The 'Problem of Evil'

[Zenith Darksea]

The issue of the 'problem of evil' has arisen quite frequently on these fora. Generally you will read something along the lines of:

"How can God exist when there is so much evil in the world."

or

"I stubbed my toe this morning. If God existed, He wouldn't have let it happen."

I thought it time to set out, clearly, once and for all, the fallacy of this approach. On an explanatory note, I write from the perspective of a Christian of the Eastern Orthodox rite; what I say may well not be applicable for other religions (such as, say, Hinduism or Buddhism), or even other Christian denominations (although I suspect that Roman Catholics will largely be in agreement). Note also that when I use the word 'man' I mean 'mankind', not a male human.

---------------------------------------

"If God exists, why doesn't He get rid of evil?"

It's an interesting question, and one that appears on the lips of many people who, for whatever reason, are not closely acquainted with theology. It is a basic premise - God is good, and suffering is evil. A good person would stop suffering. Yet God clearly has not put an end to suffering, therefore God cannot be good. If God cannot be good, then He cannot exist (unless of course your own particular God is one such as is worshipped by Yezidis or Epicureans; however, we'll put those two options to the side for now).

What is wrong with this approach? It is neat, simple and succinct. Of course the problem lies in its simplicity. Normally simplicity is a thing of beauty, something for which we strive in mechanics, mathematics, philosophy and any number of other doctrines. However, just because good things are simple does not mean that all simple things are good. In this case, the simplicity of the approach denotes a fundamental narrowness of perception that has misleading.

The analysis in that first paragraph has one especial flaw - it is a criticism of Christian doctrine beginning from atheistic assumptions.

First we must put the whole issue into context. How ought an Orthodox Christian to view the universe? The universe is not an infinite realm (as astronomy has shown us), but very much a finite one (however big it may be). God however is 'infinite' - He is not trapped in the universe with us, watching and waiting to see what will happen in the future like a man. This is the best analogy that I can think of - imagine that the universe is spread out on a table, not just in three dimensions but in four (so not only is the whole space of the universe displayed, but also all of time). We men are somewhere on that table, but God is standing over it, looking over it and viewing all of time and space as, if you will, a finished article. Experiments with atomic clocks in space and on Earth have shown that time is entirely relative; just as time passed faster for the clock on Earth than for the one is space, so God's perception of time is completely different to our own. When considering the passage of time in the universe, God does not need to look 'forward' or 'backward' as we might do, but He may simply view it all as if spread out on a table.

It is crude imagery of course, but it does serve a purpose. The universe is a creation of God's, and man is part of that creation. The exact details of how that creation came to be (and indeed why) are unclear, as this is a part of the innate mystery of God (we men, with limited capacity, cannot comprehend the infinite), but at any rate the thing to remember is that there is a lot more to the universe than what you can see.

Man is within this creation of God's, and there are essentially two paths open to him - the path of righteousness (that follows God's design) and the path of evil (that runs contrary to God's design). Man can choose freely between these two options. Now the first question that occurs to most people here is, "Why give man the option to choose evil?" There is a simple reason to that - man has free will (again, the question of why we have free will is a mystery), and to shackle a free person into one choice (however good that choice is) is itself innately evil. God wants us to choose the good, but He won't force us.

The natural result is that some people will commit evil acts. "What about the people who do good things? Why must they endure evil acts?" There are two reasons. Firstly, it is a necessary evil (if you will) of giving people freedom. Secondly, the endurance of evil is a fundamentally good act. This is a point that Christ consistently addresses in the Gospels, and it is a point subsequently addressed by the Fathers of the Church and Holy Tradition. One need only remember the saying, "If a man strikes you on your cheek, turn to him the other as well." The endurance of the evil acts of others, and the subsequent forgiving of those acts, is one of the best acts a person can commit.

