how can a good God create a world iwhere there is suffering

[Guest]

Paidion

We may disagree on some issues bro. But you have no idea what I think about God. I too try with my limited understanding as do most of us here, to reconcile the love of God with so much evil and suffering in the world.
I would never say to someone; "God loves you and has a good purpose for your rape". I have known women who have been raped. Some by their own fathers. I have also witnessed the "good" from those who were healed by the love of God and were equipped to help others going through the same ordeal as themselves. God's good purposes are often revealed through our suffering . You know this to be true. It is only after our suffering (if we are believers) do we begin to see His purposes for a greater good.

[_Derek]

In what way is stating that no moral being has a morally sufficient reason for allowing immorality to exist just my opinion? It's contradictory to maintain that one is moral yet allow immorality to occur.

It is contradictory to say that God is moral and God is immoral at the same time.

It does not follow that just because He allows immorality in His creation that He is immoral. It just does not follow. There is no contradiction, and to me, this is a rather plain and simple truth.

One of the basic presuppositions of the Christian worldview is that God is all good, and has a good reason for allowing evil to exist. Now you can assert that God "doesn't have a sufficient moral reason", but that is your opinion.

Remember, you are critiquing the Christian worldview, because yours provides no objective basis to call something evil or good. Within the Christian worldview, God does have a sufficient reason, and remains coherent.

If God allowing evil is not contradictory to His being all good, (which it plainly is not), and He has a sufficient reason for allowing it, (which according to the Christian worldview He does), then there is no incoherence.

Quote:

I was using the two more or less interchangably. Could you establish a definition for "culture" and "enviorment"? Either way, I'm interested to know the answer to the question.

You can't use them interchangeably. What we experience in the world is how we come to know all things, including morality. That doesn't mean that morality is contingent upon culture or environment. Every event shapes our knowledge of reality.

Ok. Fine, I can't use them interchangably. Let me ask in a plainer fashion. If according to your worldview, morality is not based upon your culture or enviorment, then what is good and evil according to your worldview?

Or to put it another way; On what basis do you call something "good" or "evil" according to your worldview?

[_Derek]

Paidion

We may disagree on some issues bro. But you have no idea what I think about God. I too try with my limited understanding as do most of us here, to reconcile the love of God with so much evil and suffering in the world.
I would never say to someone; "God loves you and has a good purpose for your rape". I have known women who have been raped. Some by their own fathers. I have also witnessed the "good" from those who were healed by the love of God and were equipped to help others going through the same ordeal as themselves. God's good purposes are often revealed through our suffering . You know this to be true. It is only after our suffering (if we are believers) do we begin to see His purposes for a greater good.

I too, can testify that I personally have had horrible things that have happened to me, that were no doubt evil, that God has used for good, and in the end, for His glory.

God bless,

[Guest]

Hiya again Asimov,

Whew...that's almost everybody.

That's one reason I wanted to thank you for your participation. I acknowledge your conviction in challenging us on a forum were you are in the vast minority.

Given that God is maximally great, everything that occurs in every possible world occurs because God wants it to occur. If this is true and evil exists contrary to the desires of God, why does evil exist?

My answer is, that there is something else that He wants even more.

This is perfectly illustrated in Christ's prayer in the garden. If I may paraphrase a bit, Christ said, "Please let me avoid this upcoming suffering, but, nevertheless, I'd rather do things the way You want."

The cross was clearly what God the Father wanted.

Col 1:20 And through Him having made peace through the blood of His cross, it pleased the Father to reconcile all things to Himself through Him, whether the things on earth or the things in Heaven.

So I reitterate what I said before. It may be that, God, like us, finds it unpleasant that there be suffering. But that doesn't mean that there isn't something else that He values (wants) even more than he wants the immediate alleviation of all suffering.

This is not illogical even for an all-powerful God.

God can create any state of affairs that isn't incoherent.

Agreed. The question is, can He immediately alleviate all suffering (or have prevented it all in the first place) and still get to the thing He wants most and do so in a logically coherent way.

