It seems to me though that in regards to the evidentiary problem, we find ourselves almost completely incapable of weighing the evidence. To the one using this argument against a benevolent and omnipotent god, there is an insurmountable burden to overcome in attempting to show that the suffering is pointless. How can we as temporally and geographically limited beings possibly hope to know all the ramifications from any event or series of events?

I have heard the two main arguments termed the logical problem and the emotional problem. I suspect what you are calling the evidentiary problem is likely the same as the emotional. There is no doubt that it is difficult to see the purpose in some of the suffering we experience and witness. There is also no doubt that emotionally this becomes a huge barrier for some people. It is not really an argument well grounded on reason though.

I've never heard of the emotional argument.

The evidentiary and logical are the two wings I'm referring to:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

What you are claiming is only really a response to the logical problem. In the logical problem you can presuppose a creator of the type you are describing as a defense. And you can argue as you just did the burden of proof is difficult to demonstrate.

For the evidentiary problem, we don't predispose such a god but rather argue it appears the evidence isn't in favor of such a being existing.

Looking at that article it divides the problem of evil into the experiential and theoretical and then further divides the theoretical into logical and evidentiary. It is the experiential that I have seen referred to as the emotional problem. The two formulations given for the evidentiary problem both assume the very thing that I believe we are incapable of reasonably assessing.

The first example gives as its first premise "There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse." The second example states more succinctly, "Gratuitous evil exists." What is the supporting evidence for accepting either one of those first premises? The most someone taking that position could reasonably say is that it seems like gratuitous evil exists but that it is actually impossible to determine that with any degree of certainty. How do we even rationally debate something on this argument? What seems a certain way to one may seem a different way to another. How do we know whose assertion is more accurate?

Which again is the distinction between the logical and evidentiary.

We cannot possibly prove that the evil is truly gratuitous. But to the extent of human knowledge and reasoning it appears to be the case. Cases where believers are merely appealing to Divine mysteries rather than their own reason.

It's not at all an appeal to divine mystery to say I am incapable of speculating based on my own reason and knowledge on whether gratuitous evil exists. To do so seems to involve hubris, not reason.

You are speculating that it doesn't exist. We observe seemingly gratuitous evil, to these evils you must suppose a purpose, a net good.

I'm not willing to blindly presuppose god, so from there I think it's wise to look at evidence. To try and imagine a world without gratuitous evil and one with one and see what seems to fit ours best.

Again I don't think it's a disproof in and of itself. But I find the defense of seemingly gratuitous evil that we see nothing more than an appeal to mystery.

No, for the purposes of this discussion I am speculating neither. You said this line of argument does not presuppose a deity, so I am trying to oblige. I recognize evil exists. To speculate whether or not it serves a greater purpose is beyond my capabilities.

I am struggling to see how the one putting forward the evidentiary problem can say any more than, "There is a lot of evil. Naturalism or an indifferent god seems like a reasonable explanation." I don't see where you go from there. Trying to decide whether or not it is a more reasonable explanation that the typical theistic one seems impossible to me. Where is the force of this argument?

The force comes from situations where your only hope is to appeal to mystery.

There are many instances of suffering or harm you can immediately and rationally point to growth, purpose, or net benefit. In such a situation human rationality was sufficient to at least plausibly justify the suffering.

In situations where you cannot appeal to any reason or argument but simple appeal to mystery, an unknowable or unforeseen cause and effect that humans could never reason their way to is a much weaker argument.

It doesn't seem like a weaker argument if it is exactly what you would expect. I am not surprised when my young children don't always understand why I make certain decisions. From their perspective, it may seem purposeless or even harmful. If a deity makes use of suffering, it would not be surprising for the creatures to not always understand the purpose.

I don't think what we see is what you would expect. I think it's mostly the opposite. Appeals to mystery are fundamentally weak.

And adults explain to children why they are being punished or restricted or whatever it is the child is angry about. So not only are we trying to ascertain if meaning is plausible, we are doing it with a silent invisible god.

Bob_Ag said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

ok, my bad. I erroneously thought you were Calvinist and believed in total depravity. Carry on and don't mind me

---

Perhaps you can expand on this and why you think total depravity is incompatible with my response?