So what does that say? Is evil good for you? You could take it that way, but it is rather crude. However, it does address the question about whether or not a caring God would allow people to suffer. Alas, it is a natural consequence of free will. However, there is a more important point to add. As has been said already, there is more to the universe than what you can see, and there is something beyond it too. There will come a time in the future (as we see it) when the universe is redeemed and sanctified, when the good are made one with God's energies and the 'Kingdom of Heaven' is restored on Earth. The dead will rise from Hades and each man will be given the reward of his works - when the good have their reward in theosis, and those who have done wrong have their own particular reward, the issue of evil in this our own universe will pale into insignficance. To those who have suffered, their endurance will become a cause for celebration, and to those who have caused suffering, well, their own particular end will make up for what they have done.

Here a lot of people would say, "But what about natural evil? Why not just have a level playing field in which there is no intervention from nature?" The reason is that that would be impossible. Without nature, and the natural evil that it of course entails, we would not be presented with the opportunities to make decisions. Without a natural context in which certain events challenge us, we have nothing against which to react. And again, for those who suffer there will be rewards.

You might not believe any of this, and it might just seem to be complete baloney. However, this is what you must bear in mind when challenging the Christian notions of good and evil - there is a bigger picture, and assumptions that God has the same role to play as man are misleading and unhelpful.

[God]

Man can choose freely between these two options. Now the first question that occurs to most people here is, "Why give man the option to choose evil?" There is a simple reason to that - man has free will (again, the question of why we have free will is a mystery), and to shackle a free person into one choice (however good that choice is) is itself innately evil. God wants us to choose the good, but He won't force us.

Yet it is argued that we do have free will in heaven even though evil can't happen there.

The natural result is that some people will commit evil acts. "What about the people who do good things? Why must they endure evil acts?" There are two reasons. Firstly, it is a necessary evil (if you will) of giving people freedom. Secondly, the endurance of evil is a fundamentally good act. This is a point that Christ consistently addresses in the Gospels, and it is a point subsequently addressed by the Fathers of the Church and Holy Tradition. One need only remember the saying, "If a man strikes you on your cheek, turn to him the other as well." The endurance of the evil acts of others, and the subsequent forgiving of those acts, is one of the best acts a person can commit.

Fair enough there.

Here a lot of people would say, "But what about natural evil? Why not just have a level playing field in which there is no intervention from nature?" The reason is that that would be impossible. Without nature, and the natural evil that it of course entails, we would not be presented with the opportunities to make decisions. Without a natural context in which certain events challenge us, we have nothing against which to react.

Surely there are other ways to challenge us than disasters that kill thousands of innocent people and cause that much pain and suffering?

And why do these disasters only happen in certain areas? Surely if God was causing these to challenge us he'd make it even over all the world? Because I've yet to see a hurricane or any weather that can kill people in Wales, whereas in other parts of the world you have hurricanes, tornados, volcanos...

And again, for those who suffer there will be rewards.

Even if they're atheists?
And I'm sure their families will be happy with it too.

[Zenith Darksea]

Yet it is argued that we do have free will in heaven even though evil can't happen there.

Ah, but those people have already made their ultimate choice, and only the people who would choose to be good are the ones who end up in Heaven. So you do have free will, but you know which way it is going to be exercised, if you see what I mean.

Surely there are other ways to challenge us than disasters that kill thousands of innocent people and cause that much pain and suffering?

No, unfortunately not. Those are events that can bring out the best and worst in people. Furthermore, you need to see the bigger picture - events that cause 'pain and suffering' are awful things when viewed through man's emotional eyes, but one has to see the stone cold reality behind it all. Ultimately these great events are as nothing.

And why do these disasters only happen in certain areas? Surely if God was causing these to challenge us he'd make it even over all the world?

I don't know why the world is as it is - that is just how it's turned out, I suppose. Perhaps it is different challenges for different people? I can't say.

Even if they're atheists?

The key question is this - does the individual conform to God's designs? If so, then the person will be deified. If not, then obviously they won't.