Perry

[Guest]

Hi again Asimov,

I can conceive of a world where moral agents freely choose only good, and do not choose bad. Where does that leave us in this discussion?

It leaves us with how to get there.

My belief is that creating such moral agents by fiat is logically impossible, even for God.

The only way to create such a being to give that being the choice of such an existence in the first place. What's more, that choice must be an informed choice.

Perry

[Guest]

Hello Perry,

Are you saying that in order for man to know and appreciate the goodness of God, evil was necessary and therefore so was the Fall of Man? It seems Paidion believes this.
Some in the Christian community do as well. When Adam was told "not to eat..when you do..you'll die", was his decision too eat and "informed" one?
Did he understand the meaning of God 's penalty of death? Do you have kids?

Peace in Him,
Bob

[Guest]

Asimov

Quote: "God desired all of these events to occur".

Not quite. God can desire a "greater good" for His creatures through their free will choice.

That doesn't make any sense.

Forcing His love upon us is not love at all. It is rape. I do not believe God is a divine rapist.

How is that forcing his love upon us? Why did he create us? Out of love? Is that not forcing his love?

To say that God allowed evil to enter human experience through our free will choice does not demand that He desires it. He can desire to bring about the greatest good through this freedom. By saying this, I do not make God contingent. I am not an open theist. God's knowlage is not determined by the future free will acts of His volitional creatures. All that God "wills" comes to pass without our free wills being infringed upon. This line of reasoning that you posit, once again is a veiled albeit a thinly veiled one, that God is not good.

You're the one who's coming to those conclusions about God given my argumentation. I've not once stated anything of the sort. It's telling that when I lay out the facts that you and others here have given me that you accuse me of calling God evil.

By allowing anything to happen, he's stating that he wants it to happen. If he didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't. It's as simple as that. By saying "no, that's not right," you're calling into question the sovereignity of God. If all that God wills comes to pass without free will being infringed upon, then I must ask why suffering exists.

He "could have done better". You and I may concieve in our own limited finite minds a "better world" which God could have created. Simply because we do not know a good purpose for all evil, it doesn't necessarily follow that there isn't one. It doesn't disprove God's omnibenevolence. It merely reveals our ignorance.

This is a poor argument, Traveler. One that stems from ignorance. You can't conceive that evil has no reason to exist, so you wholeheartedly think that it MUST exist. Again, this calls into question the sovereignity of God and his power.

You can impose a purpose on anything, that doesn't mean it has to exist. And since it is clearly stated that evil causes suffering, it is clear that immorality is something not to be desired, and it is clear that immorality is something to be destroyed....?

You've already admitted that the greatest good is one without evil. Why are you backpedalling on that now and stating that the greatest good can be achieved with evil?

I expected that kind of ignorant statement from you. It shows clearly what I have thought about your reasoning all along. Your motives are not to understand but accuse God. Try humbily admitting your ignorance of the love of God and stop forcing your atheisitc philosophy upon Him.

Don't minister to me. How is that statement accusing? It's an example that one can claim love yet not actually show it, betraying a lie. All I hear you say is that God is loving, yet I don't see how your claims match with the Christian worldview of morality and evil.

He didn't just establish "any state of affairs" did He? He established that "He so loved the world that He gave His One and only begotten Son, that by believing in Him, you Asimov, would not perish".
This my friend is God's desire for you and His way into the best world that is yet to come. Here He will wipe away all our tears. Amen?

That rose that you speak of has thorns, Traveler. And they don't add to the beauty of the rose, they infect it.

[Guest]

Asimov, have you read any of Greg Boyd's stuff? He's an ivy-league scholar who I feel has a good grasp on this issue. This is not to say you won't find any good answers on this forum, but a comprehensive treatment of the subject is often better than textual soundbites. I've personally debated Greg Boyd on this issue and found his arguments to be quite good.

Just throwing in my 2 cents.

[Guest]

Hi Traveler,

Are you saying that in order for man to know and appreciate the goodness of God, evil was necessary and therefore so was the Fall of Man?

Those are two different questions.

The evidence suggests to me that evil was necessary.

