Board index ‹ The Problem of Evil and Suffering

[Charbroiled]

Yes, I know this is the "Problem of Evil", but it has really been bothering me lately. If God is all powerful and able to directly influence anything in this universe and all-loving, then why does he let bad things happen to people? For example, how can an all-loving god let something like the Islamic State exist and cause so much death and destruction?

[jimwalton]

People seem to think that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of God. But let’s examine it. Is it really self-contradictory? Someone who believes in God believes God exists, he is all-powerful (omnipotent), he is all-knowing (omniscient), he is wholly good, and evil exists. First of all, none of these by themselves formally entail a contradiction.

Some people argue, “Well, a truly good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can.” But that’s not true either. A doctor who can eliminate the pain in your knee only by removing your leg doesn’t forfeit his claim to moral excellence by failing to do so. A doctor escapes moral culpability because he cannot eliminate the evil without also eliminating a greater good. So maybe then we’d want to say that it makes logical sense that a person is not morally culpable in producing evil if he justifiably believes he can produce a greater good that outweighs the evil on by producing said evil; nor is he immoral in FAILING to eliminate an evil if he justifiable believes that he can eliminate it only by eliminating a GREATER good. So it’s just not true that a person is only good (or all-powerful or all loving) if he tries to eliminate every state of affairs that he believes is evil.

What about another angle: an omniscient person is only wholly good if he tries to eliminate every evil state of affairs that he can eliminate without eliminating a greater good? Well, no one would claim that evil MUST exist, so we’re left with “God can then eliminate every case of evil whatever.” But that doesn’t follow. There are always pros and cons. We can’t assume that every case of evil can be eliminated without possibly eliminating a great good. The argument fails.

This means that any evil outweighed by at least one good is necessary to have a good state of affairs that outweighs it. But this means that an omnipotent and omniscient being could permit as much evil as he pleased without forfeiting his claim to being all good as long as for every evil state of affairs he permits, there is the possibility of a greater good. That is to say, he can permit as much evil as he pleased provided that there was a balance of good over evil in the universe as a whole, which just may be the case!

So when it comes right down to it, the other side has to hold that if there is ANY evil, there is UNJUSTIFIED evil, and that ALL of it is unjustified. That’s just patently untrue, for good often comes from pain, evil, and suffering. but even if it’s remotely possible that all evil is justified, there’s still no contradiction with God in the existence of the evil.

[Charbroiled]

To say that an all powerful, all knowing, all loving god would not, in it's nature, eliminate all evil, is absurd. What justification could God have for the evil he allows to exist? Has he told anyone yet? And yes, not all evil is unjustifiable. But that is from. A political/human perspective. I'm pretty sure if God wanted peace on earth, it would happen.

[jimwalton]

If you think it's absurd, let's look at it logically. You are saying that the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God is somewhat of a contradiction ("absurd") to the existence of evil. If that is the case, then you need to tell me which of these propositions I have to abandon:

God exists
God is omnipotent
God is omniscient
God is all-loving
Evil exists

Right away we can see that none of these is an inherent contradiction with any of the others. Something must be added—a something that must contradict all five statements. No such proposition has ever been produced.

First of all, God's omnipotence does mean he can do anything and everything. He can't be self-contradictory, for one. He can't lie, for another. So we have to define his omnipotence in terms of what is logically possible for him to perform, in ways consistent with his revealed nature.

As I mentioned, sometimes good people produce suffering for the good it will effect, as a surgeon or oncologist who create great suffering towards a good end. So is it really true that good beings always eliminate every evil they can, and absurd if they don't? If that's true, many surgeons are evil people. So I have established that an omnipotent being can only do what is logically consistent, and it's not necessarily true that he would eliminate every case of evil whatsoever. Your statement is already crumbling. If God, like a doctor, can bring about great good by allowing such-and-such an evil to exist, then he is neither absurd nor immoral. Now the burden of proof is on you to prove that no evil can ever lead to something that would be considered a greater good. If you cannot logically take me there, your case falters.