As for their families, that is a somewhat irrelevant point. Each person is judged on an individual basis, and ultimately the suffering of family members who see loved ones harmed will prove to be fleeting (ie. it will only last as long as this physical world lasts, if you see my point).

[Felixion]

Although my understanding of Christianity is a little limited, I think it's easy to extract that evil exists for a reason. Evil exists as temptation, and a basis upon which men can be deemed sinful or not. I think, if in fact the Christian relgion is correct, that Evil would be an integral part of judging one's sinful nature.

[God]

Ah, but those people have already made their ultimate choice, and only the people who would choose to be good are the ones who end up in Heaven. So you do have free will, but you know which way it is going to be exercised, if you see what I mean.

Noone is perfect. People who make it to heaven are still capable of bad things. If you take away that choice, they can only do one thing - good. So I can't see how it is free will at all.

No, unfortunately not. Those are events that can bring out the best and worst in people.

An omnipotent God can't devise a better system than to murder a few thousand people randomly every now and then with nature to challenge us?

Furthermore, you need to see the bigger picture - events that cause 'pain and suffering' are awful things when viewed through man's emotional eyes, but one has to see the stone cold reality behind it all. Ultimately these great events are as nothing.

But this God is all knowing, right? So how can he murder these people without caring?

Before you say "They go to heaven", it is clear that many do not go to heaven and all he is doing is shortening their time on Earth and sending them straight to hell. Now if I'm going to spend eternity in hell I want a decent time here first, I don't want 60 years taken from me by being 'challenged' by God.

I don't know why the world is as it is - that is just how it's turned out, I suppose. Perhaps it is different challenges for different people? I can't say.

Well I certainly haven't been challenged by natural disasters as much as the people in Hurracane Katrina have. Doesn't seem fair to me.

In fact, I doubt I'll ever be in a situation with me being that close to death. Perhaps God just favours Wales to America?

Another question:

Why does God allow animals to suffer? Animals aren't being tested so why do they need to feel pain?

[Sam]

@ZD, do you believe that God is above logic?

[Sam]

@ZD, do you believe that God is above logic?

ZD hasn't replied to this yet, and I won't be able to reach a computer until late tomorrow night, so I'm just going to do this now.
The way that this basically unfolds is as follows;

- ZD agrees that god is above logic. Every theist debater goes down this road at some point in order to defend god, so this agreement is hardly unexpected.

- I point out that ZD's arguments are logic-based justifications for evil and suffering, and that if god is above logic, he could easily change the rules of logic so that the exact same benefits can occur without the side effects of evil and suffering.

This undermines all of his arguments, and the result of this could be one of several things;
1 - That god is an *******.
2 - That god doesn't exist.
3 - That god is bound by the rules of logic.

- ZD's faith remains unshaken somehow.

[Eird-Way]

Oh, my. Sounds like we're flirting with Daoism. Good move.

[I Have a Clever Name]

Ah, but those people have already made their ultimate choice, and only the people who would choose to be good are the ones who end up in Heaven. So you do have free will, but you know which way it is going to be exercised, if you see what I mean.

1. God is omniscient.
2. God knows everything that will happen in the future. (from 1)
3. God knows when he creates a soul whether it will go to heaven or hell ultimately. (from 2)

So why doesn't God create souls that are only suitable for heaven? And how can free will exist if God is omniscient, anyway?

1. God knows everything that will happen in the future.
2. Person has two choices, A and B.
3. God knows Person will choose A.
4. Person chooses A.

If person were to choose B, God does not know everything that will happen in the future.

And are we to assume that God does not prevent some acts of evil because it would interrupt free will? Then how do you explain divine intervention other miraculous occurances? God has intervened in the past - it says so in your text. So why didn't God prevent the Holocaust, for example?

No, unfortunately not. Those are events that can bring out the best and worst in people.

And why would God need that in his omniscience? Faulty logic.

Furthermore, you need to see the bigger picture - events that cause 'pain and suffering' are awful things when viewed through man's emotional eyes, but one has to see the stone cold reality behind it all. Ultimately these great events are as nothing.

