God allows evil so he looks better... WTF?

[Ben-AG]

I think that it is a loaded question.  I did not become a Christian because of the "force of evil," I am a Christian because I realized my brokenness.

You may have misunderstood.    Okay.  

I think it is obvious that, of course, my views on the forces of evil are shaped by the teachings of Christianity, and I do formulate my own thoughts on the matter.  Just as an atheist formulates his thoughts based upon his beliefs/values.  But, in no way do I feel my formulated thoughts are the truth.  The Bible is ambiguous and God never clearly presents His purposes.  How bumptious would it be of me to assume those purposes?

[PipeBox]

Whether it is a "force of evil" or any subjective evil, the question remains as to why it exists if God is omnibenevolent.  It is possible that the only evil that exists is only in the choice itself, not even the consequences, and that not even the choice is truly evil.  That is, there is no pervasive evil force, just what choices God likes and doesn't, no right and wrong beyond his whim (his whim being free to align to as many of your morals as you like), and he's willing for us to make any choice and eventually reap his dissatisfaction, and in the mean time, any other consequences that are manifest in reality.  For example, praying instead of going to a doctor can kill you, denying condoms to Africa will result in people getting AIDS in widespread fasion, and killing a person will just end in them being dead and the killer being in prison, until each of these unchristian example sinners die and go to hell.  This means there is no evil (it can be as subjective as any atheist or Christian likes), and no force of evil nor departure from God, but it means God must be monumentally callous, to witness so much of what is suffering to us and do nothing about it.

God must either desire for us to sin or be indifferent towards our sin, in this case.  And while we are on Earth, God must not consider our suffering to be of consequence, or it wouldn't exist.  Sin and suffering are not synonymous, and there can be no denying for you that he watches so many people suffer.  Now, you have an ineffable view of the purpose of evil, that's fine, but without knowing what its purpose is, you cannot tell me God is good.  God does not meet the human definition of good so long as you attribute omnipotence to him, as no "good" human with omnipotence would leave the universe in such a state.  Whereas you may think it is a humble virtue to claim we cannot understand these problems, I think it is intellectually dishonest.  God ought to make sense, having designed our reason, if he wanted us to believe in him.  If my religion doesn't make sense, then it means I did not choose it because it was reasonable, but that I chose it because it was either forced on me (making it so I start with the assumption it is correct to find that it is correct) or because I had some incredible personal experience.  I, personally, would need to make sense of this world before buying into the image of a god that doesn't reflect reality to me.  Calling it ineffable is too easy.  The same may be done for all other gods, and it is, again, intellectually dishonest.

[Ben-AG]

Whether it is a "force of evil" or any subjective evil, the question remains as to why it exists if God is omnibenevolent.  It is possible that the only evil that exists is only in the choice itself, not even the consequences, and that not even the choice is truly evil.  That is, there is no pervasive evil force, just what choices God likes and doesn't, no right and wrong beyond his whim (his whim being free to align to as many of your morals as you like), and he's willing for us to make any choice and eventually reap his dissatisfaction, and in the mean time, any other consequences that are manifest in reality.  For example, praying instead of going to a doctor can kill you, denying condoms to Africa will result in people getting AIDS in widespread fasion, and killing a person will just end in them being dead and the killer being in prison, until each of these unchristian example sinners die and go to hell.  This means there is no evil (it can be as subjective as any atheist or Christian likes), and no force of evil nor departure from God, but it means God must be monumentally callous, to witness so much of what is suffering to us and do nothing about it.

If you are trying to understand the purpose of evil, you will be disappointed.  If you think you understand God and His purposes, your God is too small.  Furthermore, if you think God witnesses all this suffering and does nothing about it, you truly do not understand.  You do not believe God does nothing about it because you do not know God.  You do not care to see His works.  You fail to see His goodness amongst all the bad.  Of course, you are entitled to not believing He even exists which may, in your eyes, justify your arguments, but, to a Christian, the flaws in your arguments are palpable.  Where Christians go wrong in these sort of debates is present their opinion on God's purposes and write them off as the truth.  That's fallacious because even we do not know all His purposes.