---

Sure. You said man can choose not to sin. Under the idea of Total Depravity, man can only sin. Man has no choice in the matter. Every time a man does a good thing, it is because God performs a literal miracle forcing man to do good. Man is 100% a being of horrific evil except in case of these specific miraculous interventions. This mindset is completely incongruous with both your post at the beginning of the thread and your responses to me

Aggrad08 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

God doesn't get to free himself of intension. There is nothing outside his intent when it comes to nature with perhaps the exception of conscious will.

God sending an earthquake is like men sending a bomb, everything that happened was completely in his control.

Gos is the architect of death and suffering, it's without question. So then to your point, what about the death and suffering god created makes it good?

---

I absolutely agree with all of this except God being the architect of death, but that's a nit pick. To answer your question: to me there is no doubt that God cares very little about our lives on Earth, our bodily integrity, or our comfort. So why all the suffering? The Christian analogy is the refining of metal. You take metal ore, heat it to melting, and beat it. Either the metal comes out purified and useful, or it gets destroyed in the process. So it is with suffering. Suffering can make someone humble, gracious and empathetic. Or it can make someone miserly, hateful, and cruel. Two people may live very similar lives until they are made to suffer. Then one becomes a better person and one becomes worse. It's the application of suffering that tells the difference.

---

I was talking about the suffering and death that predates mankind's existence as being clearly not our fault. I wasn't engaging with any original sin arguments or exactly what you call the first humans to blame their suffering on themselves.

But to your second point. I do agree that in growth, refinement and perseverance suffering has a reasonable utility.

The problem is there is so much seemingly pointless suffering. Suffering with no obvious utility or resulting growth. Or suffering which could be replaced with other forms of hardship which would better facilitate growth.

In short, I think the evidentiary problem of evil is much stronger than the logical problem of evil.

---

Yeah, suffering that predates man is a clear gap. I've given it a bit of thought, but I'm not satisfied with any of the options that logically follow. For instance, it could be that the suffering seen in the natural world prior to the emergence of mankind was necessary so that suffering could play a moral role once mankind existed. So the pre-mankind world was the template that is consistent with the world including mankind. It's a little too human centric for my comfort level, though.

Another thought is that you have to be conscious to suffer. So God can suffer, humans can suffer, but other living things can't. Now some animals can clearly feel pain. Most organisms avoid damaging forces. But maybe there is something different that elevates pain and avoidance to suffering, and maybe that thing requires consciousness and will. Now humans causing intentional pain and damage to other living things would still be evil, as it reflects more on the human than the other living thing. I'm still not comfortable with this as certain animals like elephants clearly grieve their dead, and I can't go so far as to say that animals can't actually suffer.

I'm still thinking about it

Good post.

I think sentience is a good bar to hit to say that the pain or injury a creature experiences is suffering. And i'm very uncomfortable with removing sentient animals from the "bar" we hold suffering up to as many clearly surpass young children, and the implications if we go down that road...

I think this is the biggest issue I have with the rube goldburg god of an ancient earth. It's not so much that billions of years of nature is seemingly unnecessary and convoluted way to arrive at humans. It's that it's so filled with horror. I could see a god delighting in nature for a few billion years before mankind polluted and paved the planet to death. But not a nature in which suffering was meaningfully experienced or where death was mourned.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Bob_Ag said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

ok, my bad. I erroneously thought you were Calvinist and believed in total depravity. Carry on and don't mind me

---

Perhaps you can expand on this and why you think total depravity is incompatible with my response?

---

Sure. You said man can choose not to sin. Under the idea of Total Depravity, man can only sin. Man has no choice in the matter. Every time a man does a good thing, it is because God performs a literal miracle forcing man to do good. Man is 100% a being of horrific evil except in case of these specific miraculous interventions. This mindset is completely incongruous with both your post at the beginning of the thread and your responses to me

---

I don't think you understand the doctrine of Total Depravity nor Calvinism.

Man has choice. Man has a will. Reformed Theology is not the notion of divinely created robots.

My reply to you was very clear and quite congruous. You asked if man can choose not to sin and I said the more practical question is whether man will sin. Why is that the better question? Because man, in every decision he makes, bases it on some level of disposition, prejudice or bias.

So then what does God tell us in the Bible about man's default disposition?

Romans 3:10-12
""None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."

That's pretty explicit. In fact, Jesus himself calls man evil (Matt 7:11).