Sorry buddy, you can't disregard human suffering because its not on a big enough scale. The question stands - why would an omnibenevolent deity devise nature so that it unnecessarily inflicts suffering on hapless organisms? Why would God create Earth in the first place?

I don't know why the world is as it is - that is just how it's turned out, I suppose. Perhaps it is different challenges for different people? I can't say.

Why would a moral God lay down challenges needlessly?

[vizi]

Because the duality of religion just makes it all that more fun. Besides w/o a clear definition of evil how could we judge the level of our goodness? (We would also be sorely missing in the antagonist department of movies and the such)

[I Have a Clever Name]

Because the duality of religion just makes it all that more fun. Besides w/o a clear definition of evil how could we judge the level of our goodness?

We don't have a clear definition of evil or goodness. There is no such thing as universal morality without God, and then we would have to either accept that God conforms to a pre-existent morality or that whatever God claims to be moral is so purely because he is God. Yet if God were to tell me that torturing infants is correct, would I concur?

It's an interesting question, and one that appears on the lips of many people who, for whatever reason, are not closely acquainted with theology.

Don't make assumptions like that Zenith. I understand the free will refutation and its theological basis, but I still cannot see how it is a viable refutation. Sometimes understanding is precisely why we question.

Man is within this creation of God's, and there are essentially two paths open to him - the path of righteousness (that follows God's design) and the path of evil (that runs contrary to God's design)

Why is God's design moral? I just saw this so I'll quote my previous comments on the matter:

There is no such thing as universal morality without God, and then if he did exist we would have to either accept that God conforms to a pre-existent morality or that whatever God claims to be moral is so purely because he is God. Yet if God were to tell me that torturing infants is correct, would I concur?

Interested as to how you'd address this. What makes Gods morality better than mine? Power? Knowledge? Scope? Omnipresence? I don't see how his opinion is of more value than mine.

[vizi]

We don't have a clear definition of evil or goodness. There is no such thing as universal morality without God, and then we would have to either accept that God conforms to a pre-existent morality or that whatever God claims to be moral is so purely because he is God. Yet if God were to tell me that torturing infants is correct, would I concur?

Err....I don't do what someone else tells me to do if it has moral compunctions such as torturing babies. I have a pretty good idea of what evil is and a damn good idea what good is. I aquired this knowledge by living and observing the two. And I don't believe in a universal mortality, I beleive in my morality and that is how I base my actions. People are free to do what they want and will be judged by people. That is how it works. What one man does that he doesn't consider evil might be evil to someone else. I don't need or care for a text book definition of good or evil. My personal definition is my compass.

[Zenith Darksea]

Gosh, so much more to say. Sorry I haven't been able to answer all your lovely posts - I've been at work. But, all good things come to those who wait.

Noone is perfect. People who make it to heaven are still capable of bad things.

Well actually those who have reach Heaven are technically deified and made one with God, so no, they aren't capable of bad things.

An omnipotent God can't devise a better system than to murder a few thousand people randomly every now and then with nature to challenge us?

No no, that's spinning the issue somewhat. God doesn't 'murder' anyone. People die at the hands of nature however - it's not the same thing.

But this God is all knowing, right? So how can he murder these people without caring?

Again, there's no question of 'murder'. However, I'd point out that your perception is, as ever, too narrow. God is not a man, and nor is He in the same situation as man. Therefore His values are naturally different. So of course death is an entirely different issue, especially when viewed against the greater cosmic backdrop (if you will). Ultimately we are but clay in the potter's hands (to a degree), and so whatever is necessary for the greater plans must occur. Perception of death as 'bad' is entirely relative - it's only bad because you say it is. However, in the long run it serves a purpose, of sorts. Remember - a person's physical life is ultimately not important; it is their spiritual life that matters.

Why does God allow animals to suffer?

