Existence of God II

I decided to publish this as a new post to keep this thread on top, but it is a reply to Chris’ response to our existence of God questions.

I echo Chris’ disclaimer of accusation and malice. But let us feel free to pack a punch against the other's arguments, only with the view of continued friendship and better understanding. It is said that you can win an argument and lose a friend. Indeed, a man named Paul wrote down, a long time ago, in a letter to a community in the city of Corinth:



"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophesy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man; I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Regarding Chris' response to Dane's #1 reason for personal belief in God:

I agree with Chris. The inability to understand does not constitute any support for a truth claim. Moreover, I want to address the Christians by saying that if all we believe in is a Deus Ex Machina, a "God of the Gaps", who is responsible for causing anything that we don't understand, then as science begins to uncover explanations for things we didn't have before, our God will shrivel in proportion to the advance of science (I think that this, in part, has happened to some within Christendom, but not Christianity by and large). Furthermore, Christianity is so much more than belief in a God so that we don't have to be at peace with our own lack of understanding. There are plenty of things we don't have answers for, and we have to be at peace with them (although we should take delight in the journey of the exploration of reality via science, philosophy, and the study of what revelation has been given). We also believe in a God who doesn't just hide in the shadows and say, "I did.... THAT!" pointing to something mysterious that we don't understand. We believe in a God who is intimately involved in every moment, who is sovereignty governing (although I maintain that it is in a nondeterministic manner) the universe. So let's not just play the "you can't explain that, so we win" card.



However, I think Chris' argument was unintentionally against a straw man. I think that Dane wasn't making the argument that the fact that he can't understand something entails that it was caused by God. I think Dane was saying that the existence of the physical universe logically implies a nonphysical first cause.



Imagine that the current state of the physical universe at this precise moment is a domino in a lineup of dominoes. If you go one domino back, you find the state of the physical universe exactly one moment ago. Back and back the lineup goes. Now, because we are living and experiencing this moment right now, we know that the row of dominoes are falling into one another in order, each moment in the physical universe leads to the next, just as dominoes fall into each other, one after another. We can easily see that the line of dominoes must have a beginning by the fact that, if there were an infinite regression of dominoes into the past, then the current domino would not fall. Imagine it like this: put your finger on the domino representing today, and look back up the lineup of dominoes and see them falling into each other, one after the other. Now between the domino that you currently see falling up there and the domino you have your finger on, there are an infinite number of dominoes. So it will take an infinite amount of time for the falling domino to get to your domino, and it therefore never will. But, if there is a first domino (no matter how far back), then we can calculate how long it will be until the domino representing the current moment in time will fall, and the next moment in time will ensue. The reason that we know that there must be a first domino (a first moment in time for the physical universe) is because we are presently in a moment, and experience it pass, and enter into the next moment. The mere experience of the passing of time implies a first term, an initial physical state of affairs. There cannot be an infinite regression of physical states - this is much less believable than a God who is self-existent, who has no mass and is not subject to time.



Some notes about the first domino, or the first moment in the history of the universe: It cannot be self-existent, for each physical thing that science has ever examined is described by internationally held scientific law as being an effect. Science tells us that matter and energy, being physical, can be exchanged, but neither can be created nor destroyed. According to what we know scientifically, it is impossible for anything physical to be the causa sui - the cause of itself. Therefore, the physical universe must have had a beginning, and this first moment must have been caused by something nonphysical, something other than itself (not that I am arguing here anything about the nature of this nonphysical first cause, but just elaborating on what I think was the essence of Dane's point - that the mere fact that we can observe this moment pass implies a creator of some sort). Please let me note here that I am not original, and there are many historic and extant versions of this and probably any argument, and I particularly recommend and disclaim plagiarism of Dallas Willard's three-stage argument for the existence of God, linked to on the right.



I think that the desire to find everything out by reason, observation, and experience is the way to go out of the two options that you presented as being natural to humans, who have no easy means to acquire the sum of all knowledge. Unfortunately I sometimes see both religious and scientific pursuits heading down the other path - one of conjecture, magical thinking, and religion. Obviously you agree with me that many religious people are so because of conjecture, or at least have their worldviews contaminated by it. So let me encourage you to consider how it might be that some modern scientists participate in it too. Consider the case described by James, where scientists jumped from their conclusion that each physical state of the universe is not determinate of the next, to making conclusions about God's attributes - what He can do and know. James calls for clear thinking, stating that nothing can be concluded about God based on these particular scientific theories. In this case the scientists held beliefs by faith, pointing to physical evidence for their support. Conclusions can be drawn from the evidence, but not the conclusions that they drew.



Consider again the naturalists, among whom some contemporary scientists share company. They hold that the physical universe is uncreated. How can such a claim be substantiated with scientific means? How can that be repeated in a controlled environment? In fact, I argue that it actually contradicts what we scientifically know about our physical universe! You won't have trouble scrounging up many people on either side of theism who will admit that the existence of a first cause cannot be scientifically proven or disproved. The naturalists and scientismists indeed hold religious beliefs (beliefs in propositions that cannot be thoroughly handled by science) themselves. How many atheists have you talked to that make claims about the afterlife, or whether humans have a soul? I know plenty how claim that humans don't have souls, and there is no afterlife. How do they know that scientifically? Human souls are supposedly nonphysical, so how can science even approach them, to find out anything about them? I am not saying that science isn't one valid means to gather knowledge, or that it is in opposition to the concept of religion, or that religious beliefs are bad, but that both the "scientists" and the admittedly religious (among whom some scientists think that it is best go about belief formation in a reasonable manner) hold religious beliefs.



But this is only really a side note, since you are not claiming here that the mere fact that some people's magical thinking and conjecture leads to religion doesn't discount religion or belief in God's existence. Nor are you claiming that scientists aren't religious or hold magical thoughts. Thank you for your patience with my tangents, which have nothing to do with the logical order of our conversation.

