How Do You Make Sense of Evil?

[Voyageur]

I will assume that the following captures the content of this paradox:

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"  Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief

I will take door number 1. I have yet to see any Scriptural text that clearly states that God can do anything he wants to do. I suspect that we very much want to believe that God can absolutely anything He wants to do, I just think that we have clues from our own experience that He may be limited by the very commitments He makes when He makes the world the way that it is.

It doesn't matter if it is written in the Scriptures; his omnipotence is assumed.

That said, I do like the idea that God may be limited by committments, albeit with reservations (which I detail below). However, in all truthfulness, it should be noted that this is mere guesswork.

While it is difficult to make the point in a general way, I think we all know that when we decide to do things a certain way, we close certain doors in respect to future decisions we might like to make.

This is an aspect of humanity, and even an aspect of animal behavior. Surely it isn't a quality of an omnipotent, omniscient deity? If God is all-knowing (knowledge of all pasts, presents, and possible futures), then God necessarily knew he was closing the door (or multiple doors) on himself. Why would he do this? It makes rather little sense, to say nothing of the likelihood that If he is all-knowing, then he necessarily knew that evil would come into existence, and he chose to create the universe and humanity with that full knowledge. If he is omnicisient and omnipotent, he would necessarily have been aware of multiple paths available and the power to effect his will in a multitude of ways. Point being: why would he have chosen such an arrangement?

But it might be "naturally" impossible to do this. By this I mean, even God might not be able to create a universe where a car meeting feature A and B can be built. Here is where a big vulnerability of my argument gets exposed. I doubt that no one is smart enough, least of all me, to be able to make a case about why it would be naturally impossible for God to do this.

Touche.

 

[Vic C.]

Prov 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

This is exactly why I didn't want this to start in the first place. This whole discussion is a futile attempt by a nonbeliever trying to discredit the existence of God. Mondar's simple explanation was correct and we look foolish trying to be wiser than God. :-?

 

[Voyageur]

Vic, this is a civil and very interesting debate. I'm not trying to discredit anything. Just because I pose some serious philosophical questions doesn't make me a non-believer. I'm inclined to believe in God. I'm certainly not an atheist. I would say that I do believe in God, but I have certain philosophical reservations. This does not make me a non-believer.

You seem rather uncomfortable when it comes to the philosophy of religion. Drew seems completely comfortable discussing these issues, and I value his opinions. I value yours when you decide to give them....

So, I have questions. Everybody has questions. Even the firmest of believers have questions. Some of the most notable Christians in history wrestled with these very questions (not to mention men of others faiths). I think I'm in rather good and assured company. :D

One can be intellectual and religious. Look at C.S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, Leibniz, Newton, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Spninoza, etc.

 

[Drew]

It doesn't matter if it is written in the Scriptures; his omnipotence is assumed.

This doesn't sound like fair ball - at least in respect to what I thought we were talking about. If you set things up this way, then of course the Christian is forced into some form of the Epicurean Paradox. Why must I assume omnipotence? And more precisely, why must I assume a form of omnipotence where the very nature of the reality He constructs does not constrain what God might do.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but you seem to be "rigging the game" by not allowing me to argue what I think is eminently plausible - that God may be forced to make "trade-offs" when creating a world, trade-offs of the kind the car designer has to make when he realizes that it is simply impossible (although not logically impossible) to create a car with great acceleration and great gas mileage.

If God is all-knowing (knowledge of all pasts, presents, and possible futures), then God necessarily knew he was closing the door (or multiple doors) on himself. Why would he do this? It makes rather little sense, to say nothing of the likelihood that If he is all-knowing, then he necessarily knew that evil would come into existence, and he chose to create the universe and humanity with that full knowledge. If he is omnicisient and omnipotent, he would necessarily have been aware of multiple paths available and the power to effect his will in a multitude of ways. Point being: why would he have chosen such an arrangement?

Given what I have already said in this post, I think that you know how I will answer this. I never claimed that God was omnipotent in the sense the 6 year old thinks of it. It is a rather clear fact of life that we can never build some object that satisfies a set of demanding requirements, even if there are no logical contradictions involved (example: the car).