[Charbroiled]

I'm still seeing the contradiction. God is not a doctor. God is a god. What greater good could God be striving towards by way of letting ISIS torture and execute countless innocents? Or are you saying that God created ISIS as a means to a greater good? Either situation takes away his benevolence. Why doesn't he intervene directly? God shouldn't have to wait around for diplomacy or an international coalition. If he is truly God, then he wouldn't play human games like us. He wouldn't need a means to an end. If God was truly omnipotent, then he could simply have the end without the need for sacrifice or compromise.

[jimwalton]

I'll continue with I said before with this: I have already established that the existence of evil is not inherently contradictory to the existence of an omnipotent, all-loving God. I have also established that being aren't necessarily immoral for allowing or even perpetuating suffering. So any evil that is outweighed by good, and necessary to achieve it (such as surgery), is a good state of affairs. It's logically possible, then, that any good state and evil state can coexistence as long ultimately good outweighs evil. Any omnipotent and all-loving being can allow evil without forfeiting his claim to be all-good and all-loving, as long as for every evil he allows there is a greater good. Ultimately, he can allow as much evil or suffering as he pleased, provided that there is more good than evil in the universe.

Again the burden of proof is on you. You must show, to substantiate your claim, that the co-existence of evil and God are logically impossible, and that no evil can result in some greater good. And of course you know that is not provable. While you don't like the evil you see (ISIS), neither do I, but that doesn't mean God is immoral. Instead, it is possible that God has a good reason to allow evil, and that the existence of suffering is not incompatible with God's existence or his nature. Just because you can come up with an example that you think he should have stopped is not evidence that God is neither all-good nor omnipotent. When we approach questions like ISIS torturing innocents, we have to claim that we don't have sufficient access to the situation to make a judgment about what God's reasoning may be here.

Suppose you are taking a walk in a small park with your dog. You can look around and see a few young children and one other dog, and you can conclude that there is no hippopotamus in the park. You do have sufficient access to the situation to reasonably judge that. Then you stop and strain your ears. All you hear is dogs and children, and some cars going by. Is it reasonable to conclude that "No dog whistles are being blown." No, because despite that you have a sense of hearing, your wavelength limitation doesn't allow you to hear all such noises. In other words, we have moved from what appears to be true (a visual check for a hippopotamus) to a situation where you don't have the faculties required to make a reasoned decision.

In some cases we may be able to discern that there may be reasons to permit suffering, as in the case of a doctor. We understand that sometimes suffering is required to bring about the good envisioned. It is also reasonable to assume that some evil is the result of free choices. What is not reasonable is that we are in a position to judge every situation, and are necessarily justified in criticizing God for permitting such and such an evil. We cannot possibly know the God-justifying reason for every case of evil, even if such a reason were to exist. Given the gulf between God's omniscience and our limitations, if theism were true, we would expect that God has reasons that we are not always able to discern, and that there are situations for which we cannot give a full explanation. I don't know why ISIS tortures and executes people, even outside of the question of God's nature.

You seem to think that if he is truly God, he would directly intervene. On what basis do you claim that? What of his purposes are being accomplished? What good is rising that may outweigh it? You think that if he were truly God, he would put a stop to it. It sounds to me as if you're weighing in on the "dog whistle" question, claiming to be aware of things beyond your capabilities.

I feel your pain. I wish we could "see behind the door" more than we can. We all want the madness to stop. No one can put all of these pieces together, and we look for the purpose or reason behind it. But just entertain a few guesses: maybe just maybe it will help to unite the world against an insane enemy. Maybe just maybe it will teach Muslims to rise against their absurd and dangerous element for the sake of Islam: PEACE. Maybe just maybe nations will stop fighting nations, and we will learn to fight injustice and violence wherever we see it. Maybe just maybe it takes time to learn such things, and God is bringing us along the path. Can you say he's not? You may not like it (neither do I), but you can't say he's not.