God must either desire for us to sin or be indifferent towards our sin, in this case.  And while we are on Earth, God must not consider our suffering to be of consequence, or it wouldn't exist.  Sin and suffering are not synonymous, and there can be no denying for you that he watches so many people suffer.  Now, you have an ineffable view of the purpose of evil, that's fine, but without knowing what its purpose is, you cannot tell me God is good.  God does not meet the human definition of good so long as you attribute omnipotence to him, as no "good" human with omnipotence would leave the universe in such a state.  Whereas you may think it is a humble virtue to claim we cannot understand these problems, I think it is intellectually dishonest.  God ought to make sense, having designed our reason, if he wanted us to believe in him.  If my religion doesn't make sense, then it means I did not choose it because it was reasonable, but that I chose it because it was either forced on me (making it so I start with the assumption it is correct to find that it is correct) or because I had some incredible personal experience.  I, personally, would need to make sense of this world before buying into the image of a god that doesn't reflect reality to me.  Calling it ineffable is too easy.  The same may be done for all other gods, and it is, again, intellectually dishonest.

You, still, do not understand.  As a Christian, I do not believe the world and the universe is where it ends.  In fact, it is such a small fraction compared to eternity.  To call me dishonest because you do not understand Christian teachings is where the actual dishonesty spurs from.  You seem to have all your focus on here and now, which is fine, but you cannot explain away God's purposes here on Earth if that's all you see because God is so much more than the here and now.  Thus, your arguments explain themselves away when you begin to understand, according to Christianity, the Earth is not where it ends.  I am willing to endure the pains and troubles of this world because it is only a mere fraction of a second of the eternal life I will inherit if I am truly trusting in God to prevail.


It is obvious we are going to constantly clash with each other on issues such as these.  Of course, I regard your opinions and values with respect and reverence, just as I hope you respect mine.  It is quite possible we will never agree, and I am not here to convince you but merely to expand your mind and thoughts just as I hope you expand mine; close-mindedness to opposing arguments is a horrible outlook.

[PipeBox]

While I'm not sure you ought to revere my opinions, I appreciate the respect and I give you the same.  "Intellectually dishonest" isn't used as a slur to you, there are no respectful-sounding words for what I wish to say.  It is my opinion you haven't given your philosophy much thought, not that you are a liar, nor that you are deliberately avoiding examination of it.

...but you cannot explain away God's purposes here on Earth if that's all you see because God is so much more than the here and now.

How can you assume there is a purpose when you cannot define it?  How can you claim to know one is there when you don't even know what you're looking for, and you cannot point it out to us?  Do you leave every philosophical problem alone, and ignore the pain and suffering because you believe you will spend eternity in heaven, so that the "how" and the "why" are no longer of any consequence to you?  Is it only the belief that life on Earth is a small fraction of life overall that allows you to avoid rationalizing these things?  If so, why do you start with the assumption heaven exists?  Why wouldn't you think on the veracity of God to determine the veracity of heaven, rather than the other way around?

I know you aren't here to convert anyone.  I want to know what convinced you.  If it was a personal experience, I don't have any business knowing, it would sound too fantastic to me.  If you reasoned it, I want to know how, because I'm trying to not be close-minded.  If God were reasonable, I'd like to know it.  And yes, short of reasoning and personal experience, the only other way to believe God exists is with an a priori assumption that he already does, so it's not that I'm trying to be close-minded.  It's that I haven't had any personal experience I cannot explain, and definitely none that seemed to stem from a god, and that I use as few assumptions as possible.

[Ben-AG]

While I'm not sure you ought to revere my opinions, I appreciate the respect and I give you the same.  "Intellectually dishonest" isn't used as a slur to you, there are no respectful-sounding words for what I wish to say.  It is my opinion you haven't given your philosophy much thought, not that you are a liar, nor that you are deliberately avoiding examination of it.

...but you cannot explain away God's purposes here on Earth if that's all you see because God is so much more than the here and now.

How can you assume there is a purpose when you cannot define it?  How can you claim to know one is there when you don't even know what you're looking for, and you cannot point it out to us?  Do you leave every philosophical problem alone, and ignore the pain and suffering because you believe you will spend eternity in heaven, so that the "how" and the "why" are no longer of any consequence to you?  Is it only the belief that life on Earth is a small fraction of life overall that allows you to avoid rationalizing these things?  If so, why do you start with the assumption heaven exists?  Why wouldn't you think on the veracity of God to determine the veracity of heaven, rather than the other way around?

I know you aren't here to convert anyone.  I want to know what convinced you.  If it was a personal experience, I don't have any business knowing, it would sound too fantastic to me.  If you reasoned it, I want to know how, because I'm trying to not be close-minded.  If God were reasonable, I'd like to know it.  And yes, short of reasoning and personal experience, the only other way to believe God exists is with an a priori assumption that he already does, so it's not that I'm trying to be close-minded.  It's that I haven't had any personal experience I cannot explain, and definitely none that seemed to stem from a god, and that I use as few assumptions as possible.

