Quote of the Day: John MacArthur

 

Why does God allow evil?

"In order that He (God) might put His glory on display. If there's no sin, there's no forgiveness, no grace, no mercy, no compassion, no kindness..."

—John MacArthur pic.twitter.com/8EUflSh2Uu

— Danny (@Truth_matters20) September 10, 2025

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Day God Overslept (Well, One of Many Days)

It's that old chestnut again: The Problem of Evil. This time a slightly different slant is given by David Madison over at Debunking Christianity. I will again leave his word in black with my responses in red font. Let's see if this slant is any better than any of the others trotted out.


Theodicy, AKA The Litany of Excuses



In March 1996, in Dunblane, Scotland, a gunman walked into a school and killed sixteen children and their teacher. Among the many flowers that were left outside the school in thedays following, one bouquet was accompanied by a Teddy Bear with a note tied around its neck: “Wednesday 13 March 1996–the day God overslept.”

I remember when this incident happened. Unfortunately it was not the first time nor the last time such a horrific thing has happened. The annecdotal note and the article under consideration here seem to be making a point that if God was awake and active that gunman would not have killed all those people. The thought assumes that God is obligated to keep bad things from happening to people in general and to us in particular. The Bible never tells us that but many of us people are still quick to make this assumption.

For those raised to believe in a good god who also happens to be all-powerful, such evil is inexplicable. Theologians have given it their best shot—over and over, throughout the millennia—but none of their explanations really satisfy. As one of them, Uta Ranke-Heinemann has admitted, “The question of the origin of evil, of what causes the tears
and deviltries of the world, the question that no
theologian has so far managed to answer, is one that humans have always posed.” (Putting Away Childish Things, p. 62)

People who find the problem of the origin of evil as inexplicable to the point of absurdity should really consider if they understand what the Bible means where it says that God is "good". I think what people really think is that if God is good then it is unthinkable that he would allow anything bad to happen to good people. We think that we ourselves in particular are too good to deserve the bad things in life that befall us  Therefore, of course God should not allow us to suffer. When we see someone else suffer, especially when we think they are innocent, we wonder why it happens and if something like that or worse could happen to us?

Many serious thinkers have concluded from the existence of massive evil andsuffering that there probably isn’t a good god overseeing the Cosmos. Most believers can’t go that far, and reach for other explanations. Hence one mourner in Dunblane chose the metaphor of oversleeping to excuse God’s inattention. This metaphor is milder than Nietzsche’s famous declaration that “God is dead,” but “God overslept” is still just an attempt—tinged with cynicism it seems to me—to come to terms with God’s absence or indifference. Why didn’t God—almighty God who knows if even a sparrow falls to the ground (Matt. 10:29)—jam the gun that day?

Just because something bad happens does not mean that God is not inattentive. It does not mean that God did not know it was going to happen. It does not mean that God did nothing. Obviously the situation could have been far worse and that does mean that God constrained it to make it not as bad. as it could have been. For example, what if the man had succeeded in killing every person at that school that day. I think that was intention. What stopped him? God.  What about the people that was killed? I don't know! I think we should not be afraid to admit that. I don't know why God does what He does in every situation. None of us do. That should be okay. He is sovereign and under no one. This is where trust and faith kick in. We know that God knows what God is doing and he does what is best for everyone in the ultimate sense that will bring God the most glory although I do not understand it all now!

Sounds so simple, doesn’t it? God could have jammed the gun. Why not? But even
many Christians would respond, “Well, the world doesn’t work that way.”Of course not. But why not, if “he’s got the whole world in his hands”? The disconnect between such sentimental religious banalities and the real world can be very jarring. With so much evil and misery on this planet, how is it consoling, let alone true, that “he’s got the whole world in his hands”?

I know people who have experience the "gun jammed" moment. Instances where people were in life threatening situations but God miraculously saved their lives - including having a loaded gun's trigger pulled in their face but God making the gun jam. I say God did it because the gun should have gone off,. God does exactly that kinds of stuff even today. That being said, God does not do that all the time nor are we promised that he would do it all the time. God having "whole world in his hand" is only consoling if you know him!

Many explanations have been offered to account for suffering in our tiny corner of a Cosmos supposedly supervised by a caring and all-powerful god. The result of this major theistic preoccupation can be labeled The Litany of Excuses (although it’s officially called theodicy). Most Christian laypeople can usually round up a few of the standard apologies if asked point-blank why God tolerates so much evil and suffering.