I have chosen my words poorly when I implied that God creates a universe in which He might paint himself into a corner. I really mean to say this: It is possible that even God cannot construct a universe that is "globally optimal" in respect to some criteria such "loving" or "just" and yet which is not otherwise sub-optimal in some sense - e.g. there has to be evil. I am not suggesting that God is "surprised" by how His plan has evolved when He discovers He needs to allow for a dash of evil. I am saying that even if God looks at the possibilities at His fingertips, even the best one might require the existence of evil.

Do you expect me to "prove" or explain why this is? Who do you think I am? I would probably be teaching philosophy at Harvard if I could answer that question. My point is to appeal to an intuition that I think is eminently plausible: once one talks about a "material reality" one cannot simply assume that there are not ways in which, if it is to have attribute A, then attribute B is simply impossible (but not logically impossible!).

Now you may say that the analogies I am drawing to human activities are unfair, that, of course, given the properties of the universe we are presented with, we are limited in respect to what we can achieve, even in principle. You may say that God "gets to set the parameters" of the universe. So why doesn't He set them so that there is no evil and everyone lives happily ever after?

As stated, I have no answer to that. My point has really only been to establish the plausibility that when God undertakes to set these parameters, there simply exists no setting of the parameters where "its all good". So he chose the best set - and one of the ways that it is less than "all good" is that there is evil.

 

[Voyageur]

It doesn't matter if it is written in the Scriptures; his omnipotence is assumed.

This doesn't sound like fair ball - at least in respect to what I thought we were talking about. If you set things up this way, then of course the Christian is forced into some form of the Epicurean Paradox. Why must I assume omnipotence? And more precisely, why must I assume a form of omnipotence where the very nature of the reality He constructs does not constrain what God might do.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but you seem to be "rigging the game" by not allowing me to argue what I think is eminently plausible - that God may be forced to make "trade-offs" when creating a world, trade-offs of the kind the car designer has to make when he realizes that it is simply impossible (although not logically impossible) to create a car with great acceleration and great gas mileage.

I'm not rigging the game. Among people of faith, it is generally assumed that God is omnipotent. It can be said with certainty, that Christianity and other faiths do not preach a form of limited omnipotence, where God's power is constrained by the natural world. And if omnipotence is limited, then it isn't omnipotence--would you agree? So, please don't accuse me of rigging the game... the game as we all know it was established by Judaism and Christianity.

If God is all-knowing (knowledge of all pasts, presents, and possible futures), then God necessarily knew he was closing the door (or multiple doors) on himself. Why would he do this? It makes rather little sense, to say nothing of the likelihood that If he is all-knowing, then he necessarily knew that evil would come into existence, and he chose to create the universe and humanity with that full knowledge. If he is omnicisient and omnipotent, he would necessarily have been aware of multiple paths available and the power to effect his will in a multitude of ways. Point being: why would he have chosen such an arrangement?

Given what I have already said in this post, I think that you know how I will answer this. I never claimed that God was omnipotent in the sense the 6 year old thinks of it. It is a rather clear fact of life that we can never build some object that satisfies a set of demanding requirements, even if there are no logical contradictions involved (example: the car).

I have chosen my words poorly when I implied that God creates a universe in which He might paint himself into a corner. I really mean to say this: It is possible that even God cannot construct a universe that is "globally optimal" in respect to some criteria such "loving" or "just" and yet which is not otherwise sub-optimal in some sense - e.g. there has to be evil. I am not suggesting that God is "surprised" by how His plan has evolved when He discovers He needs to allow for a dash of evil. I am saying that even if God looks at the possibilities at His fingertips, even the best one might require the existence of evil.

I wasn't suggesting that God was 'surprised' either, only that he had multiple paths open to him... why chose the one in which we currently live?

That said, why would a God that we all assume is the first cause of the universe be in any way limited by it?

 

[Drew]

Let me try to give more structure to what I am saying. Let's imagine that God is sitting in front a big panel of 20 dials. There is also a computer screen. The dials can be manipulated by God in order to create a universe for some human beings He plans on creating. One dial is used to set, say, the degree of free will of created beings in that universe (God wants to set that as high as He can because He values the existence of creatures who are simply not puppets), another is used to set the degree of "justice" that such a universe will manifest (God wants to set that as high as possible), another might govern the degree to which creatures will feel pain (this one God wants to set to zero if he can), another might set the degree of evil (again, God wants to set this one to zero).

