I'm having trouble with this argument, I can't come up with a counter argument.

[53rv4n7]

“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?”

Also, the omnipotence Paradox. "Can God create an object so heavy he himself cannot lift it?"

Thanks, I'm really struggling with this right now.

[imoss]

please refer to the free will thread. God doesnt control us any more than we can absolutely control our children.

Originally Posted by 53rv4n7

“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?”

This is a very old argument, but it's also the one that is most commonly seen (which is surprising since it has been answered so many times).

You'll commonly find it in this form:

1. An all powerful God would be capable of preventing evil.
2. An all good God would want to prevent evil.
3. Evil is not prevented.
Conclusion: Therefore, God is either not all good or not all powerful. Furthermore, since Christianity claims that God is both all powerful and all good, the Christian God must not exist.

The argument, however, is faulty. An all good God will always have a morally sufficient reason for causing what He causes or allowing what He allows. So the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises. The only thing that logically follows is that God, if he is all powerful and all good, has a morally sufficient reason for the evil that exists.

And with all due respect to the above commenter, I don't think the "free will defense" will work here. After all, we would probably stop a rapist from committing rape, even if that meant violating his free will to prevent the rape. So why doesn't God? The free will defense just ends up looking like a bad deus ex machina at this point.

Originally Posted by 53rv4n7

Also, the omnipotence Paradox. "Can God create an object so heavy he himself cannot lift it?"

Thanks, I'm really struggling with this right now.

There are two different ways we can untie this knot.

(1) Omnipotence (being all powerful) does not mean that God can do things that are logically impossible (like make a square circle); rather, omnipotence means that God can do all *logically* possible things. For God to create a stone so big that he cannot lift it (to do something he cannot do) is logically impossible. So the answer is technically "No," but this does not mean God is not omnipotent. So it can't be used as an argument against God (otherwise, the person posing the problem might as well just point out that Scripture says God cannot lie or sin... well, does that fact make him not omnipotent? Obviously not).

(2) Yes, God can make a stone so big that he cannot lift it. Then God can lift the stone that he cannot lift.

This second answer is the one most that most people who are unfamiliar with the historical doctrine of omnipotence find appealing. It obviously defines omnipotence as being capable of doing logically contradictory things. It then affirms that God can do one logically contradictory thing (make a stone he can't lift), so why not another? (lift the stone he cannot lift).

However, the first answer is the one I think we should go with and is the historically correct position. Theologians have always defined omnipotence as God being able to do all things logically possible. After all, logical contradictions are incoherent, and God is not an incoherent God, so why would we even want to say that God can do things that are incoherent, like make square circles or be God and not-God at the same time and in the same sense?

So even though (2) has greater shock value, and is somewhat humorous, I think the proper answer is (1).

[resurrection33]

Originally Posted by 53rv4n7

“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?”

Also, the omnipotence Paradox. "Can God create an object so heavy he himself cannot lift it?"

Thanks, I'm really struggling with this right now.

The Lord gives us a free will. With our free will we sin—we do evil things. In order to do away with evil, the Lord would have to away with our free will, right? Do you want that to happen?

Wow, banned in two posts. That might be a new record.

[Sheye_Anne]

Originally Posted by resurrection33

The Lord gives us a free will. With our free will we sin—we do evil things. In order to do away with evil, the Lord would have to away with our free will, right? Do you want that to happen?

with" OUR FREE WILL WE ALSO MALKE GOOD THINGS HAPPEN"


so...I guess that means eradicating EVIL....


IN THE NAME OF GOD...


SO BE IT....

it is HIS WILL

Again, I don't think appealing to free will is going to answer the problem of evil for any atheist. Read Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov where he describes the little girl who is tortured by her parents. I doubt that any atheist will look at such a situation and say that free will is worth such a price. The free will defense seems even weaker when you consider that we would ourselves intervene in such a situation and not allow the parents to exercise their free will to torture the girl. So why should the atheist excuse God from such (apparent) negligence?

Originally Posted by Credo_ut_Intelligam

This is a very old argument, but it's also the one that is most commonly seen (which is surprising since it has been answered so many times).

You'll commonly find it in this form:

1. An all powerful God would be capable of preventing evil.
2. An all good God would want to prevent evil.
3. Evil is not prevented.
Conclusion: Therefore, God is either not all good or not all powerful. Furthermore, since Christianity claims that God is both all powerful and all good, the Christian God must not exist.

The argument, however, is faulty. An all good God will always have a morally sufficient reason for causing what He causes or allowing what He allows. So the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises. The only thing that logically follows is that God, if he is all powerful and all good, has a morally sufficient reason for the evil that exists.

