Is God Really Good?

_{Granville Sewell

May 21, 2015

Intelligent Design, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

My new Discovery Institute Press book “In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design (2nd edition),” includes an Epilogue entitled “Is God Really Good?” which attempts to deal with the “problem of pain.” Given that one of the primary criticisms of ID is the inaccurate claim that it is just an attempt to dress up theology as science, why would I include an explicitly theological chapter in a book on intelligent design? The answer is that while it is widely believed that Darwinism is good science, and that its critics just do not like its philosophical and theological implications, after writing and arguing about ID for over 30 years it is completely obvious to me by now that the truth is exactly the opposite. Darwinism is based on bad science, it remains popular in the scientific world only because of the philosophical and theological problems its proponents have with what they see as the alternative, design.

German biologist W.E.Loennig said (see here) “Normally the better your arguments are, the more people open their minds to your theory, but with ID, the better your arguments are, the more they close their minds, and the angrier they become. This is science upside down.” My experience has been the same, and it is increasingly obvious that scientific and logical arguments alone will never reach these angry opponents of design, at some point you have to deal with the real reasons they are angry, with the real problems they see with design. That is why my Epilogue attempts to deal with the most difficult of these problems, the problem of pain: if this world is designed, why is it sometimes so cruel? As design advocates, we often respond “bad design is still design.” While this may be a valid logical reply, neither we nor our critics are really satisfied by such a response, and there are better answers.

I have found that the Epilogue is my most popular chapter, and I also see it as a tribute to my courageous wife Melissa (if you read it you will understand why), so I have made it available on-line here .

Comments

Is God ‘good’? This question cannot be answered until a prior question is answered: “what does ‘good’ mean with regards to God?” Regarding God, does the word ‘good’ mean what it means when English-speaking humans refer to other things as ‘good’? Imagine a non-word (ex: wimfeury). Without knowing what ‘wimfeury’ means, it is not possible to answer the question “Is God ‘wimfeury’?” Any consideration of that question is futile. Likewise with ‘good’, when we refer to God as being ‘good’ does that mean substantially the same thing as “The Pope is good”? or “My children are good”? or more generally “X is good” where X is not God? Please don’t get confused by the idea that God might be so much better than the Pope, my children, or other things, such that the word ‘good’ means something different for God. That turns the word into ‘wimfeury’, it makes ‘good’ meaningless. And it’s an unnecessary distraction. Consider the word ‘power’. Kings are powerful. Some individuals are powerful. If I say that God is powerful, does the word ‘power’ acquire a distinctly new meaning when I use it to describe God? Of course not. Likewise with the word ‘good’. Please don’t get confused by the common idea that “God’s goodness is not like human goodness.” That is just an indirect way of saying that we don’t know what goodness means for God. If that is the case, the question “Is God good?” has no meaningful answer. Wimfeury again. Consider these two competing statements: “God is good, but his goodness is not like human goodness.” “God is evil, but his evilness is not like human evilness.” These two statements MEAN THE SAME THING: nothing. They are equally meaningless; they are as meaningless as “God is wimfeury, but his wimfeury is not like human wimfeury.” If we cannot say what ‘goodness’ means regarding God, then we cannot say God is good except as a purely formal statement of doctrine, as if we were expected to testify to God’s wimfeury. We certainly cannot reason as to the necessary truth of God’s ‘goodness’ when we cannot say what it is we are reasoning about. Please don’t get confused by the idea that God is necessarily good, that it is in His nature to be good, so ‘goodness’ simply is an attribute of God. That again empties the word ‘good’ of any meaning. Wimfeury again: It is the nature of God to be wimfeury, so ‘wimfeury’ simply is an attribute of God. If God is actually ‘good’, then God must meet or exceed human standards of ‘goodness’. Unless we know what “God is good” actually means, we cannot answer the question “Is God good?” In short; if one posits a situation and an act by some unidentified person, and the question is whether this person’s actions were good or evil under the totality of the circumstances, then who the actor is (God, some human, a space alien, etc.) does not decide whether their actions were good or evil; what determines the moral nature of their act is their knowledge, their intentions, their capabilities, and their effects. That’s what we mean when we say someone is or did ‘good’. sean s.sean samis_{May 27, 2015
May
05
May
27
27
2015
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Thank you Anthropic and DennisM, for your kind words, I appreciate the encouragement more than you know. If anyone is interested in the rest of this "Theological Supplement", it is here .Granville Sewell_{May 27, 2015
May
05
May
27
27
2015
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