That does not mean the fall was necessary.

Who put the serpent in the garden?

Perry

Oh, and no, I don't have kids.

[Guest]

Paidion wrote:

I think your difficulty, Asimov, lies in your present understanding of free will. If man truly has a free will, he may choose to do good or chose to do evil, or choose to do anything else he chooses to do.

Asimov wrote:
Are you free to literally jump into space and toot around Jupiter just because? No? So how exactly does man truly have free will? There are clear limitations to the amount of choice man has, or all the starving children in the world would choose to eat.

Possessing a free will does not imply that one has the ability to do everything one wills to do.

Seriously, if one is to consider what free will is, then one must have a consistent idea as to what that free will is. It might be appreciative if you were to define 'free will', in your current understanding of the phrase.['quote]

Fair enough. "P possess free will" if and only if "P possesses the ability to choose to do what P wishes to do when it is physically possible without being restrained from making that choice by other personal beings, whether that restraint is physical or psychological." (I'm not sure about the psychological).

Quote:
God creating beings which will choose only the good is inherently

contradictory and thus incoherent. For if they choose only the good, they are not free to chooe the bad. This means that they are not truly free will agents.

God creating beings who are only able to choose good is not inherently contradictory unless one wishes them to also choose evil (even though they cannot). Are you saying that God wants us to choose evil?

No, I am not saying that God wants us to choose evil. I am saying that if we have free will, then the possibility is there to choose evil or to make any other choice which is physically and psychologically possible.

I can conceive of a world where moral agents freely choose only good, and do not choose bad. Where does that leave us in this discussion?

Apparently it leaves us at an impasse. For I cannot conceive of such a world, any more than I can of a world containing an omnicient being who can create a stone so large that he can't lift it.

Quote:

I disbelieve that God allows murder and torture, and rape of little girls, etc. for some "greater good". I think affirmations that He does so, do an injustice to His all loving character. This kind of thinking also leads people to hate God

Somehow, when man and all nature fell from the way God created it, God allowed it all to continue.

I don't hate God, I hate very little, and non-existent beings are not part of that paradigm.

Oh, I wasn't addressing you, Asimov. I was addressing some of the others who think that the solution to the problem of evil lies in God causing, or at least allowing, evil in order to bring about "a greater good". I know you don't hold this position, for I read and appreciated your arguments against it.

The only reason man and nature fell away was because God wanted it to happen. Placing the burden of guilt upon beings who were only acting in accordance with God's will is fallacious reasoning.

I disagree with your first statement as strongly as I agree with your second. The simple fact that evil exists is insufficent to draw the inference that God wanted it to exist.

Quote:

Suppose, at the present time, God should prevent all harm from happening to people.

1. To prevent people harming other people, it would be necessary to remove the free will of those who do the harming.

Non-sequitur. By preventing someone from stealing a candy bar, I am not removing their free will. I am preventing them from acting on their intent. However, even that is not necessary.

I dont think it is non-sequitur. Suppose you always prevented that person from stealing a candy bar whenever he had the urge. The consequence would be that this person would be unable to carry out his intent where it would be otherwise possible. As I see it that is a limitation of his free will. He would not have the ability to chose to steal a candy bar, since he would be unable to do so. Just as in your example, we don't have the free will to jump into space and toot around Jupiter. Indeed, it never enters our heads. In your candy bar example, it would never enter this man's head to steal one, since he is always prevented. He doesn't have the free will to steal candy bars.

I did not understand your statement, "However, even that is unnecessary." Please clarify.

What is your definition of "free will"? Just being able to wish for something, whether it's within your ability or not?

Quote:

2. To prevent people from being harmed by natural forces, the stability of the world and nature would have to be suspended. For example, if you threw a rock over the cliff, it would fall, but if you stepped over the cliff yourself, you wouldn't --- so that you could not be harmed. There would be no consistency in the forces of nature.

Or you could just create a state of affairs where the natural forces do not harm anything, and be consistent.

Maybe. But I cannot conceive of such a state of affairs. If you have gravity, people fall off things. If you don't have gravity, they may float off into space.