Board index ‹ The Problem of Evil and Suffering

[Davies Mavies]

If God exists, he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. But we also know he allows suffering. And if God knows that suffering will occur before it happens, but elects to do nothing (so his creatures can ‘come to a knowledge of himself’) then this really has to be the epitome of evil. God could relieve suffering; knows it’s going to happen, buts sits back and let’s it happen anyway!! Unforgivable!!

Suffering cannot be explained away.

I’ll readily acknowledge it is caused mostly by man’s inhumanity to man. Atheism doesn’t CAUSE the suffering, however. It merely begs the question about the morality of a being who, having created the chessboard, the chess pieces and all of the rules; and who knows the outcome of every single possible move; decides not to relieve suffering. It’s His game, but he stands by and watches, in Lennox’s words, because the sufferers hope it may one day get better. That’s as evil as anything I’ve ever heard!!

God is like a wife beater or a child abuser. The problem of evil and suffering simply reveals that God is emotionally needy and, of course, a psychopath.

[jimwalton]

If I’m reading it right, your issue is mostly about the reality of evil and suffering in the world. I think there are many angles to the problem of evil, all of which point to its reality as well as to an omniscience, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. Let me try to express them simply (rather than write a book) to give you the idea.

1. Evil and suffering can exist simultaneously with an “omni-" God as long as such evil and suffering have the possibility of good. For instance, a surgeon causes great pain and suffering, but his aim is to heal. Isn’t this surgeon both benevolent and the cause of suffering? The same is true of an oncologist who uses radiation and chemotherapy. These doctors can cause severe pain and suffering to achieve their ends. Yet I would assert that God is not the cause of suffering, but can still allow it to exist as long as there is the possibility of some good or benefit from it, which there is. Those who argue against this would be required to show that evil and suffering NEVER bring benefit, a position that is simply untenable.

2. Evil and suffering can be allowed by an “omni-“ God where free will is necessary for humanity, which it is. Your friend acknowledged that most suffering is caused by man’s inhumanity to man. What is required for God to stop that—the decision not to relieve the suffering? He must take control of our bodies lest we cause harm to another. He must drive for us so no one is injured. He must make sure we never punch, trip, shoot, etc. another. We by necessity need to be robots in God’s hands if there is never to be any inhumanity or accident.

But then he must also control our minds, for much suffering is caused by words, insults, deprecation, verbal abuse, and even misunderstanding of innocent speech. God has to control our minds, out thoughts and attitudes, our speech, and our responses to “decide to relieve suffering.”

In other words, God has to steal away what makes us human to preserve us from man-to-man suffering. We cannot think on our own, move on our own, decide on our own, love, forgive, be generous, etc. All of these things become meaningless because we’re not doing them.

3. Evil and suffering can be allowed by an "omni-“ God because a dynamic world is superior to a static one. We will never truly be able to flawlessly predict weather because there will always be variables in the system we can’t see or control (the Butterfly Effect). You can balance a salt shaker on its edge in a restaurant, but it won’t stay there forever. Some force (a truck going by, a breeze, some micro-movement) will eventually cause it to fall. God has created a dynamic world because of its far superiority to a static one. Our Earth is an example. Earthquakes relieve pressure in the tectonic plates—necessary for our survival. Sometimes people get injured in earthquakes, but that doesn’t make earthquakes evil. Without Earthquakes we’d pop like a cork and all die. Same with volcanoes and tornadoes. They serve a dynamic function, and can’t be removed without removing life.

Consider the dynamic nature of our bodies. Brain injuries can somewhat repair because neurons are dynamic and can create new routes around areas of infarction. Hearts can grow new blood vessels around areas of injury. This is not only good, but essential. Take it further: our brains work the way they do because our thoughts are dynamic, not static. We can be creative and solve problems because of the dynamic nature of our brains. In other words, without dynamism, there would be no science and no reasoning. We wouldn’t be able to think because all brain activity would be static and determined.

But if dynamism is necessary for life and vitality, we also recognize the dark side of dynamism. People get killed in earthquakes. The reasoning process is sometimes used to plan injury to another. Is God to blame for “deciding not to relieve suffering”? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. If free will and dynamism are beneficial and necessary, and yet they have a dark side (I can use my fist to injure just as easily as to hold or to give), a beneficent, knowledgeable, and powerful person can allow the dark side as long as ultimately the good outweighs the bad, the dynamism is of more benefit than harm, suffering can possibly lead to growth and good, and my humanity allows me to truly think, to love, to forgive, and to learn—which is exactly the case.

4. In other words, we come to a point where we can actually see the benefits of evil (not that God perpetrates evil for its benefits; rather, He can use evil to beneficial ends). We can look at the horrible aspects of the Roman Empire (slave pens), but we can also see the benefits that Rome brought to culture and history (Law, travel, trade). While evil is always with us, and horrific it is, without the Roman Empire we would miss out on all the good it brought that outweighed the awful (slavery went away, law did not). Some of the most evil parts of history have actually brought about the most benefit (Nazi Germany motivated an alliance of good nations and resulted in NATO and the United Nations). Surgery brings healing; radiation destroys cancer; dynamism allows science, free will allows love. Love conquers evil. Is is just possible that evil is not the malefaction of an immoral God, or a testament to his un-beneficence, destructive knowledge, or impotent power, but a necessary element in life that makes good rise to what it is?

Therefore God is not the epitome of evil for “electing to do nothing.” Instead, God allows evil to happen because a world that allows evil is in many respects far superior than a world that does not, and as long as evil and suffering are ultimately outweighed by good in the universe, an “omni-“ God would choose no other path.

But we are not to think that God delights in evil, perpetrates it, or ignores it. The Bible tells a very different tale—that God treats evil not as a compatriot but instead as an enemy. When something bad happens, God is right in the mix to show a noble way through it, to teach strength and courage by it, to bring people together in the midst of it, and to bring whatever good is possible out of even the most horrific events and experiences.

Not only that, but God shares our suffering as a companion in grief and pain, not aloof and uncaring. To show that evil is not the undoing of us, that suffering will not have the final word, that pain is not meaningless, and that ultimately good will triumph, God enters our pain and experiences it with us. This is not a being who is emotionally needs or psychopathic, but an omnibenevolent, loving, relational God of hope and healing.

As awful as it is, suffering has a unique and necessary place in life. God knows about its existence, but knowledge is not causative. Because God can see all doesn’t mean God causes all. The Bible is quite clear that many things happen that God has not perpetrated. God is omnipotent, but to stop evil would be to steal away our humanity, the Earth’s ability to exist, and even reason and science itself. God is omni-benevolent, but to stop all suffering would actually result in greater harm than greater good.

I hope this helps. We can talk more.