bornagain77@ 24, Yes. I can't muster up the faith required by atheism to believe in countless unobservable universes, for which there is no reason to believe in other than their usefulness in making atheism seem a little less far-fetched. That atheism resorts to such a desperate, lame explanation of the fine tuning of the Universe demonstrates the pressure the discoveries of modern science are bringing to bear on their blind-faith-based beliefs. Thanks for the link, but I still don't get it. Not getting it, I am not sure how compelling the argument is. Here is an argument, compelling or not: It is possible that the proposition that humans have a genuinely free will is true. It is possible that the proposition is true that how you use such a genuinely free will in this life determines how you will spend eternity. It is possible that the proposition that there is an eternal afterlife that will either be eternal joy or eternal misery is true. It is a certainty, not just a possibility, that it is irresponsible to risk eternal misery for yourself and for those in your care who obtain from you their ideas about the meaning of life and the possibility of an afterlife. It is possible that the proposition is true that there is a way to start life over with a clean slate, where the misuse of one's free will up to now is wiped away. If the above are even possibilities -- and there is no way to prove they aren't -- then it is irresponsible to not look into those propositions, just in case they are true, and just in case one perishes or those in one's care perish without preparation. The best way to look into those propositions is to get down on one's knees and ask God, "If you are there, and if you are willing to make yourself known to me, do so as I seek out the truth." Genuinely seek and you will find. One more piece of advice from one who is convinced that he would be punished severely for deceiving you, and who has absolutely nothing to gain by doing so: Sincerely address your prayer to Jesus, through Whom all things came to be and continue to be, Who is God incarnate and the Mind that Max Planck concluded was the matrix of all matter. I know Him and I know He keeps His promises. If you sincerely seek Him, you will find Him.harry_{May 25, 2015
May
05
May
25
25
2015
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

The logic of 2 thru 7 necessarily follows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Alvin_Plantinga As Craig pointed out, the atheist must maintain it is logically impossible for God to exist, yet they concede that premise, (i.e. that it is possible for God to exist is some possible world), when they appeal to a infinity of universes (possible worlds) to explain the fine tuning of this one.bornagain77_{May 25, 2015
May
05
May
25
25
2015
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @22, Thank you for all of your amazing posts which I thoroughly enjoy. I have a question about your post @22. But first let me explain that I believe in God, and that I am not asking this question because I need to be convinced of His existence. I know He exists with the certainty that I know that my family and friends exist, and that I exist. That certainty is based upon my own experience of God, which is commonly referred to as a "spiritual experience." One's own experience of God is, I suspect, the real reason most believers believe, not because they were convinced by a logical argument (although it is important to be able to make those arguments as 1 Peter 3:15 indicates.) Such an experience puts us more in touch with reality than when reality is filtered through our sensual perceptions. It is a direct experience of the ultimate, primary reality (which is a "WHO" and not a "what") and it affects us much more deeply than reality experienced after it has been filtered through our five senses. All attempts to accurately describe such experiences to each other are insufficient, as would be attempting to convey what the color blue is like to one completely blind from birth. One has to experience it to "get it." Another reason why I think most believers have had such experiences it that Christ promised we would:
Anybody who receives my commandments and keeps them will be one who loves me; and anybody who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I shall love him and show myself to him. ... If anyone loves me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make our home with him. -- John 14:21,23
Having said all that, I will ask my question. ;o)
Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist.
Why does the mere possibility of God's existence mean that He must exist? I don't get that. If I never do "get it," it won't really matter. I know God exists. Even so, I would appreciate an explanation. Thanks.harry_{May 25, 2015
May
05
May
25
25
2015
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

