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

[Guest]

Asimov

I believe that everything God created from the begining was "good". That is not to say, everything relating to the creation of man was complete.
By complete, I do not imply that man was in some sense "flawed". I do not believe the Deity makes mistakes. The whole plan of God is not a "tale told by an idiot". There are some things that are hard for our limited finite minds to grasp. The problem of reconciling a good God with the existence of evil is certainly a challenge. The subject must be approached with our utmost humility. There are some answers. However,
I do not believe there are 'complete' answers given to all our questions.
If you are aquainted with the story of Job, the only answer to his questions
were met with questions by God.

Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself". Job 40:8.

God answered Job's questions with Himself! There is no Higher Answer.
"Trust and obey for there is no other way".. Happy in Jesus...
The lesson God is proving to us daily, "man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God".
So when I "wrestle" with God on this issue, this is the framework from which I inquire of God.

Therefore, I do not nor will not accuse God of making a "flawed" creation because I do not understand every detail of what He does. This is where you and I part company. There appears to be no humilty in the way you frame your questions. You ACCUSE rather than humbly seek. I have no part with the ACCUSER of the Bretheren. May the LORD rebuke you if this is your spirit.

[Guest]

D.J.Eaton

The statement "I will go to bed in thirty minutes" is either true or false.

It is either true or false only if you have full control over the event.

If it has "no truth value", then what is it? It is a true statement, a false statement, or what?

If it has no truth value, then it is neither true or false. It will become true or false when the choice is made.

We have been brought up to believe that every statement is either true or false. Consider the following statement made by Joe Bloe:

The sentence which I am now uttering is false.

If all statements have truth value, please tell me whether it is true or false?

If it is true, then what Joe Bloe said is true. But Joe Bloe said the sentence was false. Therefore it must be false.

If the statement is false, then what Joe Bloe said is false. But Joe Bloe said the sentence was false. Therefore it must be true.

Just because P doesn't know the answer doesn't mean that the statement is something other than true or false.

You are right. People not knowing something does not determine it's truth value or lack thereof.

If G says "P will raise his hand" then P may or may not have a choice depending on how Calvinistic you want to get.

Statements about about what P will do have no determining efficacy. The problem is affirming that utterances about future actions of free will agents have present truth value. G's statement "P will raise his hand" is a prediction, not a statement which is either true or false.

But G knowing only the truth of past events eliminates all omniscience altogether.

Correct. And it is not my contention that G knows only the truth of past events. He also knows the truth about future events which He determines to bring about. If God makes up His mind to do a thing, nothing can thwart Him. He knows His plan from beginning to end, or as the scripture puts it "the end of His plan from the beginning."

Even G saying "I'll come back" is not a statement of truth, but only a goal at best that may or may not actually occur.

No, that is not the case. God has determined that His Son will return, and has the power to make it happen.

How could The Truth make a statement about a future event if the truth of that statement was unknowable?

Christ, who is "The Truth" (that is "Reality") can predict a future event, and through the revelation of the Father who is omnicient, make a very accurate prediction. Or if you are speaking of Christ's return, He could make a true statement about it, because He knew His Father's heart and mind --- that His Father intended the second coming to occur.

Traveler

How is foreknowing what a free will agent will do with his freedom eliminate that freedom?

Foreknowledge doesn't eliminate the power to choose. But future choices having present truth value is a contradiction. Therefore "foreknowledge" in the sense of knowing in an absolute sense those future choices is also a contradiction. In the scriptures "foreknowledge" is often God's knowing what HE will do. That's a different matter. Scriptural foreknowledge also refers to knowing a person before he did a particular action. There is one example in which a person, a mere human being "foreknew" the apostle Paul.

Can't God determine the future by free choice since He omnisciently knows for sure how they will freely act?
Help me out here.

He doesn't "know for sure how they will freely act", and there are scriptural records of several instances in which this fact comes out.
However, since God is omnicient, He knows everything that is possible to know. He knows our thoughts, our minds and hearts, even our intentions.
With His total knowledge of people, He is in a much, much, better position than any human being, to accurately predict what we will choose to do in the future. However, occasionally His predictions do not turn out because of man's choices. This doesn't mean that God was "wrong". He made the best prediction possible based on His total knowledge.

One example is Micah's prophesy in the book of Micah:

Micah 3:12 Therefore, on account of you Zion will be plowed as a field, Jerusalem will become a heap of ruins, And the mountain of the temple will become high places of a forest.

We would probably would never know that this prophecy did not come true, if it weren't for the record in the book of Jeremiah. The priests and the prophets wanted to kill Jeremiah for "prophesying against them". Then some of the elders tried to convince them that they should not kill Jeremiah, for God might not carry out His prophecy if they should repent. They gave an example of how this had happened in the past:

Then some of the elders of the land rose up and spoke to all the assembly of the people, saying,

"Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah; and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, ‘Thus the LORD of hosts has said, "Zion will be plowed as a field, And Jerusalem will become ruins, And the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest."’
"Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves." Jeremiah 26:17-19

[Guest]

Paidion,

May I suggest this subject be moved to the Open Theisim thread?
Since the subject is about evil and suffering, maybe we should discuss God's omniscience there instead of here.