Now this is where, for the purposes of the illustration only, I will set things up so that God has to experiment and is "surprised" and disappointed. And that He has to use a computer. To be fair, this is purely an illustrative device and should not be taken as indicating that I think God needs to "experiment". By couching things in this way, I hope to make my point more clear.

God then sets all the "good stuff" dials to maximum and the "bad stuff" dials to zero. After a few seconds a message appears on his screen "This universe cannot exist, please try other settings". God, although disappointed that He cannot "have it all" then dials up the evil to a very low level. The computer tells him: "this universe is indeed possible but I should tell you that you can get a lot more of the good stuff if you bump up the evil just a little bit". God considers that a little more evil is worth it if He gets to crank the "good stuff" dials up a lot.

My overall point is that God may simply have no choice but to introduce evil into the world in order to make a universe which, in some global sense, is the best possible one He could create.

 

[Drew]

I'm not rigging the game. Among people of faith, it is generally assumed that God is omnipotent. It can be said with certainty, that Christianity and other faiths do not preach a form of limited omnipotence, where God's power is constrained by the natural world. And if omnipotence is limited, then it isn't omnipotence--would you agree? So, please don't accuse me of rigging the game... the game as we all know it was established by Judaism and Christianity.

I am not interested in defending other people's conceptualization of what omnipotence is. You need to let me argue my position - don't expect to have to explain and defend the almost certainly naive and overly simplistic position of the typical Christian or Jew.

 

[handy]

Some thoughts of C.S. Lewis on the issue of omnipotence of God:

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

– Lewis, "The Problem of Pain" 18

My thoughts on this subject:

This is the same as the old "Can God make a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?" It's kind of nonsensical, and really dosen't address the Biblical Omnipotence of God anyway.

Biblical omnipotence is translated in many verses as God being Almighty and that with Him all things are possible. Not nonsense things like making rocks to big for Him to lift, but that He is capable of enacting His will here on earth. Since God did give us Free Will, not all of His perfect will will come about. But, He is more than capable to enact what He does will.

A good example though of the omnipotence of God can be found in stories like the birth of Issac. Abram and Sarai were too old to have children, but it was God's will that they would have a child of promise. They almost blew it with the whole mess with Hagar, but after they messed things up with their venture into free will, they turned back to God. When they did they found that it was indeed possible for an old man and an old woman to have a baby.

Sometimes when thinking through ominpotence, it's good to consider the fact that Jesus told us, if we have faith the size of a mustard seed, we could move mountains. Well, there have been Christians of considerable faith throughout the ages, so why haven't there been any mountains uprooted? Because faith by definition is characterized by submitting one's will to God's. And, it really isn't to any of God's purposes to be tossing mountains around like so many matchsticks. Perhaps God can pick up Everest and turn it upside down. Actually, given that I have faith, I could do it myself. But, don't worry, I'm not in the least bit interested in flipping Everest because God isn't giving any particular instructions in the matter, so there is no reason for me to be doing it. Without the reason to do it, there is no faith required for such an act. Perhaps someday in the future, when this earth is finished, why we might find that by flipping Everest, the new earth will be revealed. If that winds up being the case, and God informs me that I'm the designated flipper, I'll have no doubt that I'll have no problem in doing so.

Regarding Epicurus, I see a basic flaw in the 'paradox'. That is that God is wicked if He doesn't abolish evil. God IS abolishing evil. He just isn't doing it to Epicurus' liking. Epicurus would abolish evil in some kind of immediate way. God isn't working like that, He is going about it differently. Epicurus thought that pleasure was good, pain was bad. God doesn't view things this way. Sometimes pleasure can be very bad and pain can produce wonderful things. While Epicurus would have that all pain is wicked and God would be wicked if He doesn't abolish pain right away, God is more interested in working through the evil and pain of this world rather than simply lifting us out of it.