Regarding Chris' response to Dane's #2 argument:

I feel grossly unqualified to react to this one (admittedly my reaction is not called for, either), even after my Philosophy of Humanness class at Pasadena City College. I feel that although your basic point, that the issues listed do not require a God to give them meaning is true. I do think however, that they require a person to give them meaning, by means of his intentionality (maybe I can get some philosophy of mind guys up in here to help me out with this one - come on in here you MA of philosophy guys, maybe from Biola, Talbot, or somewhere else). Edward Feser wrote some amazing work on this in his Intro to Philosophy of Mind book that recently came out. And I also highly recommend stuff by J. P Moreland and William Lane Craig.



I certainly don't expect every thread of this conversation to carry on unto its end in this blog (nor are we qualified to carry them on so), although that would be a worthwhile pursuit, and I don't expect you to answer my muddy thinking here, but I really think that a very solid argument for a personal God can be made out of this. No naturalist that I have ever met has been able to give me a model for meaning that satisfies. But the guys who understand the nature of the soul and intentionality do. What scientific proof is there that anything means anything? How can meaning be carried by physical objects? I give Chris credit for admitting that meaning exists, and demands explanation. Even if we didn't buy Dane's argument for why life demands God to give it meaning, we can easily turn around and point to meaning and ask the atheists to explain it, and give an account for what it is and whether it exists (and whereby it exists). Now, as a man of constant disclaimers, let me say here that I do not advocate playing the skeptic or shifting the burden of proof, I just mean to express my gladness that meaning and purpose have been brought up, and I would enjoy seeing some people in here who know about them and could help our discussion out - on either side of the theism.



Regarding Chris' response to Dane's #3:

Doesn't belief in an afterlife make one more willing to fight to the death, or die for what he believes in, than want to stay alive as long as possible, seeing as to how this is all he's got? Haven't differing beliefs about the supernatural been the cause of so many wars - so much destruction of the human race? Human sacrifice (a la Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean II)? Sounds like this development of a belief in the afterlife hasn't been a real successful evolution to me. Whatever is governing human evolution is stupid and sadistic, to have caused us to evolve belief in the afterlife, since it has caused brutal destruction and backpedaling for us all collectively. That is, unless you want to somehow defend war, showing that, apart from what we think is good for humanity, war has been positive in our evolutionary cycle. I'm open to it. I guess it weeds out the week. On that note, why don't we kill off everyone in jail and on welfare so that they stop sucking resources away from the strong, productive members of society? Sound familiar (*ahem* Hitler)?



In the end, let me half-apologize for responding to Chris' response to Dane; it isn't exactly my job to take over everything said here and offer a response. Yet I feel that there is still plenty of material to talk about on both sides, and I welcome you back to the discussion, Dane Bundy.



Now, to try to tackle all that Chris brought up in regards to my little comment.

Let me apologize for giving the wrong impression. I don't mean to argue that Christianity is a scientific theory. I think that scientists can go about doing good science in a Christian manner (with love, with excellence, etc.). I also note that to date, the scientific principles and evidence that I have learned about has accorded with what I happen to believe by faith. I also grant that I have lived a life exposed to primarily Christian scientists :).



No, Christianity is not a scientific theory, and I don't think that it claims to be or wants to be. I should have said, in my post that in light of what we can gather so far, the account that Christianity offers is not incoherent with logic or science. It contains some propositions, which cannot be proven or proven to be false, as you have stated. Neither are naturalism or scientism (not to accuse you of either; you admit agnosticism) scientific theories, but sets of beliefs requiring faith. Evolution is a theory.

I do personally hold however, by means of standing on the shoulders of others, that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, which is gaining popularity among skeptics in the international scientific forum.



Although I am a Christian and have chosen not only to argue from a Christian standpoint, but from my own personal standpoint, I suppose that this particular thread is more about the existence of God than it is the nature of the God that might exist. Your claim that Christianity is not a scientific theory is something I agree with. However, those that discount Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, are failing to address the fact that it scientifically approaches the same body of evidence, and draws valid interpretations describing the cause of the universe as being something nonphysical and intelligent, rather than physical and unintelligent.

Let me now go on to say in response to your post, that I should not have claimed that Christianity is the most valid worldview. Certainly more than one set of interpretations of the scientific facts and seemingly properly basic beliefs are logically valid. Sorry about that.

Regarding the famous Flying Spaghetti Monster, I find it hilarious. I love satire, and by the way I find Chris' rhetorical style really frickin funny. Even if I replied with silence, I would stand edified by his eloquence. Most of this is perhaps because I know him, and think I can picture everything I think he is communicating, including nonverbals, in my mind.A side note about your comment about my resemblance to my Dad. I am pleased when people recognize similarities, because I love my Dad. However, I have tried to take some of his advice.



Good one-liners:

‘Son, keep your johnson in your pants while you're around girls’

This was excellent advice, and kept me from a lot of trouble. Thanks, Dad! My premarital talk with him was,

‘That rule about your johnson goes away after you get married’

Such an easy system to live by.



Another good one-liner:

‘Son, if you can pick up what good habits I have (keeping your own), and manage to only pick up about half of all my bad habits, you will have done pretty well’



So this is what I have tried to do in rhetoric. I feel like I have inherited some negatively dogmatic qualities that I would like to be careful about. So, that thing you picked up in my first post - let me just say thank you for your willingness to continue participating in conversation with me. I know I can be a jerk sometimes (not that you were accusing me of it), but I have gotten a lot more mature since I married Lindsey. I also want to pursue truth for what it is, not seek to grab evidence to support a preconceived worldview. I have a worldview, but I need to be willing to admit when I don't know, when I am wrong, etc. So let's toast to discovering and overcoming our faults, big and small!



