# Epicurus' riddle about evil and God - please solve it



## Pergamum (Oct 19, 2008)

_Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; 

or he can, but does not want to. 

If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. 

If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. 

If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?_


----------



## Timothy William (Oct 19, 2008)

God allows evil because he uses it for his own ends. His glory is displayed by his just response to evildoers, which requires that evil exist.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 19, 2008)

Isn't it more glorious to have a God that does not need people to suffer to make Him glorious?


----------



## TimV (Oct 19, 2008)

That's the exact problem with the Lapsarian issue. Either God saw Adam would sin, and chose not to do anything about it, thus becoming the author of sin, or Adam chose to sin on his own outside of God's will, thus making man's will more powerful than God.

The easiest way to answer the question is to point out that the question is unfair, in that there are only two answers, both of which are wrong. Like asking if God could make a rock too heavy for Himself to move. Either yes or no is a wrong answer. Christ, when questioned in the same manner, as in Matthew 22



> 23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24"Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"



Christ pointed out that they were in error, i.e. the question itself was based on false premise



> 29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.


----------



## Timothy William (Oct 19, 2008)

God doesn't make anyone suffer. He allows people to do evil for which they will later suffer, but he does not cause them to, for he is not the author of evil.

God doesn't need to do anything to make himself glorious. He does things, such as executing justice, to display his glory, which is not the same thing. Executing justice displays a facet of God's character, that he cannot abide evil. He would not be more glorious if he either did not have this facet, or if he did not display it.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 19, 2008)

_God doesn't need to do anything to make himself glorious. He does things, such as executing justice, to display his glory, which is not the same thing._

Good distinction.



Why is it better to have these attributes more fully displayed at the cost of the suffering of His creatures?


----------



## py3ak (Oct 19, 2008)

John Calvin (Institutes III.23.2):
The will of God is the supreme rule of righteousness, so that everything which he wills must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of his willing it. Therefore, when it is asked why the Lord did so, we must answer, Because he pleased. But if you proceed farther to ask why he pleased, you ask for something greater and more sublime than the will of God, and nothing such can be found. Let human temerity then be quiet, and cease to inquire after what exists not, lest perhaps it fails to find what does exist.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 19, 2008)

Is God "Wholly Other"?


Also, your answer Josh allows God to make something God by mere fiat, when God only decrees things in the first place because they are good.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 19, 2008)

God is only pleased in what is good. Yet evil exists. 

Jesus pronounced the destruction of Jerusalem and yet then wept over it. 

Seems that a better solution would have been to decreee that the inhabitants repent. 

If you charge me with evil and say that it seems that way only to sinful man, then I counter that God speaks of not having pleasure over the death of the wicked and was Jesus sinning by grieving over the pronouncement of the just judgment of God (i.e. Jesus was showing discontentment and dissatisfaction in God's verdict on Jerusalem by weeping....he should have said AMEN and LET IT BE)


----------



## TimV (Oct 19, 2008)

> Also, your answer Josh allows God to make something God by mere fiat, when God only decrees things in the first place because they are good.



I think some of these questions should be in the wading pool area. _Fiat_ is a Latin word that means "let there be". It's the word God used when he created everything.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 19, 2008)

Joshua said:


> The problem is that Epicurus is calling God _wicked_, when God, Who is Wholly Other, is the very definer of _wicked_. _Wickedness_ is applied only to fallen angels and men. It does not, cannot apply to the Lord.



Allow me to play the skeptic: 

God, being God, gets to do whatever he so wills, and gets to define it however he wills. Send a storm to kill thousands of people? That was good! Allow his children to suffer and die in the most horrific manner? That's nothing but pure love!
Hence, everything God does is decreed to be "good" -no matter how atrocious it may seem to us, who supposedly have been given from God the very sense of justice that makes us cry out, "That isn't fair!" - because God says so. And you'd better agree with him or he'll fling your soul into hell. You'd BETTER go around singing his praises and declaring him to be love... or else!

Done playing the skeptic.

How would you talk to such a person? I had someone like that last week. And Josh, while your comment may be true, it sure comes across to those on the outside like we've got blinders on. To be specific, that guy told me I was like one of the Germans deceived by Hitler who to the very end believed that he was the the good and noble savior of Germany in the face of all the tangible evidence. 

I was tempted to say unto him, "Well, you're OBVIOUSLY reprobate..." but I didn't. Instead I pointed out a few things I thought he should reconsider.


