Evidence for God from Science

Hi All,

I introduced myself on the chat. I'm a Christian, and I don't personally struggle with the problem of evil. But I do find that the problem of evil is the most difficult athiestic/agnostic argument to argue against. And I hear it a lot. I also think the problem of evil is something that genuinly holds people back from Christ. Not an "excuse" but a genuine issue. They have a loved child die young from cancer and wonder how a good God can let that happen, for instance.

Anyways, the problem of moral evil is easily explained by free will I believe. Even when everything is done according to God's will. The greater issue is natural evil. I've read the page about natural evil on this website and agree that natural processes are a requirement for life. However I don't feel this is a very good explanation. I've personally always believed that prior to the fall of man God's divine intervention gaurded Adam and Eve from evil. God was with them and not separated from them by sin. Earthquakes would have been necessary to support Adam's life, but he would have been kept miraculously unharmed pre-fall.

I thought this was kind of the standard thinking but as I look around the web, I don't see this ever mentioned. I wrote an email to the site about a month ago and didn't hear back. Am I nuts? Is this not a valid way of viewing it? How would the athiest view this thinking? My guess is they would say the view relies on the Biblical account, therefore it's not valid, although that isn't correct imo. The Bible is exactly what should answer biblical issues imo.

Thanks.

Ryan

What on earth is "natural evil"?
For a natural event to be "evil" it must CONSCIOUSLY do what it KNOWS to be wrong.

PaulSacramento wrote:What on earth is "natural evil"?
For a natural event to be "evil" it must CONSCIOUSLY do what it KNOWS to be wrong.

Here you go Mr. Smartypants
http://www.reasons.org/articles/grappli ... tural-evil

PaulSacramento wrote:What on earth is "natural evil"?
For a natural event to be "evil" it must CONSCIOUSLY do what it KNOWS to be wrong.

Hey I didn't pick the term

It doesn't really make sense, the term, because you're right, how can nature have an evil moral conscience. If it helps, sub "naturally caused pain and suffering to humanity" with "natural evil" in my question.

So does my pre/post fall explanation hold any water. Is there any Biblical reference to the pre-fall conditions that Adam and Eve were gaurded from "naturally caused pain and suffering to humanity"?

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:What on earth is "natural evil"?
For a natural event to be "evil" it must CONSCIOUSLY do what it KNOWS to be wrong.

Here you go Mr. Smartypants
http://www.reasons.org/articles/grappli ... tural-evil

I find that using the word "evil" in this just doesn't make a lot of sense.
Evil is the conscious deviation from "good", in short, natural evil would mean that a natural event KNOWS it is doing something that IT views as wrong and harmful.
That just doesn't make any sense.
As for God creating things that are bad for humans, well, I can see that being an issue with creationists that believe God created everything AS IS and then creation stayed stagnant since the last act of creation.
Beyond those adhering to that view, I don't see the issue of Bad things existing as a problem of evil.

I kind of agree with Paul's view that the fall put all of creation "out of whack".
I think that because of what humans did and continue to do in creation, that we cause serious environmental issues that lead to many of the "natural" issues that are so bad for us:
Viruses and bacteria from our pollution of the environment and our wars.
People living out of tune with nature tend to live against nature and pay the price.
Our damaging the environment cases weather issues that come back to bit us in the ass.
And so forth...

PaulS wrote:
Evil is the conscious deviation from "good", in short, natural evil would mean that a natural event KNOWS it is doing something that IT views as wrong and harmful.

Number 2 would probably define "evil" in natural evil.

Main Entry: 2evil
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing b : a cosmic evil force 2 : something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity

PaulS wrote:
I kind of agree with Paul's view that the fall put all of creation "out of whack".

Paul, that sounds like a YEC idea. I thought you were a theistic evolution compromiser.

Where from scripture do you get this idea?

And, what became "out of whack" after Adam sinned?

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Evil is the conscious deviation from "good", in short, natural evil would mean that a natural event KNOWS it is doing something that IT views as wrong and harmful.

Number 2 would probably define "evil" in natural evil.

Main Entry: 2evil
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing b : a cosmic evil force 2 : something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity

PaulS wrote:
I kind of agree with Paul's view that the fall put all of creation "out of whack".

Paul, that sounds like a YEC idea. I thought you were a theistic evolution compromiser.

Where from scripture do you get this idea?

And, what became "out of whack" after Adam sinned?

Well:
Romans 5:12
Romans 8:22


IMO, with Man's fall, Man lost touch with God and His role as steward of creation and all of creation has suffered for it.