Because Epicurus was centered on pleasure, and making the conclusions that he made regarding evil, in his mind the gods didn't interact with humans. Frankly, I think he was most likely an atheist, but I'll admit to not knowing all that much about him. Sadly though, in the end, he didn't escape pain, was wracked with kidney failure and dysentery and found happiness only in that he was about to die and cease existing altogether. (1)

To the Christian, God has a much more optimistic plan regarding evil. Yes, in this world we will face the consequenses of evil and experience pain. But, He Himself took on evil, vanquished it and when the fullness of time comes, will banish it. At that time we will then be able to have unending pleasure, the kind of pleasure that Epicurus sought but failed to attain.

Also, the Christian has another encouragment. Even as our Lord told us, "In this world you will have tribulation" He voluntarily subjected Himself to that same pain and humiliation that we suffer. In Epicurus' world, the gods were both indifferent and ineffectual to relieve him of his final pain and death. In the world of the Christian, we have a God who is sympathetic to our sufferings as He suffered Himself, but He also did what was necessary to finally defeat death and is now waiting for the fullness of time to bring the end of all suffering.

If you've never read Lewis' "The Problem of Pain" you should pick it up. One of these days I am going to re-buy all my Lewis books that I've lent out over the years and have never had returned to me. I wish I still had my copy, because Lewis' insights in that book would compliment this thread.

(1)Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, X, 22 (trans. C.D. Yonge).

 

[Voyageur]

I'm not rigging the game. Among people of faith, it is generally assumed that God is omnipotent. It can be said with certainty, that Christianity and other faiths do not preach a form of limited omnipotence, where God's power is constrained by the natural world. And if omnipotence is limited, then it isn't omnipotence--would you agree? So, please don't accuse me of rigging the game... the game as we all know it was established by Judaism and Christianity.

I am not interested in defending other people's conceptualization of what omnipotence is. You need to let me argue my position - don't expect to have to explain and defend the almost certainly naive and overly simplistic position of the typical Christian or Jew.

Point taken. I see and respect your conception of omnipotence with respect to the Judeo-Christian God (as I said, I find it interesting). And, I'm certain I responded to the merits of your argument.

Most people don't share your view, though. I would say the dominant perception of God amongst Christians is that of complete omnipotence; so I felt a need to address that quite apart from your argument.

 

[Voyageur]

Let me try to give more structure to what I am saying. Let's imagine that God is sitting in front a big panel of 20 dials. There is also a computer screen. The dials can be manipulated by God in order to create a universe for some human beings He plans on creating. One dial is used to set, say, the degree of free will of created beings in that universe (God wants to set that as high as He can because He values the existence of creatures who are simply not puppets), another is used to set the degree of "justice" that such a universe will manifest (God wants to set that as high as possible), another might govern the degree to which creatures will feel pain (this one God wants to set to zero if he can), another might set the degree of evil (again, God wants to set this one to zero).

Now this is where, for the purposes of the illustration only, I will set things up so that God has to experiment and is "surprised" and disappointed. And that He has to use a computer. To be fair, this is purely an illustrative device and should not be taken as indicating that I think God needs to "experiment". By couching things in this way, I hope to make my point more clear.

God then sets all the "good stuff" dials to maximum and the "bad stuff" dials to zero. After a few seconds a message appears on his screen "This universe cannot exist, please try other settings". God, although disappointed that He cannot "have it all" then dials up the evil to a very low level. The computer tells him: "this universe is indeed possible but I should tell you that you can get a lot more of the good stuff if you bump up the evil just a little bit". God considers that a little more evil is worth it if He gets to crank the "good stuff" dials up a lot.

My overall point is that God may simply have no choice but to introduce evil into the world in order to make a universe which, in some global sense, is the best possible one He could create.

With all due respect, I grant the possibility of such an arrangement (since I cannot prove anything), but it appears somewhat lacking. It seems rather like a compromise or settlement in an effort to explain the existence of evil in a universe created by God. The achilles heel of your argument is that a power so great as to be able to create a universe is not so powerful as to truly control it. And, therefore, as a theory, I find it slightly unsatisfying (even though I grant the possibility).

 

[Voyageur]

My thoughts on this subject:

This is the same as the old "Can God make a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?" It's kind of nonsensical, and really dosen't address the Biblical Omnipotence of God anyway.