Animals have their place in the natural order of things, and so if they die or 'suffer', then that's just hard luck for them. They're not people, and can't be equated with them. That may sound callous, but I don't think that animals matter. Now that's not to say that we should be allowed to harm them just for the sake of it (that would be indicative of a cruel moral character); however I'm not going to shed a tear when I eat one.

2. God knows everything that will happen in the future.

Please, I addressed this issue in full when discussing relative perceptions of time. There is no 'future' or 'past' for God, only for us.

Why is God's design moral?

Now that is the question that you should be asking. It's a very intelligent question indeed. I'd like to answer it with the potter analogy once more. The potter moulds the clay into a specific shape because that shape is the correct one to fulfil its purpose. Man, as the clay, must allow himself to be moulded to that purpose (synergeia), because that is what he is meant for. Now, why should we put ourselves to this purpose? It would be easy to simply say that it's a mystery, and that we 'just do'. However, in Christian theology, God is love (as the Gospel says). God knows His creation, and knows what is best for His creation. We have evidence for His love in the sacrifice of His Son for us. God, as the fount of all, is also the fount of morality. Ultimately I suppose that it is a Christian mystery, but that is one way to try to rationalise it. God's purpose essentially can only be good, because He is the only one who knows what it should be.

Interested as to how you'd address this. What makes Gods morality better than mine?

Because God created you. God is divine, and you are not (at least, not yet). God's morality is the only morality - your 'morality' is merely perception.

ZD agrees that god is above logic. Every theist debater goes down this road at some point in order to defend god, so this agreement is hardly unexpected.

As it happens, ZD does not agree. There is no need for God to be above logic. What I would say however is that God is the only being whose logic is perfect, whereas man's logic is not always perfect. That is how my faith 'somehow' remains unshaken.

Tsk tsk, all these assumptions.

[God]

No no, that's spinning the issue somewhat. God doesn't 'murder' anyone. People die at the hands of nature however - it's not the same thing.

I create a concoction that will kill someone. But the concoction is set up so that it goes off naturally, not on my signal. Then I put someone in it and the person then is killed by it. I was perfectly capable of preventing that person from being killed, yet I let the natural process of the concoction kill the man. Is that not murder due to negligence on my part? He isn't spinning at all, God is committing murder due to his negligence.

I can't beat that answer.

Again, there's no question of 'murder'. However, I'd point out that your perception is, as ever, too narrow. God is not a man, and nor is He in the same situation as man. Therefore His values are naturally different. So of course death is an entirely different issue, especially when viewed against the greater cosmic backdrop (if you will). Ultimately we are but clay in the potter's hands (to a degree), and so whatever is necessary for the greater plans must occur. Perception of death as 'bad' is entirely relative - it's only bad because you say it is. However, in the long run it serves a purpose, of sorts. Remember - a person's physical life is ultimately not important; it is their spiritual life that matters.

So in God's twisted view of morality, killing an atheist 60 years before their life would naturally end, knowing full well they are going to hell is fair? An all loving God wouldn't send his 'children' to an eternity of hell without letting them have at least a nice time on earth first, right?

Animals have their place in the natural order of things, and so if they die or 'suffer', then that's just hard luck for them. They're not people, and can't be equated with them. That may sound callous, but I don't think that animals matter. Now that's not to say that we should be allowed to harm them just for the sake of it (that would be indicative of a cruel moral character); however I'm not going to shed a tear when I eat one.

But the whole point in suffering is to challenge us. Animals aren't being challenged, so giving them the ability to suffer is both pointless and cruel.

Please, I addressed this issue in full when discussing relative perceptions of time. There is no 'future' or 'past' for God, only for us.

It doesn't matter. God knows what we will do in the future - he knows what choices we will make. We can only choose one path if God knows our future. If we can't choose, we don't have free will.

