"The Lord works vindication and justice for all who are oppressed(Psalm 103:6)."
"(The Problem Of Evil, recited verbatum)"
The most popular argument among atheists and agnostics is Hick's problem of evil. It is an old, old argument. I have provided a response to it at http://www.oocities.org/gideon_bear/Hick.html. To make a long story short, Hick paints an exaggerated picture of God, which assumes far too much, oversimplifying complicated issues. The very act of separating sin, evil, free will and the Devil into separate arguments is an oversimplification. Evil has multiple causes, acting in tandem with one another. Would you look at a car battery, sitting on a shelf in an auto parts store, and ask why the car on the shelf didn't run? Absolutely not! You'd realize that it needs to go into a car in order to work properly. And it would matter what type of car you put it in. Not all batteries fit all cars. You wouldn't say that a tire, by itself in a store, is a bad car, so why say that the Judeo-Christian faith is faulty because of one artificially isolated tenet, such as the existence of the Devil? The Devil isn't responsible for all the bad things that happen in the world. Neither is free will totally to blame. It's a combination of these complex issues. The rest of my points concerning this topic are on the site listed above.
Causes of evil:
The Problem of Evil fails in its logic because it tries to simplify a complex, interrelationship into an either-or situation. This would be like simplifying the human body by saying "basically it's just a big kidney." When atheists and agnostics argue "God can't exist because of the Problem of evil," what they really mean is that the perceived causes of evil, when divided into separate theodicies, do not reflect the world we know to be true. Without the interrelationships, the causes of evil, isolated and presented by themselves, simply don't make sense.
| Human free will/Sin | Demons | God's Punishment | Human free will/sin+demons | Human free will/sin+God's punishment | God's punishment+demons | Human free will/sin+demons+God's punishment |
| False | False | False | False | False | False | True |
"Because the theodicies (or your arguments) have holes in them, there is no God."
Um...how about `the theodicies need work'? That's a much more rational conclusion. "Oh, what a wonderful God we have! How great are His riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his methods! For who can know what the Lord is thinking? Who knows enough to be His counselor? And who could ever give to Him so much that He would have to pay it back? For everything comes from Him; everything exists by His power and is intended for His glory. To Him be glory evermore. Amen(Romans 11: 33-36)."
"If you mean that `evil brings us knowledge,' then there could have been a more humane method!"
If you believe there's a more humane way to make such giant leaps in technology without Adolf Hitler, you must have a capacity for a belief in heaven.
"God knows the future, because he's omniscient, so He should have prevented evil, therefore He doesn't exist."
If you believe in heaven, you would see that death can be a good thing. Heaven is unimaginably better than earth. While the act of murder is evil, the person who dies receives great good in heaven, and they will be rewarded for all their sufferings. That shows both God's love and omniscience. If the murderer repents and sins no more, finding Christ, they will be forgiven and go to heaven, so showing God's omniscience and love on their behalf as well. Furthermore, no specifics are ever given in these types of arguments. Even the supposed specifics are general, the Holocaust for example. No mention is given about the people who rescued people from the concentration camps. The focus of these arguments are always negative. It's altogether too easy to speak about such things in general terms. You are making oversimplified assumptions about things too complicated for the human brain to comprehend. First of all, your concept of evil is oversimplified. Instead of taking into account all the sins or evil things that each individual human being on the face of this planet has done throughout all history, you generalize about everything. Then you assume that such a view is impossible because you cannot imagine a mind that is truly omniscient. You talk about "murders," not "the murder of (name)." Even if you gave a thousand examples of how God should have prevented this or that in this particular person's life, your argument would be weakened significantly, because your biases would be revealed, your definition of `evil' would be called into question, and research could uncover the good things in that particular person's life that counterbalances that `evil.' A tragedy might propel a person to start the greatest charitable organization of all time, but nobody talks about things like that in these types of arguments. God knows more than us, and has a more complicated brain, so it's possible for an omniscient God to allow real evil and the imaginary `evils' claimed by unbelievers to exist, while simultaneously being a loving God.
"If God's so loving, Why doesn't He destroy all the murderers in the world?"