"The Litany of Excuses" appears to presupposes that God has to defend his decisions and ways in terms of what happens to us He is the potter and we are clay. He gets to do what he wants and does not answer to any of us. I hope by "apologes", Madison is using the word in its classical definition as "defenses". God does not need to say "sorry" to anyone for anything. 

But I’ve found that believers balk at any hard thinking that would require serious homework on this issue. They usually don’t grasp how fraught with difficulties the common excuses are. The apologies sound okay only on the surface. Folks who blithely offer two or three excuses for God’s tolerance for suffering and evil usually have not thought deeply enough about the excuses to see how vulnerable they are. For example, those who claim that free will lets God off the hook on a lot of suffering don’t
grasp how free will goes off the rails before it accomplishes much of anything. Nor do they seem to be aware that the standard excuses have been vetted by non-religious philosophers, and commonly found wanting. They seldom—if ever—ask where they can find the exhaustive theodicy literature that is available. I’ve never heard a Christian say, “I’d better read up on this. There must be lots of books on my favorite apology for God. Where can I find them?”

Finally something Madison writes makes sense. The "free will" theodicy is indeed not a good argument  and is not Biblical. It has been 2000 years and plenty of good answers for this.

Secular philosophers understand that the excuses don’t hold water—that’s commonly why they became secular philosophers—and theologians differ as to which are worth clinging to, and offer strained and forced defenses of those that they prefer.

It seems that Madison is coming from an Arminian perspective and I find that theology woefully inadequate for answering the Problem of Evil because all you really have the free will defense that I think that it really sucks, To see see better discussion seen Genesis 50, Romans, Habakkuk, the works of Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Spurgeon, John Piper, RC Sproul, James White, and many others.

David Madison was a pastor in the United Methodist Church for nine years, and has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. His book, Ten Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief: a Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith, was published by Tellectual Press in August 2016.


Keep praying for David Madison

Debunking Christianity: The Day God Overslept (Well, One of Many Days)

Debunking Christianity: Does God Really Show That He Loves Us?

Recently, John Loftus posted an article recently in which he makes an attempts to argue that Jesus' sacrifice does not show that God loves us. He says that if God really loved us he would make himself easier to find scientifically because the Bible is not good  enough evidence and would not allow "so much intensive ubiquitous gratuitous suffering in the world". As usual Loftus makes a great many bad assumptions demonstrating that he has no idea what he is talking about. Jesus did not just die for us. He died for his enemies. All of us at one time were his enemies - hostile and hated God. Unfortunately, John Loftus is still like that and despite what he thinks - always was. Despite our evil, Jesus died to redeem us - we were so encumbered and enslaved that we didn't even know we needed a savior. Loftus wrote this granting that Jesus died for us, but what he has missed is that he can't quantify nor demonstrate what "gratuitous" suffering is. Just how much is too much? He doesn't see the point that God does not just allow evil things to happen. God also restricts and contains evil. Evil is on a leach in Jesus' hand. Jesus not only saves us from sin, but without his sacrifice and changing hearts and minds throughout history, He has prevented much evil.  Go ahead and a laugh. Read Loftus' comment below. The real interesting thing is that it is those who reject Christ are the ones who are drowning and they do not want rescue.

This is how God shows that he loves us. We're supposed to believe God expressed his love by sending his son to die for us based on 2nd, 3rd, 4th handed testimony found in manuscripts dated to the 4th century AD from a pre- scientific superstitious people in a remote part of the ancient world, who included forged texts in their holy book that reinforced their hindsight conclusions, who destroyed other texts that disagreed, and who subsequently killed off anyone who didn't accept those beliefs, despite the fact that this same God allows so much intensive ubiquitous gratuitous suffering in the world? Nope, not a chance. Not even close. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Debunking Christianity: Does God Really Show That He Loves Us?

Ravi Zacharias on the Problem of Evil - Apologetics 315

English: Ravi Zacharias signing books at the Future of Truth conference (2004) at Moody Memorial Church in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Brian Auten posted the following quote from Dr. Ravi Zacharias. It's a gem!

"When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. What is your question?"