Biblical omnipotence is translated in many verses as God being Almighty and that with Him all things are possible. Not nonsense things like making rocks to big for Him to lift, but that He is capable of enacting His will here on earth. Since God did give us Free Will, not all of His perfect will will come about. But, He is more than capable to enact what He does will.

Certainly the existence of evil is not non-sensical.

Regarding Epicurus, I see a basic flaw in the 'paradox'. That is that God is wicked if He doesn't abolish evil. God IS abolishing evil. He just isn't doing it to Epicurus' liking. Epicurus would abolish evil in some kind of immediate way. God isn't working like that, He is going about it differently. Epicurus thought that pleasure was good, pain was bad. God doesn't view things this way. Sometimes pleasure can be very bad and pain can produce wonderful things. While Epicurus would have that all pain is wicked and God would be wicked if He doesn't abolish pain right away, God is more interested in working through the evil and pain of this world rather than simply lifting us out of it.

I think the 'wicked' designation is rather distracting as well. The paradox is not unassailable. But, if the end result of God's plan is ulimately the eternal glory and perfection of heaven, why the detour?

Because Epicurus was centered on pleasure, and making the conclusions that he made regarding evil, in his mind the gods didn't interact with humans. Frankly, I think he was most likely an atheist, but I'll admit to not knowing all that much about him. Sadly though, in the end, he didn't escape pain, was wracked with kidney failure and dysentery and found happiness only in that he was about to die and cease existing altogether. (1)

It bears clarification here that Epicurus was no libertine. He did not advocate the unchecked pursuit of carnal and impious pleasures. Pleasure, as understood by Epicurus (and later taken up by David Hume), was--in relation to morality--the emotional (or sentimental) response to those things that we experience and eventually catalog as 'good.' Pleasure and pain are the basis for morality for Epicurus and Hume. Pain (i.e., suffering) is undesirable.

 

[handy]

Certainly the existence of evil is not non-sensical.

Naturally, I, nor Lewis, nor you, nor anyone else has said evil is non-sensical. Coming up with paradoxes along the lines of the "God can't make rocks so heavy that He can't lift them therefore He isn't omnipotent" is non-sensical.

But, if the end result of God's plan is ulimately the eternal glory and perfection of heaven, why the detour?

Because the free will He has given us isn't non-sensical as well. I know, nobody has said that free will is nonsense, but many who get involved in these never ending discussions of the 'paradox' of good and evil seem to think that it is, or that it is something that we can just leave out of the equation. Your question is clearly answered by the Judeo-Chrisitan God in the Bible starting with Genesis 3. I'm not saying that one has to agree with the answer (that free will thing again) but it is answered.

It bears clarification here that Epicurus was no libertine. He did not advocate the unchecked pursuit of carnal and impious pleasures. Pleasure, as understood by Epicurus (and later taken up by David Hume), was--in relation to morality--the emotional (or sentimental) response to those things that we experience and eventually catalog as 'good.' Pleasure and pain are the basis for morality for Epicurus and Hume. Pain (i.e., suffering) is undesirable.

Thank you for the clarification regarding Epicurus. I admit I know very little of the man himself, and have never read anything of Hume's. However, the philosophical point of pain being undesirable bears closer scrutiny. I would say that pain is unpleasant, but it isn't always undesirable, if the end results in a greater good. I immediately think of child-birth. A very painful experience yes, but nonetheless one that women are more than willing to go through. Why? Because the pain is temporary, but the result of bringing a baby to life, developing the close bonds of parent/child, having the child grow into adulthood and contribute his/her share of talents, wisdom, and all that a human being has to offer in this world more than compensates for the few months of discomfort and few hours of pain she goes through.

However, we need to remember that pain really isn't synonymous with evil. The example provided above shows that pain is a part of some things that are quite good, and there are also things that would bring pleasure, but can fall right into the 'evil' catagory.

 

[mondar]

Can I restate the paradox in my own terms?

The tension is can God be both good, and just. Does the existance of evil mean that God also is evil (since he is creator)? Of course the Christian response is that God did not create evil. In Genesis 1 he pronounced all things good. Evil came from rebellion to his created order. Of course in creation God preknew that rebellion and evil would occur. So how do we resolve his untimate goodness to Gods preknowledge that evil would occur? In my humble opinion, Evil had to exist to demonstrate all of Gods character.

