Evidence for God from Science

My Dad is dying from ALS, I know a bit about dealing with debilitating illness.
I understand where you are coming from.

PaulSacramento wrote:My Dad is dying from ALS, I know a bit about dealing with debilitating illness.
I understand where you are coming from.

I'm terribly sorry to hear that. That's a very, very difficult thing to deal with (my great-grandmother is going through it now, too). So all theological and philosophical arguments aside, I just go back to my pragmatic point in light of that common experience. You can understand very well why people would regard that as a tremendous evil. Even if you could prove they were wrong in thinking that way, you can see how you lose more than winning when you tell them, "Well, this isn't really evil . . ." That's why one of the first things I said is that we, as Christians, need an argument that takes suffering very seriously, because anything less will feel like we are trying to explain things away.

As for your question about the layperson, they have no clue what "natural evil" is for the most part. They just don't have the philosophical training to make the distinctions, which is why I said that while this argument gives the best overall explanation for why God would allow evil, it is not one we should use. It's like trying to explain calculus to a third grader. You have to crawl before you can walk and walk before you can run.

thats a very good observation. I have ofund most difficult to communicate with people having hard complicated questions but expecting simple one line answers. And the thing is if you tell them that they lack that kind of sophistication in philosophy to understand the scope of it, they think you are being more holy, more smart or trying to dodge their questions. At times I find it very difficult to maintain a friendly open tone while also trying to point our the problems in their argument.

Jac3510 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:My Dad is dying from ALS, I know a bit about dealing with debilitating illness.
I understand where you are coming from.

I'm terribly sorry to hear that. That's a very, very difficult thing to deal with (my great-grandmother is going through it now, too). So all theological and philosophical arguments aside, I just go back to my pragmatic point in light of that common experience. You can understand very well why people would regard that as a tremendous evil. Even if you could prove they were wrong in thinking that way, you can see how you lose more than winning when you tell them, "Well, this isn't really evil . . ." That's why one of the first things I said is that we, as Christians, need an argument that takes suffering very seriously, because anything less will feel like we are trying to explain things away.

I can understand that view point, don't get me wrong.
The thing is, for ME, it was when I understood that view point to be wrong that I was able to reconcile so much of what I understood from Christ and what I had to reconcile from my real world experience.
I do NOT view what has happened to my Dad as evil, I view it as a part of life.
We do not know what causes ALS, we do not know if it is a "natural" thing (something like a virus or bacteria that has always existed) or if it is a "side effect" of our fallen world ( caused by pollutants, changing environment, etc), some have speculated it is from Lyme's Disease, we just don't know. What we do know is that it is random, has no real pattern and certainly has no "conscious malicious" intent, so I don't view the disease as being evil, I view it as being bad because it causes bad effects.
I take the argument of suffering very seriously since it was THAT argument ( along with what I perceived as God's inability to protect the innocent) that kept me from being a Christian for so very long.
I know you guys disagree with me and I can accept the reason why you do so.

neo-x wrote:

As for your question about the layperson, they have no clue what "natural evil" is for the most part. They just don't have the philosophical training to make the distinctions, which is why I said that while this argument gives the best overall explanation for why God would allow evil, it is not one we should use. It's like trying to explain calculus to a third grader. You have to crawl before you can walk and walk before you can run.

thats a very good observation. I have ofund most difficult to communicate with people having hard complicated questions but expecting simple one line answers. And the thing is if you tell them that they lack that kind of sophistication in philosophy to understand the scope of it, they think you are being more holy, more smart or trying to dodge their questions. At times I find it very difficult to maintain a friendly open tone while also trying to point our the problems in their argument.

Indeed, I have noticed that an "overly-philosophical" argument has more cons than pros when addressing many issues with skeptics, that is why I try NOT to do so and try my best to address issues in "layman's terms". The problem is that many doctrines ARE philosophical ones.

I should note by the way that my view on compassion has to do with the issue of suffering ( why we suffer) and not why God permits natural or moral evil.
Noe sure if I made that clear before...