Thanks,
Bob

[Guest]

Paidion,

Sorry, but I have to ask based on your statement: "He doesn't "know for sure how they will freely act"..

are you in some sense a finite godist?[/b]

[Guest]

We have been brought up to believe that every statement is either true or false. Consider the following statement made by Joe Bloe:
The sentence which I am now uttering is false.
If all statements have truth value, please tell me whether it is true or false?

A self-refuting statement is a one that doesn't make any sense. The statement "I will go to bed in 30 minutes" makes sense. It computes. A sentence of "This is not a sentence." is a conceptual idea as opposed to a statement of something factual in the real world. When God said Person X will do Y, it wasn't some concept. It was true or false. Look at the passage that tells us how we can tell if a prophet is from God or not. One that tells things that don't come true is not from God. Yet you propose that God prophesied through Jonah of something that did not occur. How can that be? If you can't trust prophets that are not from God and you can't trust prophets that are either, how do we know that He is really going to prepare a place for us, return for the church, forgive our sins, and anything else that was a statement of the future?
D.

[Guest]

Paidion,

May I suggest this subject be moved to the Open Theisim thread?
Since the subject is about evil and suffering, maybe we should discuss God's omniscience there instead of here.

You may suggest it. But I believe it belongs in this thread. The problem of evil is intricately bound to whether or not one believes that God can know something when there is nothing to know. It has no relevance whatever to God's omniscience. God's omniscience is not the subject matter.

A self-refuting statement is a one that doesn't make any sense. The statement "I will go to bed in 30 minutes" makes sense.

The statement "I will go to bed in 30 minutes" is not a statement of fact. It is a statement of intention. For you don't know that you will go to bed in 30 minutes. You may get unexected visitors, or may receive a desparate phone call for help.

What your sentence really means is "I intend to go to bed in 30 minutes."
As an expression of your intention, your sentence is either true or false.

When God said Person X will do Y, it wasn't some concept. It was true or false.

That's what you want to believe. But God never lies. So if it turns out that X choose not to do Y, you have a problem.

Look at the passage that tells us how we can tell if a prophet is from God or not. One that tells things that don't come true is not from God.

If that is a correct test, then Jonah and Micah were false prophets.

Yet you propose that God prophesied through Jonah of something that did not occur.

It is not something which I proposed. It is something which the history of Johah affirms.

If you can't trust prophets that are not from God and you can't trust prophets that are either..

.

It's not a matter of not trusting the prophets. A boy may trust the word of his father that he will take him fishing on Sunday. If events transpire which will prevent his father from fullifilling that intention, will the boy stop trusting his father?

...how do we know that He is really going to prepare a place for us, return for the church, forgive our sins, and anything else that was a statement of the future?

Once again, those things are God's intentions, and He is able to fulfill those intentions, for it is in His power to do so.

Once again, I have not been arguing that God doesn't know His future plans which He is able to carry out. I said He didn't know man's future choices. But in spite of that, He is able to react accordingly and stilldo what is best for man, in view of unexpected human choice. The Old Testament contains several passage in which God does exactly that.

God does know, of course, all possible contingencies --- every possible choice that every person could make. In no way does that indicate that He knows what those choices will be [that would be a contradiciton]. For those choices are not yet made, and so there is nothing to know.

[Guest]

Asimov

I believe that everything God created from the begining was "good". That is not to say, everything relating to the creation of man was complete.
By complete, I do not imply that man was in some sense "flawed". I do not believe the Deity makes mistakes.

I would not believe that God would make mistakes either, and again that was not my implication. One can create flaws on purpose. That is why I said flaw, and not accident or mistake.

God answered Job's questions with Himself! There is no Higher Answer.
"Trust and obey for there is no other way".. Happy in Jesus...
The lesson God is proving to us daily, "man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God".
So when I "wrestle" with God on this issue, this is the framework from which I inquire of God.

IOW, just nod your head and smile, ignoring the hard questions.

Therefore, I do not nor will not accuse God of making a "flawed" creation because I do not understand every detail of what He does. This is where you and I part company. There appears to be no humilty in the way you frame your questions. You ACCUSE rather than humbly seek. I have no part with the ACCUSER of the Bretheren. May the LORD rebuke you if this is your spirit.

A little sensitive? I have made no accusations. I've made conclusions based on the information that I've been given. My conclusion is that the existence of suffering is incompatible with an all-powerful being who does not wish his creation to suffer.

If you disagree, then disagree. Don't make assumptions, this is the Christian Challenges sub-forum and I'm challenging and questioning, not accusing.

