Board index ‹ The Problem of Evil and Suffering

[Corinthian]

> The Bible says that God created the world with cause and effect, and he lets it run that way. ... He lets it run its course.

Is your God not all-knowing? Did he not know at the very moment of the creation of the universe, how every single detail would play out, and indeed how the universe itself would end? And is your God all-powerful (barring logical paradoxes)? If he did know how every single detail would play out, was he not capable of writing a better or less messy program?

In addition, with the God who "created the world and then let it run its course," you are describing a non-interventionist God. But I have the distinct impression that you believe in a God who is willing to intervene from time to time. So why doesn't he do it more often? Again, how often and when should God intervene in the normal processes of cause and effect to mitigate abnormalities? In an extraordinary coincidence, he seems to intervene exactly the same amount as he would in a universe where he did not exist.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for great questions. Yes, the Bible teaches that God is all knowing (barring logical paradoxes such as "Can God know what it's like to not know everything" and "Can God know what it's like to learn?") and all-powerful (barring natural paradoxes). So is he not capable of writing a better or less messy program? The real question at hand is: Is there such a thing? Given an understanding that free will is necessary in a world where there is personality and morality, and given that without reliable cause-and-effect sequences (reliability and regularity without continual interference) knowledge and science would be relatively impossible, and given that the existence of evil is not a defeater for the prospect of God, is there such a thing as a better program? We all know that there are pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, to everything, and that even reality itself is by necessity filled with possibilities. The same hand that can lift and work and love can also punch, strangle, and pull a trigger. It's not possible to have a hand that can do one and not the other. So an honest question is: Is there a better program?

And by my writing I'm not proposing a non-interventionist God. The explicit teaching of the Bible is that almost all of God's work in the world pertains to saving humans and humanity from sin, and intervening in their hearts once they give a green light for him to do so. The Bible teaches repeatedly that God work is in the soul and in the heart far more than in our circumstances, though there are occasions (but only occasions) where he intervenes there also. So I don't subscribe to the idea of a non-inteventionist God at all. I just define and observe his intervention the way the Bible speaks of it.

> In an extraordinary coincidence, he seems to intervene exactly the same amount as he would in a universe where he did not exist.

Again, if you're looking for external/circumstantial intervention, I agree with what you said. But since the Biblical model is that he works mostly inside of people, that's a different matter.

[Corinthian]

> "but since the burden of proof is on you to show (1) that the existence of God and the existence of evil are logically contradictory..."

I know what the burden of proof is. I contend that it falls on you, not me. And here's why:

The statement:
"God and the existence of suffering are not a logical contradiction,"
... is the same thing as saying:
"God has a reason for allowing suffering. All suffering that exists is justifiable."

And from there, we take it back to my courtroom analogy. I think I've already presented this analogy to you, but perhaps it was to someone else, so I'll repeat it just in case:

Imagine you're on trial for the murder of your neighbor. The physical and circumstantial evidence against you is undeniable, and so you fully admit to the killing. Your only defense is to argue that the killing was justified. However, if you refuse to provide any evidence or reasonable argument for how and why the killing was justified, the jury is very reasonably going to assume that it was not, and they are going to convict you of murder and send you to prison for the rest of your life.

I see God as being in a similar situation. Suffering unquestionably exists in this world. If God exists, he (or people who are speaking in his defense, such as you) is therefore in the same position as the defendant in the murder trial. God (or his followers) can claim that suffering is justified, but they need to demonstrate that if they want the jury to accept that.

> "And just to be clear, I never propounded that all evil was justifiable,"
> "What I said is that a perfectly good person can allow evil, provided he has a good reason,"

That's the same thing. If he has a good reason for allowing it, then that means it is justifiable. But the burden of proof is on you to show that he does in fact have a good reason for allowing it.

[jimwalton]

I thought I already gave some anecdotes, as a trial lawyer would, providing eye-witness testimony that there are many people who would consider that the suffering in their lives has helped them to be stronger, made the better people, and actually they can say they are "glad" it has happened.

Persons such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Victor Frankl speak to the horrors of imprisonment and the spiritual light that their sufferings brought them. I have personally had conversations with several Russian people who spent time in Siberia. My son, now 31, had heart problems since he was born, and a series of strokes from age 19-25. He'll tell you about what positive things his suffering has done for him. There are famous people like quadriplegic Joni Eareckson, and so many others who will tell you that there suffering has accomplished good in their lives and in the lives of others. These would all be "good reason[s] for allowing it." In my own life I have grown more in character and personally during the really rough times. Like any coach will tell you, taking it easy on your team accomplishes nothing. Pushing them to the limits is where they learn. The movie "Miracle" is a great example of that.

If I want to show a jury that there may be good reasons for God allowing evil, I can bring one witness after another to the stand to make my case.