I understand what you are saying.  Realize the "how" and "why" are NOT of any consequence to me.  Who am I to question God on his methods?  And, while God does not unambiguously make clear his purposes on things such as "evil," He does make clear His overlying purposes.  God loves us and cares us about us.  He wants us to spend eternity with Him in heaven.  He forgives us for our transgressions despite how atrocious they may be.  He wants to enter into a personal relationship with each and everyone one of us so that we can feel His love and grace.  

God does make that clear.  It is irrefutable.  When you really trust that God loves you and wants the best for you, the "how" and "why" hold no weight.  They are merely details of which, if I knew, would do me no good but perhaps to provide you with something today.  I, also, do not assume that heaven exists.  I am told through the revelation of God, that is the Bible.

As for me personally, I did not reason my way to God.  It would be very difficult to reason your way to God as God is not a God to be reasoned with.  He is a God to be trusted and loved just as He loves us.  I did not grow up in a Christian household.  As a matter of fact, my parents are still not Christians.  I, also did not come to God by an "extraordinary" revelation by anyone's standards.  Although, it was extraordinary to me.  One night as I was staring at the stars and thinking about the vastness of the universe and how insignificant I was compared to it all, I began to look back at my life, and I realized in that moment how much I needed God.  I realized my brokenness.  I had an incredible feeling that was simply unexplainable.  In that moment, I knew God existed and He was trying to talk to me.  Now, this obviously does not encapsulate the entirety of my experience with God and may not seem "extraordinary," but it is a beginning.  If you have any further questions about me personally, feel free to ask.

[PipeBox]

I know that I am insignificant and imperfect.  I don't see how that fact would drive me to believe in a god, the God of the Bible out of all of them.  I would have to reason it out, determining that it was indeed that god, if any, that I felt the presence of.  I would need its doctrines to make sense, not just speak to my desires.  I've yet to see anything in nature that only the Christian God accounts for.  It seems to me you made one incredible leap of faith, and now reject any conspicuous problems as ineffability.  Do you think there is any possibility you are wrong?  Are you open to it?  Faith that cannot be wrong is dangerous and malicious.  That kind of faith threatens my reason with damnation and coerces it with rewards that it cannot comprehend nor justify.  Blind, assumptive faith was once my starting point, and I wouldn't let it become such again.  If God cannot be made sense of, or even evidenced, I don't think he has any right to expect my blind faith.

Nothing I say will convince you, at least, I do not expect it to, and I'm not sure I'd want it to.  I could continue explaining my views, if you'd like, or just drop the conversation so you're free to observe the atheist in its natural habitat, but there is no debate.  If you believe God exists, you admit the unexplainable existence of evil and that God makes no sense outside some choice domains.  I wish you could hear me speak, because I know this reads in a caustic fashion, but that's not my tone.  If God makes you happy, may you be happy with God for all your days.  Reason is no more important in this universe than happiness.  I think they're just two choices for some of us, neither being of any value beyond what we personally ascribe to them.  But I want to understand as much as I can, even though that is very little.  That makes me happy.

[Ben-AG]

I know that I am insignificant and imperfect.  I don't see how that fact would drive me to believe in a god, the God of the Bible out of all of them.  I would have to reason it out, determining that it was indeed that god, if any, that I felt the presence of.  I would need its doctrines to make sense, not just speak to my desires.  I've yet to see anything in nature that only the Christian God accounts for.  It seems to me you made one incredible leap of faith, and now reject any conspicuous problems as ineffability.  Do you think there is any possibility you are wrong?  Are you open to it?  Faith that cannot be wrong is dangerous and malicious.  That kind of faith threatens my reason with damnation and coerces it with rewards that it cannot comprehend nor justify.  Blind, assumptive faith was once my starting point, and I wouldn't let it become such again.  If God cannot be made sense of, or even evidenced, I don't think he has any right to expect my blind faith.