"Is God Really Good?" Infinitely so!!! Using the materialist same line of reasoning for an infinity of multiverses to try to 'explain away' the extreme fine-tuning of this universe, we can thusly surmise; if an infinite number of other possible universes must exist in order to explain the fine tuning of this one, then it is also infinitely possible for a infinitely good, powerful, and transcendent Creator to exist. In other words, if it is infinitely possible for God to exist then He, of 100% certainty, must exist no matter how small the probability is of His existence in one of these other infinity of universes (possible worlds). And since God must exist in some other possible world then he must certainly exist in the actual world. In the ultimate logical backfire of all history, the materialistic/atheistic conjecture of an infinity of universes to try to ‘explain away’ the fine tuning of this universe insures, through the ontological argument, the 100% probability of the existence of God:
God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4 The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists. Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4 What is the Ontological Argument? (William Lane Craig) - video "It (This argument) puts the atheist in a very awkward position. The atheist must deny, not merely that God exists, he must maintain that it is impossible that God exists. And that is certainly a radical claim that would require great justification." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rlxuHK49KY
As mentioned previously, where this argument has gained purchase is in the materialist's/atheist's appeal to the multiverse (an infinity of possible worlds) to try to ‘explain away’ the extreme fine tuning that we find for this universe. Simply put, the atheist cannot argue it is logically impossible for God to exist since he has already conceded that it is logically possible for a infinity of other possible worlds to exist
Multiverse and the Design Argument - William Lane Craig Excerpt: Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument
The materialist/atheist, without realizing it, ends up conceding the necessary premise, (i.e. it is ‘possible’ that God exists in some possible world), to the ontological argument and thus guarantees the success of the argument and therefore insures the 100% probability of God’s existence! Also of note The ontological argument only works for maximally great, infinitely good, being. Other imaginary deities like Zeus or Thor aren’t described as maximally great so the argument doesn’t work for them. Same for imaginary things like unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, and such as that, which atheists usually try to substitute for God in the argument to try to ridicule it, but that logically fails. The failings of these imaginary stand ins for God, in the 'perfect being' argument, are gone over here:
God and Necessity - pg. 187 http://books.google.com/books?id=rnXdrTimPO0C&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187#v=onepage&q&f=false
This following video deals with many of the technical objections that atheists/materialists have tried to raise to the ontological argument:
The Ontological Argument (The Introduction) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68
And as weird as it may sound, this following video refines the Ontological argument into a proof that, because of the characteristic of ‘maximally great love’, God must exist in more than one person:
The Ontological Argument for the Triune God - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGVYXog8NUg
i.e. without this distinction we are stuck with the logical contradiction of maximally great love being grounded in ones own self which is the very antithesis of maximally great love. Of related note: Computer scientists have now proved Godel's ontological proof for the existence of God:
Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists - Oct. 23, 2013 Excerpt: Two scientists have formalized a theorem regarding the existence of God penned by mathematician Kurt Gödel.,,, researchers,, say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel,,, Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Gödel's proof was correct,,, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html
Of note, although most people, as well as theologians, philosophers and logicians, would certainly think that proving Godel's ontological argument for the existence of God logically true, and consistent, was a pretty big deal, it seems the author of the article (and researchers?) were more impressed with the advance in computer programming that it represented than they were impressed with the fact that they proved Godel's proof was actually true. This is how the author of the article put it:
"and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."
To put it mildly, I think someone may have their priorities severely confused in that article. Nothing could possibly compare to knowing that God is real save for the next step of developing a personal relationship with him. Also of note: Since imperfection cannot dwell in the midst of perfection, and man is certainly imperfect, then the ontological argument also leads to the necessity for the propitiation of Christ on our behalf so that we may become perfect and dwell in the presence of infinitely perfect and good God:
Falling Plates (the grace of propitiation) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGlx11BxF24
Verse and Music
Mark 10:17-21 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. Whom Shall I Fear [God of Angel Armies] [Lyrics] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOkImV2cJDg
bornagain77_{May 25, 2015
May
05
May
25
25
2015
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

