John 6:37). And God has provided for the salvation of all in Christ (1John 2:2). he waits patiently (motivated by His love), desiring all me to be saved (2Peter 3:9) but, as Jesus said mourning over Jerusalem, “How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.” (Matthew 23:37). As atheist Jean-Paul Sartre noted in his play No Exit, the gates of hell are locked from the inside by man’s free choice.

End of Quote

[TGHusker]

Post 5

 

I respect your thoughtful responses.

[knapplc]

At the outset, the burden of proof is rightly placed solely on the Christian. As I cannot prove that unicorns don't exist - the burden is on those claiming it does to show evidence. I cannot give evidence of the non-existence of something.

 

There's several hundred words here that are founded on the existence of something unproven. That's where any conversation has to start, and that was the point Stephen Fry was making - the very existence of God is illogical and unproven.

[Husker_x]

TGHusker,

 

Thanks for posting something thoughtful. I can see you put a lot of time into your work and that you went to a great deal of trouble to put this out. And yes let's make it personal. I used to be a Christian and I went through plenty of similar apologetic material as I wrestled with some complicated questions regarding my former faith. And the Problem of Evil is a tricky one, clearly. The question is so simple. Everywhere we look on this planet there is disaster. When humans aren't busy killing each other (or contemplating/planning/threatening it), there's an endless procession of other natural disasters to contend with: fires, disease, famine, plagues, floods, hurricanes. Now one thing we should be clear about is that thanks to science we can explain––at least in a general sense––why these things happen. We can form causal links between things. Lightning strike causes fire, fire burns crops, lost crops = famine, famine lowers nutrition, lower nutrition increases disease, and with it pain, etc., etc. etc. Most of the enterprise of civilization is about identifying the root causes of these and other problems and taking steps to defend against, if not eradicate, what nature would otherwise inflict on us.

 

Where it gets complicated is when we're in the middle of dragging a Nepalese child out of the rubble caused by another earthquake, some guy comes along with a story––literally nothing but a story––about a figure called God that is all powerful and all loving. God had the power to stop the earthquake from happening. Even if he somehow napped through the devastation, he retains the power to reverse it. But he doesn't. He never does a single demonstrable thing. Ever.

 

It gets worse, because you see people all over the world have been talking about God seemingly forever. Some idea about him, her, or it exists in almost every culture in every epoch of human history. Stories on top of stories on top of stories. The Christian God is just one story, plucked as it happens from a region of the world where many, many versions of gods cross pollinated for centuries. In this version of the story, God loves humans. He is not impartial––or even capricious––like a Greek or Roman god might be. He is genuinely interested in the project of saving humanity from itself (and presumably the earthquake). So the story goes, anyway. I've heard it I don't know how many times now. Over the years we watch disaster after disaster strike the world or people in our lives, one simple, implicit questions keeps reappearing: Why is a loving God allowing this? For all the long-winded debates about it, one strange fact remains constant: he, she, or it apparently has no interest in answering it.

 

Therefore, I am a skeptic regarding God. Not just about God, though. I'm a skeptic about all topics. You can consider it a kind of default position. Positive claims require positive evidence. Follow the evidence were it leads, not where you'd like it to lead. Within my own worldview I even recognize my utter inability to ever fully understand, let alone articulate, everything there is to know about the Universe. The more I learn, the more questions I seem to have, which puts me in good company I believe.

 

In your second post you state that:

 

Hiding within hard core skepticism is an enormous faith in one’s own cognitive abilities.If our mind can’t see it or conceive good answers to suffering then there must not be any. This, my friend, is blind faith in oneself.

 

I do not know what the distinction between hard core and otherwise ordinary skepticism might be, or how you would hide in it. When presented with mysteries too great for my own mind to grasp, like why the universe exists, skepticism merely dictates I answer honestly: I don't know; further searching is required, and the prospect of finding a satisfactory answer is uncertain. The religious believer on the other hand has no shortage of confidence in the state of his knowledge. Your post(s) went even further than I thought it would. Angels and salvation and resurrection and Adam and Eve . . . . Strong stuff. Yet knapplc's point seems to cut right through the Gordian Knot. How is it that we know––or rather you know––that any of it, including the part about God existing at all, is true? You can't expect me to disprove the existence of a silent, invisible being. How would I even start?