I'm sorry, you cannot begin to understand my experience with God.  It is unique and personal and it is beyond my human capacity to explain it.  It is not as simple as you try to categorize it.  I provided it for you and mentioned, "Now, this obviously does not encapsulate the entirety of my experience with God and may not seem "extraordinary," but it is a beginning."  I do not expect you to understand, that's okay.  As far as a possibility of me being wrong, God is as real to me as my own mother and father.  I may not visually see Him, but I don't need to know He exists and to ask for a visual would just be bumptious.  So, if you are open to the possibility of your own mother and father not existing, then I will be open to the possibility of God not existing.  Although, this does not go to say that I think you are ignorant or oblivious.  I recognize you have different views and beliefs and respect that.  I agree, knowing God is a big leap of faith and plenty of highly intellectual people do not.  It would be a extremely difficult decision to take that leap of faith if you had not felt His love first.  Love is a requirement to trust and trust is a requirement to love.

Nothing I say will convince you, at least, I do not expect it to, and I'm not sure I'd want it to.  I could continue explaining my views, if you'd like, or just drop the conversation so you're free to observe the atheist in its natural habitat, but there is no debate.  If you believe God exists, you admit the unexplainable existence of evil and that God makes no sense outside some choice domains.  I wish you could hear me speak, because I know this reads in a caustic fashion, but that's not my tone.  If God makes you happy, may you be happy with God for all your days.  Reason is no more important in this universe than happiness.  I think they're just two choices for some of us, neither being of any value beyond what we personally ascribe to them.  But I want to understand as much as I can, even though that is very little.  That makes me happy.

I would not be here if I did not have an open mind to opposing arguments.  I really wish to peacefully coincide with people despite differing ideals/beliefs.  I am here to shed light on some miscategorizations you may have regarding Christians as I hope you will shed some light on my miscategorizations.  I think the way do that is as President Obama said today at Notre Dame, "Open hearts, open minds, and fair-minded words."

[curiosityandthecat]

I recognize you have different views and beliefs and respect that.  I agree, knowing God is a big leap of faith and plenty of highly intellectual people do not.  It would be a extremely difficult decision to take that leap of faith if you had not felt His love first.  Love is a requirement to trust and trust is a requirement to love.

In all fairness, I felt the love of Santa Claus when I was a child...

[Sophus]

"There is no good and bad but the mind makes it so." ~ Shakespeare

The entire of concept of good and evil exist only in our minds. That's why you may become bewildered while analyzing something that doesn't actually exist Ben-AG.

Love is a requirement to trust and trust is a requirement to love.

No it's not. I can't trust my son to stand up to always peer pressure when I'm not around. Doesn't mean I don't love him.

[joeactor]

Ok, I'll jump in the fray with a statement and a question...

Ben-AG: I like your general description of your belief.  That it is personal, and hard to put into words or define.

I think I agree on that level.

Now the question: Why did you choose a specific religion?  (in this case Christianity)

For myself, that was a huge incongruity.  I resolved it by becoming an agnostic theist.  God's still there, but beyond any human definition or organized belief system.

Hope this makes some sense (I'm tired!),
JoeActor

p.s.  Good thread everyone - I like it when we have a lively, civil debate ;-)

[PipeBox]

Sorry if you feel like you're getting swamped now, you can pass up this post without my ire.  My post here is more a statement than anything to be rebutted, though you may find it gives you an opportunity to elaborate on your faith:

It's worth mentioning that your parents are observable.  If they died tomorrow, you would be well aware of it.  If God died tomorrow the universe, assuming it is self-sufficient via natural mechanisms, would look. . .  exactly like it does now.  I'm not saying God can die under the Biblical model, I just want to indicate that one of these things is empirical, and the other is not.  You may feel the same certainty, but it does nothing to make God an observation.  All religions have people who are convinced of their tenets beyond the most remote doubt, or at least act as though they are.

I, however, feel the same certainty that the Earth will continue rotating tomorrow as I do that my parents exist.  Either of these things may be not be true, and their falsity can be empirically demonstrated to me when the sun does not rise tomorrow or my parents evaporate into thin air.  This is not so for God.  There is no observation in this universe sufficient to disprove his existence, so it would appear exactly the same to you if there was no God and yet nothing would be capable of convincing you.  God is not falsifiable, so by definition, you cannot be open-minded with a total belief in its existence.

I do "believe" some things, which is to say I think they follow through inductive reasoning.  I believe there won't be lions in my front yard next time I go outside because there haven't been any yet.  I believe the sun will rise tomorrow for a whole host of reasons that all round to my belief that the physical operations of the universe will continue in the same manner tomorrow as they have throughout the past.  God is not something you or I can believe in through deduction or induction, though.

[Ben-AG]

I recognize you have different views and beliefs and respect that.  I agree, knowing God is a big leap of faith and plenty of highly intellectual people do not.  It would be a extremely difficult decision to take that leap of faith if you had not felt His love first.  Love is a requirement to trust and trust is a requirement to love.