@leodp#19
The logical possibilities you list all appeal to an intelligent and purposeful designer...
We're not off to a good start, as I've made no appeal. I'm pointed out that all of those scenarios represent the logical possibilities of an intelligent designer. Yet, you do not appear open to all of them.
... (not on the list: blind chance in a random and mechanistic universe, and I agree. That option is not logical based on objective observation of both the finely-tuned material universe with a beginning, and the tightly integrated functional information in the design of living things).
Except, I did not present an exclusive list of logical possibilities. I used the term "including" not "limited to", which does not exclude neo-darwinism. If you're not being disingenuous, then what other conclusion do you expect me to reach? As for your five points, none of them contradict the other logical possibilities I presented. So, why are you not promoting those as well? That was my one point, which you still haven't addressed. Again, one could say that's it's logical possible a perfectly evil God had to allow good so we would truly know what we were missing when he eternally denied it to us. That's logically possible as well, right? IOW, what you're appealing to is a particular logical possibility (a belief), not a good explanation. And, as I've pointed out, science discards a near infinite number of logical possibilities every day, in every field of science. So, why should you expect your designer should be any different? Furthermore, religions make contradictory claims. Other people believe in claims contradictory to your beliefs just as strongly as you do. What does this tell us? The strength or commitment to a belief is not a indicator of truth. So, I do not find myself unswayed by your arguments due to theological reasons. Rather, I am unswayed because they do not actually add to any explanations we have about the origin of biological features, the laws of physics, suffering, etc. If one appeals to the logical possibility that we must suffer to teach us compassion or humility, then is there some level of compassion or humility that we can obtain to avoid it? Is it impossible to learn in some other way? Even then, one could always retreat to the claim that despite being compassionate and exhibiting humility, we must still suffer to teach someone else compassion or humility, or someone in the future, etc. IOW, these kinds of appeals tell us nothing about how we can reduce our suffering in any practical sense.Popperian_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

OT: David Garrison, author of 'A Wind in the House of Islam' says that movements of Muslims becoming Christians are occurring globally in unprecedented numbers. A Wind in the House of Islam (Radio Interview) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzT20scBwyM A Wind in the House of Islam Pt. 1 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP18dklJS3w Unbelievable? Are Muslims turning to Christ around the world? David Garrison, Imam Musharraf Hussain & Nazam Guffoor - May 23, 2015 http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Are-Muslims-turning-to-Christ-around-the-world-David-Garrison-Imam-Musharraf-Hussain-Nazam-Guffoorbornagain77_{May 23, 2015
May
05
May
23
23
2015
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Popperian:"But there are many logical possibilities for the same observations. This includes a perfectly good God and his equally powerful, but perfectly evil, brother. Or a committee of supernatural beings, etc. Yet, we do not see you advocating for those as well. And we’re the ones that are not open to alternative explanations?" The logical possibilities you list all appeal to an intelligent and purposeful designer (not on the list: blind chance in a random and mechanistic universe, and I agree. That option is not logical based on objective observation of both the finely-tuned material universe with a beginning, and the tightly integrated functional information in the design of living things). But why a Designer like the God described in the Bible? 1. The universe was caused to begin (it didn't just pop out of nothing without cause). Something is eternal, but the material cosmos is not it. 2. The universe is immense and so the cause must have been immensely powerful. 3. The foundational forces that enable the universe to exist are and must be exactly what they are: finely tuned to enable it to exist. So the first cause was also highly intelligent. 4. Time and space came into existence at the singularity of the Big Bang. Therefore the causer must be outside of and beyond time and space. 5. We are personal beings. Impersonal forces, like machines, do not create personal beings. ---So the first cause is all powerful, outside of time and space, purposeful, willful and personal. This sounds a lot like the Creator God described in the Bible and so would make that book a strong logical option. Moreover the Bible claims this knowledge based on revelation from the Creator God and often referred to as, "the Word of God"). It was saying this long before modern discoveries about the universe and living things. It is consistent with modern scientific discoveries about the universe and life (though inconsistent with metaphysical naturalism and it's attendant Darwinism) Most ancient beliefs and religions do not come close to this description of God, and Islam came along 700 years after Christ. So starting with this base for suspecting that the Bible might be onto truth, the book also makes other claims that should, it seems to me, reasonably be given a chance. It talks about human nature in both flattering and unflattering ways: We are created in God's likeness (personal, spiritual, moral, creative and capable of choosing and hence responsible) and we are deeply flawed; fallen by our own choices and in need of restoration. These are also very consistent with what we observe. The greatest Bible claim is that the Creator God took on the body of a man to show us what he is like and to pay the price required for our redemption. That'd be Christ.leodp_{May 23, 2015
May
05
May
23
23
2015
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @ 16
What do you think Muslim, Hindu and Jewish supporters of ID would think about that?
My guess is that, if they thought that ID, based on written comments by the the likes of William Dembski and Phillip Johnson, was just a stalking horse for Christian Creationism, they wouldn't be too impressed.Seversky_{May 23, 2015
May
05
May
23
23
2015
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