—Ravi Zacharias

In response to the objection, "There cannot be a God, because there is too much evil in this world."
Can Man Live Without God?, p. 182 [HT]

Ravi Zacharias on the Problem of Evil - Apologetics 315

Related articles

• Ravi Zacharias - What does it mean to be human
• Ravi Zacharias at 'A summit on Islam' January 10 and 12, 2013 in Orlando, Florida
• Inspiration for the day, Jan. 15, 2013

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Force of the Problem of Suffering vs the Evidence for Christianity

One of the arguments that John Loftus keeps bringing up against Christianity is the Problem of Evil/Suffering.  I don't believer it is a powerful defeater at all and Christians need not cower from it in the least. Here is Loftus' latest attempt to use the Problem of Evil and ending up in a FacePlant.

There are plenty of defeaters to the Christian faith that come especially from evolutionary science, archaeology, psychology, neurology, anthropology, biblical criticism, and so forth.
 
So he keeps saying, yet he inevitably defaults to this one because it's emotionally charged - easier to get people to turn their minds off. 

Earlier I wrote what I consider a refutation of Christianity when it comes to the problem of suffering, using one specific example, the Black Death Plague.

It didn't help then either. 

I'm guessing Christians just don't have an answer to this problem except to say that God knows best, depending completely on what I call the Omniscience Escape Clause, which pretty much makes their faith unfalsifiable. We have other reasons to trust in God even when we cannot explain his inaction in the world, they say. Okay then, how do these other reasons compare with this particular defeater? That's the question I want to explore.

I find it crazy how someone like Loftus can harp on God's inaction when bad things happen that cause human suffering but unwilling to give God credit when  disaster and suffering is averted. We don't know how much suffering is averted or mitigated. If this makes God unfalsifiable then why do people like him feel emboldened to declare that there is no God.  The best they could say is that they don't know and have failed to debunk God. But I guess that is too much honesty to expect.




Christians have philosophical arguments for God's existence. But if you actually read the literature on both sides they are at best a wash, that is, given the counter-arguments they do not establish the case at all. Furthermore, these arguments do not lead to any one particular god. Much more work needs to be done in order to establish that the Christian God exists. In order to do this the evidence for miracles in the distant ancient superstitious past must lead to that particular God. As I've argued before, theists disagree over this supposed evidence even though they all believe in a creator God. Theists are just as skeptical of each others distinctive religious miracles as I am of them all.

Either way, that would make atheism wrong. 

Take for example the Jews of Jesus’ day. They believed in Yahweh, that he performs miracles, and they knew their Old Testament prophecies. Yet the overwhelming majority of them did not believe Jesus was raised from the dead by Yahweh. Since these Jews were there and didn't believe, why should we? No really. Why should we? Why should anyone? The usual answer is that these Jews didn't want to believe because Jesus was not their kind of Messiah, a king who would throw off Roman rule. But then, where did they get that idea in the first place? They got it from their own Scriptures. And who supposedly penned them? Yahweh. Christians will also claim God needed for them to crucify Jesus to atone for our sins, just as he needed Judas to betray him. So God needed to mislead them about the nature of the Messiah too. But look at the result. Because he used people for whom we're told he loves, Christians have also been given a reason to persecute, torture and kill Jews throughout the centuries for their alleged crime (the Romans are actually the guilty ones). Not only this, but the overwhelming majority of Jews will go to hell, where Judas is right now. Does this sound fair for a righteous omniscient judge? It smells exactly like entrapment pure and simple.

Christians are never told by God to persecute, torture and kill Jew. If Jesus can forgive them while He was hanging on the cross, what right do we have for hating Jews? Loftus is employing faulty logic and ignoring the Bible - by which Christians should follow. It is not like all the Jews of Jesus' day rejected him  ALL of the first Christians were Jews! Need more proof?  Read Romans 9, 10, 11.

Beyond this we know that the supposed resurrection of a virgin-born Son of God took place in an ancient pre-scientific superstitious age where virgin-born sons of God were believed to walk the earth, as biblical scholar Robert Miller shows in his book Born Divine. In addition, Richard Carrier looked at the superstitious nature of the people in the Roman Empire in Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels, and concluded

...the age of Jesus was not an age of critical reflection and remarkable religious acumen. It was an era filled with con artists, gullible believers, martyrs without a cause, and reputed miracles of every variety. In light of this picture, the tales of the Gospels do not seem very remarkable. Even if they were false in every detail, there is no evidence that they would have been disbelieved or rejected as absurd by many people, who at the time had little in the way of education or critical thinking skills. They had no newspapers, telephones, photographs, or public documents to consult to check a story. If they were not a witness, all they had was a man's word. And even if they were a witness, the tales above tell us that even then their skills of critical reflection were lacking. Certainly, this age did not lack keen and educated skeptics--it is not that there were no skilled and skeptical observers. There were. Rather, the shouts of the credulous rabble overpowered their voice and seized the world from them, boldly leading them all into the darkness of a thousand years of chaos. Perhaps we should not repeat the same mistake. After all, the wise learn from history. The fool ignores it.