In all fairness, I felt the love of Santa Claus when I was a child...

And you have every right to believe in him.  Please, do not denigrate my God as I will try not to denigrate your Santa Claus. Thanks.

[Ben-AG]

"There is no good and bad but the mind makes it so." ~ Shakespeare

The entire of concept of good and evil exist only in our minds. That's why you may become bewildered while analyzing something that doesn't actually exist Ben-AG.

Love is a requirement to trust and trust is a requirement to love.

No it's not. I can't trust my son to stand up to always peer pressure when I'm not around. Doesn't mean I don't love him.

I am not attempting to analyze good and evil, sorry.  It is beyond my capacity to formulate analysis' of such a complex and profound concepts.  Now, you may think as Shakespeare did.  I have no problem with that, but I would say that there's a whole lot more going on than just that.

As for the second issue, I used trust and love in the broadest sense of the words.  In order for me to love people, I trust that they are innately good because God has made it so.  So, I love because I trust and trust because I love and trust God.

[Ben-AG]

Sorry if you feel like you're getting swamped now, you can pass up this post without my ire.  My post here is more a statement than anything to be rebutted, though you may find it gives you an opportunity to elaborate on your faith:

It's worth mentioning that your parents are observable.  If they died tomorrow, you would be well aware of it.  If God died tomorrow the universe, assuming it is self-sufficient via natural mechanisms, would look. . .  exactly like it does now.  I'm not saying God can die under the Biblical model, I just want to indicate that one of these things is empirical, and the other is not.  You may feel the same certainty, but it does nothing to make God an observation.  All religions have people who are convinced of their tenets beyond the most remote doubt, or at least act as though they are.

I, however, feel the same certainty that the Earth will continue rotating tomorrow as I do that my parents exist.  Either of these things may be not be true, and their falsity can be empirically demonstrated to me when the sun does not rise tomorrow or my parents evaporate into thin air.  This is not so for God.  There is no observation in this universe sufficient to disprove his existence, so it would appear exactly the same to you if there was no God and yet nothing would be capable of convincing you.  God is not falsifiable, so by definition, you cannot be open-minded with a total belief in its existence.

I do "believe" some things, which is to say I think they follow through inductive reasoning.  I believe there won't be lions in my front yard next time I go outside because there haven't been any yet.  I believe the sun will rise tomorrow for a whole host of reasons that all round to my belief that the physical operations of the universe will continue in the same manner tomorrow as they have throughout the past.  God is not something you or I can believe in through deduction or induction, though.

Understandable.  The problem arises if I ask the question is God observable?  I would assume that you do not think so.  I would say He is.  I would say that I see Him everyday work in my life and in the life of others.  I see Him everyday when I go out and stare at the stars and the majesty of nature.  I see Him everyday when He provides me with discipline and stamina to get through the treacherous valleys that I encounter as I journey through life.  I see Him everyday when He bestows upon me strength to continue living and be truly happy because I know that something unfathomably great is in order for me.  

So, yes, God is observable, and I would indubitably notice if He was gone or died, which, of course, is silly.

I do appreciate your openness to the subject and am enjoying our conversation.  I wanna thank you for maintaining civility as I have not had many encounters with proclaimed atheists as so.  Do not confuse that as a characterization of atheists, perhaps, it has just been my experience which is by no means vast.

[Ben-AG]

Ok, I'll jump in the fray with a statement and a question...

Ben-AG: I like your general description of your belief.  That it is personal, and hard to put into words or define.

I think I agree on that level.

Now the question: Why did you choose a specific religion?  (in this case Christianity)

For myself, that was a huge incongruity.  I resolved it by becoming an agnostic theist.  God's still there, but beyond any human definition or organized belief system.

Hope this makes some sense (I'm tired!),
JoeActor

p.s.  Good thread everyone - I like it when we have a lively, civil debate ;-)

I did not choose Christianity.  Christianity chose me.  I believe Jesus came to the Earth to die for my and all our sins, and, when I think about what Jesus did on that cross, I get goosebumps and an unexplainable feeling of love.  I feel as if nothing in this world matters but what is truly important.  This only adds to how much Christianity is really a reality.  I don't get goosebumps or unexplainable feelings when I think of Muhammad or I would have to rethink my beliefs.  Like I said, the Christian God is as real to me as are my parents.  I can not possibly deny Him in replace for what I believe are false idols.