Now that is the question that you should be asking. It's a very intelligent question indeed. I'd like to answer it with the potter analogy once more. The potter moulds the clay into a specific shape because that shape is the correct one to fulfil its purpose. Man, as the clay, must allow himself to be moulded to that purpose (synergeia), because that is what he is meant for. Now, why should we put ourselves to this purpose? It would be easy to simply say that it's a mystery, and that we 'just do'. However, in Christian theology, God is love (as the Gospel says). God knows His creation, and knows what is best for His creation. We have evidence for His love in the sacrifice of His Son for us. God, as the fount of all, is also the fount of morality. Ultimately I suppose that it is a Christian mystery, but that is one way to try to rationalise it. God's purpose essentially can only be good, because He is the only one who knows what it should be.

From looking at the evidence, God is the least loving thing imaginable. Flooding the whole earth instead of just teaching people is loving?

Causing needless pain and suffering is loving?

Sending non-believers to hell is loving?

And I'm sure that an omnipotent God can design a better system to challenge us than making us suffer. Otherwise he clearly isn't omnipotent.

Because God created you. God is divine, and you are not (at least, not yet). God's morality is the only morality - your 'morality' is merely perception.

God's morality is sick and twisted IMHO. I listen to my own morals first.

[shenmueguru]

From looking at the evidence, God is the least loving thing imaginable. Flooding the whole earth instead of just teaching people is loving?

Causing needless pain and suffering is loving?

Sending non-believers to hell is loving?

And I'm sure that an omnipotent God can design a better system to challenge us than making us suffer. Otherwise he clearly isn't omnipotent.
God's morality is sick and twisted IMHO. I listen to my own morals first.

Back from a 2-week long Denmark excursion I'll enter this little schmeal. First one - people refused to obey. What would be the point of trying to teach them? Second/4th one - read the first post on suffering. 3rd one - so the people who have the truth presented before them but rebuke it get to recieve the reward along with the people who accepted the truth and lived for Jesus? Doesn't make sense to me.

I create a concoction that will kill someone. But the concoction is set up so that it goes off naturally, not on my signal. Then I put someone in it and the person then is killed by it. I was perfectly capable of preventing that person from being killed, yet I let the natural process of the concoction kill the man. Is that not murder due to negligence on my part? He isn't spinning at all, God is committing murder due to his negligence.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though you are stating that God puts people in this world, and by not saving them from death, this is murder by negligence. So...people shouldn't die? Is that what you're implying? We have to reach the end somehow.

[God]

First one - people refused to obey. What would be the point of trying to teach them?

To avoid having to kill them?

Correct me if I'm wrong, though you are stating that God puts people in this world, and by not saving them from death, this is murder by negligence. So...people shouldn't die? Is that what you're implying? We have to reach the end somehow.

No he's saying that God created 'natural evil' to challenge us but apparently if it kills us, it isn't God's fault.

Although I don't understand this natural evil argument as he would surely make the same amount of natural evil everywhere in the world to make it fair to everyone, which obviously he hasn't. I've never been 'challenged' by natural disasters here in Wales, so obviously they aren't neccessary...

3rd one - so the people who have the truth presented before them but rebuke it get to recieve the reward along with the people who accepted the truth and lived for Jesus? Doesn't make sense to me.

But these people don't see it as 'the truth'. Every religion claims to be 'the truth', how do we know which one is true? The only evidence that Christianity is true is in an old book containing the same amount of evidence as other old religious books. If God wants to make us know Christianity is 'the truth' and wants to save us, surely he'd give some evidence over other religions?

[mongoose]

God is omnipont. Surely, he should be able to make people obey himout with harming them? Would it be fair to say that he has a temper problem?

[DarkKnight]

Well actually those who have reach Heaven are technically deified and made one with God, so no, they aren't capable of bad things.

God could just deify everyone on earth to solve the problem of evil.

No no, that's spinning the issue somewhat. God doesn't 'murder' anyone. People die at the hands of nature however - it's not the same thing.

I create a concoction that will kill someone. But the concoction is set up so that it goes off naturally, not on my signal. Then I put someone in it and the person then is killed by it. I was perfectly capable of preventing that person from being killed, yet I let the natural process of the concoction kill the man. Is that not murder due to negligence on my part? He isn't spinning at all, God is committing murder due to his negligence.