Does that sound like a loving God to you? Striking down every person who does something evil? People who make this argument have a delusion of self righteousness. If God did what you wanted, nobody would be alive, not even you. I wouldn't be here, you wouldn't be here. In God's sight, we're all just as bad as murderers, because we all have sinned against God. I know this argument won't make sense to you, because atheists and agnostics like to either ignore all biblical commandments, or ignore any commandment that deals with divinity, unless it suits them. As an atheist or agnostic, you sin against God by your unbelief, so you will never please God. While you may be seen as a good person by other unbelievers, while you may stop at all the red lights and never violate copyright restrictions, following those human mandates is only part of God's commandments. Spiritually, there are laws you are breaking, and so you are just as evil as the murderer you wish to have destroyed. Christ died to save all sinners, agnostics, atheists, hypocritical Christians and murderers. His death took care of every sin. Jesus himself rebuked the disciple who asked if he could rain down fire on a village of evil people. Jesus came to save sinners, to bring life, not to destroy it. If God cared nothing for the murderer, then we wouldn't have ex-murderers leading prison ministries.
"If the war for Heaven is still continuing (and God is rather occupied by it- but that would mean that the Devil is also), then Satan's presence would be understandable."
Yeah. And that's exactly how it is. "Every proclamation of the good news about Jesus is a statement that God has already acted to overcome evil. When we see people following Jesus' example to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and put the needs of others first, we see how God's love in action defeats evil and brings hope(Katherine Harms, Devotional, The Word In Season, July, August, September, 2004, Thursday, July 29, 2004)."
"Anyway, yes, the Devil is the Temptor, but without temptation, wouldnt things be `better'? Even just a little?"
Yes, of course. And when the second coming happens, we'll see what that's like.
"By now, God (would have had) time to eliminate the dark forces, just for the slight gain in productivity - successful soul - survivor-wise."
How do you know He hasn't eliminated some? How do you account for `the problem of good?' All the peace and love in the world?
Me: "God guides people to stop them, he causes the criminal to stumble and make mistakes that get them caught, and those children that survive can be a witness, possibly for jury, or to help support other survivors, or to do humanitarian work of some kind. And I believe they will be given great treasures from God, both on earth and in heaven."
Agnostic: "Uh huh. Sooo in that case, it is a good idea to have criminals, so that others can do the above...Excusing crime as part of some sort of nebulous plan that supposedly pays off for the victims - after they are conveniently dead - seems cruel and convoluted."
God puts those people there to compel other, more fortunate people, to help them. The real issue is the lack of compassion in the people around them, the selfishness of people around them. Christians believe that when we take care of a bum, we are actually taking care of Jesus. And in heaven, Jesus will either reward us for helping him, or rebuke us for our negligence. There is the story about Lazarus and the rich man. Lazarus was a bum. He died from his poverty stricken conditions, and because of the negligence of the rich man. Lazarus was rewarded with heaven, but the rich man went to hell. So, God put bums there for us to help them. God wants us to be loving and caring, and share with other people. That's why things are the way they are. If all atheists and agnostics suddenly believed in God, I think there would be a drop in the homeless mortality rate, because these people would be compelled to care about others outside their family and friends.
"Bums are worse off, too. If we don't have God to `blame' for setting up such a situation, we also can't expect God to fix it - or (eventually) punish those responsible. No excuses, no delays, it is up to us to decide if a change is needed, and if so, to do so."
You're forgetting that Jesus called Christians to provide for the poor and needy. The rewards, punishments and future work together with the commandment, not separately. "It's up to us" you say? "Us atheists?" What, do you plan to change poverty by destroying the religion that does the most for the poor? By saying, "The fittest will survive?" By saying, "Get a job, you bum?" By saying, "Oh, the government will take care of it all?" It's partly God's responsibility and partly ours. God uses any way he can to take care of the poor, but we're not exempt.
"He (God) will bring back on them their (evildoers') iniquity and wipe them out for their wickedness; the Lord our God will wipe them out(Psalm 94:23)."
"Why does God let the phenomenon of murder, rape, torture, abuse, etc. exist in the first place? Why does he not prevent it before it happens?"