[Charbroiled]

God is not a human doctor though. He is a god. He does not need to work within human logic. If what you say about how God can only work within logic and within the realm of reason in a material world, then that would make him more human than I was ever taught to believe.

[jimwalton]

It's unreasonable to think that even though God isn't human he can work in self-contradiction to himself, or be characterized by irrational behavior. It doesn't make him "more human than [you] were ever taught to believe" to understand that God is self-consistent, rational, and non-contradictory. God is truth, so for him to not work within principles of logic is absurd. You want God and his actions to make sense to you, but then you reason that he should not necessarily conform to principles of logic and reason. That doesn't make sense, and you are diminishing God by farcical reasoning.

[Charbroiled]

Thanks for responding again, btw. I get what you're saying, but if God is responding to evil or allowing it in ways we can't discern, then isn't it up to human nature to resolve evil then? Everything I've learned by reading the bible and going to church says that God listens and responds to prayer. If he isn't going to answer prayers in a way that we will actually notice, then there isn't a reason for praying because you get no measurable result from it. I also do not think the world needs god to act in order to come together and take on ISIS. It's human nature to want to help others in need. I guess the realization I've come to is that the point of god is to be ambiguous. God is only god if he can't be measured or proven. Once there is evidence that God directly intervenes in a situation, then there would be no need for faith, which would destroy his purpose, right?

[jimwalton]

> isn't it up to human nature to resolve evil then?

Humans are supposed to do everything possible to fight evil and to reduce it, but since much evil resides in the human heart, humans can't resolve the problem of evil. God is the only one who can change the nature of the human heart. So we are supposed to do everything within our power to diminish evil, and we are supposed to turn to God to change our hearts. It's the teaching of the Bible that only the blood of Christ can truly deal with our sin.

You're right that the Bible teaches that God listens to and responds to prayer, but not necessarily in measurable ways. Prayer, despite some people's attempts, is not subject to scientific study. There are too many variables to be able to have a truly controlled situation. And while there are results from prayer, I'm not sure what you mean when you require "measurable" results.

You're also right, to some extent, when you say that the world doesn't really need God to take on ISIS. We have the willpower, the tools, and the technology to confront it with immense force, but again, eradicating the threat entirely is not subject to military action. When the heart is set on violence, it can find a way.

> the point of god is to be ambiguous. God is only god if he can't be measured or proven. Once there is evidence that God directly intervenes in a situation, then there would be no need for faith, which would destroy his purpose right?

I don't agree with this. There are, as you surmise, good reasons for God to stay somewhat hidden. But it's just incorrect to say that God is only God if he can't be measured or proved. That's like claiming you are only you as long as we talk online and never actually meet. In the days of the Bible, so we are told, God intervened directly and measurably in many situations, and we have the literary and historical record to tell us about it. But just because many miracles don't have lasting empirical evidence (like Jesus walking on the water) doesn't mean it didn't happen. I had homemade pizza two months ago that was AWESOME and TO DIE FOR, but I can't prove it. But lack of enduring evidence doesn't destroy God's purpose. The resurrection of Jesus has enduring evidence, and that was within the purposes of God. For instance, we all know that Apple is a very secretive company. They keep their upgrades and new products very tightly under wraps, with barely a clue to what's coming until the day of the GREAT REVEAL. Then Steven Jobs, or now Tim Cook, takes the veil away, and we find out all the great stuff that Apple has been cooking up. The secretiveness neither necessitates that "Apple is only a real corporation if they keep everything a secret," or that being less secretive would "destroy their purpose". It's the way they choose to do business. So also God. He wants to have a love relationship with people, and love must be voluntary, not coerced. He works in ways that make people seek him, and choose to love him, rather than anything coercive. He never wants to hear someone say, "Yeah, I follow God. He made me do it; I didn't have a choice. I don't like it and I don't want it, but I was forced."