Again, there's no question of 'murder'. However, I'd point out that your perception is, as ever, too narrow. God is not a man, and nor is He in the same situation as man. Therefore His values are naturally different. So of course death is an entirely different issue, especially when viewed against the greater cosmic backdrop (if you will). Ultimately we are but clay in the potter's hands (to a degree), and so whatever is necessary for the greater plans must occur. Perception of death as 'bad' is entirely relative - it's only bad because you say it is. However, in the long run it serves a purpose, of sorts. Remember - a person's physical life is ultimately not important; it is their spiritual life that matters.

Of course because everything moral is relative. But Christians seem to insist that their morals are absolute.

Animals have their place in the natural order of things, and so if they die or 'suffer', then that's just hard luck for them. They're not people, and can't be equated with them. That may sound callous, but I don't think that animals matter. Now that's not to say that we should be allowed to harm them just for the sake of it (that would be indicative of a cruel moral character); however I'm not going to shed a tear when I eat one.

What a sadistic God not worthy of my praise. If God exists and is like this I would spit in his face rather than worship him. Why would he create organisms that feel pain, then not give two ***** about whether they feel pain. And the spiritual v physical that you talked about in the above paragraph does not apply because according to Christians animals don't have souls.

Please, I addressed this issue in full when discussing relative perceptions of time. There is no 'future' or 'past' for God, only for us.

Are you so thick that you can't see that if God sees the entire timetable, he knows what will happen in the future (from our frame of reference).

Answer the points instead of trying to tiptoe around them please.

Because God created you. God is divine, and you are not (at least, not yet). God's morality is the only morality - your 'morality' is merely perception.

I would like to see you re-answer your 3rd paragraph after making that statement. You said before that the morality of death was relative. Now you are saying that all morality is absolute- Gods morality. Therefore death is either good or bad. If it is good, then the commandment "thou shalt not murder" is immoral. If it is bad, then you haven't solved the problem of evil.
1. Gods morality is the only morality (quote par. 6)
2. The morality of death is relative (from par. 3)
3. All morality is absolute (from 1)
4. The morality of death is absolute (from 3)
5. Contradiction (2+4)

As it happens, ZD does not agree. There is no need for God to be above logic. What I would say however is that God is the only being whose logic is perfect, whereas man's logic is not always perfect. That is how my faith 'somehow' remains unshaken.

Do you believe God is omnipotent?

[Shaun]

Because God created you. God is divine, and you are not (at least, not yet). God's morality is the only morality - your 'morality' is merely perception.

In no way at all did god play a part in creating me, it was both my mum and dad. Now if gods morality is to ask for sacrafices and kill people, then quite frankly my morality seems to be less harmful, and I will go with that.

[rez]

I like your ost ZD, whilst i may not agree with many of the moral arguments, including those attacking God, i will ignore that part of the post for now.

What i want to adress is the idea of freedom. The way i see the christian argument is that we are subjected to evil because men have the choice to be evil.

Now if god were to stop this we would not be free and as such that would be a far worse fate.

However, in my opinion God's intervention is a far greater problem than many consider. Most merely think of it as God halting evil altogether.

However, were God to come down and miraculously cure a terminally ill patient, THAT is interference. This is God interfereing with the natural order of his creation and destroying the tenet of our subjection to the evil that freedom brings.

As such, according to this argument it is impossible for God to help you in any way other than as a mental placebo.

However - God's help and intervention are preached everyday by Christians. "Dear lord please watch over my family," "Dear lord please help me out of this situation" and so forth.

Hence with this argument we are unable to see God as someone who watches over us, he is no longer the loving father, he is more of a spectator shouting on the sidelines for his favourite creation to strike for justice and piety.

The question is, would you rather have a God who would help you if you needed him, or a God who preserved your freedom.

If God really does intervene in this world then the whole problem of evil argument, as outlined by ZD so well, no longer works.