The answer is that while it is widely believed that Darwinism is good science, and that its critics just do not like its philosophical and theological implications, after writing and arguing about ID for over 30 years it is completely obvious to me by now that the truth is exactly the opposite. Darwinism is based on bad science, it remains popular in the scientific world only because of the philosophical and theological problems its proponents have with what they see as the alternative, design.
First, absent from your comment and the linked chapter is any specific philosophy of science and an argument for why it is "good" by which you can criticize it. "Idea x might be wrong" is a bad criticism because it's applicable to all ideas. So, you can't even use it in a critical way. Second, I need not appeal to theological implications. This is because the current crop of intelligent design appeals to an abstract designer with no defined limitations. Nor does it explain the origin of the knowledge this designer supposedly used or put there. "That's just what the designer must have wanted" doesn't actually add to the explanation. Beyond that, you seem to be appealing to a mere logical possibility. But there are many logical possibilities for the same observations. This includes a perfectly good God and his equally powerful, but perfectly evil, brother. Or a committee of supernatural beings, etc. Yet, we do not see you advocating for those as well. And we're the ones that are not open to alternative explanations? One could even suggest it's logically possible that God, being perfectly evil, must allow us to experience good. Otherwise, we would not fully know what would be missing when he tortures us all for eternity. Nor is science just about what's logically possible. For example, it's unlikely that anyone has performed research to determine if eating a square meter of grass each day for a week would cure the common cold. Why is this? Is it because it's logically impossible? No. Is it because it's unfalsifiable? No, this would be trivial to test. Is it because it's a non-natural? No. Why then is it unlikely to be the subject of research? Because we lack an explanation as to how and why eating a square meter of grass each day for a week would cure the common cold. As such, we discard it, a priori, even before we bother to test it. And we do this for a near infinite number of mere possibilities every day, in every field of science. It's unclear why your designer, a designer and his perfectly evil brother, or a committee of designers should be any different.Popperian_{May 23, 2015
May
05
May
23
23
2015
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Seversky
So you are saying that one of the leading figures in the Intelligent Design movement, William Dembski, is simply wrong?
What do you think Muslim, Hindu and Jewish supporters of ID would think about that?Silver Asiatic_{May 23, 2015
May
05
May
23
23
2015
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

Given that one of the primary criticisms of ID is the inaccurate claim that it is just an attempt to dress up theology as science, why would I include an explicitly theological chapter in a book on intelligent design?
So you are saying that one of the leading figures in the Intelligent Design movement, William Dembski, is simply wrong?
Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.
Seversky_{May 22, 2015
May
05
May
22
22
2015
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