What would show both Gods good, and Gods justice best?
1--- God created all the world good without the potential for evil? (This would show only his goodness)
2--- God created, but allowed all the world to become evil, and then heo judged it. (This would only show the justice of God)
3--- God created, allowed evil to coexist with good, but in the end, he judges evil. (would not this show both the justice and goodness of God?)

In my first post, why did I make that short comment on the glory of God? Creation is for the glory of God. Such a comment is a little to theocentric for some. The glory of God is to show his complete character, both his goodness, and his justice. A mixed universe is what we have. Only in this good/evil universe will both the goodness of God, and the justice of God be manifest. I fully know that such a view will be rejected by those who do not want a God that judges. Rebellious mankind will always prefer a God that is only good. They will want a God that creates a utopia for mankind, and serves mankind. Man is in rebellion, and wants an anthropocentric universe, and not a theocentric universe.

 

[handy]

I see what you're saying, Mondar. But I still don't think that God 'allowed' evil, just for His ultimate glory or to show any or all aspects of His character.

Maybe it's because I'm a woman that I can relate to the child-bearing thing a bit better. Child-bearing is a big gamble. We women know that we are going to go through 9 months of being sick, getting fat, having heartburn, not being able to sit, stand or sleep comfortably, then go through hours of excruciating pain. Why? Even when we do it, there is no guarantee that the child we produce is going to ultimately love us. As a matter of fact, women all over this globe and throughout history have produced children that have hated them and sought to hurt them. Yet, even in this day and age of having total control over whether or not to have kids, we still do it. Are we crazy or something?

The only difference between God and women in the creation of humans (well not the only difference) is that God could foresee the end before the process started. And, what did He see? He tells us: A vast multitude will come and be with Him for all of eternity where there will no longer be any evil or pain. Those that aren't there, aren't there out of their own free will. For those that are there, He extends His grace and happiness for all time.

Here's a philosophical question: Suppose you were pregnant and your doctor told you that the baby had something wrong with it. But, what was wrong could be fixed by surgery the day the baby was born. The surgery would be painful for the baby, but once it was done, the baby could go on to live a perfectly healthy life for the next 90 years or so. Do you abort the baby?

I realize that everyone has their own questions and answers regarding the problem of evil. But, this is how I look at it.

 

[JayR]

God ceated evil, God governs evil, and God uses evil in such a way that in the end of the age when He comes in His glory the glory of His justice and His goodness and His righteousness and His holiness will be made manifest perfectly because He ordered and governed the evil in such a way that He will be magnified perfectly over it and in contrast to it. If evil didn't exist we wouldn't see His perfect justice in action and therefore we would be missing out on one of the wonderful pleasures in eternity, God's perfect justice. God is going to manifest His perfection perfectly and every aspect of it, and some parts of His glory wouldn't be made manifest without the existence of evil.

If evil didn't exist, then God wouldn't have died on the cross, and the glory of His infinite love wouldn't have been manifest to us. There would have been no redeemed, and therefore nobody to adore Him to the praise of His grace and glory for all eternity in the same way we will.

Don't forget that this universe and everything in it was made for the pleasure of God, not primarily for man, and He uses it according to His will for His glory and His pleasure primarily, we just happen to be a part of that will and benefit from it magnificently.

"You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created." (Revelation 4:11)

 

[handy]

Here's yet another philosophical question:

Suppose you're having twins and your doctor has a crystal ball. You then find out that both babies have defects needing the surgery, and afterwards one will grow up to live a full healthy life filled with love for you and be a wonderful contributer to society. The other will grow up to be evil and cause all kinds of problems, hate you and then die. However, if you abort, you will kill both the good and evil one. Do you kill the good one, because of the evil that the other one will do?

See, I find these kinds of philosophical questions more to the point, because to me they more accurately show God's position in His creation of this world. I would agree with the choice God apparently made, that no you don't kill off the child who will love you and others and live a full, happy healthy life, just because the other one is going to be hateful and evil.

And, let's take it one more, rather uncomfortable step further: What if you knew that one of the twins was going to be hateful and evil, but also knew that the child was not 'fated' to be so, that at all times the child had free will, and you could try all your life to seek out the child and turn him away from his evil. Your crystal ball tells you though, that in the end, the child won't turn away.