However, God provides a way for us to choose sin less through the process of regeneration and sanctification. In fact we are called a "new creation" which is what Jesus references to Nicodemus in John 3. Mans disposition begins to change and so do his choices. We are being transformed into the image of Christ (2 Cor 3:18).

I think you are confusing free will and autonomy. Man is not autonomous from God and never will be.

You're right. It's incoherent because it's a bunk theological doctrine based off a man and not the full word of God. I believe reformed theology is the itchy ear doctrine warned about.

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."
2 Timothy 4:3-5 ESV

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

You're right. It's incoherent because it's a bunk theological doctrine based off a man and not the full word of God. I believe reformed theology is the itchy ear doctrine warned about.

---

You're making the assertions, care to support your position with actual argumentation?

Oh and the doctrine of man's depravity is certainly based off the full Word of God. It's literally everywhere in the Bible.

Quote:

---

Genesis 6:5
5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Jeremiah 17:9

9 The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?

Psalm 53:2-3


2 God looks down from heaven
on the children of man
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.

3 They have all fallen away;
together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.

Romans 7:18
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.

Ephesians 2:1-3

2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind

---

Understanding depravity is the key to understanding God's grace and mercy. (Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works...).

Reformed theology or Calvinism is Christianity elitism. Believing they are the special chosen and others who God or the HS hasn't revealed himself too well tough luck. How do you share the Gospel that way? How do you tell the lost "hey you're lost, you need saving and redemption. The only one for it is if God chooses you. Guess we'll find out if you're one of the luck few."

Or do we see Jesus and His apostle preaching repentance? Yes. Repentance.

Reformed theology removed personal accountability and you're just a salvation lottery winner predestined by God.

Yet the Bible preaches repentance and tbe Gospel is to all. The Good news. Not the Good news to some.

If you're in the club it sure sounds nice. God has CHOSEN you! You're special. Itchy ears.

It leads to water down accountability, little love for the lost, little motivation to be participates for Gods work.


"And Jesus answered them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.""
Luke 5:31-32 ESV

The call of God is for sinners to repent. Not some who God has only revealed Himself to.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Good post.

I think sentience is a good bar to hit to say that the pain or injury a creature experiences is suffering. And i'm very uncomfortable with removing sentient animals from the "bar" we hold suffering up to as many clearly surpass young children, and the implications if we go down that road...

I think this is the biggest issue I have with the rube goldburg god of an ancient earth. It's not so much that billions of years of nature is seemingly unnecessary and convoluted way to arrive at humans. It's that it's so filled with horror. I could see a god delighting in nature for a few billion years before mankind polluted and paved the planet to death. But not a nature in which suffering was meaningfully experienced or where death was mourned.

---

Yeah, with the first paragraph the implications to humans somewhere down the sliding scale of full mental faculties is very disturbing.

Regarding the second, I get it. I guess another possibility emerges from a strictly Christian viewpoint. God existed from the beginning, and Christ is God. Existence was created through Christ. The decisions of Adam and Eve led to the deaths of men. Christ has an eternal human nature, including the ability to suffer and die. Since existence was created through Christ, suffering and death was baked into the fabric of reality from the start. So the death and suffering that exists prior to man could still be due to man, but only because Christ is both man and God and also fabric of existence

GQaggie said:

---

It doesn't seem like a weaker argument if it is exactly what you would expect. I am not surprised when my young children don't always understand why I make certain decisions. From their perspective, it may seem purposeless or even harmful. If a deity makes use of suffering, it would not be surprising for the creatures to not always understand the purpose.

---

As I write this, I'm worried that I'm about to strawman you a bit. . . . but your comment about expectations above raised some possible 'circular reasoning' flags in my head. If we expect a God that is both beyond our understanding and that is benevolent, then we might expect a reality where we are unable to fully understand that benevolence.

Do we expect the appearance of gratuitous evil because that is what we observe?

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Reformed theology or Calvinism is Christianity elitism. Believing they are the special chosen and others who God or the HS hasn't revealed himself too well tough luck. How do you share the Gospel that way? How do you tell the lost "hey you're lost, you need saving and redemption. The only one for it is if God chooses you. Guess we'll find out if you're one of the luck few."

Or do we see Jesus and His apostle preaching repentance? Yes. Repentance.

Reformed theology removed personal accountability and you're just a salvation lottery winner predestined by God.