Though the FSM’s virtuous specimen of literary satire serves as an exemplary example of the purpose and method of satire, it also serves as an illustration of the common hazards of using satire to argue a point. The FSM fails to address the technical, scientific arguments of ID. It also attacks ID with subtle arguments against the epistemology of many Christians, pointing out how silly it seems to contradict scientific theories based solely on an ancient text. But this is not the methodology of the ID movement, in which even plenty of non-Christians participate, building their case on fact. The FSM makes broad-stroke claims and seizes creative license to out-shout the arguments of ID. Readers unfamiliar with the syllogisms of ID will not charitably consider it in light of the arguments on both sides. Furthermore, readers susceptible to being allured to comedy and narrative prosody will be coaxed into an unquestioning acceptance of the book's position. Aldington, a critic of the famous satirist Voltaire, said: “Vulnerable as Voltaire's Rationalism must be to a concerted metaphysical attack, it was good enough for most people, and he had the wit to bring the laughers over to his side”. Although I am not trying to take the book more seriously than it ought to be (perhaps giving it more attention than it deserves), I feel that quite often the masses can get wrapped up in the mockery of a position rather than a scholarly handling of it.

"[Christianity's] complete lack of tangible evidence for the fantastic events it claims happened makes it implausible in the light of reason and ever advancing science."

Although a mere lack of extant physical evidence for a historic event doesn't mean that it didn't happen, I suppose that Chris is saying that because the events that the Bible claims occurred are sometimes beyond the scope of the majority of human experience, and they lack extant physical evidence, it violates Ockam's Razor to believe that they occurred, and it should therefore be preferred to disbelieve in their historicity. I will go ahead and concede that if these events lacked scientific evidence, it would be silly to ask the nonreligious to believe in them. Certainly you will allow that science is not finished, and there are more artifacts to dig up, and more research to be done, so some events may gain scientific support in the future. So, if a religious man has chosen to accept certain premises, for example, "the Bible is historically accurate", and the physical evidence isn't contrary to an event described by the Bible, one can hardly say that this man is irrational. But don't mistake this for an argument.



I do think that part of the benefit of the rich scientific findings of the modern world is that so many of them actually do accord with the Biblical account of history. Below is an excerpt from a page from just one decent entity who compares the evidence with the book:



"...It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself."



But just because, as time moves forward, we uncover artifacts that confirm the accuracy of Biblical descriptions of peoples, historic events, and empires, doesn't prove that the Bible is also accurate with regards to "fantastic events". Well, let's take just one fantastic event: the worldwide flood. I hope this qualifies as catastrophic enough for us. Take a look at one or two of the links on this page, and let me know, generally, how you react. As I have journeyed through public and Christian schools, I have humbly examined some of the evidence, and scholarly interpretations of the evidence, myself and found that, as is the case with the site linked to above, there is plenty of perfectly valid scientific research that supports Biblical accounts of atypical historical events.



Allow the proposal of some evidence for the resurrection (certainly within the category "fantastic", right?):



"Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. ""



The more I have studied science (at Christian and [very] secular colleges, and on my own), which is admittedly very little, the more it seems evident to me that some members of the secular scientific community at large endeavor to come up with ad-hoc interpretations of the evidence, and speak out loudly and tyrannically against some others within the scientific community, who are trying (granted, they hold religious beliefs) to approach the evidence with suspended judgments, and hypothesize afresh. Certainly the majority of Christian antiquity has been anti-evolution, but to help me demonstrate my point, that many Christians (and nonChristian, Theists) are earnest in their scientific approach to appropriate historical information, let me note that even one of our own Biola professors believes in evolution, because he personally thinks that it makes the most sense out of the evidence. He also believes in the Bible, and is recognized as a Christian (believe me, to teach at Biola you have to be pretty theologically conservative). I disagree with him scientifically based on what I understand other scientists to be saying right now (although I don't entirely rule out theistic evolution), but my point is that there are Christians in the internationally respected scientific community today who maintain their Christianity while scientifically approaching the evidence.





"...[the Bible]'s textual self contradiction..."

Without the contradictions that you personally seem to see, I will in lieu of them offer up a couple lists of such difficulties, and some answers that believers have come up with.



Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, By G. Archer

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html

http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html



Please don't mistake this as an argument from authority, however. No claim is true merely because it is championed by a popular or respected or well-educated person. Although there is no sense in reinventing the wheel, there is value in procuring information over which we as individuals can take ownership, for our edification. People have been learning many of the same facts for years, and it is still important for each of us to learn them for ourselves (addition and subtraction, for example). When talking about what is true, we don't need to give out points for originality. We are after accuracy here.



Regarding Biblical errors, I would be interested in going through them one by one with you. If you give me someone else's list, I will give you someone else's answers. But if you read a book of the Bible on your own and point out contradictions to me, I will most certainly explore them for myself, and offer you answers to the best of my ability. I am serious, don't think I am being sarcastic here. If we pace ourselves, this could provide us with some ongoing conversation in this forum. You pick a Bible contradiction, we talk about it, then I pick a contradiction in evolutionary theory, and we talk about it. Not that we are trying to trap each other, but simply seek the truth and more than that, make use of an opportunity to stay in contact. Posting doesn't need to occur everyday, either.

"...and lack of clear language allows it to be used to justify almost any manner of behavior."

