How can an all loving God allow evil in the world?
Does evil prove God?
William Lane Craig debates Eric Dayton at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. A poignant debate on whether the apparently pointless evil and suffering in the world make atheism the rationally superior worldview.
Watch the debate HERE
I haven't watched this debate yet, but even without doing so, I think I can provide some valid insight.
ReplyDeleteOK, in Genesis 2:16,17, we read, "And the Lord God commanded the man saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." KJV.
Then, in Genesis 3:22, we read, "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to KNOW good and evil. KJV.
The important point is this: Humans simply would not have known what evil or its ramifications were, or would be, unless they FIRST disbelieved and then disobeyed God. In turn, one then can't use evil as a reason to disbelieve in God, because we would not have known WHAT IT WAS unless we disbelieved in him, in the first place! Evil is the payoff for disbelieving in him, not the reason to disbelieve in him. Yes? Of course.
All of this noise coming from the secular world about "why" does God allow evil just shows a weird misunderstaning of why it happens. Granted, this doesn't make it any easier to cope with, and perhaps makes it sound insensitive on the part of God, but it doesn't negate the facts as they appear in black and white.
If Pastor J, or any other of my fellow Christians, on this site, desire to instruct me in how I've gone wrong in my analysis of this subject, then PLEASE do so. I would welcome the informative insight, very much.
Now, on to the debate, and I'll find out what Dr. Craig has to say. Perhaps he will correct me. If not, I will hold to my basic understanding. Any takers?
Well, at this point, I was only able to listen to 61 minutes. Nonetheless, no direct reference to my Scripture examples were mentioned. I'm not sure what to say to that, except perhaps such a straightforward appeal doesn't make for enough material to fill a two hour debate. And perhaps Dr. Craig feels obligated to stay away from "direct" quotes from Scripture, although he did quote Paul at one point. He used his practiced arguments for God, which are over-the-top powerful, but I was surprised and disappointed that he said (at the beginning) that evil also sometimes made it hard for him to believe in God. He even included other Christians in this opening statement.
ReplyDeleteSo, I'm left vacant, and can only appeal back to the verses I quoted. I will add that Dayton appeared to be a very bright man, but so theologically ignorant (think Richard Dawkins), as not to be one to debate with on an even playing field. He just doesn't appear to know enough about spiritual matters, and other matters, as well, as he freely admitted. I think Dr. Craig was most likely wasting his time with this guy.
Because this subject interests me so much, I thought I'd make one additional comment that I think can be helpful to my fellow Christians. Pastor J, and Nelis, I hope both of you will also take note of my humble input.
ReplyDeleteI really don't think that the issue of evil, in all its manifestations, should be a serious barrier to believing in God. I'm very sincere in saying this. If you two, and anyone reading this, will grant me the accuracy of my analysis concerning Genesis 2:16, 17, and 3:22, then the following will make good sense to you, hopefully.
Please keep in mind that if God dealt firmly with Adam and Eve for their disobedience (and parenthetically, finding out what evil is was definitely firm, we can all agree), then it also must be recognized that He delivered the serpent (the devil) a much more serious blow. Beyond being cursed above all living things, he was promised an existence of crawling on his belly through the slime and grime, and at the end of days, getting his head crushed and thrown in the Lake of Fire. Not good, eh?
But, of course, not humankind. Despite the severe punishment of knowing and dealing with evil all the days of our lives, we will (the Saints) be saved in the end. Very good, eh?
Now to the positive point about apologetics. If one studies any good Concordance, they will notice at least 42 verses (actually more) dealing with the subject of evil. Almost 100 percent of these state, in one form or another, God's abhorrence for any evil. One in particular, and very powerful, is Jeremiah 29:1 "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and NOT EVIL, to give you a future and a hope." Good stuff, I'd say. Not to fear, there are an abundance of these kind of verses.
OK, it then seems to me that if one starts out with the obvious pitfalls of Genesis 2:16, 17, and 3:22, making clear the exact meaning and then a very clear understanding of these verses, it is very easy to communicate how God - through these other verses - lets us (the Saints) off the fish hook (are we just big fish?) and provides an escape from evil, which, if you remember, and it must be stressed - is something we asked to know about!
To use God's own words is a far better method to argue this issue, that to simply try to argue for his existence, as Dr. Craig does in this debate. I don't pretend to be a match for Dr. Craig, and I know he addresses evil, so please don't misunderstand me. But on this subject, I do think he takes the weaker approach.
Once again, a very convincing argument against God's allowing evil, or his alleged indifference to it, can be made by referring to these verses, and then shaping one's argument around them. Think about it and see if you agree. There will be a test. Smile. If anyone has suffered though this much writing, and would care to respond, I'd be very much interested, and very much in appreciation. Natually, I will not hold my breath. A friendly jab at my silent friends. Peace to all, and happy Thanksgiving.
Russ, I find your input informative enough to say thank you. I agree, using verses has a stronger base for argument. However, I also know many people who will not even give the time of day to this approach but will listen when the truth is given indirectly. to each his own, but both methods have a place
ReplyDeleteOf course, Ed, you are right. I find that starting with Biblical prophecy, near the beginning of any evangelistic effort, is helpful, number one on the list being Isaiah 53. Thanks for the reply, and I hope you will have the opportunity to contribute again. And thanks for the compliment. It was Mark Twain who said, "I can live for a month on a compliment," the atheist that he apparently was.
Delete