Basically, you are arguing that you don't need to obey God's commandments because He shouldn't throw you into hell, without ever explaining why you don't need to follow His commandments, or why He shouldn't throw you into hell. (For a more logical rephrasing of this objection, go to Debate1.html). This is very predatory reasoning for someone who thinks he's an innocent creature. A predator would look around the zookeeper for a way to attack an innocent creature, instead of cooperating with the zookeeper. When you use the term `zookeeper,' it indicates that you believe that certain people are naturally `predators' that have to be restrained and quarantined from the rest of the `zoo,' the world. If I go according to your analogy, we're all predators! In God's eyes, we are all sinners. Some of us just sin bigger than others. So, if we use the zoo analogy, there are no sheep or docile animals in the zoo. The zookeeper naturally puts all the lions in the lion exhibit, where they belong.
"`God will not let such people [mass murderers, etc] commit their crimes forever?' What is the reason such people exist at all? They have to have the `irretrevably flawed' souls you mentioned earlier."
You misunderstood what I said. What I meant was, throughout a person's lifetime, up until the end, if they exhibited total imperfection, and totally reject Jesus, they'd go to hell. No human being is completely flawed. The biased media likes to think that some human being or another is completely flawed, but there is always some good trait in that person's heart that causes God to keep them alive. There's always a glimmer of remorse deep down inside a person. Manson may have been sick and depraved, but he didn't kill his "family" that tagged along with him. He spared people from being killed, due to his strange logic. And I feel that somewhere in ol' Charlie's heart, there's remorse there, that he doesn't believe all the rantings he continually spews. A realization that he's not God, that there's a God blessing him undeservedly, something that makes God say, "Maybe I'll hold off on destroying him for awhile." Some Nazis have repented for their evils and became Christians. Others live with a heavy burden of guilt and remorse. When they get to the point of being completely inhuman, with no redeeming qualities, when they totally reject God, when God's given them their fair share of chances, that is when God lowers the boom on them. God is a fair and righteous judge. I think we're all going to have a situation similar to Defending Your Life, but it's not going to be a trial about courage, but rather a trial about godliness. "See this situation here? You could have helped this guy, but you drove on past." My trial is going to be embarassing, I'm sure. I'm glad Jesus has me covered. See below for more about `why God lets killers exist.'
"Why would a loving God allow murderers and other evil people to exist? Why hasn't he destroyed them?"
God wants all human beings to be saved. He gives them a set amount of time for them to repent and accept Christ into their hearts. He doesn't want to destroy anyone in hell, so he allows them to exist for as long as it takes for either acceptance of his grace, or the ultimate rejection of his grace. A Christian child may die and go to heaven early, because his or her faith has been made perfect already. Other people, like Manson, may die before they repent, but God gives them a long time to think about their decision before ultimately ending their life. Our lives are refinery. Our hearts will either found to be solid perfection or complete corruption. The unrepenitant sinner, who does not change at the end of his or her life, will be found to be completely corrupt at God's final judgement. But even a foxhole conversion is acceptable in God's sight, if genuine. One sign of imperfection is unbelief. Going away from pessimistic overgeneralizations, let's think about a hypothetical child molester or murderer. He starts out like a normal person. At some points in his life, he probably gets tempted to do such a thing, but chooses not to for some reason. What makes these people seem different from us is the fact they eventually succombed to the temptation. These types of criminals scare us and fill us with anger because we recognize something in them that we don't like about ourselves. Something that makes us uncomfortable. What we recognize is our own temptation to sin. To do the very same things they did. Secondly, there is a lack of forgiveness in us as observers. When someone close to us gets hurt, we want revenge, not justice. We want someone to do to them the same exact thing they did to our loved ones. The thing we are hating the most is the evil in our own heart. Now, people who molest and murder children have a mental disorder, so we cannot totally relate to them. Crimes of passion, like manslaughter are not predicated in this argument because the atheist thinks that revenge in certain situations is justified, tit for tat, and there seems to be no justification for child molestation or murder. But, to a certain degree, the person still has free will, despite their disorder. Once the deed is done, they will feel guilt about it. God gave us consciences, even the people who seem to not have any, the people who drown their consciences out. Like all of us, they feel guilt, and eventually it sinks in, and that's what God wants to happen. God uses whatever device he can to draw that remorse out of the guilty, so they can eventually repent, turn away from the evil they are doing, and be forgiven. The immense guilt also often inspires the criminals to do something in restitution, probably a lot, as an act of penance.