Although this comment was in line with others and shouldn't be misunderstood by me to be an attempt at an argument unto itself, let me offer my agreement. The Bible was written a long time ago, over a period of about 1500 years, by about 30 different authors on multiple continents, to various audiences going through differing cultural and political contexts. Moreover, translation often loses important meanings. How important it is with any large and complex scientific, philosophical, or in this case religious text, to handle it carefully, and employ proper interpretation techniques! Surely you wouldn't want me going through some of the more complicated works on evolutionary theory, making uneducated, rash objectsion out of my own ignorance! I don't understand much at all about most of the complex genetic & cellular information, nor understand the lingo (even though most of these were at least written in English). Moreover, I don't have any education in the field of science, and it would be dangerous for me to take my understanding of even a thoroughly read medical textbook and attempt a surgery. Within Christianity we study the disciplines of hermeneutics and textual criticism. It is crucial to understand a text in light of the sociopolitical context, trying to understand the grammar and original language and author's intention. Surely we read poetry differently than history! How it annoys me when people, Christians or not (*ahem* skeptics annotated bible) try to interpret the Bible without actually putting in the elbow grease necessary to truly understand the text. I would be satisfied with a man who actually demonstrated a thorough understanding of the Bible or Christianity and yet disagreed. Frustrations ensue when people miss each other, not understanding their opponent's view. One guy who seemed to have a decent understanding of Xianity, and yet rejected Christ was Nietzsche. But he went crazy, so... have fun with that :).





"It's brutish intolerance toward alternate belief systems and dissenting opinion (re: first commandment) make it a bad neighbor."

Christianity may be barbarian, and there may have been Christians who were bad neighbors (*ahem* crusaders, aka stupid mean people), and it may teach that Jesus is the only way, that He is the Truth, and that knowledge of Him is Life, and that denying Him results in eternal damnation, but Jesus also taught us to love & pray for not only our neighbors, but our enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus said that the second greatest commandment, upon which all the law hangs, is to love your neighbor as yourself. He teaches us to be this kind of neighbor:



Luke 10:30-37

"Jesus replied and said, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’ Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?” And he said, "The one who showed mercy toward him”. Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same”.



So I know that Christians haven't always been good neighbors, but Christ was, and taught that we should be. To be truly Christ-like, to be really Christian we ought to be good neighbors. Never did Jesus teach that we should shove the gospel down anyone's throat, or use violence to spread the cross, or revolt against the government. I don't know whether this fits into your view of tolerance or not. I hope you don't mean that Christianity excludes religious pluralism, because guess what? Religious pluralism excludes Christianity. And that means that religious pluralism isn't very 'tolerant'. Holding beliefs that happen to be mutually exclusive with those of others isn't being a bad neighbor.



Some Christians who are good neighbors:

Samaritan's Purse

Red Cross

World Vision

Compassion International

Campus Crusade for Christ

...and a slew of other groups, many of whom I have personally met and seen in action on the field, who can't be mentioned in a public forum because the people in the governments, under which they are charitably offering resources and development plans that will be participated in and sustainable by the locals, willl kick them out.



Don't get me wrong: Christians aren't the only ones who are taught to be, and capable of being, good neighbors. I just don't see your point.



Not that I would accuse you of committing this fallacy, but to disqualify a set of propositions from your view of truth because of the behavior of someone who holds it does not make sense. If it did, we could discount atheism based on Hitler's and Stalin's actions (that is unless you took me up on the offer to justify war and the killing of those who will only dilute the gene pool, in which case, have fun in prison when you get arrested for murder by fellow atheists who are incoherent with their own worldview and choose to obey their own moral intuitions instead, locking you up for what they know in their heaarts to be wrong [murder], but cannot ground via their own philosophy). We could go through every belief systematically and show every proposition false, because not only has every human committed evil, but also every belief has been held by a particularly evil person at some point in history.





"It's bible's tales of sex, incest and violence make for unsuitable reading for children."

Indeed, Solomon's explicit depiction of his *love* relationship with his beloved in the book of Song of Solomon, was prohibited reading for Jewish children. The language often comes through much more padded in the English. The incest and violence depicted in the Bible occurred in history. You must admit that if the Bible were historically accurate, then it would not be a book we ought to censor! Just like we shouldn't censor any history book accurately describing the horror of the holocaust. Maybe we should be careful about what and when we allow our children to read, but come on - surely you don't expect us to get rid of any book with sex, incest, and violence in it? The Bible is not meant to be safe. It is meant to be controversial and adult. It is meant to have implications for reality, not fairyland.





"My doubts of Abraham's god echo those going back before the bible."

My conviction regarding Abraham’s God echoes those going back to Adam.





"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus 300 BCE"



A well-wrought argument, but not wholly conclusive. It leaves open the possibility that there can be a God who is knowing of evil, and able & willing to stop it, but has a justifiable cause for allowing it and therefore chooses to suffer it.



Crafting such a description of a possibility is called a theodicy. There have been many throughout history. Some satisfy, some do not. Let me offer a simple one here; one that satisfies me.



First allow me to shape the question. Let's start with a modern framing of the question: "Why does God allow evil?"



Surely putting it like this presupposes God's existence, but what we are trying to accomplish here, is demonstrate at least one possible justification that God could have for allowing evil. If we can do that, then we debunk Epicurus. I will attempt to describe a possibility that I think corresponds to reality, but let it be known that my words are not the first that have attempted such a feet, nor will they depict the only way to do so.



As a prologue let me call "foul play" on you (er... Epicurus). To use a term like "evil" presupposes moral categories for which atheism has no explanation. To place a value judgment on anything requires an objective moral lawgiver, some standard by which actions and intentions that accord are called "good" and those that deviate are called "evil". Surely only persons can perceive or prescribe such categories. And yet, individuals die, and new ones are born, and over time values shift and different cultures think differently. Some people think that it is "good" to fly a plane into a building, kill Jews and Christians mercilessly, or rape innocent women. So for you or Epicurus to mean anything at all by the use of "evil", or for us to have anything solid to handle in conversation (or for me to have anything to defend), we have to have a standard. I argue that we have to have a personal standard (Bruce Lee says "boards don't hit back", surely you don't expect something impersonal to be capable of moral judgment), a moral lawgiver. I can call him "God", what do you call him, "primordial soup?".