Again, why should we believe? Why should we believe what some people in a lone place on the planet said took place in the pre-scientific superstitious past? The past is notoriously difficult to mine for its nuggets of truth.

So where do you draw the line? Think about it. If Loftus, Carrier, and many liberal scholars are correct then we cannot know what really happened at any time in the past before Newspapers, and modern technology. History becomes suspect. Why study it? What happens to the idiom "Those who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it.". I disagree that it's that dire and we can't reliably know anything about the ancient past. 

 This problem is exponentially compounded by the fact that we're supposed to believe that miracles took place in this era. Gotthold Lessing puts a fine point on this problem when he said:

“Miracles, which I see with my own eyes, and which I have opportunity to verify for myself, are one thing; miracles, of which I know only from history that others say they have seen them and verified them, are another.” “But…I live in the 18th century, in which miracles no longer happen. The problem is that reports of miracles are not miracles…[they] have to work through a medium which takes away all their force.” “Or is it invariably the case, that what I read in reputable historians is just as certain for me as what I myself experience?" Link.

I disagree. God is still working today in the 21st Century and I see no reason to understand that he worked in the 18th century also.

All that Christian apologists have is 2nd -3rd, -4th handed written testimony found only in manuscripts dated to the 4th century AD when we know that Christians doctored up texts like the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. XVIII. 63 - 4) in a time when they also forged the Donation of Constantine, as but the most recognized examples.

Really? Even the most liberal atheist scholar would agree that the autographs date back to the 1st century even if our copies are from later.

The evidence of the Gospels would be thrown out as unreliable testimony in any reasonable court proceedings. Even if not, we couldn't trust this testimony until we could interrogate those so-called witnesses ourselves. Almost all of our important questions are left unanswered. We cannot interrogate these ancient texts, their authors, nor the people who they claim testify of such things. Furthermore, there is the utter lack of a great deal of independent collaborative evidence..

Has anyone ever interviewed Julius Caesar? According to what Loftus just wrote we should throw out everything we know about him because we can't talk to him or any of the people who first wrote anything about him. Is he willing to do that? I'm not. As for his claim that the Gospels are not reliable evidence better people then him have tried to demonstrate that and failed. 

Christians will argue their faith has unique elements to it so it must therefore be more credible. Although this is almost certainly debatable, what does it prove if so? Most religions have unique elements to them, as does Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventism, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and the late Marshall Applewhite's Heaven's Gate group. In fact, uniqueness is what can propel a new religion forward. But it says nothing about whether it's true at all.

The only sane thing he wrote in this entire post.....

If God wanted to shoot himself in the foot, he did a great job of it.

...followed by the lamest. 

Undeterred, Christians claim they have religious experiences from their God that confirms their faith. But important questions abound. Why is it that only people in their particular faith have these so-called veridical experiences? Why is it that most all Christians claim to have had these experiences when some of them condemn the others to hell?

 Read Romans 9 and Acts 1. And non-Christians do have dreams and visions supporting Christianity.

 If God is granting these experiences to others then he is offering non-Christian believers evidence that their own faith is true and will subsequently send them to hell for not accepting the one true Christian faith.

No. Hell is the default destination. Because of our sins it was already on lock.  We are saved from hell because of what Jesus did for us. Rejecting it means that you just keep going on your merry way.

Why is it that so many people on the planet with different conceptions of God all claim to have these same type of experiences? What value is it to have an experience when the content of that experience only confirms what you already believe? We know that every believer thinks God agrees with them about everything!

Not true. The goal is to align yourself with God. It will never be the other way around. The reason why becoming a Christian means a necessary transformation (read Romans 12) is because by default we are not like God and need to be changed and only God can do it. He replaces your heart of stone with a heart of flesh.  

