Evidence for God from Science

1) If a being wants to end evil but is incapable of doing so, then it is not omnipotent.
2) If a being is able to end evil but is unwilling to do so, then it is malevolent.
3) If a being is both willing and able to end evil but evil still exists, then such a being cannot have ever existed.
4) If a being is neither willing nor able, then it does not deserve the title of "god."

While these points alone present a solid argument, there is one premise that I would like to add on.

5) A god is a being that is simultaneously omnipotent (perfectly strong), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnibenevolent (perfectly good).

One of the most common reasons skeptics reject the existence of God is due to the presence of evil in this universe. They reason that a perfect God would not create a universe in which evil exists. Skeptics claim that since God created everything that God must have also created evil. They even cite Bible verses, such as:

* I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
* Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6, KJV)
* Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)

However, evil is not really a created thing. You can't see, touch, feel, smell or hear evil. It is not one of the fundamental forces of physics, nor does it consist of matter, energy, or the spatial dimensions of the universe. Still, skeptics like to claim that God created evil and cite the Bible to "prove" their point. The Bible is quite clear that God is not the author of evil and insists that He is incapable of doing so.1
Love that King James translation!

Skeptics love the KJV so much, one would think that they were still back in medieval England. Use of this translation is problematic these days, since it uses an archaic version of modern English, which doesn't necessarily mean the same things today as when it was translated over 400 years ago. In addition, the KJV was produced using a limited number of medieval manuscripts that did not represent the earliest Alexandrian set of manuscripts.

What do the modern translations say?

* The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. (Isaiah 45:7, NASB)
* I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, NIV)

Isaiah 45:7 contrasts opposites. Darkness is the opposite of light. However, evil is not the opposite of peace. The Hebrew word translated "peace" is shâlôm,2 which has many meanings, mostly related to the well being of individuals. Râ‛âh,3 the Hebrew word translated "evil" in the KJV often refers to adversity or calamity. There are two forms of the word. Strong's H7451a most often refers to moral evil, whereas Strong's H7451b (the form used here) most often refers to calamity or distress. Obviously, "calamity" is a better antonym of "peace" than "evil."
Amos 3:6

* If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it? (Amos 3:6, NASB)
* When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? (Amos 3:6, NIV)

Likewise, Amos 3:6 uses the same word, râ‛âh, referring to calamity or disaster. the context (a disaster happening to a city) does not refer to moral evil.
Lamentations 3:38



* Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? (Lamentations 3:38, NIV)
* Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go forth? (Lamentations 3:38, NASB)

The King James Version of Lamentations 3:38 seems to suggest that God speaks both good and evil. However, if one reads the verse in context, the preceding verses indicate that God does not do or approve of evil.4 The verse following indicates that people should not complain in view of their sins.5 What the verse really is saying that God decrees times of good things and times of judgment. Lamentations was written by Jeremiah during a time of judgment, when Judah had gone off into exile. Jeremiah was chosen by God to be the prophet to tell Judah to reform or be judged. The people did not believe Jeremiah, and, therefore, fell under God's judgment. In Lamentations 3:38, the word translated "good" is ṭôb (Strong's H2896).6 The word usually refers to good things5 as opposed to bad things. Again, râ‛âh3 does not refer to moral evil, but calamities, in this verse. Likewise, the Bible commentaries indicate that the verse refers to God's judgment based upon people's sin.7

Conclusion Top of page

God is not the author of evil.8 However, God does reward and punish on the basis of good and bad behavior. Therefore, God does bring judgment and calamity (either directly or through human authorities) on those who rebel.9 God will ultimately judge all people, since rebels will not be allowed in the new, perfect creation.

Atheist wrote:

Christian wrote:That argument doesn't account for free will, though... Evil is almost all created by humans. (except like natural disasters but we could go into that later.) Should God take away their ability to choose whether to do right or wrong? What would that make humans?

God gave us perfection in the beginning, but we messed it up. Then he sent reminders on how to fix it (prophets). We kept messing it up. Then he sent us a savior to make up for all our mess ups (Jesus). We still mess it up. He even gave us a Church to lay down the rules and guide us throughout the centuries...and we still mess it up.

So I think God does everything to stop evil EXCEPT turn us into robots incapable of making mistakes.

But if God is truly a god, He would be perfectly good and He would be compelled to rid the universe of evil by His very nature. If free will is a cause, if not the cause, of evil, He would have to end it and prevent evil from ever happening. If He cannot, then evil is, in a way, a force of nature so powerful not even He could stop it, thus also refuting His claim to godhood.

Athiest wrote:I would say that having a profound sense of justice falls under not only the omniscient category, but also the omnibenevolent category. Now, it would be a very cold person indeed to say that the "correct" way to deal with your mass murderer example is to not pull the trigger and allow it to happen, regardless if killing the man was evil or not. A god is bound to pursue good in every way possible. Since both options would result in evil, the better choice is to do the one that has fewer evil results.

Atheist wrote:Which brings me back to one of my previous points: If a being is able to stop evil but is unwilling to do so, then the being is malevolent. Since malevolence flies in the face of being perfectly good, then by consciously choosing inaction and allowing evil to occur, God is not a god.

Forge wrote:I'm going to make a wild assumption and assume that this discussion has been done to death already. But, whatever.

Anyway, I came across this on a different forum:

1) If a being wants to end evil but is incapable of doing so, then it is not omnipotent.
2) If a being is able to end evil but is unwilling to do so, then it is malevolent.
3) If a being is both willing and able to end evil but evil still exists, then such a being cannot have ever existed.
4) If a being is neither willing nor able, then it does not deserve the title of "god."

Atheist wrote:If God is omniscient, He would know of how to end evil. Since he would also be able and willing as his godly status demands, there is no reason to believe why He would not act. Evidently, doing nothing to resolve this issue is His choice and, since doing nothing implies that He's unwilling, He would then be malevolent, etc., etc.

If God is omnipotent, then it should be a matter of Him saying, "Evil shall now end," and it ends in that instant. I mean, it was all, "'Let there be light,' and there was light," when dealing with cosmic events before. Why should that not be the case now?

At the very least, it is incredibly odd for Him to be biding his time to end evil like this. The only reason I can think of is that He likes to make a big show of everything. He wants million-person armies and the skies to rain fire and brimstone and the earth to open up and swallow the wicked. From my point of view, this is only to further inflate His cosmic ego. Since humility is a trait that is often associated with goodness, it would seem that this sense of vanity flies in the face of a benevolent being.

If there is another "use for evil" that one can come up with, please state it.

Only one thing is necessary for evil to end: that some being is both willing and able to stop it. If any one of those conditions aren't there, then evil will continue to perpetuate since a non-omnipotent being obviously cannot and an unwilling being has no reason to end evil. If God was truly worthy of his title, he would already know what action needs to happen. There is no "pursuing" involved; He knows what to do, is compelled to do it, and does it.

That implies that one without free will would be able to discern if they are being used in this way or not, although I do agree that it is far better to have free will than not. To those without free will and in an environment without evil, I imagine life would be a perpetual state of bliss; no concerns about what may be and everything taken care for them. They would have no reason to be unhappy.