----------



## Timothy William (Oct 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Also, your answer Josh allows God to make something God by mere fiat, when God only decrees things in the first place because they are good.



I don't think there is a contradiction here. It is God who defines good and evil. It follows therefore both that God can decree what is good and what is evil, and that he only decrees things in the first place because they are good.

If evil is defined as disobedience to God, the question is, why does an omnipotent God allow Himself to be disobeyed? So that he can demonstrate not only his justice but his mercy and longsuffering.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 19, 2008)

What!?!? You're throwing me out of the deep end and putting me back in the kiddie pool? 

[I swear that warm water was not due to me...and that's a Babe Ruth floating around and nothing more...]


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 19, 2008)

Timothy Williams; yes, your answers are all the answers I have come up with - but I am re-probing them for weaknesses. 

God, being a communicative God, creates the world in a way so as to maximize the display of all of His attributes. Mercy cannot be displayed without misery.




Now, how do I comfort the dying with that? And why does Jesus weep over judgments that God could have prevented; does this show disunity in the Godhead?


----------



## TimV (Oct 19, 2008)

I never blamed you for that. Well....

_Fiat lux_ isn't exactly the moral equivilant of a _Fuehrer befehl_.


----------



## MOSES (Oct 19, 2008)

I personally like Herman Hoeksema's view..

In the decree of God.. *Reprobation SERVES Election*
God decreed Reprobation so as to serve that which is higer, Election.

The same type of thinking may be able to be applied to the subject here on good and evil.


----------



## beej6 (Oct 19, 2008)

As God does not need anyone or anything for His glorification,

Yet he created man in His own image,

With a free will, yet fallen and sinful,

Isn't it more glorious when said man is restored to fellowship with God?


----------



## py3ak (Oct 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Is God "Wholly Other"?
> 
> 
> Also, your answer Josh allows God to make something God by mere fiat, when God only decrees things in the first place because they are good.



Pergamum, the problem with that is then there is a standard of good outside of God, and that is an incoherent concept. God is the _summum bonum_.


----------



## Hippo (Oct 19, 2008)

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump done vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath fprepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known gthe riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 

Ro 9:20-23

This is a really hard question to which I think we have to take the same line as Paul and just trust in the mercy of God and be content that we will understand in eternity. At its heart we are trying to hold God to our own moral yardsticks which we as creatures should obey but which he as creator does not, we have to trust and love God even when we do not understand the complexities of the plan of redemption in the certain knowledge of his justice, holiness and love.


----------



## toddpedlar (Oct 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Isn't it more glorious to have a God that does not need people to suffer to make Him glorious?



First, God is glorious without anything ever happening here on earth, for "good" or "evil". People's suffering cannot "make Him glorious".

Second, by whose standard is a god who hasn't planned suffering for people "the best"? Isn't that making a god of your own preference?


----------



## toddpedlar (Oct 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> God is only pleased in what is good. Yet evil exists.



Yet it pleased God to bruise His own son.

Was God in instance pleased with Evil? 



> Jesus pronounced the destruction of Jerusalem and yet then wept over it.
> 
> Seems that a better solution would have been to decreee that the inhabitants repent.



by whose standard is that a better solution? 



> If you charge me with evil and say that it seems that way only to sinful man, then I counter that God speaks of not having pleasure over the death of the wicked and was Jesus sinning by grieving over the pronouncement of the just judgment of God (i.e. Jesus was showing discontentment and dissatisfaction in God's verdict on Jerusalem by weeping....he should have said AMEN and LET IT BE)


----------



## Mushroom (Oct 19, 2008)

> Jesus pronounced the destruction of Jerusalem and yet then wept over it.


Can someone explain exactly why the Lord wept here? Most arminians would say He was weeping over the lost. But my reading of that passage leads me to think He was rebuking the lost for resisting the salvation of the elect among them, and weeping over the hardships His people had suffered at the hands of the reprobates. Is that incorrect?


----------



## shackleton (Oct 19, 2008)

I have found this to be helpful, WCF, "5:5 The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave for a season His own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption, and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled (2 Sam 24:1; 2 Chr 32:25, 26, 31); and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support unto) Himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends (Psa 73:1-28; 77:1-10, 12; Mark 14:66-72; John 21:15-17; 2 Cor 12:7-9)."

If it is all about God and his glory and exhibiting his attributes in the world and mankind, what better way then to do it in our present world? 