So I put it to you. Does the the force of the empirical evidence for the problem of suffering outweigh the force of the evidence for the Christian faith?

No because like R.C. Sproul said when asked why do bad things happen to good people, "It has only happened once, and he volunteered."

I think it does, most emphatically. All Christians can do is skirt the issue, depend on the "you too" fallacy, appeal to ignorance, special pleading and begging the question. In other words, they got nothing, nothing much at all. And like I said, this is just one of many defeaters.

 John Loftus should invest in the other "defeaters" because this one does not fly very far.

No wonder I call Christianity a delusion.

Yeah a deluded person thinks that people who disagree with him thinks they are deluded. 

And no wonder I cannot argue Christians out of their faith, since as deluded people within their Christian culture, they were never argued into their faith in the first place.

Exactly. Christian faith is a gift from God.

Debunking Christianity: The Force of the Problem of Suffering vs the Evidence for Christianity

Owned - Debunking Christianity: James Holmes and the Perpetual Miracle Objection

John Lofus has continued his series of blog posts in which he tries to judge God for allowing James Holmes to a massacre and injure innocent people at the premiere of the movie Dark Knight Rises at a movie theater in Aurora,Colorado. His basic contention is that if God is what Christianity says God is, then horrible tragedies should not happen leading him to the conclusion that God does not exist. In this series he tried to argue against why God didn't intervene. Before going through is post, I think it's important to remember that the fact that more people did not die in that theater is due that God did intervene. However God did not intervene in the way many of us think God should have, but we don't have all the facts or know what God's purposes are in this to judge God.


When it comes to the problem of suffering for a good omnipotent God, in my books I argue for the possibility of perpetual miracles from God that alleviate suffering among his creatures. I call it the Perpetual Miracle Objection. David Hume didn't use this exact phrase when he objected that the ordering of the world by general natural laws "seems nowise necessary" for God, but it's the same concept. Link. Let's apply this line of argumentation to what Holmes did and see another preemptive way God could have averted the massacre from happening if he exists and if he cares. 

I think scripture upholds that that God could indeed perform miracles continuously so that no one would ever suffer, but would that be really helpful? I don't think so. For example, what if it was impossible to fall off a cliff, building, or bridge because God perpetually changed physics because it would be impossible to die that way and each time it happens God delivers the person differently. If this were true, how would we be able to do science if we didn't know how nature would respond to what we do?  That's a huge show stopper. 

The other thing why is there a mutually exclusive choice between God being obligated to avert the massacre and the idea that if God does not avert it then he does not care or does not exist? Be real. Why would it follow that if God exist or cares that he should have stopped James Holmes. The choice that God would have a sufficient purpose for allowing is just left aside because Loftus has made up in his finite mind that there is no way that could make sense - something that John Loftus could not even begin to substantiate or explaln because he does not know everything.

Does anyone think God could not have created our world in such a way that some kinds of inventions could never be made? 

Sure God could have created our world so that some kinds of inventions could not be made. 

Nuclear weapons would be the most obvious example. If this universe didn't contain uranium (U-235) or plutonium (Pu-239) they could never be made. If such a universe could not be created or be self-sustaining without uranium and plutonium, then what's the problem for God? He could still perform one or more perpetual miracles after the fact, by making this world appear fine-tuned as it does without them. He could have created this universe as it now is and then later performed several perpetual miracles. What is there about an actually existing fine-tuned universe such that it is preferable over constant divine maintenance with the appearance of being fine-tuned? Is God lazy or something? He could even perpetually keep scientists from discovering how to make these kinds of weapons. But he either didn't think about these possibilities, or he cannot do what is required, or he doesn't care. You pick. 

There is no way that Loftus could know what possibilities God did or did not consider when God created our universe. I think it is really silly to suggest that the universe isn't fine-tuned because weapons grade uranium and plutonium exists. Again we don't know all the purposes for them and I'd argue that they may be very necessary for our very existence. As for the suggestion that God could have prevented scientists from discovering how to make nuclear weapons, I'd argue that God did exactly that. Ever wonder why the Nazis failed to develop the atomic bomb first? I mean given that all the best work in nuclear physics was being done in Germany. Why did they fail? Two major issues. Many of those German scientists were Jews and they went to work for the United States. The other problem was the Nazi scientists overestimated the amount of Uranium-235 needed to sustain an explosive nuclear reaction. They incorrectly concluded that there would be no way to extract enough U-235 for uranium ore to get the amount needed (about 15 kg). However, our scientist figured out how to do it (and it isn't easy) and that is one reason why not just any country can make nuclear weapons. And a plutonium bomb is even more difficult to make. God does indeed know what Gos is doing and we don't.