PaulSacramento wrote:
Well:
Romans 5:12
Romans 8:22


IMO, with Man's fall, Man lost touch with God and His role as steward of creation and all of creation has suffered for it.

The second verse is interesting. I'll read it more thoroughly later. The problem I have with man perverting creation such as you described (bolded) is there are examples where this doesn't make sense. Volcano blows up and kills half my family. What did man do to deserve that? It's easy to point out that volcanoes are good for man in general, but you can't argue agains the problem of evil by saying the good outweighs the bad. So I'm proposing that pre-fall God would have miraculously protected my family and it would have appeared quite normal to me in a world so in touch with God.

ryanbouma wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:
Well:
Romans 5:12
Romans 8:22


IMO, with Man's fall, Man lost touch with God and His role as steward of creation and all of creation has suffered for it.

The second verse is interesting. I'll read it more thoroughly later. The problem I have with man perverting creation such as you described (bolded) is there are examples where this doesn't make sense. Volcano blows up and kills half my family. What did man do to deserve that? It's easy to point out that volcanoes are good for man in general, but you can't argue agains the problem of evil by saying the good outweighs the bad. So I'm proposing that pre-fall God would have miraculously protected my family and it would have appeared quite normal to me in a world so in touch with God.

If a volcano explodes and no one dies, is it still a natural disaster or natural evil?

That's irrelavent.

ryanbouma wrote:That's irrelavent.

Very relevant.
If you use the term evil as opposed to "disaster".
We know that volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and so forth, happen for a reason.
The bad part is when people die.
If an earthquake happens and no one dies and there is no destruction, does it even get reported? does anyone care?
Nope.
Notice that animals, that are in-tuned with nature, get the F out of those places as soon as they can BEFORE those events happen ( granted many still die of course).
As humans we have decided that WE shall impose OURSELVES on nature so we build where we shouldn't and we live where we shouldn't and we do things that we KNOW are harmful to nature and that we know will come back to bite us on our ass and when it does, we look up and ask, "why God?"

The atheist will say, why did an all knowing, all powerful, all good god create natural events that can cause pain and suffering. Showing that those natural events can occur without pain and suffering some of the time doesn't satisfy the question. You said it yourself with the animals, sometimes they still die. We can try and minimize the effect by living in the most naturally benign region of the earth, but I bet something naturally occuring can still cause pain and suffering. I don't think what you're saying would satisfy the atheist, or even me for that matter.

Thankfully I'm well aware that Heaven is the creation where the Problem of Evil does not exist.

ryanbouma wrote:The atheist will say, why did an all knowing, all powerful, all good god create natural events that can cause pain and suffering. Showing that those natural events can occur without pain and suffering some of the time doesn't satisfy the question. You said it yourself with the animals, sometimes they still die. We can try and minimize the effect by living in the most naturally benign region of the earth, but I bet something naturally occuring can still cause pain and suffering. I don't think what you're saying would satisfy the atheist, or even me for that matter.

Thankfully I'm well aware that Heaven is the creation where the Problem of Evil does not exist.

The atheist has no ground to stand on to ask why God didn't create a world without these things since there is no evidence that a world can exist without them.
Death is part of the natural circle of life for the atheist and he has no grounds to postulate a universe without death since such is non-observable.
As for the believer, yes I can see one who believes that the world was created perfect at one point having issues with this, but nowhere does it say the universe was created perfect, just "good".
Could God have created a world with no suffering?
Without suffering there is no compassion, without compassion what are we?

PaulSacramento wrote:
The atheist has no ground to stand on to ask why God didn't create a world without these things since there is no evidence that a world can exist without them.
Death is part of the natural circle of life for the atheist and he has no grounds to postulate a universe without death since such is non-observable.

Correct. But then he will say, "nevermind death, why did your god allow for pain and suffering? Did he want us to experience that despite loving us so much? This is a cruel world with hunger, pain, disease, etc."

PaulSacramento wrote:
As for the believer, yes I can see one who believes that the world was created perfect at one point having issues with this, but nowhere does it say the universe was created perfect, just "good".
Could God have created a world with no suffering?
Without suffering there is no compassion, without compassion what are we?

Now we're getting somewhere. I'm on board with you that creation wasn't necessarily perfect. But the Problem of Natural Evil begs the question, why wasn't it created perfect. So I'm suggesting God did not create it perfect but protected us from it miraculously, and we chose the fall separating us from divine protection from the "natural evil". That then leads us into the free will argument against the Problem of Evil, which is fairly sound imo.

But perhaps you're right. Perhaps God created pain and suffering so that we may express compassion/Jesus ?