 

And furthermore, when we skeptics begin to ask questions about parasites that blind children and cancers that eat people alive by the millions every year, we're told that it's arrogant. Well I want to know the reason. I demand to know the reason. Why has God not put a stop to this pneumonia business, or AIDS, or rheumatoid arthritis? Why did he allow it in the first place? Why has he not communicated his intentions more clearly, and why is his alleged biblical message lost in a sea of noise created by competing ideologies and traditions? What is the reason for this suffering and confusion? Can I not comprehend it? Why can't I comprehend it? Can he try to make me? If not, why not, and why is it not worth it to him to at least try?

 

I feel like I could go on but I would not be adding anything particularly important. Despite what C.S. Lewis and others would prefer to think, this argument does not do Christianity any favors. And this philosophical aside, while compelling enough, is not nearly the only problem with Christianity. Whether we're talking history, textual criticism, archaeology, or even common sense, a Christian hoping for converts has a hell of a lot more explaining to do even after this part of the Great Conversation plays itself out.

[JJ Husker]

Good stuff TGHusker and Husker_x. Enjoyed the read and the respect shown to opposing points of view.

[Landlord]

x, if God stopped an earthquake from happening, that would hardly be a demonstrable thing.

 

 

 

 

TGHusker sorry I never got around to responding to your pm but I'm glad you went ahead with the thread. Been to busy to digest all of this.

[jsneb83]

At the outset, the burden of proof is rightly placed solely on the Christian. As I cannot prove that unicorns don't exist - the burden is on those claiming it does to show evidence. I cannot give evidence of the non-existence of something.

 

There's several hundred words here that are founded on the existence of something unproven. That's where any conversation has to start, and that was the point Stephen Fry was making - the very existence of God is illogical and unproven.

I think Redux begs to differ

[TGHusker]

Thanks X and Knapp for thoughtful responses.

[NUance]

x, if God stopped an earthquake from happening, that would hardly be a demonstrable thing.

 

That provokes a thought in me. What if God had created a world in which there was no evil? That is, no evil other than to disobey God? Let's say the world was much the same as it is today except for two things: 1) No disease, death, famine, earthquakes, etc.; and 2) People could choose to believe in God or not, with no consequences for their choice. That world would seem idyllic from our perspective. But what if a significant portion of the population ceased to believe in God. (Maybe it's inevitable that in such a world everyone would cease to believe in God.) Let's say they obeyed all laws, since they didn't have any wants or greed. But instead of worshiping God they simply forgot about Him. Cut Him out of the picture. Would God be satisfied with this scenario? I'd say, no.

 

OTOH, What if God made an idyllic world (Eden) with only one rule: Obey God. Humanity would be free to break the rule and pull away from God. But if we did, it would introduce evil into the world. We would then have to deal with disease, death, famine, earthquakes, etc. during our time in that world. It seems like that's where we are now. But if we chose to obey God during our life in this world full of evil, we can go back to something like the first world described above. Food for thought.

[BigRedBuster]

Glad this is a respectful discussion. I have found myself staying out of these discussions because a) almost nobody changes anyone's minds, and b) most of the time it ends up with some people being totally disrespectful to other's beliefs. I have just found that life is much more enjoyable and meaningful if I stay out.

 

But, since this is being respectful, I will dive in.

 

As I have said many times on here, I have gone through the very deep thought process and search for what I believe that many on here have. Many have gone through that and decided...."Meh...there must not be a God". I went the other way and believe too many things point to something not being able to happen without a higher power.

 

As for this discussion about God and evil, I simply get to a point where I can't answer the question without a higher power involved and within us. That question is...."Why do we care?"

 

We have talked about earthquakes and horrible things that happen to people all over the world. These things can affect us emotionally very very deep even if we aren't directly involved. But...why do we care? If all we are is one big chemical reaction....then...so what? Who cares if that kid is trapped under that rubble and dies? It's no different than some scientist discontinuing an experiment between two chemicals in a lab. A chemical reaction stopped. Who cares? If anything, we should be happy because that's one less chemical reaction taking up space and resources for our own chemical reactions to take place.

 

Why do we care if a guy in Omaha kills his mom and throws one small sibling in the dumpster and the other over a bridge to die? Friggen, leave the little kid in the dumpster and let him be smashed and torn apart in a dump truck and buried at the land fill.