Weapons, that's what I'm talking about here.




But it was because of the same nuclear technology that made the bomb possible, also made the nuclear power plants possible. 

Let's weigh the advantages of the invention of gunpowder with the disadvantages of the human carnage it has caused. Would we be better off? Would the advantages be worth the human carnage?

And just how would anyone of us begin to judge or weigh that?

Would we be able to have roads, railroads, and bridges without it? Would we be able to mine gold or silver without it? Conversely, would we discover other means to kill large numbers of people just as easily? While these questions deserve more than simplistic answers I don't think there would be anything problematic in living without gunpowder.

 Gee, I wonder how would John Loftus go about proving that that is true.  Being finite and limited, no once could honestly believe that we don't need gunpowder.

 After all, human life flourished without it until it was discovered in the 9th century by the Chinese. The lack of gunpowder would inhibit the rise or modernity but why is that important to a God who merely wants to test our souls for an eternal reward or punishment? 

I wonder why John Loftus cannot see why God would want human beings to gain the technological knowledge that we have reached? Who says that God only wants to test our souls for eternal reward or punishment? God already knows that our souls are only worthy of punishment without God's intervention. The Bible tells us what God's purpose for God's people and it's not test our souls because God already knows how crappy we are. (see Romans 8:28,29). Regardless of whether you agree that it is true or not, you have to agree that God's purpose is not to test our souls for eternal reward or punishment.

This could go for such explosives as C-4 too, perhaps others.

Yes, it does. 

Without gunpowder James Holmes would only have a spear, sword and/or a knife. He would not do as much damage. He would not kill or maim so many people.

Not in a short time, but given that the other people in the theater were not armed, the loss of any life is not any less tragic even if there had been fewer people hurt of killed. It also would not change the thrust of the question for why God allowedJames Holmes to kill anyone. We don't know but what we cannot conclude is that God does not exist or that God does not care, no matter how much you want to assert it.

Debunking Christianity: James Holmes and the Perpetual Miracle Objection

Related articles

• 'Batman' Shooter James Holmes -- Sent Massacre Plans to Professor BEFORE the Shootings
• Miracle At Aurora Shooting 22 Years in the Making
• Graphic: James Holmes was a man with a plan
• John Loftus (Debunking Christianity) "is done"

"If God is All-Powerful, Why does Evil Exist?"

Why does God allow evil to exist - even thrive? This question is one of the major questions of life. It's important. Your answer to it shapes your worldview - your thoughts, your actions, and the things that you say. I've written many posts on theodicy. One of the reasons is that the objections underlying this question are what often what makes people decide to reject God. Here are some answers provided by several scholars and people who have studied and searched for an answer to this question.


Greg Koukl





Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: Greg Koukl- "If God is All-Powerful, Why does Evil Exist?"

Ravi Zacharias








Lee Strobel


http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/07/why-does-god-allow-tragedy-and-suffering.html


Norman Geisler







Bill Honsberger

http://www.havenministry.com/A%20letter%20on%20the%20problem%20of%20evil.htm


Walter Martin

Evil and Human Suffering, part 1 and part 2

William Lane Craig

  

The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists #12

John Loftus has posted a link to a  list of questions for theists from another blog. Rather than answer all of them in a single post, I will take each of them one at a time. Today:

12. Why are pain and pleasure so connected to the biological goals of survival and reproduction, but morally random? Is there some greater good that logically requires (or logically requires risking) that suffering be used to motivate animals to pursue the biological goal of self-preservation? Does some moral end make it desierable for suffering to continue even when it serves no biological purpose? For example, why do sentient beings, including animals which are not moral agents, experience pain or pleasure that we do not know to be biologically useful?

The goal of self-preservation is not what the purpose of life. Suffering in life is not for a biological purpose. The reason for the confusion is that we need to know why creation is subjected to suffering and why.