[Guest]

I've been reading this thread with some interest.

I find Asimov's questions reasonable as far as they go.

It seems to me that the tacit assumption being made here, on both sides, is that suffereing is, by definition, automatically bad.

I'm not sure that's true.

Christ Himself was made complete through sufferings.

I don't think we can explain away suffering in a way that we're ever going to find fully satisfying on both an emotional and an intellectual level. The amount of suffering is just too great.

Asimov,

You may not find this a very compelling answer, and I accept that, from your perspective, it may sound like a bit of a dodge. But my own opinion is that, even though I can't add up the books in my mind in such a way as to be able to justify the suffering that I observe in the world, I do have faith that, when all is said and done, it will be properly recompenced.

To use a really bad analogy, when mom cleans the gravel out of my skinned knee, I'm saying "Mom it hurts!", and she says, "I know it hurts, but trust me, it'll be better soon."

It could be argued that a fully omnipotent mom, (like God is omnipotent) would have done better to prevent my knee getting skinned in the first place. My only answer to that is, once again, I must fall back on my trust that, even though I don't fully understand it, I do trust that mom knows what she's doing. If I fully understood it, it really wouldn't be trust.

I admit that such an aswer may seem to be ducking the tough questions in the name of trust.

I am curious, though, by what basis, in the absence of a loving God, is it possible to suggest that there's anything wrong with suffering in the first place. It simply is what it is, nature playing out the way nature plays out.

Perry

[Guest]

It seems to me that the tacit assumption being made here, on both sides, is that suffereing is, by definition, automatically bad.

I'm not sure that's true.

Christ Himself was made complete through sufferings.

I fully agree with these statements.

I think that God uses suffering for good; for His own (sometimes hard to understand) purposes.

Greg Bahnsen, among others, solves the "problem of evil" thusly:

1. God is all good.

2. God is omnipotent.

3. Evil exists.

These are the three propositions which appear to be logically incoherent. However, the problem is solved, when the Christian adds a fouth proposition, based on 1 and 2 above.

4. God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists.

So we see that this is not a problem for Christianity at all. There is no logical contradiction in propositions 1-4 above.

It could be argued that a fully omnipotent mom, (like God is omnipotent) would have done better to prevent my knee getting skinned in the first place. My only answer to that is, once again, I must fall back on my trust that, even though I don't fully understand it, I do trust that mom knows what she's doing. If I fully understood it, it really wouldn't be trust.

How does one who doesn't believe in "moms" know what a "mom" should have done, or would have done in regards to the skinned knee? I don't think that this argument is available to the non-believer in moms.

I am curious, though, by what basis, in the absence of a loving God, is it possible to suggest that there's anything wrong with suffering in the first place. It simply is what it is, nature playing out the way nature plays out.

In my opinion "the problem of evil" is much more a problem for an atheist worldview, than it is for the Christian worldview. After all, how is anything good or bad, or "evil" in any meaningful way, in an athiest worldview? By what standard can an atheist determine what is good or evil, in order to argue against the God of the bible?

[Guest]

Paidion,

I must say, your comments stretch my reasoning abiltiy. There are some issues with your theories that do not cohere in my mind, though.

Quote: "The problem of evil is intricately bound to whether or not one believes that God can know something when there is nothing to know. It has no relevance whatever to God's omniscience. God's omniscience is not the subject matter".

God cannot know the unknowable is related to the question; Can God create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it"? One is about His omniscience, 'what does He know, and when did He know it'? The other is related to His omnipotence. So to be brief, what we are saying is; God can only do what is possible and know only what is possible. Is this a correct assumption? But, He created man who is finite and contingent,
He can know within these built-in limitations what we will do with our freedom-in advance of our decision, IMO. Otherwise you have a limited
finite god who is bound by the free will future decisions man may or may not make. It's as if He looks over the balcony of Heaven strumming His fingers and waiting to see what man will or won't do. Only then He reacts or can He react to what we do, or may do.

God obviously knew what Adam would do in advance of his actually eating from the 'wrong tree". God said not 'if' you eat (which implies uncertainty) but He said 'when' you eat (what Adam will do in the future) you shall surely die'. Gen.2:15-17

In an earlier cited verse, Deut.31:16-18, God speaks to Moses with absolute certainty that Israel will break His covenant, and that He will become angry and forsake them, before their choice to do so was exercised! In both cases, God knew in advance what His free-will agents would do with their freedom before there was 'something to know'. In both ways God not only knows all posibilities and contingencies, He knows all actualities, i.e., knowing the beginning from the end.

To say that 'God cannot know the unknowable' is really an empty meaningless statement. It is a mistake of catagories. He can know only what is actually possible. Knowlage is something. Unknowable knowlage is no-thing and a logical absurdity. That is not to say God cannot limit Himself in what He chooses to know or not know. He is free to do as He pleases and for His own set purposes whether we understand them or not.