If God did not create then there would be no evil. But He is a Creator by nature and His plan for all creation is greater than the existence of evil that comes from His creation rejecting Him and being separated from Him. He did not create evil. He said all He created was good. Sin entered into all creation by Adam’s sin. But even before that happened in our time, God had already purposed Jesus’ redemption in time for all mankind. He already saw the beginning from the end. It wasn’t a huge “oh, no, what have I done.” He knew all that would happen before He spoke a single thing into existence. And He sees the glory of all creation that comes through Christ and is being revealed in time. The glory of creation and of the Church being made ready as heir with Christ for all eternity far exceeds anything evil that can be brought about in this earth before evil is banished from creation.
Now is it evil for God who created a life to take a life? Life belongs to Him. He’s the author and giver of life. Life does not belong to us. It is wrong for us to take a life. It is not the same thing for God to do it. God sees the beginning from the end. He is God. Do we have cause to judge God as doing something wrong in bringing the Flood to wipe out a perverse generation and saving Noah and His family who serve Him? God’s justice was brought forth with the Flood. God’s justice was also brought forth by saving Noah.
If God does not exist, the whole discussion about good and evil and if God is good is a moot point. But if He does then the only way we know what good and evil are is because He revealed that knowledge to us and the self-sustaining self-evident God is the only standard of all holiness and righteousness.
Good and evil exist and we know the difference between them because there exists a Good God.
Also regarding suffering: see Peter Kreeft's essay.
7 comments:
"If God did not create then there would be no evil."
That is correct, so the existence of evil is because god created it. I see no way out of this logical conclusion.
"Sin entered into all creation by Adam’s sin."
Pardon my frankness, but this to me seems like an exercise in blaming the victim. This is a rather abhorrent theological point IMO, because it demeans all of humanity.
"But even before that happened in our time, God had already purposed Jesus’ redemption in time for all mankind."
Can we try a role-playing example here for a second? Suppose that you are an engineer. You build something that you know has a flaw in it, in fact, you know the flaw is there before you even start putting the pieces together. You also know that you can either fix the flaw and then build the thing or you can put together a cludge that will sort of fix the flaw for some models but not others. Suppose further that you didn't feel like you would be able to (or really just didn't want to) put in the cludge fix for years, meaning that the pseudo-fix would not be in place for many of your widgets that went out the door. Now, what would you decide to do? Morally, do you think you should fix the product before building it?
"Now is it evil for God who created a life to take a life?"
Yes. Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times YES! Would we allow a parent to kill their child? Once the parent has given birth to their child, they have assumed a moral responsibility to that child, not an ownership. If god exists and created us, then he bears a moral responsibility to us, meaning he can't simply treat us like objects that he can toss away at his whim.
"He is God."
Again, I have to ask, does might make right? What is it about god's power or knowledge that allows him to disregard moral strictures?
"Do we have cause to judge God as doing something wrong in bringing the Flood to wipe out a perverse generation and saving Noah and His family who serve Him?"
Yes, we most certainly can. The problem is compounded by the fact that god is supposedly omnipotent. Why can god not figure out a better way to deal with people other than wiping them out? I'll also remind you that god regrets doing what he did according to the Bible. Why would a perfect being have regrets? Isn't he admitting that he did something wrong? And, in the end, it didn't even work. We are supposedly still wicked even though he wiped out almost all people.
"If God does not exist, the whole discussion about good and evil and if God is good is a moot point."
I don't think discussions about good and evil are moot in the absence of god. We all have to learn to get along and live with each other on this planet, and this is one discussion that should be had towards that end.
"But if He does then the only way we know what good and evil are is because He revealed that knowledge to us and the self-sustaining self-evident God is the only standard of all holiness and righteousness."
I think you are confirming to me that you are choosing one arm of the Euthyphro dilemma; that which is good is good because god says so. So, when god orders rape and murder, then it is good? This leads to a moral relativism that is usually frowned upon by Xians. Do you hold to moral relativism?
"Good and evil exist and we know the difference between them because there exists a Good God."
Again, how do you know god is good? If god gave us the knowledge of good and evil, it does not necessarily follow that it is only because god is good. What evidence do you have that god is good? Why do you insist that god is good? What about the evil things that god has done in the Bible? Why do you feel justified in dismissing these evil deeds and giving god a free pass?
OMGF
We are to blame. You have three options here:
1) God doesn't create
2) God creates robots who only have no choice but to be joined to Him with no choice to reject Him or to choose to be loved by Him or to love Him
3) God creates a good creation and gives man free will to choose life with Him or life on his own. Man thus has the potential to be separated from God which is harmful to man's nature. Man chooses the later. But God forknowing this has already provided the Redeemer for fallen man in Christ who is His Son. Being of His Being, one with Him. All of creation is able to be redeemed by Christ. From Adam to the last generation of men. Those before the cross look forward to the promised Messiah and were saved. Those after the cross look back to the cross and are saved.
Those who refuse God's gift will not be forced to a life with God and thus they continue in separatedness and as the spirit of a person is eternal they experience eternal separatedness whereas those who are in relationship with God through Jesus experience eternal togetherness with God.
No, I'm not a moral relativist. But there is a big difference between God ending a life and man ending a life. We are not the author of life. Even our own offspring is not a life we created. God still created that life. Psalm 139 speaks of God knitting together a baby in his mother's womb. God is the author of life.
How do I know God is good? 1) I know Him and I have tasted His compassion and His heart
2) At risk of sounding cliche: The Bible tells me He is good (I hesitate to appeal to Scripture only because in our discussion I feel I cannot appeal to the validity of the Bible when you have not yet accepted God's existence.) I know it to be the revealed inspired Word of God.