What is evil exactly? What is a good definition?


----------



## MW (Oct 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.



The biblical answer (see especially Pss. 37 and 73) -- First, God is eternal; His purposes are not effected in a day, week, month, year, decade, generation, century, or millennium, but over ages. Man is on probation; the character and course of his life in this present world determines his ultimate destiny. Secondly, this purpose is not seen by looking at natural phenomenon but by observing the way of God in His sanctuary, Ps. 73:17, that is, faith believing in the sacred presence of God in human history is the essential starting point for understanding His ways; those shut out of His sanctuary have no right to speak of sacred things.

The logical fallacy of the dilemma is exposed by James Buchanan in "Faith in God and Modern Atheism Compared:"



> It does not follow, however, that because He was able to prevent the introduction of evil by His power, He permitted it from a defect of goodness. He did permit it, but with the design of overruling it for the greater good of the Universe, and the brighter manifestation of His own glory. The dilemma, as stated by Lactantius, omits this consideration altogether. It does not exhaust all possible suppositions. It is possible that He might be able to prevent, and yet willing to permit evil, with a view to a greater ultimate good. If so, infinite benevolence would concur with unerring wisdom, in adopting that plan for the government of the Universe which, on the whole, would best subserve His grand design in the creation of it.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Oct 19, 2008)

Pergy said:


> Epicurus' riddle about evil and God - please solve it
> Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;
> 
> or he can, but does not want to.
> ...



To basically reiterate Matthew's post - the answer:

Romans 8:28 

All things work together for good for those who love the Lord and are called according to His purpose. 

*All things* - even things that MAN, in his ignorance, may judge as wicked - work together for God's eternal purpose - so ultimately temporal evil serves the greater eternal good.

God does not _want_ to abolish evil. He *will* abolish it, once it has served its purpose.

Question: Is Hell itself an instrument of evil or good?


----------



## JM (Oct 19, 2008)

[video=youtube;UEkJJidVjGU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEkJJidVjGU[/video]

[video=youtube;P9b0PJDDof4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9b0PJDDof4[/video]


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy (Oct 19, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> _Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;
> 
> or he can, but does not want to.
> 
> ...



Sit back. Relax. Grab some popcorn.  This is a long post.

I'm not an expert in apologetics, but I recently heard a message by 
R.C. Sproul called "The Problem of Evil" that dealt with this very issue, so of this I borrowed from Dr. Sproul.

First off, God is omnipotent. There is no lack of capability in God. If God is not able to do what He wants, then He is not God, and this discussion doesn't really matter anyway. 

Then we need to take a look at the second statement, "If he (God) can, but does not want to (get rid off evil), he is wicked." (This is often phrased, If God can get rid off evil, but doesn't, then He is not loving.) To this I would respond, "Why?" Why is God wicked if He does not get rid off evil? Is there some cosmic rule that states that God cannot allow evil to exist? Is God evil? By no means! Yet, in a very real sense, evil is present in this world. Where did evil come from? I don't know, and Scripture doesn't say, other than that we are all completely sinful because of the Fall, and this world and everything in it is in rebellion against God because of that. 

Okay, since evil is present, God must allow it to exist. Why? An excellent answer to this is the life of Job. God asks Satan if he had considered Job, "a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil" (Job 1:8). Satan responds by saying that Job fears God only because God has hedged him in and blessed him richly. To prove that this (Job fearing God because God had blessed him) was not the case, God allowed Satan to do all kinds of horrible things to Job: destroy all his possessions, kill his children, and inflict him with an excruciating disease. 

Now, God could have kept that hedge around Job and prevented Satan from harming him, but what was gained through the suffering and pain and _evil_ that assaulted Job? What did Job learn? Not to call to God unjust (which Job did in chpt. 10 verses 2 & 3) for making him suffer. Job repented in ashes and dust, declaring that God's ways were too lofty for him to criticize unthinkingly (see Job 42:1-6).

What did God prove through this episode? That He has a reason for suffering, and that He will even work through the wickedness of others to accomplish His goals. Does God endorse evil? No, He hates it. But He does cause all things, including evil, to work together for good to those called according to His purpose. "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good."

What do we learn from this? Check out Job 34:10-15 and see for yourself.

Another thing to think about: do we deserve God to be good to us? Hmm? Do we deserve His hedge of protection from evil? 

Also, God _will_ abolish evil from this world. Rom. 8:18-23, "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies."

