Natural Evil

[VladP]

I think one of the biggest obstacles you'll have to overcome in your thinking is the equating of evil to suffering.

I equate evil with doing that which is outside the objective moral standard of a monotheistic deity. Evil doesn't exist. It's simply a deviation from what is considered to be right. What is right comes from the nature of the deity.

Like I said, it's about internal consistency. There doesn't have to be a benevolent Creator. Not at all. But, if it is indeed wrong to harm innocents (like I said, punishment is a good reason to make someone suffer, if they are guilty, that is), then if God does so, and we are not supposed to do so, then it leads to a contradiction.

The Bible doesn't have much to offer if it can't be consistent. So unless this problem is solved (or unless there is a LOT of other evidence to believe in the Bible that would make me think this is just something we can't figure out, but the rest of the evidence demands belief --- I am not at this point yet), I have no choice but to give up on it.

This is about God creating natural laws which end up harming people for no reason. So, again, why harm innocents? I am not looking at it from how it affects US. I don't care about that. Irrelevant.

I am looking at it from God's actions. God tells us to treat each other with care, respect, etc. We shouldn't harm one another, and if we do, we must suffer consequences for that. Punishment. Very fair. Cause and effect. What I do have problems with is this seemingly pantheistic characteristic that is being attached to a monotheistic deity. God can't do things he is against. If he does, there's no objective logic.

I never equated evil with suffering. Sometimes you deserve to suffer. What doesn't seem consistent is the idea that people suffer when they didn't commit a sin. God sends people to the Lake of Fire for being sinners. Not because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (earthquake, for example). There's a REASON for it. What reason is there for the suffering of those who are innocent? There could very well be a reason. But saying, "well, this is the only possible world God could create, so a few people here and there getting killed and leaving a family behind with no mother/father/both, well, we'll just have to put up with it". There is no REASON for this. It is MEANINGLESS if you explain it this way. It's merely a side effect that is unintended if you explain it this way. If, however, the natural evil is there to teach us a spiritual lesson, there is a PURPOSE. The great system designed has glitches basically if there's no purpose. Everything works fine, reward for good, punishment for bad, etc. But then, there's this one random thing here where it's just totally random. The very thing that the existence of a caring God is supposed to destroy, meaningless actions, is actually reinforced by the claim that "it just is so, it can't be helped". If I create a car that works fine, but then there's this one glitch with the breaks every now and then, it just can't work perfectly, what would you say? That's not part of the OVERALL plan, or design, is it? The purpose of the car is to allow you to drive. But you can't do it without there being times when it goes against the purpose you designed it for. That's basically what you're implying if you're saying "it can't be otherwise", rather than "there's a reason for that". Same with the universe. The universe was designed to allow us to have free will, because it's a place where choose between what is right (coming from God's nature) and what is not (denial of God's commandments). There's a PURPOSE for the universe that should in theory go along with God's nature. If God, through the very design of his universe, ends up doing things (indirectly) that go against his nature (doing things to people for no reason), then that's totally random.

So I'm here to find a purpose for natural evil. I would be just as confused if somehow God decided to bless people with great things in life, not because he had a plan or wanted it to be that way, but because it's random. That's the problem with natural evil. You claim there's no purpose for it (spiritual testing of some sort). Therefore, it's just there as a glitch in the system. That doesn't work out.