Next let me say that I personally maintain that the burden of proof for you to explain the existence of anything at all (i.e. primordial soup: you ask "how did God get there?" and I ask "how did primordial soup get there?", only my god is nonphysical and personal, your god is soup) is far heavier than the burden is for me to explain the existence of evil. The existence of the universe at all more intensely implies a creator than the existence of evil requires explanation.

//end prologue//



Before we really actually begin to answer the question "why does God allow evil?", we have to do a bit of prolegomena (first things). Within the paradigm of Christianity, God does not allow evil. He is called a God of justice (Isaiah 30:18, et al.). He will execute justice in the following ways:



•Evil committed by sinners is dealt with in Hell and the Lake of Fire (Matt. 25)

•Evil committed by saints is dealt with on the cross (Rom. 5:6)

•Evil committed by angels is dealt with in the Lake of Fire (2 Pete. 2:4)

•Even the effects of evil on nature is dealt with at the destruction and re-creation of the universe (Rev. 21:1)



So, I think that it is fair, since the critique is against a Christian, that I say that God will not allow evil. Permit this for the sake of my argument.



Yet, I have still to answer the reason why God allows evil for the present. Our question is now "why does God allow temporary evil?"



I want to hold to the definition of God offered by Epicurus, that He is "tri-omni", or omnipotent (almighty), omniscient (all knowing), and omnibenevolent (able to do no evil). I think that if God ever ceased to be one of these He would cease to be Himself. God is God, and He has a definite character, including at least these three things, which, when looked at together, give rise to a conclusion, which will be explained:

God must have something grounded in His character, or desire to create that made it such that He was unable to remain Himself or accomplish this goal without allowing for evil.



First off, let me make the obvious claim that God is logic. He cannot make round squares or rectangular triangles - these things are logically incoherent and are not within the realm of any imaginable being to create. This does not mean that God is not without limits, but that He cannot cease to be Himself. To make any claim about God or say anything definite or meaningful about Him automatically excludes claims of the opposite. John 1:1 says that God is the logos - He is the abstract order to the universe that the Greeks believed in, but He is also personal.



Now that that is laid down, let me offer up the reason that I think God allowed evil into the universe. What possible greater good could God have had in mind when He created the opportunity for evil?



The Bible says that it was through a man that sin entered the world. Not God. God never committed evil, nor caused a man to commit evil. He did, however, create man. And He created man with the power and metaphysical capability to choose evil.



Why? Because God wanted to create a creature that could love Him. On a shallow level, let's describe a situation that brings an intuition we all hold to the surface: the intuition that love requires freedom of the will.



I love Lindsey, but if she stopped loving me, there is nothing that I could do to coerce her to. Even if I did it humanely, and applied the right social pressures on her such that she stayed in the marriage, it could not accurately be called 'love', if she simply did not love me with he heart.



What if I let her go, but made a robot Lindsey. It had clippings of her voice recorded, and it made me lunch and did the laundry and satisfied all of my needs from an external perspective. I liked this robot very much, and insisted that we were in love. Would this be true love? No, of course not. Love is between persons who have a dynamic, willing relationship that involves both each lover and beloved.



What if I took away that rudimentary appearance? What if I constructed Zombie Lindsey (but pretty), who was organic, and exhibited what looked to others like a creativity in her phrases and actions. Could I have a love relationship with the Zombie, who wasn't actually self-aware and capable of choice? I say no.



If God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, and it is His character that structures the order of things, both physical and metaphysical, and if it is indeed His character whereby we call things "good" or "evil", and if the ability to love Him involves choice, then de dicto (by definition), to choose to not love Him is necessarily to choose evil. To choose not to love God is by nature synonymous with choosing evil, because it is by Him that good and evil are defined. Choosing not God is choosing not good.



So to answer Epicurus, I say that God is indeed knowing, powerful, and loving. And it is because He is loving that it is necessary that the possibility for evil be granted to humans.



I also recommend "The Problem of Pain" by C. S. Lewis - it is much more convincing than what I have offered here.



From a slightly more complex, theological point of view one might be able to develop a discourse describing what happens when a necessary being, God, copies Himself. There are attributes that do not get communicated. For example, it is impossible that God create another completely omnipotent being. It is logically impossible. This character trait of God (omnipotence) did not get communicated at the moment of the creation of humanity. Similarly, some of God's metaphysical freedom was communicated to His images (humans), but by the mere fact that these new objects were other than Him, and capable of relating to Him, this action entailed that they be capable of evil (an attribute that God Himself does not have, for it is impossible for God to act other than according to His nature, and His nature is good [moral lawgiver], so God cannot do evil - He cannot not be Himself).



The story for how God deals with the first man's unfortunate choice to do evil explains a lot, too. I highly recommend it. It's genesis is found in Genesis, but the climax is in the gospel's and the conclusion in The Revelation.





"Gods power is infinite. Whatever he wills is executed but neither man nor other animals is happy. Therefore he does not will their happiness. Epicurus' questions are yet unanswered"

-David Hume 1711-76



Indeed, God is all-powerful. He is able to do anything that is within the realm of 'able to be done'. Neither man nor animal is happy, because creation has been corrupted (like when the user of a computer operating system abuses it and causes an error). Although He desires their happiness, He is unable to immediately and directly cause their happiness and still accomplish what He wants to: a world in which love exists is better than one in which love does not exist, and God is just playing dolls with Himself, even though His dolls happen to feel at the exclusion of love. Hume's unhappiness is yet unquenched.





"If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to which he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED? If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest."

-Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism 1811



If God is good, we should fear His judgment, for how can a good God allow evil to persist (as Epicurus and yourself noted)? How can we, having committed evil at least once per human (Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but that we each fall short of perfection, choosing to do evil at least once in our lives, should be obvious), expect that God will not deal with us justly, according to the moral law set by his character? How can using a classic attribute of God (goodness) be used to object to a classic role of God (Judge), when it is by the very nature of His goodness that He is required to judge? It would render God evil for Him to allow evil to persist without judgement. This should be obvious. A just God deserves our respect (fear is also an archaic word denoting a certain type of respect).



