All Powerful 'but' All Loving .. Really?

[mrclose]

Doesn't seem to be a proper Religious category for this?

A question that probably only a JW will attempt to answer!?

With all of this horror about Dr Mengele (Gosnell) being reported, I have a serious question .. one that I hope isn't looked upon as blasphemous!
(I'm asking anyway)   

If I were all powerful, a little more than I am now, (sorry, couldn't resist) and I was also all knowing, loving etc. etc. .. HOW could I sit on my throne and just watch as innocent babies were being murdered?

Not only murdered but Some of them are TORN APART, limb by limb!

I don't have to say it (do I?) .. you know WHO I am talking about!?

If a 'slightly' imperfect person .. such as myself had all the power .. NO baby would EVER be murdered or worse .. torn limb from limb!

How's He Do It?
(sit and watch)

PLEASE don't give me the Free Choice line!
Those babies Have or Had No Free Choice!

Maybe this is one of the reasons that people are 'skeptical' of an all powerful, all knowing, all loving Deity?

I dunno .. Just crankily upset on what our country (and it's people) have become!

(I will now return to my witty ways of posting really important and insightful topics .. for everyone to enjoy!) 

[mountaineer]

Ponder this explanation:

Why would a good God allow people to suffer?


I just wanted to draw your attention to this 4 page essay by Joe Manzari, which is the best darn summary of the state of the art on the problems of evil and suffering I have seen. The problem of evil is an objection to the existence of God based on the presence of evil or suffering in the world. The arguments basically infer that if God is all-good and all-powerful, then there should not be any evil or suffering.

There are two kinds of problem of evil.

The Logical/Deductive Problem of Evil:

The first kind is called “the deductive problem of evil” or “the logical problem of evil”. An example of evil would be Saddam Hussein murdering some journalist who told the truth about him. This version of the problem of evil tries to introduce a logical contradiction between the attributes of God and the presence of evil, like this:

(1) God exists.
(2) God is omnipotent.
(3) God is omniscient.
(4) God is omni-benevolent.
(5) Evil exists.
(6) A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can.
(7) There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

In order to avoid a contradiction, we need to explain how there could still be evil, since the conclusion of this argument is that there should not be any evil!So how are we going to get out of this mess? The solution is to attack premises 6 and 7.

Premise 6 is false because in order to eliminate human evil, you would have to eliminate free will. But eliminating free will is worse than allowing it, because good things like love are impossible without free will.

It is in response to this proposition that the Free Will Theodicy of G. W. Leibniz applies. God, valuing man’s freedom, decided to provide him with a will that was free to choose good over evil, rather than constraining his will, allowing him to choose only good.

Premise 7 is false because there are limits on what an omnipotent being can do. God cannot perform contradictory things, because contradictory things are impossible. God cannot make a married bachelor. Similarly, God cannot force free creatures to do his will.

In the same manner that God cannot create a square circle, he cannot make someone freely choose to do something. Thus, if God grants people genuine freedom, then it is impossible for him to determine what they will do. All that God can do is create the circumstances in which a person can make free choices and then stand back and let them make the choices.

One last point. In order to solve the problem of natural evil for this argument, you can point out that free will requires predictable and regular natural laws in order to make free will meaningful. Natural laws mean that individuals can predict what will happen when they act, allowing for moral responsibility. More on that next time.

Inductive/Probabilistic Problem of Evil

There is a second version of the problem of evil, though, which is more dangerous than the first. This is the one you see being argued in debates, whereas the first version is not used because it has been defused as seen above. Here is the second one:

(1) If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist.
(2) Gratuitous evil exists.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

This argument tries to argue that while God may have some reason for allowing free will, there are other evils in the world that are not the result of human action that God has no reason for permitting. Theists usually like to argue that God has morally-sufficient reasons for allowing some evil in the world, in order for the character of humans to develop through suffering and endurance. But what about gratuitous evil, which doesn’t have any point?

Consider the case of a fawn running in the forest, who falls and breaks his leg. Ouch! Then a forest fire starts and the poor fawn suffocates to death in the smoke. Why would God allow this poor small animal suffer like that? And notice that there is no morally sufficient reason for allowing it, because no human knows about this and so no human’s character or relationship with God is impacted by it.

The solution to this problem is to deny premise 2. (You can also deny 1 if you want). The problem with premise 2 is that the atheist is claiming to know that some instance of evil really is gratuitous. But since they are making the claim to know, they have to be able to show that God’s permission of that evil achieves nothing. But how do they know 2 is true?

The problem with 2 is that the atheist is not in a position to know that the permission of some evil X really doesn’t achieve anything. This is because the atheist cannot look forward into the future, or see into other places, in order to know for certain that there is no morally sufficient reason for allowing God’s allowing evil X to occur. But since the atheist argues based on premise 2, he must be able to show that premise 2 is more probable than not.

Manzari’s article also argues why apparently gratuitous evil is less problematic for Christians in particular, because of certain Christian doctrines. He lists four doctrines that make the apparently gratuitous evil that we observe more compatible with an all-good, all-powerful God.

