Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?You remember Epicurus, right? He was a materialist who assaulted anything divine and claimed instead that pleasure was the greatest good. But I don't see any reason why that would define his views on God, do you?
Still, questioning the motives of the messenger doesn't answer the message. So we're faced with the "Problem of Evil" syllogism. Dan Phillips over at Pyromaniacs takes on this assault on theism that goes something like this:
1. If God is all-powerful, He can prevent evil.Well, folks, there you have it--the end of the question. Put another way, "If evil, then no God." Next?
2. If God is good, He would want to prevent evil.
3. Evil exists.
4. Therefore, there is no God. Or: God is either not all-powerful, or He is not good, or not either. In any case, not God.
The problem, of course, is that the question is asked in the wrong direction. That is, the premises are problematic. From the perspective of the human, declaring what "all-powerful" can do and what "good" wants, we declare God's non-existence. The problem is that the values offered by the creature are informed by self-interest, hostility (Rom 8:7), ignorance (1 Cor 2:14), and a deceived heart (Jer 17:9). Not a good approach.
There are answers to the problem, of course. The Open Theist could tell you God is not all-powerful. He has abdicated that position in favor of Human Free Will and limits Himself. On the "God is good" problem, the Bible is not silent. Solomon wrote, "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." (Prov 16:4). Paul speaks of God "willing to demonstrate His wrath and make His power known" (Rom 9:22). Thus, the Bible suggests that God does not want to prevent evil until the end of the present age. So from the Open Theist or from the Scriptures, there are problems with the first two premises. Phillips points out that the whole thing is problematic. Consider. If "no God", then there is no means by which to determine "evil". Therefore, "Evil exists" from the basis of "no God" is meaningless. The argument is self-refuting.
I'd like to offer a more honest syllogism. First, from the human perspective:
1. If God is all-powerful, He can meet my expectations of what "all-powerful" means including eliminating "evil", whatever that may be.And I would contend that this is true.
2. If God is good, He would satisfy my demands for what I consider to be "good" including eliminating "evil", whatever that may be.
3. "Evil" exists, at least in my own mind.
4. Therefore, a God that satisfies my personal definitions and demands does not exist.
Perhaps a thought experiment in the other direction would be interesting.
Evil exists.See, now this is going a different direction. Not "How can I evaluate God from my value system?" but "How can I learn about God?" For instance, if we believe that God is Omnipotent (and can find that clearly in His self-revelation we call "the Bible") and we believe that there is evil in the world (as we can clearly see in His Word), what can we conclude from that? We know that God is good (from His self-revelation--Psa 25:8; Psa 86:5). So we can safely conclude that if there is evil in the world that an Omnipotent God does not end, it is there for a Good God's good reasons. Of course, this approach (in the problem of the syllogism) negates Premise 2, denying that a Good God would want to prevent evil.
Evil can only be defined by a Lawgiver who can define it.
Therefore, God exists.
If evil exists and God exists, what can we tell about God?
So if you are struggling over this "Problem of Evil" problem, you have to ask yourself, "Do I define God by my own desires and values, or do I define God as He does Himself in His Word?" The other question is equally valuable. "Do I define myself as good and worthy of judging God's intentions, or do I recognize that is not in my realm?" Because in every case when a hostile, deceived person approaches God, it is very unlikely they're going to do so with truth.
2 comments:
Great points. Those raising the "problem" don't seem to realize that it is a problem for their worldview as well.
It's actually a little surprising to me how many things fall in that same category--"Your objection is a problem ... for you."
Post a Comment