God is wise (the Proverbs of Solomon treat Wisdom as if it were personal, just as Plato treated Goodness, Truth, and Beauty as if they constituted a singular Person - interesting) and I suffer no doubt about my future. Those who disobey a good God obviously have just cause to worry about their future.



God knows all, but is personal and desires to relate to us, listening to the details of our thoughts (imagine the corruption of this in a human context: Lindsey comes home from work wanting to talk about her day, and I tell her that I just want to love her, not listen to all the details of her life - yikes). Besides, prayer isn't for God, it's for us. Arguing against prayer based on God's omniscience is silly. It is precisely because He is omniscient that we ought to pray to Him - who better to tell our darkest secrets to, than One who knows and will not condemn us for our confession? Who better to seek council with, than One who knows everything? Indeed, if He is all-powerful (as Epicurus seems to think a God should be), then our prayers will not fatigue Him!



He is everywhere, and does not delight in temples, according the Bible. He delights in thankfulness, and a broken and contrite heart. He delights in belief in Himself.



He is just, and when we see His judgments revealed and how He ends up dealing with everything and everyone, Christians and Atheists alike will be surprised, and ultimately affirm that what He has done was most definitely just. If you can imagine a situation in which it seems that Christianity affirms that God is or is going to do something that doesn't seem just, either your perception of justice is skewed, or it is not going to go down that way.



His grace is offered, but those who willingly reject it would not benefit from its force. It is logically impossible for an offer for a relationship to be restored to be forced. Suppose Lindsey commits adultery against me, and I offer to forgive her, and take her back into union with me and life in the house. If she refuses, I cannot force her, and have it be a loving relationship. Being with me in the house would still allow relational separation between us. Similarly, God offers a restoration between you and He, but if you refuse, He is incapable of forcing it, because He needs it to be your choice for the relationship to fit the profile of love. Even if an obstinate sinner was forced to live in Heaven after he died (if Heaven is a place susceptible to physical-temporal description), he would still be unhappy. It would be Hell to him, just as being forced to live with me after her adultery and lost love for me would become hell for Lindsey (Lindsey has never committed adultery to the best of my knowledge, by the way ;)).



He is all-powerful, but allows resistance (as stated above). Nevertheless, His providence is clever and complex. His long-term goals will be accomplished despite human choices. Romans 8 says that He weaves both good and bad choices together so that in the end it will paint a picture of His beauty.



How offend Him? My gosh, you have got to be kidding! You mean, how dare the most perfect and Holy Person require obedience and worship? God is offended when anything else takes His place, just as I become jealous when any other man takes my place in Lindsey's life. God is jealous for our love. It is logically silly to say that Him from whom all creation lives and moves and has being does not care when the people He created to love Him choose to reject Him. Your own philosophers admit that the very definition of God (if He exists at all), necessarily includes goodness and justice! How can He whose character is only and completely the completeness of good allow any evils not to offend Him?



He is immovable, and even Christianity maintains this. He is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The Bible says that the righteousness of God exists, and any law He gives merely witnesses to it. We cannot change His decrees. I don't understand how a classic attribute of God (impassibility) somehow disproves another classic attribute of God (existence)...?



He is inconceivable, both in depth and extent. Solomon, in Ecclesiastes, says that you will never understand your spouse either. What's your point man? Of course, by nature the maximally perfect being is inconceivable. BUT He has made Himself known through nature and revelation. He is knowable, and we can know true things about Him. This pleases us, and Him. As I enjoy knowing my wife more and more each day, I will enjoy knowing God more and more every day throughout eternity. Why would we not bother pursuing something that we can only, but definitely, take steps towards, when each step brings delight? Why bother pursuing knowledge at all, since we can never know all true propositions? Do you claim to know everything, or be capable of knowing everything?



He has spoken, and yet some refuse to listen. Rather, according to Romans 1, people have exchanged what is evident about God (that He exists, is all-powerful, and is ontologically distinct) from nature - things perceived from the creation of the world - for anything other than Him. They have instead attributed His works to animals, heavenly bodies, even self-existent soup. Why is it so hard to believe in a nonphysical, personal cause, instead of a somehow self-causing physical thing? It boggles my mind, man.



It has not been made exactly perfectly clear that God exists: true. As we both admit, nobody can prove or disprove God's existence. But why? I argue that He has allowed reality to be ambiguous, so that men, whose logical faculties are in order, are not coerced by means of what is all too obvious (like some beliefs, ex: 'I exist'). God left room for choice. Like I said in my theodicy.





"It strikes me that God might write a book that would not necessarily excite the laughter of his children. In fact, I think it would be safe to say that a real God could produce a work that would excite the admiration of mankind."

-Robert Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses (1879)



This claim rests on the premise that the Bible has not excited the laughter or excitement of His children. I feel qualified to respond by saying that it conjures both in me regularly, and I don't think that it would even be necessary for me to produce research about Israel and Christianity demonstrating fascination and pleasure resulting from the study of scripture. Indeed, I challenge Ingersoll to accept Christ and become a true child of God, then read the Bible and keep from laughing and becoming excited.





“I don't believe in god not because I can't conceive of one, but because I can't perceive one. The testimony of people who claim to "feel His presence" isn't enough for me. Not being able to sense god myself, I'm left with applying logic and reason to the premise of god.”



Ah, so you admit conception of God! You are capable of conceiving of Him. How can we even talk about something that does not exist? Sure we can talk about pink elephants, but both pink and elephants exist (well, pink doesn't exist for Hume, but we needn't go there tonight). But how can we talk about something that does not exist?