So, basically, my point is, when asking why God allows child murderers and torturers to exist, you have to ask why God lets me exist, and why God lets you exist. Either that, or ask a better question.
"There is no sensible reason for God to permit such people to exist in the first place."
And who are you to judge who should exist and who shouldn't? I'm glad God doesn't see life in such black and white terms as you do. It's not sensible for me to exist, since I'm just as bad.
"What about sociopaths? They are biologically hardwired not to feel any guilt."
Are you sure? In order to make your assertion, you have to first read the criminal's mind and know the thoughts running through their head. How do you know they feel no remorse? How do you know they are devoid of a conscience? All you have is external evidence, which can be misleading. And I'd say that somewhere, inside the demon possessed mind of the sociopath, there is a guilt wrenched sinner inside, crying out to God for forgiveness. It is far too easy to make the claim `genetics made me do it.' While you find the idea of God or Satan causing people to do things, I am equally incredulous about your idea that some all powerful genetic force forces people to do things. A lot of times, it is just an excuse for that person to do what they feel like. An example is homosexuality. "I'm just born that way! I can't help it!" Well, if you say that, you have to include child molesters and those who do beastiality in your tolerant views. After all, they "can't help it," either.
"I think it is outrageous to think God specifically created mass - criminals in order to send babies to Heaven. Not to mention cruel."
I think you're confusing apples with oranges. You made this leap from dead babies to mass criminals. With babies in the womb, they don't really know what's happening to them, and plus they've supposedly got some sort of LSD like chemical they ingest somehow, so they'd be at least somewhat numbed to the experience. If it dies during the birth process, it goes immediately to heaven. I'm not saying that killing babies is right. I'm just saying that their soul isn't harmed by all that, that God is still watching out for the baby's soul. Now, then, there's the issue of full grown babies. I guess you could be referring to the shaken baby syndrome thing when talking about murderers. But the issue is a bit confused here because you didn't distinguish between the "evil" the baby experiences and the "evil" that the baby shaker does. Sure, the baby feels momentary distress before death, but its soul goes straight to heaven, where there is no more pain. But the baby shaker, well, I've discussed it above when describing Manson.
"Your argument is no better than what those fanatical Moslems are saying, that you can `save' people by murdering them!"
Putting your misreading of Quranic principles aside, let me say this. If you read carefully, the concept of `killing a person to save them' wasn't the point of my argument. Certainly, murder is a bad thing, and it's wrong to go on murderous crusades, trying to kill people in order to save them. All I'm saying is that, while murders happen, and while they are evil events, God shows his benevolence by rewarding the victim with heaven, and simultaneously allowing the murderer to live and think seriously about the error or his or her ways, to change their evil hearts into good ones, filled with loving and compassion.
"If God sees all sin/evil as the same, and that puts you on the same level of guilt as the child killer, even in our (far inferior) law, those distinctions are clear, and so is the punishment, upon conviction. God should be able to do lots better than that!"
I am echoing what Paul said. "Chief of sinners, though I be." We all have sinned, regardless of what we have done, so we all need Christ's forgiveness. If you actually took the God commandments seriously, you'd understand how hopelessly unredeemable we all are, and yet Christ died for us to save us from hell.
"Some religions probably thought sacrificing a virgin `saved' her from worldly contamination. I wouldn't put that one past Islam even today, especially as I listen to PBS Frontline about the Iranian Islamic government's torture and murder of dissidents. Why does God permit this (and similar) police - states?"
God is allowing the world to see through the so - called `righteousness' of certain Moslem governments by allowing the blood of the innocent to rain down on their heads, as per Matthew 23:27-29. I believe a government, in the future, will be established to kill and torture Christians, worse than Islamics do, but by our love and peaceful resistance, the souls of the captors will be saved.
"Why does God need killers?"
He doesn't need people to kill for Him, but He does want to bring everyone to repentence, no matter what kind of sin they've done. See above. "You shall not fear them; for it is the Lord your God who fights for you(Deuteronomy 3:22)."