[Corinthian]

> a trial lawyer would, providing eye-witness testimony that there are many people who would consider that the suffering in their lives has helped them to be stronger

I am not challenging the existence of some suffering. I have agreed that some suffering can be considered useful.
If you are arguing that all suffering is beneficial in some way, then that is a claim that has yet to be proved.

> If I want to show a jury that there may be good reasons for God allowing evil, I can bring one witness after another to the stand to make my case.

I could find and bring to the stand 1,000 people who have committed justifiable homicides, and all it would prove is that homicides are sometimes justifiable. It would not disprove the existence of unjustified homicides.

[jimwalton]

You know, I agree with you. Your original point was that the existence of any suffering made the existence of God impossible. Now we both agree that, logically speaking, it doesn't. I am NOT arguing that all suffering is beneficial in some way. What I said was (a number of days ago), "God can be all-powerful, and permit as much evil as he pleases without forfeiting his claim to being good, as long as for every evil he permits there is the possibility of a greater good—as long as there is a balance of good over evil in the universe as a whole."

I also agree with what you said last, that just because some homicides may be justifiable doesn't mean all homicides are justifiable.

[Corinthian]

> So is he not capable of writing a better or less messy program? The real question at hand is: Is there such a thing? Given an understanding that free will is necessary in a world where there is personality and morality, and given that without reliable cause-and-effect sequences (reliability and regularity without continual interference) knowledge and science would be relatively impossible, and given that the existence of evil is not a defeater for the prospect of God, is there such a thing as a better program?

I would say that a world without the existence of malaria, which is one of the top 5 killers of children under 5, would be a better program—and the absence of malaria would not affect free will, or the cause-and-effect nature of the universe, or any of the laws of nature.

> And by my writing I'm not proposing a non-interventionist God.

A God who designed the program and is simply letting it run its course is the very definition of a non-interventionist God.

[jimwalton]

You know, I think we'd all want a world without malaria, cancer, typhoid, the bubonic plague, shingles, and a host of other miserable, tragic, and fatal diseases. I think to be perfectly honest we have to look at these things objectively. Some of these diseases are the result of human choice (sexually transmitted diseases, lung cancer from smoking, birth defects from alcohol and use during pregnancy), and sometimes the contagious or genetic results of these behaviors causes much pain and suffering from disease. But as I said, God doesn't interfere with free will, so people share in at least some of the blame. Other times humans force other humans to live in squalor or tremendously unsanitary conditions (prisons, ghettos, human trafficking) that is the cause of diseased suffering and disease dispersion. At least some of this is necessary consequence of human free agency.

Some of these diseases are caused by the laws of cause-and-effect in cell reproduction and gene alignment. There are lots of variables. Again, we are back to the conversation of "to what extent do we expect God to intervene, and for whom, and how often?" These fall under what I said before about "a person can be good and still allow a certain amount of (seemingly unjustifiable) evil as long as evil can possible bring about good results, and that the balance of good and evil in the universe is weighted towards the good.

I grant that malaria, and cancer, cystic fibrosis, etc. are horrible things. We do know that such problems in our world are consistent with what the Bible teaches about sin ruining the world. The Bible says pain and suffering can motivate people to seek answers beyond the physical world, that pain and suffering can help people form stronger characters, teach people important lessons about courage, helping each other, fortitude, and lots of others, and can even warn us about greater evils, greater pains, and the consequences of screwing up our lives and the environment. I'm not justifying malaria. I'm just saying there are an awful lot of factors at play.

> A God who designed the program and is simply letting it run its course is the very definition of a non-interventionist God.

You're right, but I didn't say that. I said that God was deeply involved in intervening inside of people, though not necessarily in their circumstances. God is very much an interventionist God, but mostly inside of us, and only by our permission (he can't go against free will). I'm no deist, nor do I believe God is non-interventionist. I'm just trying to read the Bible accurately about the primary arenas of his intervention.

[22Ματθαῖος37]

It seems to me people either are willing to have faith that God exists or they don't. I read this thread and it seems like a debate that's going around in circles. Evil exists, it's that simple. Good also exists, it's that simple. You have the power of choice which path you will follow - - choose wisely.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for your comment. It was going in circles a little bit. Eventually people have said what they want to say and then they rehash it in different words as the conversation proceeds.

Not everyone agrees that evil exists (though most do). I've had some conversations with people who say evil is just a label put on a personal opinion. Most people, however, will concede that there is such a thing. Interestingly enough (a conversation I had had on the "morality" subject on the sight), if a person agrees that there is such a thing as evil, they must also agree that there is such a thing as good, or else we wouldn't know what evil was. And if there is such a thing as evil and good, there must be some standard by which to judge such things. And if there is such a standard, that "moral law" must have a source outside of humanity. The most logical, and possibly only reasonable, source for such a thing is God. So to admit there is evil is also to admit there's a God.

And I agree with you on everything you said. Thanks for your comment.