3) Theologically and philosophically He has to be good to be God (I've been trying to explain that, but I see I need to learn how to communicate those ideas better)
The books I listed in the other comments are good sources of further study. I'll keep thinking about the subject to see how I can attempt to explain it further.
Okay, I directly answered the big dilemma of Euthyphro question in my newest blog post. I'm saying some of what I said before, but I laid it out, I hope, in a more clear and direct fashion in direct addressment of the question. Sorry it took me this long. I hope it's more straight forward.
Karla,
Can I just point out that the free will defense is in serious trouble based on the logical disproof I made of it? Until someone can show how free will is even possible with an omni-max god, then any apologetics relying on free will is seriously deficient. That said...
"We are to blame. You have three options here:..."
Ah, no, there are actually probably infinite choices available, especially to an omni-max god. For instance, maybe god creates beings that know of his existence and can still choose to follow him or not (as Xians claim happened with angels). Here's another, god doesn't throw those who disagree with him into hell for all of eternity. Or maybe, god creates beings that desire to do good instead of evil (as Xians contend that we desire to do evil). Or, maybe god creates beings that are actually able to make informed decisions and are neutral on the good/evil side. Or maybe god creates a system whereby we are all on equal footing morally to the first humans instead of us starting out in sin. These I just came up with off the top of my head. Factor in the good/evil is often not a black or white thing and you definitely have infinite possibilities.
So, why is this important? Why would an omni-benevolent god not set up a system where we would want to choose good and retain our free will if that was also important to him? How about a system where we all have the same "choice" (or actually an informed choice) as Adam and Eve, which would make a lot more sense for a perfectly just god? The real world is not conforming to your conception of god.
"Those who refuse God's gift will not be forced to a life with God and thus they continue in separatedness and as the spirit of a person is eternal they experience eternal separatedness whereas those who are in relationship with God through Jesus experience eternal togetherness with God."
How does one refuse this gift, by not being Xian? What about those who aren't brought up in Xian households, or those through-out history that didn't know of Xianity? How about those who simply are never given evidence that any god exists, because god can't be bothered to provide that evidence? If god wants us to know and choose him, then he should actually show some effort to make that happen, yet he doesn't and then sees fit to throw us into hell for all eternity for his lack of action. Here's another option he could have chosen, come to think of it, he could choose not to torture those who don't choose him by putting them in hell for eternity and just let them cease to exist. Why would an omni-benevolent god choose eternal torture over that option?
"No, I'm not a moral relativist. But there is a big difference between God ending a life and man ending a life. We are not the author of life."
So, let's say we create artificial life, and that life has consciousness, etc. Is it all right for the person who created it to simply destroy it? I argue no. The creator has a moral obligation to the life it created, as god has with us. For god to throw us into hell or do any number of other things violates that moral obligation. In short, it makes god immoral.
"How do I know God is good? 1) I know Him and I have tasted His compassion and His heart"
Don't take this as flippant or incendiary, but I'm sure that the worst dictators in history also had friends that thought they were good people at heart. Just because you believe god is nice to you (he isn't if he is telling you that you are inherently sinful and that he has the right to do with you as he wills) doesn't mean that god is good. His actions speak otherwise. Why do you not confront those actions? Why do you not ask god why he does the seemingly immoral things he does? Why does god get a free pass?
"2) At risk of sounding cliche: The Bible tells me He is good (I hesitate to appeal to Scripture only because in our discussion I feel I cannot appeal to the validity of the Bible when you have not yet accepted God's existence.) I know it to be the revealed inspired Word of God."
This is just another case of god saying, "I am good, trust me...never you mind the fact that I've committed multiple genocides and other crimes, etc." Would you believe a ruthless dictator that is known to be a mass murderer if that person came to you and said, "I'm really a good person down deep inside?"
"3) Theologically and philosophically He has to be good to be God (I've been trying to explain that, but I see I need to learn how to communicate those ideas better)..."
And, I disagree. There is no logical necessity for god to be good in order to meet the outcomes of your worldview or the worldview of any theist. What I mean is that an indifferent god could still have set up the present universe and let it unfold, or no god at all. What reason do you feel it is necessary for god to be good, because many of my arguments have shown contradictions with this belief.
OMGF
God cannot be less than God. Those possibilities are not possibilities at all. You have this idea of a God who does all things on a whim of His will instead of by His nature and character. He has perfect divine attributes to who He is and He is not less than that. He is perfect and good. Even in His justice He is good. (I just said more addressing this same matter in response to another comment on the previous blog).
Thought provoking as always Karla! I agree with you. God's character is that of the most loving Father you can possibly imagine, though it is humanly impossible to truly imagine the depth of his nature. Our heavenly Father is perfectly balanced with love, affection and discipline. His nature is unconditional LOVE.
Karla,
"God cannot be less than God. Those possibilities are not possibilities at all."
I'm sorry, but what aren't possibilities? That god could have created a system where we'd all have the "choice" of Adam and Eve? Why not? Is the first sentence supposed to be an argument against all my suggestions? Please give me a little more detail and explain why the world must be as it is.
"You have this idea of a God who does all things on a whim of His will instead of by His nature and character."
Well, you have to admit that the Bible does give this impression in quite a few places. So, why shouldn't I have this impression?
"He is perfect and good. Even in His justice He is good."
Again, how do you know that? I've pointed out quite a few problems with the Xian view on this and it seems like all you've done is simply repeat the mantra that god is just and good. How can you defend that position?
OMGF
Post a Comment