Be honest here, this is a deep question: Would you be good or evil to kill that child and only allow the 'good' child to live?

Foreknowledge is not the same thing as fate. And foreknowledge does not negate free will.

 

[nadab]

Following the creation of Adam and then later of Eve, as his wife at the end of the sixth creative "day", God was able to see "everything he had made, and look ! it was very good."(Gen 1:31) There were no flaws or imperfection, no evil. However, later, an angel developed a bad "heart", a desire for the worship that only belongs to God. He cunningly deceived Eve, asking her: "Is it really so that God said you must not eat from every tree of the garden ?" He questioned God's right to set moral boundaries for his creation, his sovereignty or right to rule. He first resisted God, then slandered his name.

Thus he became Satan (Hebrew sa·tan´ meaning "Resistor") and then he slandered God's name by challenging the rightfulness and righteousness of his rule, thus becoming "the Devil".(Greek di·a´bo·los meaning "slanderer"). Jesus told the rebellious Jews: "You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie."(John 8:44)

Thus, shortly after the outset of mankind's beginning, rebellion against God broke out. Is God responsible for this rebellion, with the resulting wickedness ? No. Moses, in speaking to the nation of Israel just before entering the land of Canaan, said of God: "The Rock, perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; Righteous and upright is he." Moses now contrasts God's righteousness with the nation of Israel, saying: "They have acted ruinously on their own part; they are not his children, the defect is their own. A generation crooked and twisted !"(Deut 32:4,5)

Hence, God did not create evil, but rather it came about because of Satan the Devil's resisting God's authority in the Garden of Eden, seducing Eve,(1 Tim 2:14) and she then inducing Adam to take the same rebellious course.(Gen 3:1-7) In turn, almost all of mankind has followed in their footsteps, becoming part of the ' seed of the serpent ',(Gen 3:15) with wickedness having now filled the earth.

At Job 1:6, Satan enters in among the assembly of God's righteous angels, and then questions the loyalty of God's "servant Job", saying that God had put a "hedge about him and about his house and about everything that he has all around".(Job 1:10) He cast doubt on the righteousness of God's right to rule by asking "Is it for nothing that Job has feared God ?"(Job 1:9)

By permitting Satan and his demons to enter before him, God brought even before all spirit creatures Satan's challenge and the issues it raised. This was the same issue that was raised in the Garden of Eden before Eve, of whether God's rulership over his creation was righteous. The Devil thus slandered God by implying that nobody loves and worships him for what He is but that He bribes creatures to serve him, for Satan countered with these words: "But, for a change, thrust out your hand, please, and touch everything he has and see whether he will not curse you to your very face."(Job 1:11)

To provide an answer to Satan's challenge, God allowed Satan to test Job with "evil" things, by telling him: "Everything that he has is in your hand. Only against him himself do not thrust out your hand ! "(Job 1:12) If Satan could break Job's integrity, what would that say for the rest of mankind ? Hence, Satan was really calling into question the loyalty of all those who want to serve God, for he broadened the issue, saying to God: "Everything that a man [not just Job] has he will give in behalf of his soul."(Job 2:4) At Proverbs 27:11, God makes this appeal to answer Satan's challenge: "Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, that I may make reply to him that is taunting me."

God has allowed this rebellion or evil to come to a head in our time period. The question that was raised in the Garden of Eden concerning God's sovereignty will soon be fully settled, of God's right to rule. This issue of sovereignty that Satan raised, is before all the angels and humans, and God has permitted evil or wickedness to continue over the course of six thousand years down to our day to allow all to chose which side of the issue these are on, whether to serve God out of love or to follow in the footsteps of Satan, becoming independent in one's thinking.

God will restore this earth to a paradise, without all the evil and wickedness that is abounding today. The apostle Peter said that "Jesus, whom heaven, indeed, must hold within itself, until the times of restoration of all things of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets of old time."(Acts 3:20,21)

Hence, God will cause a "restoration of all things", removing all the evil and making this earth a beautiful home for those who are "meek", for Jesus said that "the meek shall inherit the earth" at Matthew 5:5. Furthermore, at Revelation 21:3,4, God makes this promise: "Look ! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away." God then says: "Look ! I am making all things new."(Rev 21:5)

 

[Drew]

With all due respect, I grant the possibility of such an arrangement (since I cannot prove anything), but it appears somewhat lacking. It seems rather like a compromise or settlement in an effort to explain the existence of evil in a universe created by God. The achilles heel of your argument is that a power so great as to be able to create a universe is not so powerful as to truly control it. And, therefore, as a theory, I find it slightly unsatisfying (even though I grant the possibility).