1.The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God.
Some of the things that we experience may wreck our feelings of contentment, but we need to remember that God may be permitting those troubles in order to remind us not to get too comfortable with life on earth, and to think ahead to the after-life. And remember, even Jesus learned endurance through suffering. His suffering was not pointless and neither is ours.
2.Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and God’s purposes.
We humans seem to be on a dead run away from God, trying to keep our autonomy by knowing as little about him as possible. Part of knowing God is knowing what he designed us to do – to love him and to love others. And so, the less we know about God, the more we stray from his design for our lives.
3.God’s purpose is not restricted to this life but spills over beyond the grave into eternity.
Sometimes it seems as if our sufferings really are catastrophic, but when you realize that you are offered eternal life without any suffering after you die, the sufferings of this life are a lot less upsetting than they would be if this life was all we had.
4.The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.
This one is the biggest for me. Knowing God and knowing his actual character by studying the historical Jesus is a wonderful counterbalance for all the problems and sufferings of this life. A little bit of historical study reveals that Jesus was not spared the worst kind of suffering in his life, making it is a lot easier for us to bear with whatever God allows us to face.
In section 3, Manzari shows how you can also argue against this version of the problem by supplying evidence for God, such as from the big bang, the fine-tuning, the origin of life, the origin of free will, the origin of the first living organism, the origin of the mind, the sudden emergence of phyla in the fossil record, molecular machines, irreducible complexity, the resurrection miracle, and the objective morality argument.

The argument goes like this:

(1) If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist.
(2) God exists.
(3) Therefore, gratuitous evil does not exist.

Just support 2 with some evidence, and you win, especially when they can’t support their claim to know that gratuitous evil exists.

The Argument for God from Evil

In the paper, Manzari actually makes an argument for God from evil. That’s right. Far from disproving God, the presence of evil (a departure from the way things out to be), actually affirms God’s existence. How?

(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
(2) Evil exists.
(3) Therefore, objective moral values do exist.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

That’s right. If evil exists in any sense such that it is not a personal or cultural preference, then objective morality exists. If objective morality exists, then there is an objective moral lawgiver. Game over. If the atheist backtracks and says that the existence of evil is just his opinion or his cultural preference, then this standard does not apply to God, and you win again. Game over again. More on this argument for God’s existence from evil here.

[Cincinnatus]

One might also read and ponder the lessons in the Book of Job.

[happyg]

We can speculate what we would do if we were God, but then, would we think we are smarter or better? We don't know many things, but all things will be revealed to us upon our deaths. And, it will make sense. Even the best Christians among us will get gentle awakenings in Heaven, when they find out they were wrong about so many things. Knowledge will be another reward we get in Heaven.

I don't fret why God allowed the killing of these babies, and think God's focus was on the murderer and not the murdered. He is caring for those babies now. What better way, however ugly,  to demonstrate that babies are humans and not just a bunch of cells. The horrow of what Gosnell did will be with millions for a life time. Imagine how many babies will be saved because of the Butcher of Philadelphia. Gosnell won't get off easy, no matter what the jury decides. His judgment will come from the all-knowing, all-seeing Heavenly Father.

[Rapunzel]

I like your post happyg.

[happyg]

I like your post happyg.

Thank you, Rap. I generally don't get on religious threads or discuss my religion, but this time, I saw the hurt and anger in mrclose, and thought he needed a reminder. I cried when I saw the pictures of those babies, and had the same anger as anyone. However, Gosnell's evil was revealed for a reason, and many pro choice people had a change of heart about killing babies, inside or outside the womb. I lose faith a lot, and spend a lot of time seeking redemption, but in my heart, I know how much God especially loves the children, so takes special care of them in a much better place.

[alicewonders]

As a child, I had a similar question - why did God create the devil?

I think God has a higher purpose for us than can be discerned by us here on this mortal earth.  We have this thing "human nature", which has challenged us from the beginning in the Garden of Eden.  Why did he make us this way? 

I think he has a plan for us in his heavenly kingdom - and he is culling the herd, so to speak.  We know those innocent babies are in a better place now and in God's infinite wisdom - however hard it is for us to understand - this is all part of the plan. 

[Rapunzel]

I have done a lot of reading since my husband passed that has given me much greater understanding of life and our role here on earth.   I am outraged about Gosnell, I cried when I read the stories and viewed the pictures of those babies; I do believe it was all part of a greater plan to wake up the millions who have looked the other way re abortion...  as hard as it is to wrap our heads around all this evil....  I think we are supposed to learn from it.. I hope we are.  Anger over it is good... we need more people to be angry about these atrocities. 

[jmyrlefuller]

Here is my thinking on the topic.

To put it bluntly, it is His universe. He can do whatever he wants with it. That is basically the lesson I got out of Job. He does not have to necessarily be all-loving if he does not want to be. Even if He were pure evil, there could be nothing we could do about it.

Given the biblical record, it has been my observation that God only directly intervenes in a situation when it is bound to make a long-lasting, direct influence. God does not stop evil just to maintain a status quo.

It may not be the most pleasant answer, but it's the impression I get.

[mrclose]

Thank you, Rap. I generally don't get on religious threads or discuss my religion, but this time, I saw the hurt and anger in mrclose, and thought he needed a reminder. I cried when I saw the pictures of those babies, and had the same anger as anyone. However, Gosnell's evil was revealed for a reason, and many pro choice people had a change of heart about killing babies, inside or outside the womb. I lose faith a lot, and spend a lot of time seeking redemption, but in my heart, I know how much God especially loves the children, so takes special care of them in a much better place.

Thank You for your understanding happyg.

Grown Men 'Do' Cry!