Yet the Bible preaches repentance and tbe Gospel is to all. The Good news. Not the Good news to some.

If you're in the club it sure sounds nice. God has CHOSEN you! You're special. Itchy ears.

It leads to water down accountability, little love for the lost, little motivation to be participates for Gods work.


"And Jesus answered them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.""
Luke 5:31-32 ESV

The call of God is for sinners to repent. Not some who God has only revealed Himself to.

---

I don't think Arminianism solves this. It just moves the cause of your special elitism to yourself. What character trait do you possess that atheists don't that made you smart or humble enough to believe the gospel?

True. It's a very complex issue. We like to think in terms of black and white. Free will vs predestination. But in scriptures we see both. There's an interplay between both concepts it's hard to fathom. So neither Arminianism nor reformed/Calvinism is accurate.

For example:
Did John the Baptist choose to be John the Baptist? Being the cousin of Jesus, the crying voice in the wilderness. It's pretty clear He was called by God for that role and he did it.

But then you have examples like Nineveh. They made the choice to repent and humble themselves.


So we see both in scriptures.


However reformed theology is far more damaging. It creates the Gospel of Hopelessness instead of Hope. It is the itchy ear doctrine. The call is to repent. If you were to identify a trait it's humility that enables us to recognize our sin and need for Jesus and to repent. To respond to the CALL. But that call is to everyone. Not a select few.

But not everyone is humble like you. The Pharisees were called to repent, but could they?

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

True. It's a very complex issue. We like to think in terms of black and white. Free will vs predestination. But in scriptures we see both. There's an interplay between both concepts it's hard to fathom. So neither Arminianism nor reformed/Calvinism is accurate.

For example:
Did John the Baptist choose to be John the Baptist? Being the cousin of Jesus, the crying voice in the wilderness. It's pretty clear He was called by God for that role and he did it.

But then you have examples like Nineveh. They made the choice to repent and humble themselves.


So we see both in scriptures.


However reformed theology is far more damaging. It creates the Gospel of Hopelessness instead of Hope. It is the itchy ear doctrine. The call is to repent. If you were to identify a trait it's humility that enables us to recognize our sin and need for Jesus and to repent. To respond to the CALL. But that call is to everyone. Not a select few.

---

I agree with you.

What do you think Jesus meant by repent?

Yep. We see some even do.

""O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!"
Matthew 23:37 ESV

He was ready and willing but they rejected Him. They REJECTED Him.

"So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone," and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do."
1 Peter 2:7-8 ESV

They rejected Him. REJECTED. They made the choice. God gave them over to a reprobate mind because of their sin and they rejected God.

People do the same today. Sin leads to death.

Acknowledgement of the sin and to not do it any more in the simplistic terms.

We see this in David recognizing he sinned against God and not doing that again.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Acknowledgement of the sin and to not do it any more in the simplistic terms.

We see this in David recognizing he sinned against God and not doing that again.

---

Agree that is the result. The word repent means to change your mind. So essentially you are born again and filled with the Spirit so you do not want to sin.

Also this change of mind means complete faith in Jesus for salvation and nothing else in my opinion.

Amen.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Reformed theology or Calvinism is Christianity elitism. Believing they are the special chosen and others who God or the HS hasn't revealed himself too well tough luck. How do you share the Gospel that way? How do you tell the lost "hey you're lost, you need saving and redemption. The only one for it is if God chooses you. Guess we'll find out if you're one of the luck few."

Or do we see Jesus and His apostle preaching repentance? Yes. Repentance.

Reformed theology removed personal accountability and you're just a salvation lottery winner predestined by God.

Yet the Bible preaches repentance and tbe Gospel is to all. The Good news. Not the Good news to some.

If you're in the club it sure sounds nice. God has CHOSEN you! You're special. Itchy ears.

It leads to water down accountability, little love for the lost, little motivation to be participates for Gods work.


"And Jesus answered them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.""
Luke 5:31-32 ESV

The call of God is for sinners to repent. Not some who God has only revealed Himself to.

---

Reformed Theology is the most humble view of man and exalting view of God that could possibly exist. You are jumping to conclusions without understanding the premise or putting the cart before the horse.

The Bible is explicitly clear on the default state of man. I keep reiterating this point because so many people ignore what the Word of God clearly says.