"If God wants the child killer to `repent, stop killing children, and become a prison minister,' then Stalin, Hitler, Mao, (and many more) would have been really terrific ministers! Instead they just killed millions."
God gave them the chance to do be really terrific ministers. This is what makes God's judgements fairer than human ones. Human judgements are based on hurt and hatred and the desire for vengeance. It is not nearly as objective as God's judgements. God saw that Hitler had a soul, and he tried to save it. When Hitler began executing Jews, it destabilized the military and the country. It's part of the reason he got defeated in Russia. His efforts were concentrated on concentration camps. He chose to commit suicide in a bunker, but he could have had a complete turnaround. Hitler's suicide was an ultimate rejection of God. There was a Japanese general who led the attack against Pearl Harbor. He captured an American soldier. The American was tortured by the guards. He hated the Japanese, but then he found a bible. He read it and he saw the love of Jesus, and he forgave the prison guards. The guards were so impressed by it that they must have become Christians or something and wrote a tract about it. Well, general Whatsitsface read it and converted to Christianity. He then came over to America during Pearl Harbor day during some year and presented someone a bible as a gift. Saul killed Messianic Jews(Jewish Christians), but he saw a vision from heaven, he saw Jesus, and he repented and changed his name to Paul. A really powerful spokesman of Christianity. I once heard that Fidel Castro became Christian, even after so many years of being cruel.
"Why did God design us to dislike criminals, if they are part of his plan?"
God didn't design us to dislike criminals. We dislike criminals because Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We have received the evil inclination from Adam and Cain and others, which allows us to hate our fellow man, and makes us feel like they deserve our hatred.
"`The faithful suffer evil to be better soldiers for God?' That's like the worst drill sargeant imaginable, and we are all raw recruits subject to His every whim - stuck in boot - camp until death!...`Sir! Yes Sir! To what will we be subjected today, Sir? Crime Sir? Tornado? Flood, earthquake, drought, war, disease, pestilence, Sir? We are here to punish at your pleasure Sir, so that you may `improve' us Sir!"
If you remove `boot camp' analogy, the war metaphor is not such a bad analogy. As Christians, the evil in life is like real life, hands - on combat. We learn from combat. So it's part of the battle, not just a torturous practice run.
"To think that God actually planned such a messy, painful, and fatal system, makes me think He didn't spend enough time in the design phase - "
I've talked about this stuff before. The issue I'll address here is `permits' and `allows.'
"All this is a toughy for the religious, requiring all sorts of rationalizations about how they will be judged later, or the Devil is doing it (with God's acquiescence, apparently), or it is necessary to The Plan, or God doesn't interfere, etc etc. An atheist simply blames bad men, not needing to try to explain why our Lord Creator lets us be ignored/tortured/toyed with in such a manner...Once again, I must say, all this seems nothing more than an attempt to explain the way things are (rationalization or myth)."
`Rationalization' to me, implies a lame attempt to convince oneself and others that something untrue is true or that the meaningful is meaningless. You have no grounds for that assertion. If you mean `bad men' as in sinful, then that problem has been addressed above. Certainly, it is an integral part of the problem of evil, though not the only cause. And none can be logically separated from the other without making them seem ridiculous. It's the comprehensive whole that is evil, not the component parts on their own, just as an atom is not inherently destructive, until used in a set way in a missile.
"Demons - even if He(God) doesn't want to interfere in our lives (though you've given plenty of examples of how He actually does- for our own good, of course!), there is no prohibition against whacking demons, is there? He should have no problem giving them a bad day!)"
I bet He does. And, in the endtimes, Christians will judge angels, including ones that disobey God (demons). That's when the bad ones will get whacked. God sometimes uses them to test people's loyalty to Him, but others are disobedient.
"I think intelligence and free - will - plus the concept of Hell - multiply the cynical possibility (nay, likelyhood) that adherants will be making a calculation of the odds of Heaven and Hell, and watching the clock so that as the final tick is about ready to bite, they can pull off a convenient deathbed conversion. At least the computers are `honest'!"