The bible is clear. pain is our rightful punishment. or rather pain is part of our slow decay to death. God in merct stops our death and slows the decay but only enough to get us saved for eternity. Its not pain but death that is the point about God.Robert Byers_{May 22, 2015
May
05
May
22
22
2015
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Is God really good? Father, Son and Holy Spirit were a perfectly happy community of love from all eternity. Their love is so deep they are One God, Who didn't need to create us or anything else to remain perfectly happy. God's creation of other persons He could share the Triune happiness with, persons with rationality and free will (which is what makes them a "who" and not a "what") was an act of sheer goodness and generosity on God's part, since He knew doing so would come at a great cost: a life of suffering on this Earth for the Son that would culminate in a horrific, humiliating scourging and crucifixion. Why would God bother to create us knowing all that? God is good. But why would there be such a cost? Because for you to be a "who" and not a mere "what," for you to be made in the image of the One Who identified Himself to Moses as "I AM WHO AM," you had to have rationality and a genuinely free will. That meant your choices must have real consequences, be they for good or for evil. There is no place for guilt or evil or its consequences within the eternal Triune happiness. For you to be able to eventually enter into it, the misuse of your free will would have to be atoned for, the consequences of evil repaired. The first "whos" God created were other spiritual beings that weren't animating an assemblage of matter. Sure enough, some of them misused their free will and refused to live according to the Truth: the truth about their nature as creatures (they wanted to be like God), the truth about God's uncreated nature, and the truth about their obligations to the God to Whom they owed their very existence. They chose to rebel, knowing that choice was an eternal choice. These we call demons. The one who led the rebellion we call Satan. The one who led the resistance to the rebellion we call Michael, whose name means, "Who is like God?" God created other spiritual beings that animated an assemblage of matter. These were a composite of spiritual rationality and free will integrated with matter in a way we have yet to understand. Satan, still having a free will and wanting to extend his rebellion, and being the liar that he is, told them, of course, that they could "be like God." They joined the rebellion. Satan rejoiced. He thought he had God over a barrel. He thought this new version of "whos" were now forever his, too. And they were his -- but not forever. God's plan was to personally atone for their misuse of free will. When Satan later found out about that he went into a rage and to this day goes about like a roaring lion seeking out those he may devour. He can still devour you because you, like him, still have a free will. If he can keep you in the rebellion until you are outside of merciful time -- you are his. Why would God personally atone for your misuse of free will and its evil consequences? He didn't do that for the fallen angels (they fully understood their decision was eternal when they made it). He had no obligation to do that for you. Why would He do that? God is good. But what about all the seemingly pointless cruelty and suffering in this life caused by natural disasters, not by the misuse of free will on the part of others? One has to keep the big picture in mind to understand why God allows these things. The essential aspect of the big picture to keep in mind is a terrified man alone in a garden one dark night. His friends were near but they kept falling asleep. In His divinity Christ knew perfectly well what was about to happen: He was to be falsely accused and condemned to the most horrific death the Romans knew how to inflict on a human being. He was to be viciously scourged and then made to carry the cross Himself to which He would be nailed and left to die on while being mocked and ridiculed. Being in His humanity just as human as you are, He did a very human thing: He prayed to the Father, asking God if it was possible that He could avoid what He knew quite well was about to happen. But He knew something else quite well: In His divinity He knew you. He knew what eternity would be like without you. He found that thought to be far more horrifying than anything the Roman soldiers would do to Him. This compelled Him to say to the Father, "Not My will but Thine be done." When the Roman soldiers came and asked which one of them was "Jesus," He announced to them "I AM HE" with divine determination to do whatever it would take to have you with Him forever. The soldiers, having never before experienced the power of a remark filled with such profound determination, fell to the ground. Divine determination must be as frightening as it is profound. No one has or ever could love you as heroically and as passionately as God has loved you. How does one respond to that love? Well, as the one of the verses to Amazing Grace puts it,
Must Jesus bear the cross alone and all the world go free? No, there's a cross for everyone. And there's a cross for me.
We respond to His love by doing as Christ asked us to do: Take up our cross and follow Him. The suffering of this life is a gift. It enables us, if we unite it to that of Christ, to participate in His atoning suffering. This truth brought St. Paul to make a mysterious remark:
I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for His body's sake, which is the church. -- Colossians 1:24
What could possibly be lacking in the sufferings of Christ? What is lacking is your share of the atonement for the misuse of free will by humanity. Those not part of the rebellion rejoice in (well ... maybe just accept ;o) the cross with St. Paul and hoist it up along with Jesus. We are never more close to Him than when we are there beneath the cross with Him. Many good people who have no understanding of this yet suffered very much in this life, when they meet Jesus, will wonder why He is thanking them, and saying "Well done, good and faithful servant!" He will thank them because they, even though they didn't realize its implications at the time, found it in themselves to consent to the will of the Father in a moment of horrible anxiety and pain, which amounted to saying to our Father along with Jesus that dark night in the garden, "Not my will but Thine be done." He will thank them for helping out with carrying that terribly, terribly heavy cross. It will be good to meet those who carried the cross for your sake, and those for whose sake you carried the cross, whether you realized it or not at the time. We have to keep the big picture, which St. Paul puts this way:
The spirit you received is not the spirit of slaves bringing fear into your lives again; it is the spirit of sons, and it makes us cry out, 'Abba, Father!' The Spirit Himself and our spirit bear united witness that we are children of God. And if we are children we are heirs as well: heirs of God and coheirs with Christ, sharing his sufferings so as to share his glory. I think that what we suffer in this life can never be compared to the glory, as yet unrevealed, which is waiting for us. <b.-- Romans 8:15-17
There is suffering because there is a need for atonement. We can respond to the love of God and accept the atoning cross along with Jesus, or we can refuse to do that (which turns us into lunch for that roaring lion). We have a free will. It is better to respond to the love of God and take up the cross. God is good.harry_{May 22, 2015
May
05
May
22
22
2015
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