God did not create this world to be sinful. Sin is the result of the Fall. God did not sit idly by, helplessly wringing His hands..."Oh what am I going to do!? Those stupid people wrecked My creation!" God actively engaged Himself in redeeming His Creation from evil. Not only did He set apart for Himself a people to be undefiled, clothed in the righteousness of Christ, but also will totally obliterate evil in the world in the New Heaven and the New Earth. Listen to what Peter says, "Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth *in which righteousness dwells*." (2 Pet. 3:13)

So why is there evil in the world? There is evil in the world because an omnipotent, sovereign, holy, holy, holy God ordained it to suit His purpose. What is that purpose? Redeeming for Himself "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9). 

What better reason is there than that?


----------



## Tim (Oct 20, 2008)

There is a little book by Jay Adams called "The Grand Demonstration". It deals with this issue. Has anyone read it?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Is God "Wholly Other"?
> ...



agreed, just makin' small talk.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it more glorious to have a God that does not need people to suffer to make Him glorious?
> ...



Jesus wept for Jerusalem, it appears that Jesus desired in some way not to further glorify God through making people suffer.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

Joshua said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Is God "Wholly Other"?
> ...




You wouldn't answer a seeking agnostic or atheist about God and the problem of evil due to the verse about throwing pearls to swine?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

Calvinist Cowboy said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > _Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;
> ...



_So why is there evil in the world? There is evil in the world because an omnipotent, sovereign, holy, holy, holy God ordained it to suit His purpose. What is that purpose? Redeeming for Himself "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9). _

This purpose makes our salvation first and foremost instead of God's glory.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

Good distinction Josh.


----------



## biggandyy (Oct 20, 2008)

Methinks thoust all overthinkth the issue.

Evil is nothing. There is no thing that exists called "evil". Evil is merely a shorthand term that refers to a much broader concept, the ABSENCE of GOOD.

There is only Good in the universe since God is wholly Good He could not create anything evil. Evil is the absence of good just as dark is the absence of light.

So the original question is in error since "evil" does not exist, only varying levels of a lack of goodness or obedience to God.

As to the question, "Why is there evil in the world?" It now becomes simple. Since God is loath to force anyone to commit Good against their will He allows Mankind the option to disobey His righteous commands and precepts and hence "evil" results. There is, in essence, no evil, only the lack of good.


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 20, 2008)

Then the devil would be merely the lack of God? I don't find that position convincing.


----------



## biggandyy (Oct 20, 2008)

The devil is not the embodiment of evil but the embodiment of disobedience towards God.


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 20, 2008)

isn't disobedience towards God evil?


----------



## biggandyy (Oct 20, 2008)

That is just another name for disobedience... evil is the absence of good (construed as a verb in this sense), not God.


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 20, 2008)

But there is no good that exists independently of God. I'm not sure I understand what you have just said.


----------



## biggandyy (Oct 20, 2008)

That is spiritual good, a good that is pleasing to God through faith in Christ.

What are the things done in Good apart from God? They are called filthy rags.

What then are the things done against the Will of God? We call it "evil", but it is a lack of Goodness, so yes, all Good can not be separated from God and comes from God. So performing works of unGodliness and wickedness, are they not lacking goodness?


----------



## a mere housewife (Oct 20, 2008)

Andy (?) I'm not sure I understand what you are advocating; but I'm sure that greater minds than mine will not fail . So I'll leave it to them. Personally I find Lewis' illustration of evil as a parasite more helpful to me than the idea of it being 'nothing', as if things that have fallen into rebellion are now simply uncreated. All the best.


----------



## JM (Oct 20, 2008)

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124



> Digging a Hole in Goodness
> 
> Central to Augustine's idea of goodness (and, consequently, evil) was the notion of being. To Augustine, anything that had being was good. God as the ground of being was perfectly good, along with everything he brought into being. This goodness was a property that came in varying degrees.
> 
> ...


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 20, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> _Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;
> 
> or he can, but does not want to.
> 
> ...



Epicurius needed to repent of his idolatry and believe the truth. Satan has 36 flavors, but they all amount to rebellion against God. God is not obliged to answer to man, and any form of apologetics that suggests as much is (I believe) misguided. Man must answer to God. Since this is the case, an entirely different set of questions is in order:

Why don't you repent of the assumptions of this riddle?

Why would you fight against what you cannot defeat?