And with all due respect to the above commenter, I don't think the "free will defense" will work here. After all, we would probably stop a rapist from committing rape, even if that meant violating his free will to prevent the rape. So why doesn't God? The free will defense just ends up looking like a bad deus ex machina at this point.




There are two different ways we can untie this knot.

(1) Omnipotence (being all powerful) does not mean that God can do things that are logically impossible (like make a square circle); rather, omnipotence means that God can do all *logically* possible things. For God to create a stone so big that he cannot lift it (to do something he cannot do) is logically impossible. So the answer is technically "No," but this does not mean God is not omnipotent. So it can't be used as an argument against God (otherwise, the person posing the problem might as well just point out that Scripture says God cannot lie or sin... well, does that fact make him not omnipotent? Obviously not).

(2) Yes, God can make a stone so big that he cannot lift it. Then God can lift the stone that he cannot lift.

This second answer is the one most that most people who are unfamiliar with the historical doctrine of omnipotence find appealing. It obviously defines omnipotence as being capable of doing logically contradictory things. It then affirms that God can do one logically contradictory thing (make a stone he can't lift), so why not another? (lift the stone he cannot lift).

However, the first answer is the one I think we should go with and is the historically correct position. Theologians have always defined omnipotence as God being able to do all things logically possible. After all, logical contradictions are incoherent, and God is not an incoherent God, so why would we even want to say that God can do things that are incoherent, like make square circles or be God and not-God at the same time and in the same sense?

So even though (2) has greater shock value, and is somewhat humorous, I think the proper answer is (1).

Very informative reply! I enjoyed reading this and I learned something new

[giantone]

If you make God as one who should keep evil from ever existing in the first place, then there should be no punishment and no death and no change, because if being without sin would have to be nothing less than perfection past , present and future always being equal to God never to have been different in any way ever. (sort of like Satan told the woman in the garden of Eden "you shall be as God). Then basically it wouldn't be God and His creation, it would be God and God(s).

[resurrection33]

Originally Posted by Sheye_Anne

with" OUR FREE WILL WE ALSO MALKE GOOD THINGS HAPPEN"


so...I guess that means eradicating EVIL....


IN THE NAME OF GOD...


SO BE IT....

it is HIS WILL

My point was that we can’t blame the Lord for evil.

Originally Posted by Credo_ut_Intelligam

(1) Omnipotence (being all powerful) does not mean that God can do things that are logically impossible (like make a square circle); rather, omnipotence means that God can do all *logically* possible things. For God to create a stone so big that he cannot lift it (to do something he cannot do) is logically impossible. So the answer is technically "No," but this does not mean God is not omnipotent. So it can't be used as an argument against God (otherwise, the person posing the problem might as well just point out themselves. If you stop looking at the individualat Scripture says God cannot lie or sin... well, does that fact make him not omnipotent? Obviously not).

This is a very interesting perspective, but it also eludes to the fact that you can put logical limits on an omnipotent God. It is important to believe that nothing is impossible for God, logical or otherwise. However, logically, just because God can do something, doesn't necessarily mean he will ever choose to do it, especially if it is illogical.

That being said, the main arguement is, if God can prevent evil, why doesn't He care enough to do so?

By asking this question, you take all responsibility for the actions of humanity away from them, and place the responsibility of protection on God. Is God truly responsible for protecting them against themselves? Yes, there are innocent people who get hurt every day, and who do not deserve the pain they have to endure, but that pain is a result of the choices of mankind, and God is not required to stop mankind from proceeding as they have chosen.

Take your eyes off the innocent little girl and her parents, and zoom out to mankind as a whole, and see how we are responsible as a "human race" for the state of the world today. As much as I am sure it pains Him to see innocent people suffer, He will not choose to intervene in every case of injustice, because what we see as injustice is merely the result of mankind's seperation from God and resulting sin. There is a reason behind every "bad" thing that happens, and it is a choice of some member of mankind to facilitate that event.

God is not at fault for the suffering of innocent people and He is not unjust. And just because He doesn't step into every unjust situation and interevene, does not mean He will not avenge those acts of injustice one day. He has a plan to one day fix this terrible mess we as mankind have made out of His perfect creation and in a tremendous show of grace, He will fullfill that plan. And until then, we have to understand that we cannot expect Him to come behind every misdeed and clean up our mess.

Just another opinion... :-)

Originally Posted by resurrection33

My point was that we can’t blame the Lord for evil.

But the atheist would simply want to know *why* you can't blame the Lord for evil. Appealing to free will won't work.