Quote:

---

Psalm 53 2-3

2 God looks down from heaven
on the children of man
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.

3 They have all fallen away;
together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.

---

If you want to disagree with that statement, then this is no longer a debate between you and I.

This is why people confuse the doctrines and argues senselessly over free will. It is not whether man has free will, it is what will man's will choose given we have "all fallen away". That's easy; we will choose to sin which is self evident by watching the news for 30 seconds. What is sin? It is transgression against God and it is the violation of God's moral law. The consequences as we all know, is death, but not just future death, but death right now prior to regeneration ("and you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked...").

So if all man has fallen, all man is dead, none "Who seek after God", then by what logic could we presume that corrupted man will choose the most holy thing in existence? It's a ludicrous notion. This is why pride is most vile of all sins and God opposes the proud. Pride is what makes man think he is capable of bringing himself to salvation when the Word of God tells us plainly he can't.

All are guilty and all of man is under God's judgment and justifiably so. He is the creator and we break his rules everyday. He is the sovereign God and the ultimate judge. If God, "being rich in mercy", chooses to extend to mercy, "is there injustice on God's part?". Paul addresses this plainly in Romans 9.

Quote:

---

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 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 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

---

You are correct, we are called to repentance by the Lord. He came to save sinners, not the righteous. This statement almost seems like a paradox because both groups are sinners. But what is the difference? The righteous, like the Pharisees, are prideful and think they have no sin. The sinners, like the publican, beat their chest and plead for mercy because they know they are guilty before God (a clear contrast to the views on Total Depravity).

Repentance is granted from God and he gives it sinners.

Quote:

---

2 Tim 2:25
God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.


Acts 11:18
And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life."

---

It is not elitism. I get on my knees every morning and earnestly beat my chest everyday and plead for the mercy of God to keep working on my heart. Repentance is a lasting act of obedience and humbleness.

It's a trick. It's not the most humble view of man. You believe you have been chosen amongst others who have not been chosen.

To the lost how do you preach. Seriously think about the message.

"You are currently unsaved. Here's the gospel message. We'll find out if God reveals Himself to you and if you've been chosen. If you havent been chosen then there's nothing for you. You've been damned before time. Sorry."


Is this consistent with scripture? Do we see Paul or Peter preaching this way? No. Never. Not once. Why? Because reformed theology lived out and extrapolated to the unbeliever is HOPELESSNESS. How can you say the Gospel is good news if it's only for some?

Do you believe in double predestination?

If I believed in double predestination and eternal torment hell I could not have kids as they might not be of the elect and pre ordained to eternal torment.

Supposedly to glorify God.

No thank you. That makes God into a monster. And I know Him through Jesus. He is good. All the time.

Arguably if you believed in double predestination, you may not have the choice whether you have kids or not...God might just will it to happen

I have a very good friend who sadly is reformed theology and lives in fear not knowing if his kids have been predestined or not. It's brutal to see.

The general problem I have with Calvinism and concepts like double predestination is the foundation seems to be largely driven by imposing philosophical methodologies vs Scripture itself.

I can appreciate the reasoning of something like double predestination because it tries to solve the problem of how Jesus could die for "all" and yet "all" not be saved. You apply some logic and say that obviously "all" doesn't mean "all" and only means "all believers," but that's moving out of the text to achieve that.

Johann Gerhard put it this way:
" Divine mysteries are beyond reason's grasp. Therefore reason cannot and should not judge them as true or false, and consequently it cannot offer its judgment on contradictions in these matters either... Note here that when we say the mysteries of the faith are beyond reason's grasp, this is not only to be understood in the sense that reason cannot attain knowledge of these things without the revelation of the Word, but it also means that even with the revelation of the Word reason still cannot understand them plainly. Accordingly, it also cannot state from its proper principles what things should be considered truly contradictory in the mysteries of the faith."

I think the simple answer of all is all. No need to over complicate Gods word. (Not you but people who twist this into their own philosophical beliefs). So if it's all then why isn't everyone saved? Because rejection. Which I used to think not everyone rejected Jesus but as I've got older it's more clear. The unbelievers are rejecting Jesus. Unbelief is rejection. Rejecting not just Jesus but also the Father. So it can be true Jesus died for all but many rejected what He did for them. I see no issues with that logical reasoning. I'm sure there are those who will find one though, of which I'm interested in the counter argument.