How can a wicked mind seek to understand a Holy God without God explaining Himself?


Anywho, you get the idea. God Word is the critic; man is not.

Cheers,


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy (Oct 20, 2008)

Pergamum;482205
[I said:


> So why is there evil in the world? There is evil in the world because an omnipotent, sovereign, holy, holy, holy God ordained it to suit His purpose. What is that purpose? Redeeming for Himself "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9). [/I]
> 
> This purpose makes our salvation first and foremost instead of God's glory.



No, it does not, because why has God redeemed us? "that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" It is ridiculous to think that our salvation is the chief end of God! The purpose of redemption itself is to glorify the wondrous name of God! The Gospel calls all sinners to proclaim, "Help us, O God of our salvation, _for the glory of Your name_; deliver us, and forgive our sins, _for Your name's sake_!" (Ps. 79:9)


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > _Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;
> ...



These questions are valid and there should be good answers to them that would take us deeper into the very nature of God (see Jay Adam's, Grand Demonstration). Calling people to repetance over curiosity is a bad way to teach people the truth.


----------



## Zenas (Oct 20, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> _Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;
> 
> or he can, but does not want to.
> 
> ...



You cannot assume God is wicked for refusing to abolish evil because you're applying a higher standard than God and are therefore no longer talking about God.

Moreover, God has abolished evil. His Son died on the cross for His people. While evil still exists, the sons of the prince of this world and their ruler are defeated enemies who await their final judgment.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became as fools.


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy (Oct 20, 2008)

Pergamum, forgive me if this seems harsh, but what do you want? Do you want God Himself to come down and speak to you on this matter? Many fine men have tried to answer you using Scripture, but ultimately there is no plain and simple answer. If becoming a Christian is dependent upon fully understanding the answer to Epicurus' riddle, then no one would be saved!This is why *we ourselves cannot convince people to become Christians*; it is God who must change the heart and draw people unto Himself. We can take comfort in the fact that none whom the Father gave to the Son will be lost because all who have been elected will be saved.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

Calvinist Cowboy said:


> Pergamum;482205
> [I said:
> 
> 
> ...



You appeared to put our salvation first, "What is that purpose? Redeeming for Himself "a chosen generation..."


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2008)

Calvinist Cowboy said:


> Pergamum, forgive me if this seems harsh, but what do you want? Do you want God Himself to come down and speak to you on this matter? Many fine men have tried to answer you using Scripture, but ultimately there is no plain and simple answer. If becoming a Christian is dependent upon fully understanding the answer to Epicurus' riddle, then no one would be saved!This is why *we ourselves cannot convince people to become Christians*; it is God who must change the heart and draw people unto Himself. We can take comfort in the fact that none whom the Father gave to the Son will be lost because all who have been elected will be saved.



Just curious how PBers would answer.

The problem of evil is one of the biggest obstacles to belief.


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Just curious how PBers would answer.
> 
> The problem of evil is one of the biggest obstacles to belief.



I'm not sure about anyone else, but the Holy Spirit convicted me of my evil as a part of bringing me to faith in Jesus Christ.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 20, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> These questions are valid and there should be good answers to them that would take us deeper into the very nature of God (see Jay Adam's, Grand Demonstration). Calling people to repetance over curiosity is a bad way to teach people the truth.



I'm in good company; a Jewish man wrote a letter to some saints in Rome that uses the same technique.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 20, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Just curious how PBers would answer.
> 
> The problem of evil is one of the biggest obstacles to belief.



The problem of evil is the only obstacle to belief. Man is so desperately wicked, and evil, that he chooses not to believe.


----------



## Zenas (Oct 20, 2008)

I find the problem of evil to be one of the simplest arguments against God. You have to assume that God is not God in order for there to be a problem.

If you assume that God is subject to no moral code but Himself, then He Himself decides whether or not it is good to allow evil to continue; something we recognize as naturally true, flowing from His inherent nature. Something that is ultimately Supreme naturally has nothing supreme over it. 

We see this illustrated in the stories of Joseph, Job, and when we are told that all things work for the good of those who love him; things we know in light of Scripture must be evil per the intentions of the actors, but not God.


----------



## Grymir (Oct 21, 2008)

Biggandyy hits it on the head with a winner!! So that people can understand, it's like a thermometer. We look outside and say it's cold out there! But cold isn't the 'real' measurement. A thermometer measures heat. Cold is the absence of heat. A thermometer doesn't measure 'cold'. Cold is the relative term. Heat is the absolute that we can measure. Satan is not the embodyment of evil either. 