¹⁸ I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. ¹⁹ For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that^[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

²² We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. ²³ Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴ For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? ²⁵ But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

²⁶ In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. ²⁷ And he who searches our heartsknows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

²⁸ And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who^[i] have been called according to his purpose. ²⁹ For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. ³⁰ And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. - Romans 8:18-30

The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why don't all animals photosynthesise? (the Problem of Evil revisited)

Jonathan Pearce has posted one of his videos on Debunking Christianity. It is an attempt to pose the Problem of Evil in such a way that "free will" theodicies will not work."Free Will" theodicies annoy me almost as much as arguments like the ones presented below.





Pearce writes:

The follow on question, asked in the book, is why it was deemed necessary to design a system whereby animals need energy at all. There is a much wider debate vis-a-vis energy in this here universe.

And here is the video's description:

This video seeks to pose a really difficult question that God needs to answer! If God is omnibenevolent, -potent and -scient then why dis he design a world where the pain and suffering of billions of animals is required so that other animals can merely exist?

The problem is arguments like this that ask why did God create a world in which animals must kill other animals to survive miss a very key point: we are looking at the creation after the fall. According to scripture, there was nothing killing anything before Adam disobeyed God. There was no dying or death. We miss the fact that sin is really that bad. There was no decay. There was no pain or suffering. God's creation was perfect and then by choosing to reject God we started evil in this world. Everyone. Even those who have repented did not start that way.

When God restores the universe back to the way it was before people screwed up. we won't have animals killing other animals.

⁶ The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling^[a] together;
    and a little child will lead them.
⁷ The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox. - Isaiah 11:6-7


²⁴ Before they call I will answer;
    while they are still speaking I will hear.
²⁵ The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
    and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,”
says the Lord. - Isaiah 65:24-25
I know what you are thinking.:  I didn't answer the question for why God didn't make us so that we would make food using photosynthesis or some other mechanism. It's moot. Had we not been sinners, there would be no death. However, the reason why God doesn't spontaneously intervene so that we have no evil or death because if He did, none of us would be here. We would not have been born. And God has a purpose and reason for everything that happens or is done.The Bible even tells us why. Have a look at Paul's Theodicy:

¹⁸ I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. ¹⁹ For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that^[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
²² We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. ²³ Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴ For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? ²⁵ But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
²⁶ In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. ²⁷ And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God. - Romans 8: 18-27




Debunking Christianity: Why don't all animals photosynthesise? (the Problem of Evil revisited)

FacePalm of the Day: Debunking Christianity: "Why We Must Treat the Bible No Differently Than Any Other Book" By Biblical Scholar James A. Metzger

John Loftus posted the following comment from Dr James A. Metzger

...many theologians and biblical scholars continue to speak of the Christian God in only the most sterling manner: as, for instance, all-loving, just, infinitely wise, and inexhaustibly merciful. But this is not the God of the Bible – not even close. If that were the God of the Bible, I would retain little respect for its authors, who would have proven themselves far more interested in promoting a fiction they liked than in bearing witness to the terrible, unpredictable Power they felt best accounted for (often unseemly) facts on the ground. There’s just no way that the omnibenevolent, all-wise Sovereign of traditional Christianity created and presides over this place. No, if there’s a God at all, he’s likely just the sort we find in the Bible – magnanimous and cruel, loving and spiteful, noble and base, impulsive and deliberate, intelligent and incompetent, responsible and spectacularly negligent. A little like us, in fact, but with a lot more power. Link

This is really amazing...but not in a good way. Metzger seems to think that there is a conflict between describing God as "all-loving, just, infinitely wise, and inexhaustibly merciful" and the actions of God in the Bible. I disagree. There is no contradiction. I think Metzger is confused because he mistakenly thinks that the Bible describes a god like us despite all of the chapters and verses describing how God is not like us at all.

Here are just two but there are loads of others

⁶ Seek the LORD while he may be found;
   call on him while he is near.
⁷ Let the wicked forsake their ways
   and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on them,
   and to our God, for he will freely pardon.  ⁸ “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
   neither are your ways my ways,”
            declares the LORD.
⁹ “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
   so are my ways higher than your ways
   and my thoughts than your thoughts.
¹⁰ As the rain and the snow
   come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
   without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
   so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
¹¹ so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
   It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
   and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.- Isaiah 55:6-11

And

¹⁹ God is not human, that he should lie,
   not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
   Does he promise and not fulfill?- Numbers 23:!9