Originally Posted by ShelleBelle76

This is a very interesting perspective, but it also eludes to the fact that you can put logical limits on an omnipotent God. It is important to believe that nothing is impossible for God, logical or otherwise. However, logically, just because God can do something, doesn't necessarily mean he will ever choose to do it, especially if it is illogical.

I disagree that it makes sense or is desirable to say that God can do logically impossible things. My position is the orthodox position within Christianity. Theologians have always claimed, when faced with this dilemma, that God's omnipotence is to be understood in terms of doing all that is logically possible (not logically impossible). I think you would be surprised to find that the majority of contemporary theologians still agree with this. I'm not trying to say that it is therefore the RIGHT position. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just trying to say that my position isn't unusual or all that unique. Although a lot of Christians seem to think it is since the invasion of postmodernism.

But if you think it makes sense or is desirable to say that God can do logically impossible things, then let me ask you this: Can God lie? Can God say "I promise to save you if you trust in Jesus" and then go back on his promise and say send you to hell instead?

Is this something God is even capable of? In fact, this is how most Muslim theologians define God's omnipotence. They say that no one can be sure that they will go to heaven, because God can do whatever he wants, even contradict himself or lie.

Personally, I don't find this to be true of the Christian God and I'm not sure what a Christian would have to gain by affirming such incoherence.

Or, if that won't work, consider this. Can God send you to Hell but also send you to Heaven? So when you die you spend an eternity in both Heaven and Hell? Or can God be God and not-God at the same time and in the same sense?

If you want to "bite the bullet" so to speak and say "Yes" to these questions, then I would simply say you're being incoherent and I don't think God is incoherent and I don't think it is any advantage to God to say he is or can be incoherent.

Originally Posted by ShelleBelle76

That being said, the main arguement is, if God can prevent evil, why doesn't He care enough to do so?

By asking this question, you take all responsibility for the actions of humanity away from them, and place the responsibility of protection on God. Is God truly responsible for protecting them against themselves? Yes, there are innocent people who get hurt every day, and who do not deserve the pain they have to endure, but that pain is a result of the choices of mankind, and God is not required to stop mankind from proceeding as they have chosen.

I hate to play devil's advocate, but I don't think this will work. The atheist would point out that God is described as a heavenly Father, and it would seem to be the job of a Father to protect their children from harm. But even if we want to reject the idea of God as the Father of all mankind (the NT does reserve the term uniquely for those who are in Christ), the atheist could still point out that love, in general, would protect another person from harm.

For example, if I see my best friend's kid playing in the street as a car is about to run him over, it would seem to be unloving to say "Well, it was his choice to play in the street." Even if the kid is a complete stranger, it doesn't seem very loving to let the kid get run over. And God loves everyone, right? Well, even if we want to deny that God loves everyone, which I doubt we do, the atheist could still make his point on a weaker claim: that God is perfectly good. But letting a kid get run over in the street doesn't seem to be a perfectly good thing to do.

Originally Posted by ShelleBelle76

Take your eyes off the innocent little girl and her parents, and zoom out to mankind as a whole, and see how we are responsible as a "human race" for the state of the world today. As much as I am sure it pains Him to see innocent people suffer, He will not choose to intervene in every case of injustice, because what we see as injustice is merely the result of mankind's seperation from God and resulting sin.

The atheist might point out that he doesn't need all of the human race to make his point. He only needs the little girl. If there is one little girl that is suffering in a manner that we, as imperfect and bad humans, would prevent from suffering if we could, it would seem that God should do the same, all things being equal.

I don't mean to pick apart your argument. I agree with the rest of what you say and think it is good. I just want to be careful that we don't promote arguments that won't work, or else we'll find ourselves not being able to answer a real atheist when a real atheist asks this question (and they do ask this question, a lot).

For me, it's been worthwhile to keep in mind that arguments like these are usually mental exercises, not actual opportunities to convert someone to a way of thinking.

The people putting forward these arguments aren't usually saying they're convinced of God's existence but need to be convinced he's worthy of worship. They're treating all the beliefs as obviously false and are explaining what they perceive to be such a clear contradiction that we should just drop the entire system. If you tell me you can see the future, I'll ask: why you haven't won the lottery? Even though I'm using a question mark I'm not asking for an explanation - I'm saying you're wrong.

I won't impugn the motives of everyone who brings up such an argument, but let's be honest - the vast majority of people who trot out theodicy or questions of God's capabilities aren't interested in a real answer. They want an easy win, not an explanation. Do the questions warrant an answer? Yes, but just because someone says the words doesn't mean they're actually going to put out the time and effort to explore the possibilities.