I sometimes turn this question back on those who ask. I will tell them something like below -

""What about the evil that mankind does to each other? Isn't this 'evil' you are complaining about really cause by mankind?? And why do you keep bringing up this evil question as if it is a real argument? If God is all good and powerfull, how come my Mazda RX-7 breaks down? If God is all good and powerfull, how come I don't have a million dollars in my bank account since I became a Christian? If God is all good and powerfull, then how come I'm working in a place like this?? If God is all good and powerfull, how come there are poodles? Are you buying any of this? Then why ask the question? Is there not a better question to ask?""

I then dump that into their lap. They either walk away because they didn't really care in the first place, or they will probe themselves a little deeper and ask/tell the real reason (besides being unregenerated), or they will crack up and say that's the best answer they have ever heard a Christian say to that question. I wouldn't recomend it to all, but it has worked.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > These questions are valid and there should be good answers to them that would take us deeper into the very nature of God (see Jay Adam's, Grand Demonstration). Calling people to repetance over curiosity is a bad way to teach people the truth.
> ...



Good response, Paul does stop the mouth of the scoffers and only says "God Forbid". Is there no theodicy found in Paul or the NT, however? And what about the legitimate seeker who is searching for the truth and really wants an answer besides "That's just how it is..." (granting that you believe that there are seekers...maybe another thread can handle this)

After all many of the Reformed use the TAG to show God's existence, something that the Bible also takes for granted....are they too being foolish for trying to see the best method to defend something that doesn't need defending? If we are allowed to formulate answers in the form of TAG then we are allowed to think through and develop good arguments against Epicurus' clever little sayings.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 21, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



Pergs,

I think that no one seeks God. When someone seeks God, it is because God is calling such a one by His Word. Epicurius was a scoffer, not a seeker. Using God's word is what will create seekers; answering autonomous man's criticisms of God only serves to keep his illusion intact that he may sit on judgment of God.

Cheers,


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Christusregnat said:
> ...



Okay, Epicurus was a tuth seeker and a scoffer at the same time...fair'nuff....

I can't speak for Epicurus, but I can sure speak for the many people who have paraphrased this riddle to men and most of them were seriously (seemingly so) looking for answers.... should I have answered them?


Why is there TAG out there and a whole lotta reformed apologists if we're not to answer autonomous man's critcisms of God?


Also, on this whole subject of seeking, there is another thread out there floating somewhere (maybe next to some weird thread about Preparation H perhaps) about Seeking. Jonathan Edwards preached about the manner in which the unsaved should seek God.

Here's a few thoughts:

Seeking God

The Manner of Seeking Salvation

Seek the Lord while he may be found...



Yes, there is none that seeks God apart from Grace but God does awaken sinners to their need and the Holy Spirit does do some pre-conversion work in the soul (ploughing the soil)....


----------



## py3ak (Oct 21, 2008)

I think this thread is coming to the end of its time of usefulness and should shortly be retired. It begins to repeat itself like a person who can no longer remember what he has said.

Here is C.S. Lewis

"I still think the argument from design the weakest possible ground for Theism, and what may be called the argument from un-design the strongest for Atheism.
"Of course my error was in asking how I knew the universe to be so bad: whence came the light wh. discovered this darkness, the straight by which I judged this crookedness?"

Unbelievers assume a standard other than God, which begs the question. 

Defining evil as the absence of good does not pass muster: it renders incoherent the concept of "great evil" because since existence is itself a good, a "great evil" would have to be very nearly non-existent. _Perversion_ comes closer to the mark.

Anyway, let's wrap it up.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Oct 21, 2008)

God has not destroyed evil yet, because of the Elect...He decreed that He will destroy it, and has not yet done so, because all (the elect) must come to the Knowledge of Christ first. It is quite simple. When the last of the elect is saved, then God will destroy with fire the elements and wipe wickedness from the face of the earth.

Nice riddle though.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2008)

Thaks all! This thread was based on questions to me by "seeking" unbelievers. I am searching for the best point and counterpoint regarding this argument against the existence of God. My way of presenting all this may have muddied the process, but thanks for the interactions.....I've been dealing with a lot of unbelievers lately who doubt God, dislike the church and don't see a difference in the goodness of His People and the world....and I am rattled, which might explain my oddness of late (even more than normal).....


----------