[EDIT: In essence, the very thing that Intelligent Design is supposed to debunk (things exist randomly with no purpose) is what you are proposing. You're saying there's no actual purpose for the existence of natural evil. It goes against God's nature, where there is a purpose for things, he doesn't do things mindlessly. Basically, natural evil exists not for a purpose (such as spiritual testing), but simply because it's an unfortunate part of the system. Again, a glitch basically. If it's not a glitch, or mistake, or random event, then it has to exist for a reason. Even evil is allowed to exist for a reason. Why? For free will. Why is natural evil totally random, when God does things because he has reasons to do so. I am advocating finding a reason for natural evil. Thus far I am not yet convinced that natural evil "just exists". There's two ways to look at it. Either it is intended, or it is not intended. If it is intended, there's a reason for it. If not, it's just there randomly. So clearly, God INTENDED for these to exist. Otherwise, he wouldn't have created this universe if he didn't agree with them. The claim that natural evil is here as a side-effect of the laws which allow free will doesn't address the issue fully. Is this side-effect, with all of its repercussions, also intended? Do you do things without considering side effects? Surely God must have considered the side effects. Therefore, since these side effects exist, they must have a purpose, beyond just "well you can't help it". If God doesn't AGREE with the existence of the side effects, he wouldn't have created in the first place. So, clearly since these side effects exist, God is fine with their existence. You all agree with this much I'm sure. But then you claim that it's not really intended to exist, per se, it's just there because there's no other option. Ok, but that still means God must be fine with these side effects to the point where he doesn't mind them existing. There has to be a PURPOSE for these side effects as well. They can't just be "glitches". What is described in the original article by Rich Deem doesn't exactly give a purpose for them. It simply says that they must exist if the universe is to exist. You didn't say God actually put thought into the existence of these side effects for their own merit, they exist by accident basically. Therefore there has to be a greater explanation for the existence of natural evil. If God didn't agree with natural evil, he didn't have to create the universe. So God allows it. Why? For the greater good? For spiritual purposes? This is what I am trying to figure out. Even if your premise that "they have to exist" is correct, you still didn't explain why God was ok with them in the first place, to the point that it didn't bother him enough to decide to just not create in the first place. So, whether it is good or bad, THERE IS STILL AN EXPLANATION FOR THEM. Good OR bad. Doesn't matter. There is a reason for God being fine with them. Just as much as there is a reason with God being fine with murder existing (doesn't mean he personally agrees, it just means he's fine with their existence for a reason). Just as much as there is a reason for love, or honor to exist. Why? Because they are part of God's nature. So, evil or not, you haven't explained WHY God is FINE with the existence of what is usually referred to as "natural evil" (I realize not everyone calls it that). Especially in a way that doesn't lead to contradictions between what God wishes (his nature) and what the laws of nature do towards us. There can be a "greater good" for it, but the greater good itself has to be lining up logically as well so there's no contradiction.]

-Vlad

[jlay]

I equate evil with doing that which is outside the objective moral standard of a monotheistic deity. Evil doesn't exist. It's simply a deviation from what is considered to be right. What is right comes from the nature of the deity.

So what are the specific examples where you feel God has deviated from His own standard? Maybe that would be a better way to address the objection.

This is about God creating natural laws which end up harming people for no reason.

I think this is what Marcus is talking about. You are defining evil in a way that I don't agree with. And also don't agree with Rich's concept of natural evil.
For example, the Bible claims that the creation was good. Man was protected in the garden. When man fell, he was cast out, and death came upon him. AS you already covered regarding the fall. Obviously Rich doesn't hold to the fall in this way, as he sees the earth being full of death and suffering before. However, you can still be OEC and hold to the fall. That being that the garden paradise was secure from such happenings.


An example are medicines created for good. And if used how they were designed, they heal. However, what was created for good can also be used for evil. Is the drug evil? no. So what is evil. The intentions of the moral being abusing the drug. You can not ascribe evil to material objects or events.

God tells us to treat each other with care, respect, etc. We shouldn't harm one another, and if we do, we must suffer consequences for that. Punishment. Very fair. Cause and effect. What I do have problems with is this seemingly pantheistic characteristic that is being attached to a monotheistic deity. God can't do things he is against. If he does, there's no objective logic.

First, how is cause and effect mutually exclusive to pantheism? 2ndly, how do you arrive that God's morality boils down to cause and effect?

could very well be a reason. But saying, "well, this is the only possible world God could create,

It will make you happy to know that many Christians do not hold this view. I know Rich does, but he certainly doesn't represent all Christians. The fact is, you may very well have an objection to a non-issue.
For example, based on what we know of Angels in the bible, they also have free-will. Yet they are not subject to the issues in nature such as floods, earthquakes, etc, that lead to suffering.