We need to keep in mind that some Biblical authors wrestled with these questions while still believing in God; the Psalms are full of cries about God's apparent apathy, for instance. If it were possible to give slick and satisfying answers to somebody who doesn't believe in God, why were these poor souls who did believe forced to wallow for so long? Is it possibly because we're not really asking with these questions, but hiding declarations behind question marks?

I personally think that just because we have phrased a question does not mean that the answer will be satisfying. Just because someone asks us a particular question does not mean we are serving them best by answering it.

[giantone]

The question to ask is what is evil, and what is good?

Man's best standards are much lower than God's standards (see the book of Job).

Is it evil for God to allow evil? Does it show God is weak to allow evil, or does it show Him strong?

Mankind has there vast strength, knowledge and political correctness, Pharaoh had his armies.

God has His Son die on the cross laughed at an spit at and God has a man with a speaking impediment to order pharaoh to "let my people go." He didn't send Obama the one with a silver tongue to do it (or forked tongue).

Should God even allow us to use technology, it pollutes the environment so it's evil. how many thoughts do we have every minute that by God's standards are sin? To look on God in our flesh would kill us all in an instant because compared with God the best of us are thick with sin. Most people think they know more than God. Most people think that they are good and they are by man's standards.

To permit sin would be to permit us (to even exist).

God is a God of justice he must be just to those evil and good ,besides his ways are not our ways its like a worm trying to figure out a man it wont happen.

Originally Posted by Credo_ut_Intelligam

I agree with the rest of what you say and think it is good. I just want to be careful that we don't promote arguments that won't work, or else we'll find ourselves not being able to answer a real atheist when a real atheist asks this question (and they do ask this question, a lot).

I don't promote arguements at all. :-)

An athiest can come up with any number of irrational scenarios and will engage you in a vicious cycle of endless and unreasonable rhetoric. The most important thing to remember is you cannot save anyone who does not have some desire to be saved. Their has to be something within them that even remotely desires to discover the truth, and if they do not, you will never truly "win" an "arguement" with them. Because they can always create question beyond reason.

I am not saying an athiest cannot be led to salvation, because I know those who have. But I am saying that trying to convince an athiest they are wrong about their beliefs will never work, if something inside of them does not desire the truth.

And as far as the arguement about God having the ability to lie. God is good. Lying is evil. God is not evil, therefore God would not lie. I find that arguement pointless and without any reason. You can debate those things which defy reason all day, but it is truly a waste of valuable time. We are called to spread the Gospel, and it is up to men to receive it. It is not our responsibility to hammer the truth into those who are not receptive of it. Because I guarantee for every soul who rejects your "arguement" their are ten souls begging for someone to show them a better way to live!

Please do not think I am rejecting the witness to everyone, but after the message is shared, wouldn't our time be better spent helping those who truly desire the truth rather than arguing with those who truly don't?

Just my opinion...

Originally Posted by karuna

I won't impugn the motives of everyone who brings up such an argument, but let's be honest - the vast majority of people who trot out theodicy or questions of God's capabilities aren't interested in a real answer. They want an easy win, not an explanation. Do the questions warrant an answer? Yes, but just because someone says the words doesn't mean they're actually going to put out the time and effort to explore the possibilities.

I agree with you. I asked this same question not too long ago, because I truly wanted to understand God and why He allowed bad things to happen to good people, seemingly all the time. Unfortunately, when most athiests ask this question, it is not because they truly want to understand the answer, but because they feel it is a sure way to stump the Christian and prove their position.

You can explain the depravity of mankind and free will, but because they have no desire to truly understand, they will continue the vicious circle of debate. There has to be some real desire to understand the truth or they will never accept any explanation you offer, no matter how logical, or just plain true it my be. And it, like I said, is a waste of valuable time that could be spend actually leading others to Christ.

I guess what I don't understand is why a Christian would allow themselves to get sucked into a conversation about the "why's" of God actions with someone who doesn't even believe in the existance of that God. If anything shouldn't the conversation be more focused on the evidence of God? Because without establishing the existance of God, his actions or lack thereof are of no consequence. If they cannot admit there is a God, then why would you debate the hypothetical with them?

Why is there evil in the world? This is a question that has been discussed and debated for a few thousand years.(See Job) The Jewish sages spent a lot of time talking about this. One of the best points made is without ugly, what is beauty?

Around the time of Jesus, the Shammai Pharisees and the Hillel Pharisees debatied that since man is the reason for so much of the evil in this world, whether it would have been better if man had not been created at all. It was finally decided that it would have been better if man had not been created. But since he was, it was up to him to do everything in his power to make this world a better place.

Instead of Christians spending so much time trying to figure out why God allows things to be the way they are, maybe we should spend more time figuring out how to make them better.