Haven't been following this thread. But when I earlier asked:

"Do we believe that God has good purposes in whatever He allows into the lives of believers and future believers, or not?"

- it was stretched beyond what I intended. I simply meant that God ULTIMATELY (certainly things maybe beyond this earth) does have good things in mind for believers. But I surely didn't mean a determinist view, in which every, single thing is planned and that some things aren't random or neutral in the big scheme of things. But make no mistake about it, whatever happens that is beyond our control, God either allows it to happen / could have prevented it or not. And does EVERY little thing God allows have eternal significance? I can't say. And neither can anyone else. And no one can even know for sure about that about ANYTHING that happens in our lives - except perhaps things that happen that have to do with our salvation.

Philip wrote:Haven't been following this thread. But when I earlier asked:

"Do we believe that God has good purposes in whatever He allows into the lives of believers and future believers, or not?"

- it was stretched beyond what I intended. I simply meant that God ULTIMATELY (certainly things maybe beyond this earth) does have good things in mind for believers. But I surely didn't mean a determinist view, in which every, single thing is planned and that some things aren't random or neutral in the big scheme of things. But make no mistake about it, whatever happens that is beyond our control, God either allows it to happen / could have prevented it or not. And does EVERY little thing God allows have eternal significance? I can't say. And neither can anyone else. And no one can even know for sure about that about ANYTHING that happens in our lives - except perhaps things that happen that have to do with our salvation.

I think that God USES everything that happens to us to our best interest and that He has given us the ability to do the same.
Animals when faced with a forest fire flee or die, humans have those choices too ANY they also ability to overcome those situations and also prevent them and even plan for the eventuality of them happening again.
We can certainly "make the best of the worse" and many times that IS when we ARE out our best.

Philip wrote:I simply meant that God ULTIMATELY (certainly things maybe beyond this earth) does have good things in mind for believers.

I don't think anyone doubts that, but I also don't think that observation has any weight when discussing the PoE. The objection is that God could and should prevent suffering. Whether or not God has good things in mind for the believer is unrelated to that objection, unless you are using it as a justification for why God allows evil. And in that case, I think all my objections stand. You can't take the good intended to be brought out of the evil and use it to justify the evil itself. That's just saying the ends justify the means.

So since you aren't using it that way, you're left with something of a therapeutic point. That's not a bad thing. On the contrary, I think it is very important and lies at the heart of a biblical response to evil. But giving someone a compassionate answer to cope with evil by pointing out that God is still sovereign enough to bring good out of the worst situations (similar to the point Paul just made) should not be confused with an answer to the logical objections atheists and agnostics level when they raise the PoE. For that, we don't need a therapeutic point. We need a logical point, which requires us to look at things like the free will defense, the regular world defense, or one of several theodicies that are out there.

Of course, evil is never justified and God never causes it. But He does allow it and is sovereign over its intentions, and can thus thwart it's original intentions and use it for good.

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." (Genesis 50:20)

I'm sure God used (but did not cause) the evil intended by the holocaust to bring about other things. Look at the persecution and brutality of Jesus.

And, clearly, God calls Christians to and allows them to go through suffering - much of it caused by the evil actions of others. And many BECOME Christians through their sufferings.

And again, that's all true and no one objects to that. My point is that doesn't help answer the PoE. It helps us cope with the reality of evil, but it doesn't help answer the PROBLEM of evil.

I don't think that ANY argument can actually answer the problem of evil to every skeptics satisfaction.

But that's not the standard. The standard is whether or not the answer is logically valid. A skeptic may deny that 2+2=4. That doesn't mean that the arguments for 2+2=4 are wrong or invalid. But nor does it mean that all arguments for 2+2=4 are correct either. If I said, "Well of course 2+2=4. That's true because the sun came up yesterday," you might agree with my conclusion, but you would be right in accusing me of non sequitur. And so it is with answers to the PoE. Some answers come to the right conclusion but are logically fallacious (e.g., the greater good defense). Whether or not the skeptic is willing to accept the conclusion of logically valid answers is quite another issue entirely and unrelated to the discussion.