Well, I argue, alongside St. Anselm of Canterbury, that the very conception of God may demonstrate the necessity of His existence. For, a maximally perfect being is one that exists. Isn't it better to exist than to not exist? It is at least better for a good being to exist than to not exist. Therefore the very notion of a perfect being is a notion of a being that exists. The conception of God, is the conception of a God that exists. God, if He exists, has the property of existence, necessarily. This is not meant as a proof, but as a demonstration that the very order of this place, the nature of our thoughts and the existence of anything, including our ability to think, all coheres with and is evidence of God's existence.



I am sorry that you do not perceive God. I do. Dostoevsky did (cf. Brothers Karamazov). Millions of Theists cannot only cite feelings, but life stories that seem to have been governed by something above it all. Maybe, just maybe, if you look hard enough and suspend your agnosticism for a while, with some help, maybe He will become perceptible to you. People throughout history have written of His providence and even the rare account of a fantastic event has been recorded (even by differing sources and warring tribes - even by unbelievers), but there are still people who deny these records as historical, then turn around and ask for someone to hand them the history books. Time and time again books containing historical records (ex: Daniel) have been incorrectly dated because they actually predicted the future - they were dated by the “historians" as being written after the event, based solely on the claim that it would have been impossible for them to predict those events! Why not let their fulfilled prophecies authenticate them as the word of God?





“Is the existence of god necessary for people to be moral?

No. Many of the nicest, most caring, most giving, most honest people I know are either atheist or claim a non-Abrahamic religion. Many societies, some quite advanced have existed peacefully for eons before and after monotheism.”



I agree that belief in the existence of God is not necessary for people to choose to be moral. To be logically coherent with their behavior, those people would need to admit belief in a God, to claim anything as objectively moral or not. But people can live with paradoxes.



I disagree that the existence of God is not necessary for people to be anything, because nothing would be if God did not exist.



But on to your point; yes. I know plenty of very good atheists and nonChristians. Certainly what you are saying is accurate, but does not have any ultimate effect on the argument. But I understand that you are saying that it is not necessary for us to believe in a God to accomplish some things that we have desires to accomplish. So, if God does not exist, it is silly to believe that He does, or tell others that he exists. I agree with that. But I still think He exists. I also want to note the devastating logical implications of atheism (described above - social Darwinism and everything that Nazi Germany was grounded in).





“Is the existence of god necessary for people to be happy?

No. I know many truly happy people, both believer and non.”



I think for this question we will have difficulty communicating, much less finding a specific point of agreement or disagreement. By all practical accounts, I also know happy believers and nonbelievers. However, I maintain that absolute happiness results from the beatific vision - seeing God face to face and being made perfect in our happiness. Every earthly step I have taken towards knowing God has resulted in a deeper happiness. But if temporary happiness is good enough for some, that is most certainly their choice, and I do not tell anyone to believe anything. Every man is capable of making beliefs and decisions for himself, and that should always be respected.





“Has a miracle ever been proven to have occurred?

No. In fact I heard somewhere that the Catholic church had said it wasn't going to vouch for any more miracles because scientists have a habit of providing how claimed miraculous events are but uncommon confluences of physical phenomena.”



First off let me state here that this reason, and many others that people cite for not believing in God or Christianity, are actually of little importance to true Christianity. It can be true the God exists and sent His Son to pay the penalty required for our sins, so that by accepting this offer of reconciliation we may be restored to intimacy with Him, and yet miracles are not one of the ways this God chooses to work. So this point is really of little relevance here. However, I think it is worthwhile to handle. I do recommend Lee Stroebel's "The Case For Miracles". I also recommend Aquinas' "Summa Theologica" - at least his chapters on miracles. But authorities aside, let me offer an account of one possible miracle that I have witnessed.



I have always been a skeptic about miracles, I admit. I have even held a theological position, within Christianity, called "ceasationalism". I thought that signs, miracles, and wonders have ceased being used by God for very specific and technical Biblical reasons. Many many Christians argue that even the Bible teaches that miracles have ceased.



I have also been fed up with many Christians and so-called Christians who have employed a variety of psychologically manipulative techniques that induce belief in miracles, healings, and tongues. I can't stand television evangelists or professional healers. I could go on, but I will stop describing my disgust here.



It's just that if someone thinks that he can say a magic prayer, or do something just right such that God will respond, or has to respond, is sickening. No man can manipulate God like He is some magical force or something. What I call "Folk Christianity", in the spirit of "Folk Islam" is prevalent in America. Books like the "Prayer of Jabez" rack in millions by promising people an answer to prayer if they follow a formula.



In the books of Samuel, the Israelites lost the ark by taking it into battle, attempting, like the pagans, to manipulate God. The ark became like an idol. God became angry with that (the whole jealousy thing). A story for another day.



This summer, a member of our team let some of us know in passing about an injury she had. TEN years ago, she suffered a shoulder injury. Over the past ten years, she has had cortisone shots, physical therapy, deep tissue messages, and even acupuncture. She finally accepted the doctor's diagnosis of a frozen shoulder. She was unable to lift her arm above shoulder level. So we decided to pray for her. I prayed like the boys in the book of Daniel (you know - the furnace boys) who recognized God's right to answer or not, and still trusted in His goodness. We all prayed for Michelle's shoulder, and we praised God together. We all demonstrated our lack of faith when, after the prayer, we all dispersed instead of asking her if she could raise her arm.



Later that night, Michelle was laying next to Lindsey, and in a sleepy haze lifted BOTH arms above her head. She realized what she had done and started screaming. She stopped and decided not to tell the group, worrying that it was a fluke. Later, after she was convinced of God's answer and the reality of the healing, she couldn't hold back the giggles when she told us about her arm, then raised it over her head!