 

OK...the answer I usually get is that we have chemical reactions in our brains that cause us to have these emotions. Ok.....now that we know that, wouldn't the logical reaction then to be to somehow stop those chemical reactions in our brains that cause those horrible emotions towards the end of these chemical reactions? I would think with the technology today, that would be pretty easy. If we could solve that problem, then when I get sick and tired of my wife, kids or the neighbor, I can just take my shot gun out and blow them away and I'll be happy consuming the resources they were taking up.

 

Why do we care about "saving the planet for future generations"? Who gives a crap about future generations? All they are is more of the same meaningless chemical reactions that we are.

 

The fact is, we can't do that. There is something in us telling us that is wrong and when it does happen, it affects us very deeply. Now, I personally, have come to believe this is one piece of evidence that there is a higher power within us. For Christians, that higher power is named "God".

 

So....bringing this full circle, when I look at this I come to realize that (in my opinion) we recognize evil because there is a higher power (God). Evil (or all those bad things we call evil) would always be there. But, because there is a higher power, we recognize and feel them and work to eliminate as much evil as possible.

[NUinID]

Glad this is a respectful discussion. I have found myself staying out of these discussions because a) almost nobody changes anyone's minds, and b) most of the time it ends up with some people being totally disrespectful to other's beliefs. I have just found that life is much more enjoyable and meaningful if I stay out.

 

But, since this is being respectful, I will dive in.

 

As I have said many times on here, I have gone through the very deep thought process and search for what I believe that many on here have. Many have gone through that and decided...."Meh...there must not be a God". I went the other way and believe too many things point to something not being able to happen without a higher power.

 

As for this discussion about God and evil, I simply get to a point where I can't answer the question without a higher power involved and within us. That question is...."Why do we care?"

 

We have talked about earthquakes and horrible things that happen to people all over the world. These things can affect us emotionally very very deep even if we aren't directly involved. But...why do we care? If all we are is one big chemical reaction....then...so what? Who cares if that kid is trapped under that rubble and dies? It's no different than some scientist discontinuing an experiment between two chemicals in a lab. A chemical reaction stopped. Who cares? If anything, we should be happy because that's one less chemical reaction taking up space and resources for our own chemical reactions to take place.

 

Why do we care if a guy in Omaha kills his mom and throws one small sibling in the dumpster and the other over a bridge to die? Friggen, leave the little kid in the dumpster and let him be smashed and torn apart in a dump truck and buried at the land fill.

 

OK...the answer I usually get is that we have chemical reactions in our brains that cause us to have these emotions. Ok.....now that we know that, wouldn't the logical reaction then to be to somehow stop those chemical reactions in our brains that cause those horrible emotions towards the end of these chemical reactions? I would think with the technology today, that would be pretty easy. If we could solve that problem, then when I get sick and tired of my wife, kids or the neighbor, I can just take my shot gun out and blow them away and I'll be happy consuming the resources they were taking up.

 

Why do we care about "saving the planet for future generations"? Who gives a crap about future generations? All they are is more of the same meaningless chemical reactions that we are.

 

The fact is, we can't do that. There is something in us telling us that is wrong and when it does happen, it affects us very deeply. Now, I personally, have come to believe this is one piece of evidence that there is a higher power within us. For Christians, that higher power is named "God".

 

So....bringing this full circle, when I look at this I come to realize that (in my opinion) we recognize evil because there is a higher power (God). Evil (or all those bad things we call evil) would always be there. But, because there is a higher power, we recognize and feel them and work to eliminate as much evil as possible.

 

That is a great explanation IMO. I would never have thought of it in that manner, but agree with what you are saying. I to have a hard time with everything being random chance. To me God, the higher power etc. is what has put things in motion.

[knapplc]

Glad this is a respectful discussion. I have found myself staying out of these discussions because a) almost nobody changes anyone's minds, and b) most of the time it ends up with some people being totally disrespectful to other's beliefs. I have just found that life is much more enjoyable and meaningful if I stay out.

 

But, since this is being respectful, I will dive in.

 

As I have said many times on here, I have gone through the very deep thought process and search for what I believe that many on here have. Many have gone through that and decided...."Meh...there must not be a God". I went the other way and believe too many things point to something not being able to happen without a higher power.

 

As for this discussion about God and evil, I simply get to a point where I can't answer the question without a higher power involved and within us. That question is...."Why do we care?"