Metzger seems to be making a major mistake. Where the Bible tells of  God's justice and punishment of sin, he fails to see that it does not mean that God is not benevolent or loving. He is like a child who pouts because of his being chastised and disciplined by his parent - although he knows he deserves it. Metzger makes the same mistake many Christians make in thinking that God is just a buddy - an equal. God is not like that at all. "Sovereign" is too small a word to describe God's authority., power, and the right to do anything pleases and how he pleases it - even if we don't like it. God is so much in control, he even allows us to not like it so that we know just how much we need God. It's a blessing.  You get to understand God better and yourself as you understand your relationship with God better. God always causes His people to triumph, but we don't get tell God what that triumph looks like - He tells us. Recall that God does give us mercy but He decides to whom, when, and how much.

¹⁴ What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! ¹⁵ For he says to Moses,
   “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
   and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
 ¹⁶ It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. ¹⁷ For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” ¹⁸ Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
 ¹⁹ One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” ²⁰ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” ²¹ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
 ²² What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³ What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— ²⁴ even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 9:14-24

Debunking Christianity: "Why We Must Treat the Bible No Differently Than Any Other Book" By Biblical Scholar James A. Metzger

Related articles

• Questions, Anyone? (lessfruit.wordpress.com)
• What Doctrines Are Fundamental?, Part 1: By Dr. John MacArthur (chaplaingary.wordpress.com)
• The Bible should be taught at school (new.exchristian.net)
• Almond Ministries. (goldenfingers.wordpress.com)

Ehrman's Problem: A Critique by Clay Jones - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted links to a series of articles in which Dr. Clay Jones critiques Dr. Bart Ehrman's book on the problems of evil and suffering, entitled "God's Problem". Ehrman really seems to think that the Bible does not offer an adequate theodicy for explaining suffering and evil. I disagree. You can read why Jones disagree by visiting Brian Auten's blog to get the links to Jones' articles.

Ehrman's Problem: A Critique by Clay Jones - Apologetics 315

FacePlant of the Day: Response to Quote of the Day: Desposyni: Stephen Colbert on Pain

I recently posted a link to an article in which Stephen Colbert actually gives a good Biblically sound theodicy. I had an anonymous comment on my post that reads:

This is only "much wisdom" because it's universal to the human experience and because any mention of God or Christ could be removed from what Stephen Colbert said without affecting the meaning in anyway.

Is this statement true? Let's find out. You can read the original quote below:

What had happen' was.....: Quote of the Day: Desposyni: Stephen Colbert on Pain

Here is the same same quote if you take out the part about God and Christ:

In 1974, when Colbert was 10, his father, a doctor, and his brothers Peter and Paul, the two closest to him in age, died in a plane crash while flying to a prep school in New England. “There’s a common explanation that profound sadness leads to someone’s becoming a comedian, but I’m not sure that’s a proven equation in my case,” he told me. “I’m not bitter about what happened to me as a child, and my mother was instrumental in keeping me from being so.” He added, in a tone so humble and sincere that his character would never have used it: “She taught me to be grateful for my life regardless of what that entailed.

Does the quote still make sense without what was said about God and Christ? Yes, but it doesn't ground the quote in anything. It doesn't answer why we should be grateful for life. And It misses the profound observation Colbert makes about what pain is and why should thank God for it. Without the part about God the point is lost - just like everything without God. How do you be grateful whatever happens? And to whom should you be grateful for? This is a good theodicy. The thing I recognize is that if you are truly grateful for whatever happens to you and around you then the so-called "problem of evil" is moot. So is suffering because you now see everything in its proper context. I invite everyone to examine their lives and ask "Am I grateful for what ever happens and to whom deserves my gratitude? How do you answer these without God? You cannot.

Related articles

• WATCH: Stephen Colbert Takes A Tip From Pat Robertson (huffingtonpost.com)
• New Hampshire Author to Contribute Percentage of Book Sales to Stephen Colbert's Super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow (prweb.com)
• Colbert Leads GOP Candidate In New Poll (huffingtonpost.com)
• Stephen Colbert Supports Romney On His 'Firing People' Gaffe [Video] (gawker.com)

Faithful Thinkers: Stephen Law's "Evil God" Argument

Luke Nix has posted his insights on the Stephen Law debate against William Lane Craig. He outline the problems with Dr Law's arguments very well. Read the article at the following link.


Faithful Thinkers: Stephen Law's "Evil God" Argument