Jesus promised paradise to the dying criminal who hung near him on the cross, even though the man lived his entire life in thievery. The parable of the vineyard workers shows that deathbed conversions are the same as regular ones. Criminals who get saved before they meet the executioner are still saved. When you're in that type of situation [foxhole conversion], you're pretty genuine about it, aren't you? You're not being dishonest then. You're being truthful, even if it's a desperate last minute thing.
"There is no free will."
The biggest support for Hick's Problem of Evil is the idea that free will doesn't exist. Using a variety of excuses, people argue that if God exists, he must be controlling the whole show, human beings, demons and angels, and evil. This is an incredibly simplistic notion, which disregards personal responsibility or accountability of any kind. Whether you say "I can't control myself," "the Devil made me do it," "God made me do it," or "genetics made me do it," the excuse wouldn't fly in a legitimate court. If the excuse doesn't work in court, why would it be a good excuse not to believe in God?
"Genetics makes us what we are, and we have no control over our behavior because of it. So there is no free will."
I'm sure there's someone out there, as we speak, digging into a big bucket of chicken, saying, "I have an eating disorder. When I get sad, I eat. When I'm happy, I celebrate by eating. I have no control over myself. That's why I'm fat." There are secular(non-Christian) authorities who constantly reinforce the fact that we CAN control ourselves. Hey, just switch on Oprah or Dr.Phil sometime(and there are better, more authentic sources than that). People are always going on these weight loss training programs, getting jabbed because they let themselves fall into this state of "I can't help myself. I have no control over myself. It's just the way I was born."
If I really ascribed to that philosophy, that it's all genetic, I wouldn't even be writing this stuff here. I'd be looking at a Penthouse or a Hustler magazine instead.
"If God really loved us, He would eliminate free will."
Would He prevent me from sin by forcing me to stop playing Nintendo and do nothing but bow down and worship him all the time? I'd hate to have a God like that. That's an example of what would happen if God eliminated free will and had us do nothing but righteous acts. Why does God allow people to hurt us? Because he also gives them free will. I've heard my philosophy teacher once argue, "Science has proven that there is no free will." Oh really?
"God should eliminate free will and program everyone to love Him. At least then people wouldn't go to hell."
How odd that the atheist refuted his own objection! "Not unless God is illogical and vain. Otherwise He would know that was foolishness, and erase it from the program. It would be like getting a thrill from programming your computer to `worship' you.
10 PRINT `YOU ARE WONDERFUL!'
20 GOTO 10
No way God (or even you or me!) would believe it."
Would God believe it if He programmed human beings that don't like each other to hug and send each other flowers?
"People argue that God frees them, but really, religion limits free will."
Freedom really isn't free. You think you are free, but really you are a slave to your own selfish desires. This argument presumes that there is not a gradation of good, evil and non-moral choices. It's unlikely that the color of the shirt you are wearing will have any spiritual or moral impact on people around you. Neither will the choice between tennis, hockey or football. There are many choices that are not morally based. In other words, there are more choices than you think. The author of this argument is also implying that he's free, when he's not. The agnostic is enslaved to his own selfishness and his own `hobbies.'
"Blessed is the man whom thou dost chasten, O Lord, and whom thou dost teach out of thy law to give him respite from the days of trouble, until a pit is dug for the wicked(Psalm 94:12-13)."
"Daddy's hands...Were soft and kind when I was cryin', Daddy's hands...Were hard as steel when I'd done wrong, Daddy's hands weren't always gentle, but I've come to understand, there was always love in Daddy's hands..."
-Holly Dunn
"Why would a loving God allow his faithful to suffer?"
Unlike the situations facing unbelievers, there are more purposes for the suffering of believers.
"Why would a loving God allow demons to harass believers?"
St. Paul had a demon, a thorn in his flesh, in order to "keep him from becoming too elated" about the gospel. Through Christ, we have no fear of demons. Christ gives us protection against all evil. We have no fear of death or torture by evil spirits. Demons are no threat to the believer.
"If God permits demons to torture the innocent, a prayer would be a good thing to do, except that it means God is a mass torturer!...If prayer works, it means God is really is equivalent to appealing to your kidnapper to make his thugs stop beating you. But if the 'napper wasnt a criminal, the situation wouldn't have occured in the first place."