 

We have talked about earthquakes and horrible things that happen to people all over the world. These things can affect us emotionally very very deep even if we aren't directly involved. But...why do we care? If all we are is one big chemical reaction....then...so what? Who cares if that kid is trapped under that rubble and dies? It's no different than some scientist discontinuing an experiment between two chemicals in a lab. A chemical reaction stopped. Who cares? If anything, we should be happy because that's one less chemical reaction taking up space and resources for our own chemical reactions to take place.

 

Why do we care if a guy in Omaha kills his mom and throws one small sibling in the dumpster and the other over a bridge to die? Friggen, leave the little kid in the dumpster and let him be smashed and torn apart in a dump truck and buried at the land fill.

 

OK...the answer I usually get is that we have chemical reactions in our brains that cause us to have these emotions. Ok.....now that we know that, wouldn't the logical reaction then to be to somehow stop those chemical reactions in our brains that cause those horrible emotions towards the end of these chemical reactions? I would think with the technology today, that would be pretty easy. If we could solve that problem, then when I get sick and tired of my wife, kids or the neighbor, I can just take my shot gun out and blow them away and I'll be happy consuming the resources they were taking up.

 

Why do we care about "saving the planet for future generations"? Who gives a crap about future generations? All they are is more of the same meaningless chemical reactions that we are.

 

The fact is, we can't do that. There is something in us telling us that is wrong and when it does happen, it affects us very deeply. Now, I personally, have come to believe this is one piece of evidence that there is a higher power within us. For Christians, that higher power is named "God".

 

So....bringing this full circle, when I look at this I come to realize that (in my opinion) we recognize evil because there is a higher power (God). Evil (or all those bad things we call evil) would always be there. But, because there is a higher power, we recognize and feel them and work to eliminate as much evil as possible.

 

There are evolutionary reasons for everything here. Evil is simply a human word, a descriptor for things we don't like. It's been attached to the god conversation because God is presented as the opposite of evil. When we were hunter-gatherers huddled in our caves fearful of the wolves, wolves were evil. Other tribes were evil. Drought was evil.

 

Whatever we didn't understand, we invented explanations for. Zorb is the greatest spear-thrower in the tribe. We need meat, Zorb throws his spear at the antelope but OH NO! Zorb misses. How could Zorb miss? What happened? Zorb doesn't want to take the blame for a bad throw, so he looks for some external excuse. Zorb has a great idea - there are these things we can't see, spirits, that affect our lives. A bad spirit made the spear fly poorly, and miss. Zorb saves face, the tribe is mollified, and life goes on. The spirit story is adaptable, and works for any number of situations: No rain? The rain spirit isn't giving us rain. The spirit of the antelope makes him run away. The spirit of the night scares me. Soon the word of this tribe's "spirits" spreads, and other tribes pick it up. They have spirits, too. Because they are Them and we are Us, our spirits must be better than their spirits. Hence, some spirits become gods. The other guy's spirits, or gods, they're bad. They must be evil. When bad things happen to us, it's their gods, their evil. They are evil.

 

Maybe it isn't Zorb and the spear-casting. Maybe it's lightning which frightens us, for which early man had zero ability to explain. Maybe it's flood or pestilence... whatever. Same explanation arises - we can't see the cause, we can't figure it out, it must be something, so... spirits. Our spirits, their spirits, better spirits, gods, bad gods, Us vs. Them...

 

 

 

 

And much as I have difficulty grasping how disparate chemicals coalesced into living organisms, the best evidence we have so far is that this is the case. The organisms that began life had to struggle mightily simply to survive. The desire to live is engrained in our DNA from the very earliest stages of life. Propagation of the species is literally written into the code that makes us who and what we are.

 

So that kid trapped in the rubble of an earthquake isn't just a pile of chemicals, and if they die who cares, I react on a base level to that creature's plight and strive to help it. We're colony creatures, we group into cities and work as a team. You're unlikely to take a shotgun to your kids because your own DNA recognizes them as extensions of you, and your basic, base desire to survive is perpetuated in those kids. People who kill their kids are acting contrary to evolution, no matter the resources they take up.

 

Who gives a crap about future generations? You do. You want your kids, grandkids and descendants for 1,000 generations to prosper - and if not specifically you, then your genetic code does. And higher-brained creatures though we are, our base-brain controls a lot of what we do. That animalistic brain says that by helping that child in the rubble, you're helping your species - you're helping you.

 

There is no need for an external force, a "god," to create that altruistic nature. It's self-serving, honestly (the altruism thing, I mean).