# The problem of evil



## steven-nemes (May 13, 2009)

What sort of response do you make to the claim that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of a good God in control of the universe?


----------



## py3ak (May 13, 2009)

1. Not if God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil.

2. You wouldn't know what evil was apart from good. Speaking of evil presupposes the existence of good, of moral good: it is no objection at all to God's existence, if anything, it is evidence for it.


----------



## AThornquist (May 13, 2009)

If the universe is without evil, in what way is God good? _Everything_ would be neither good or evil if there were no evil, because everything would be simply the same. 

Besides, I believe we must take into account God's purpose in orchestrating history (including evil) for His greater purpose of glorifying Himself and allowing His children to enjoy Him forever.


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 13, 2009)

I would ask them to flesh out the argument. Their only shot is to leave everything implicit.

CT


----------



## larryjf (May 13, 2009)

We must start our position with the purpose of creation - to bring glory to God. Since that's the purpose we must consider what would being the most glory to God.

God is most glorified by Himself. The more facets of God that are displayed, the more glory He displays. If there was no evil in the world we would never see some of the facets of God:
His mercy on sinners
His love for the elect in dying for them
His hatred of sin
The seriousness of sin by what it cost to redeem us from it
The power that God has over recreation and not only over creation
etc, etc.

If it were not for sin we would be missing out on many facets of God...and these facets bring more glory to Him, therefore sin serves God's purpose of bringing glory to Himself until the day that He does finally judge it.


----------



## rbcbob (May 13, 2009)

I say non sequitur, and let them begin again.


----------



## Theognome (May 13, 2009)

I would argue that a good God, in this context, has a sense of humour. Obama is proof of this.

Theognome


----------



## Reformed Thomist (May 14, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> What sort of response do you make to the claim that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of a good God in control of the universe?



I would say that he or she probably has hedonistic presumptions: he or she believes that pain, suffering, dying, etc., are intrinsically _evil_. This is usually the case with atheists who posit the problem of evil.

The first thing to do is to find out precisely what 'evil' is. One consideration: Augustine taught that evil, technically, does not exist -- what we call evil is just the _privation_ (lack) of good, that which is 'left over' when goodness is rejected by choice-making/moral agents.

I am inclined to reject the presumption that natural disasters (and their natural results: animals dying), for instance -- which atheists tend to view as great evils in the world -- are actually 'evil', for they are not the result of a choice by a moral agent (capable of rejecting good). Natural disasters just _are_; they do not meet the _moral_ categories of good or evil.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (May 14, 2009)

You may find some helpful info and background here:
http://www.theopedia.com/Problem_of_evil


----------



## steven-nemes (May 14, 2009)

Thanks for the responses everyone, and just to clear up: I'm not struggling answering the question myself, I am only curious as to what kind of responses my PB brethren would give.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (May 14, 2009)

The fall.


----------



## Confessor (May 22, 2009)

If it's the deductive problem of evil, then I would easily point out that there's no inconsistency with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God and evil, for He can still decree evil for good purposes.

If it's the inductive problem of evil (e.g., that the Holocaust gives evidence against God-belief), then all that stands is an emotional hurdle -- because it's very, very easy for a Christian to defend against this, logically: e.g. "God allowed the holocaust because He desired some good to come out of it." And the best way to conquer the emotional hurdle is to explain that any suffering we experience in this world is not undeserved, and therefore not evil, by virtue of the fact that we deserve hell.

Basically, if one can grapple with the "problem" of hell, then the "problem" of evil is nullified.


----------



## william.m. (May 22, 2009)

"According to theologians the first great mystery,which refers to this subject, is the existence of sin in a God-controlled system; the second great mystery is the existence of sin in a perfect moral agent.All the wonderful explanations given to solve these great mysteries leave us just where we were before. The existence of sin is something we know and feel; its origin we cannot understand. That God has permitted sin when he could have prevented it, we cannot deny; and that, therefore, it was right for him to do so , we must not question. But why it was right for God to permit sin, we cannot tell." Evangelical Theology by Nicholson.


----------



## Claudiu (Jun 1, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7yNwEDtqjA]YouTube - Ravi on Why is there Evil in the World?[/ame]


----------



## Confessor (Jun 1, 2009)

cecat90 said:


> YouTube - Ravi on Why is there Evil in the World?



Would that apologists like Ravi be more consistent in their presuppositionalism!

Honestly, so much of what he just said is gold; what he has to realize is that he is presupposing Biblical authority and striking down unbelieving presuppositions -- the unbeliever cannot intelligibly ask the *question* of the "problem" of evil without borrowing from the Christian's worldview, which Ravi so wisely pointed out.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 1, 2009)

Confessor said:


> If it's the deductive problem of evil, then I would easily point out that there's no inconsistency with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God and evil, for He can still decree evil for good purposes.



This needs some clear qualification. Henri Blocher's book _Evil and the Cross_ makes those qualifications elegantly.


----------



## Theogenes (Jun 1, 2009)

My response to that is "Have you ever read the bible"?


----------



## Confessor (Jun 1, 2009)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> > If it's the deductive problem of evil, then I would easily point out that there's no inconsistency with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God and evil, for He can still decree evil for good purposes.
> ...



Honestly, it doesn't. Very, very few unbelievers argue for the logical inconsistency of God and evil -- such that the Christian God and _any amount_ of evil cannot logically co-exist. This is quite easily answered by the fact that God uses evil for good purposes.

Separate questions coming from this would be how God uses some specific evil, e.g. the Holocaust (which would then be inductive), or how evil came to exist in the world in the first place (which is a different question from the deductive PoE).


----------

