Okay, let's get into the objections used by Agnostic and Atheist concerning suffering so let’s set the standard frame from their position summed up from the following articles:PaulSacramento wrote:...The biggest issue has been and quite probably, always will be the issue of suffering and an omnipotent God. Most have already abandoned the "evil" issue since they realize that without God there is on quantifier for 'evil". But suffering, especially of innocents, is always the big one.
While some "lower" atheist still try to go with the "Jesus myths" and such, that these have been discredited even by Ehrman, has pretty much put a nail in that coffin and are not used by the "higher" atheists.
The "rational" atheist tries to make it clear that there is NO proof that God exists and while there MAY be evidence of "something", that evidence is NOT proof and most certainly nor evidence FOR God per say.
And this article sums up and frames the logic of their position:(Point One) Evidential Arguments from Evil
The argument from evil (or problem of evil) is the argument that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God would not allow any—or certain kinds of—evil or suffering to occur. Unlike the logical argument from evil, which holds that the existence of God (so defined) is logically incompatible with some known fact about evil, the evidential (or probabilistic) argument from evil contends that some known fact about evil is evidence against the existence of God. For instance, one version of the argument contends that the biological role of pain and pleasure is much more likely on naturalism than theism (e.g., Paul Draper).
Other versions of the evidential argument concede that God could have a morally sufficient reason for allowing certain evils to occur—e.g., to ensure that some greater good is achieved as a consequence of an evil. However, proponents add, God would only allow as much evil or suffering as is absolutely necessary in order to achieve greater goods. But when we look at the world around us, we find prevalent instances of apparently gratuitous evil—pointless evils from which no greater good seems to result. According to proponents, the existence of apparently gratuitous evil provides strong evidence that God (as traditionally defined) does not exist (e.g., William Rowe).
For thousands of years theologians and philosophers have developed elaborate theodicies—responses to the argument from evil which retain belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God. According to the unknown purpose defense (UPD), God allows apparently pointless suffering for some reason that we can't comprehend. The free will defense (FWD) maintains that God has to allow the existence of some evil in order to preserve human free will (e.g., Alvin Plantinga, Robert Adams). Finally, the soul-making theodicy (SMT) contends that God allows some evil because it builds positive character in the victims or in others which outweighs the negative value of the evil itself (e.g., John Hick).
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... /evil.html
The flaw I find in Point Two is the authors comment:(Point Two) A Bear, A Trap, A Hunter, And God
The idea here is that God must allow some short term suffering in order to achieve a greater good. The analogy employed by professor Kreeft involves a hunter who is trying to free a bear from a trap, but cannot because the bear is liable to react violently, incorrectly perceiving the hunter as a threat. The hunter must therefore use tranquilizer darts and the like, which also would seem to the bear as harmful, in order to achieve what is ultimately best for the bear, i.e. freedom from the trap. The analogy is, of course, Hunter = God, Bear = Human (pp. 31-2).
Problems:
For starters, if God is omnipotent, couldn't he still achieve the long term good without the short term suffering? If he cannot, he is not omnipotent. To suggest that there are things God absolutely cannot do, is to suggest that there are laws which operate over and above God, that even He can't transcend. I have no problem with this, but most Christians, including Kreeft, do. Thus the analogy is a false one, because no matter how sophisticated a human being might appear to a bear, the human is not omnipotent and therefore cannot conjure up a completely painless solution to the bear's plight, whereas God, if he is indeed omnipotent, could achieve good without the suffering. This is but one of many reasons such attempts at answering this objection fail.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... /obj1.html
… "because no matter how sophisticated a human being might appear to a bear, the human is not omnipotent and therefore cannot conjure up a completely painless solution to the bear's plight"...
His comment cuts both ways because the author is a human being, he is not omnipotent, and therefore cannot conjure up a completely painless solution about evil, defining what evil is, or curing it…
Basically the atheist position proves beyond doubt mankind as a whole is guilty of evil and twistedness and also that it, alone, cannot cure it.
In other words, they prove the words of Paul the Apostle true:
Romans 3:23 NKJV "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…"
Yet deny God based on their failure to be omnipotent in logic and actions...
Hmmm - would they be passing on their own shortfalls onto God who they deny exist?
Now here is a point to ponder: if God denied them their actions and logic, God would be proven absolutely unjust. Allowing the militant agnostic /atheist their actions and logic proves God is absolutely Just, first to himself and to them / us all second. Since God offers a cure that works through all things without violating the principles of His absolute justice to all intelligent moral beings, proves He is indeed also omnipotent.
So what cures do atheistic / agnostic societies pose to cure evil that are absolutely just to all?
Have they worked?
Let’s look at this point first…
-
-
-