You seem to have this a priori expectation that a creator (such as God) can do "whatever he wants to do" - that he could, if he were both omnipotent and loving, create a universe that is "perfect" in every way. I see my argument against such an expectation as being eminently plausible because we know something extremely important about the nature of at least one created reality - the one we live in. What is this important thing we know? It is that when "matter and energy" are arranged in some configuration "X", certain other features that we would like to "incorporate" are rendered impossible (not logically impossible!). So for example, we cannot build a square house that has both huge floor space and sunrooms on both east and west sides, without creating a long and annoying walk for the person who wants to walk from one sunroom to the other.

The general principle here seems to be that a created reality, such as a house in this simple example, seems to have this annoying feature of not letting you do all the things you want to do. You can have A and B and not C. Or A and C and not B. Or B and C and not A. This "limitation" seems to be built-in into the very nature of the created reality - not the "omnipotence" of the creator. The reason we cannot build a house with all the desireable properties (as per the example) we want is really something we can "blame" on the limitations that the act of creation imposes on us - not on our limitations.

I cannot make a rock that is both extremely massive (contains a lot of matter) and that also takes little energy to move. This not because such a state of affairs is logically impossible. It seems instead to be a result of some kind of deep and admittedly mysterious "principle of exclusion" that simply does not allow for all combinations of "desired characteristics".

In this sense, I think it is entireably plausible to assert that God really had no choice but to create evil (or at least the possibility of it) in order to make a universe that ultimately is the best one He could possibly make.

 

[Drew]

This is the same as the old "Can God make a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?"

I do not think this captures all the subtleties of this issue. I think that we all would agree that God cannot make such a rock, nor can He make a triangle with four sides. Such demands on God are non-sensical since they contain logical contradictions - since a triange by definition has three sides, not even God can make one with four sides.

I have been trying to argue that there is a different and further sense in which God's hands might be tied - one where the limitations are not questions of logical coherence and consistency but are rather bound up in the intuition that created realities are self-limiting - they do not allow any conceivable state of affairs to exist.

 

[Drew]

Evil had to exist to demonstrate all of Gods character.
.
.
.
Only in this good/evil universe will both the goodness of God, and the justice of God be manifest.

This is a common answer to the question but it seems to have a big problem. You seem to take if for granted that "justice" is something that would need to be demonstrated in order for the universe to fully demonstrate the character of God. This seems a little strange since this line of thinking could lead one to say things like God's goodness would be more manifest in a universe where all people live in great pain for the first 10 years of their lives and are then miraculously healed by God. It is true that such a state of affairs would demonstrate something good about God in his capacity as healer but it leaves open the question: "Why the pain in the first place"?

While I do agree with this statement of yours:

Creation is for the glory of God"

I think it is only true in a highly qualified way that is very difficult to grasp. Given how we conceive of "glory", the quoted statement invariably elicits an image of a God concerned with self-aggrandizement. This cannot be the way things are, yet we seem to not have a rich enough concept of the term "glory" to think otherwise. One manifestation of our impoverished sense of the meaning of the above statement (creation is for the glory of God) is that we argue that human suffering (e.g. through evil) "glorifies God", as if we exist to shine the spotlight on God and that the Universe is all "about Him". I know (or at least I believe) that you (mondar) do not have such a simplistic notion of a "chest-thumping" God who manipulates his creation for his own "glorification" (and I mean this term in the self-seeking sense that we use it in our culture in relation to rock stars and sports heros).

I do not fundamentally disagree with what you are saying in your post. Its just that I think the collective "we" have a lot of work to do in developing a conceptualization of the "glory of God" that will not elicit notions of self-promotion and self-glorification. This is indeed a challenging task since fallen man has a deeply perverted sense of what it means to "ascribe glory".