[Maytan]

It's not about possible worlds, but plausible worlds. In other words, worlds that are plausible for God to create. I believe that the world which God enacted is the world which best fulfills God's will, morally and all. So it comes down to this: the world in which we live was the optimal world for God to create. Thus, there is a reason for why God made the world the way he did. Figuring out these reasons, however, can be very difficult. It's nigh-impossible to determine exactly how the world would be had even tiny details been different. (such as a single person not existing, or a different person existing in his place) If you start talking big changes, such as the laws of physics, this becomes even more difficult. Thus, I don't think any person has the right to say that the world would be better off had x been y, or that God screwed up by making a certain thing the way he did. It all fits together, the way it was intended to, for a purpose.

Not a full-response for you, I don't really have the time to get into a discussion. Hopefully I helped somehow, though.

[Kurieuo]

To just respond to one part, as I don't have a lot of time of late.

The plant example I provided I see is very relevant. For you are assuming what is wrong for us, is wrong of God. God created us. We are therefore His property. His taking our lives, is therefore something only God has the right to do. On the other hand, our taking another's life is not something we have a right to do.

Ever heard someone saying to someone else, "What gives you the right to play God?" Implicit in this, is that God has rights we do not.

Finally, if you are going to use "good" and "evil" as notions from the Bible, then it would pay use them in their correct meaning. You seem to be applying your own subjective opinion to these terms, which are not necessarily biblical. As Marcus pointed out, pain and suffering is not the same as evil.

[RickD]

VladP, I just want to touch on something you said in your op:

One the one hand, you can have aging but with no negative side effects as we encounter when we grow older. We could just die suddenly at age 75.

Lately, I'm beginning to believe more and more that aging is not the horrible thing that it is made out to be. Aging, I believe gets us thinking about things beyond this physical life. I'm at the age now that means I have probably lived more than half my life. I think more about life after death now than I ever have before. I believe God gives each of us a desire to know Him. If we had no physical pain and aging, we may not really need to think about God. Not to mention that I believe a relatively short physical life is actually a blessing, not a curse. Just imagine how much more damage we as sinful humans could do if we lived even a couple hundred years. When Adam sinned, God removed his access to the tree of life, so that Adam could no longer have eternal physical life. I also believe that was a blessing from God, and not a curse or punishment as many of us were taught to believe. Could you imagine the damage we could do if we lived eternally with our sinful nature?

As far as what we call "natural evil", I simply believe God created this temporary universe as the best means to eradicate evil, and sin. Remember, Lucifer had already fallen at some time before man sinned. Possibly even before God created this physical universe. By Satan, sin had already existed. God had a plan to eliminate evil and sin. This is the way He chose to do it, with our temporary universe which God created "perfectly" for the purpose of eliminating sin, and to make way for His new creation, which is NOT a re-creation of paradise in the garden of Eden. This temporary, short life we live is tiny compared to the future, eternal glory we will share in Christ.

I thank God for the pain and disasters we face every day, if He uses them to bring us into an eternal relationship with Him.

That's just my opinion of the whole thing. Take it as you will.

[SnowDrops]

I think the conclusion Vlad has come to is God could not create a universe with natural evil, even if it generally fulfills His purposes, so the solution is: don't create any universe at all! In this sense, God could only create a perfect universe (no natural evil). I think the only solution is God originally didn't want to be forced to make natural evil, but because Eve messed up He created this situation to fix that mistake. And He did His best to cause as little natural evil as possible. It's not punishment for Adam and Eves' actions; natural evil is a glitch - a glitch that came in when Eve sinned. God didn't intend it. He made avoiding sin very easy. But when Eve sinned, to create a way back to salvation He was forced to create natural evil.

Summary: Eves' actions forced God to create natural evil. He did His best. The best logically possible.