I say that this may have been a miracle, because it could possibly be explained scientifically. If we had had enough scientists, and with the right tools, we may have been able to trace the causes of the healing (although recent, even atheistic, science argues that physical "causes" are only probable and not deterministic). So I am open to believing that this was not a miracle. At worst however, it was very very atypical. There may be a lack of miracles noted in the modern world, because what makes them special to us is that they are so rare! I do personally not doubt that what God did to Michelle’s' shoulder broke physical laws. But even if it didn't God answered our prayer through physical means, and I am okay with attributing all healing to God's grace, common and specific.



There is a story in the gospels of Jesus feeding a lot of people because one little boy gave up his lunch. Just after this, the Pharisees ask Jesus for a sign, and He lets out a long sigh, and tells them that no sign will be given them.



My theory is that clear miracles are often denied sight by the unbelieving, because it would coerce a man who's logical faculties are in order to believe in the supernatural. As stated, God cannot coerce men to believe in Him, and still have it be a free, loving relationship. Causation and freedom cannot coexist in the same way at the same time. Either I cause something or God causes it. Love entails the lover's freedom. God wants us to love Him.



Nevertheless, if no breaking of physical laws has ever happened, I hold that God has and does perform things that are worthy of our marvel.



No, God cannot be manipulated, but He is able to do anything, and He cares for His children.





“Is the existence of god necessary for the explanation of any physical or psychological phenomena?

No. There's no mathematical equation or scientific formula that needs "and then god stepped in" to be complete. While there are still many mysteries in nature to be unraveled, history has shown that whenever we do decipher some heretofore unknown aspect of nature, god is never involved. Moreover, the more we learn about nature and our place in it the more long standing beliefs and religion are shown to be but superstition and myth.”



I rejoice when empty religion and superstition are melted by the study of God's world. But let me say that your beliefs here still need but little changing to be compatible with Christianity, or theism in general. Leibniz was a determinist. James Gibson, linked to on the right, can give you a very very strong argument for determinism (and even argues for God's existence based on the determinism that you seem to cite here). My main questions to you are as follows: how can science scientifically explain the existence of physical laws? Why does matter relate to itself in an orderly fashion? By what physical means are physical laws determined? Just as absolute morality requires a lawgiver, so arguing for any kind of absolutely predictable manner in which matter behaves requires a lawgiver. For science to claim that the future will resemble the past, it has to produce a reason other than "it has so far". By what right do you, or any naturalistic scientist, draw conclusions based on the predictability of nature? I just call physical laws the paths that God Himself takes through creation. Whether or not they are predictable says nothing about whether God exists or what He is like, but that if He exists then He is orderly. Nobody can claim that the observable causes of an event are not only necessary but also sufficient to necessarily cause said event, just because it happens the same way each time. I have never seen a demonstration that rules out all other possible causes of an event other than the physically observable ones, NOR have I seen an argument that rules out the possibility of a single first cause, from which everything flows. Furthermore, it is impossible to have matter that relates to itself in so logical an order as you have observed without a first term. The dominoes cannot go back in time infinitely. Belief in this kind of infinity is not only religious, it is silly and unscientific.





"If the ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, the knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy them"

-Baron d'Holbach 1868



I completely agree. But I don't hold to a view of God susceptible to destruction by discovery (cf. above paragraph).





“I firmly believe that if something is true it can be tested and will withstand any rigor.”



I am sorry that you believe this. Although we have both admitted that God's existence can be neither proven nor disproved, it does not mean that He does not exist. There can be other true propositions that can't be proven without a shadow of a doubt. For example, suppose that Michael Jackson did abuse that boy behind closed doors (I am not saying that he did). The prosecutor was unable to substantiate the claim with undeniable proof. That does not disprove its occurrence, it just disqualifies it from being convicting. As I stated above, God does not want His existence being so obvious that all men are compelled by their own reason to believe in Him.





“I'd never claim to have all the answers and I'm not only open to new ideas about the supernatural, but a big part of me wants to find a supernatural dimension to the universe. That said, one must wade skeptically through these waters. If someone said to me that an ancient text foretold that computer keyboards repelled lions and cheetahs (well, have you ever seen a lion or cheetah near a computer keyboard?) I'm not going to strap one to my chest and hike carefree through the Savannah."



I would be impressed that said ancient text predicted the existence of keyboards! I cannot express how glad I am to read the above. First, according to my faith (which I cannot prove and do not ask you to believe in) I can say that you are at least being honest about your "divine spark", or "sensus divinitatus". Bearing God's image, and being made to delight in worshipful activities, every man wants to believe in something supernatural (Romans 1). Why is it that the vast majority of people today will say that they believe God exists? Why has nearly every civilization developed some religious beliefs? It is built in to seek.



But yes - we should go about learning about Him and deciding whether to believe in His existence with care and reason.



But most of all, I like your last clause, that you wouldn't go running through the Savannah with a keyboard strapped to your chest because of some ancient text! First of all it is funny, which is why I like you (I have other reasons, too). Second of all it describes living by faith as something dangerous and it reveals that these issues actually matter for how we live life. I am glad that you care about these things and recognize them as having consequences.



I hope that although my faith is faith (duh), it is not blind. I admit that it requires faith to believe what I believe, but I think it is reasonable, and the beauty I have seen in my progression towards Christ has been indescribable, and my delight sores when I commune with the Holy One.



Regardless, for this conversation to be meaningful to both of us, I am open to all the areas in which I am may be wrong. I am sure that even if God exists and/or Christianity is true, there is much about which I am wrong. I just don't feel compelled by your arguments so far.



Thanks for your willingness to talk online together. Please let me know if I ever argue like a jerk, as I want to always striving towards being a better person, and I only want our relationship to thrive. I will do you the same courtesy.



Love,

Yours truly



PS

If Atheism is so evident, why do 9 out of 10 Americans believe in God's existence?