TJguy hits the nail on the head again. This question is a man-centric question posed by those who choose to use it as an argument against accepting the God of Christianity and some others. yet it is completely the wrong question to ask especially I ally in the context of God's revealed Word. A man once came to Jesus and said to Him: "Good teacher..." Jesus replied and said "Why do you call me good for only God is good?" Jesus wanted the man to understand a) the sinfulness of ALL of humankind and b) recognise the incarnate deity of Jesus Himself, who he was speaking to. This poses the point - all have sinned, all fall short, in sin I was conceived (I.e the moment I came into existence I was with sin) yet God is good and perfect. Yet just as light cannot mix with darkness, sinfulness cannot stand in the presence of goodness, true goodness. So the question becomes not "is God good?" But "why are sin and evil deeds tolerated by a good God?" Then we understand that from that perspective God is able to and does display several of His key attributes - namely His grace and mercy as well as others (such as humility, love, etc). What people fail to also recognise is that by their mere existence here on earth following their first sin they are under grace and mercy as they should only be destined for eternal separation from God. Common grace abounds, but only for a short period. The evil of the world should serve to highlight not only common grace but also the need for salvation and a Saviour. This is what separates true Biblical Christianity from every other religion in the world: salvation through grace alone without reliance on works. For there is nothing anyone can do themselves to attain to the standard of God's holiness and righteousness. "Be holy just as I AM holy."Dr JDD_{May 22, 2015
May
05
May
22
22
2015
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

tjguy @ 10 Amen and well put. If you aren't a Pastor or Minister, you should be. CheersCross_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

Sean S. @ 8
I’ve read the Epilog, and need to re-read it, but some points stand out right away. The point of E.2 (The Regularity of Natural Law) seems to be that God is not all-powerful, that there are things even God (or gods) cannot do. This is reasonable although the Bible occasionally says the contrary so I wonder if Christians actually tend to agree with this.
There are things that God cannot do. He cannot sin, for one thing, because He would cease from being perfect. He cannot violate His own character. Also, He cannot do things that are logically impossible – things such as making a rock that is too big for Him to lift, etc.
The author says “tragedies such as floods and automobile accidents are the results of laws of physics which, viewed as a whole, are magnificently designed and normally work for our benefit.
They are definitely the result of the laws of physics and laws of nature which God controls, but there are times in Scripture when God steps in and violates these laws for special purposes, like the time He caused a worldwide flood, or the time He stilled the storm on the Sea of Galilee. So it is not that God cannot do miracles or is powerless to stop the forces of nature that He has set in motion, but normally, He does not do this.
Another quote from the article: Nearly everything in Nature which is harmful to man has also a benevolent side, or is the result of a good thing gone bad. Even pain and fear themselves sometimes have useful purposes: pain may warn us that something in our body needs attention, and without fear, we would all die young doing foolish and dangerous things, or kill ourselves the first time life disappoints us.
This is a good point. The Bible tells us that the world/universe that God originally created was “very good”. He was not a tinkerer who took 10,000 attempts to finally get it right. He made the light and it was good. He made the sky and land and it was good. There is a decisiveness, purposefulness, and plan to his creative acts. And in the beginning, everything was truly good – unlike what we experience today. The problem came when man chose to go His own way and disobey the clear command of His good and loving Creator and Lord. Adam chose to sin knowing it would bring death on himself. The whole creation was cursed as a result of mankind’s sin. Disease entered the world. Thorns entered the world. Maybe some good bacteria turned bad. Cultivating the ground became hard labor intensive tiring work. The animals were originally created as herbivores turned into carnivores and the peaceful harmony of God’s original creation was destroyed. The Bible says that the whole creation is groaning and waiting to be redeemed, just like we are. So, in the future, God will restore His creation and the damage that sin has caused will be healed. Peace and harmony will be restored. The sin of humanity and God's judgment on the world explains part of the reason that God does not always intervene to save us from the power of nature. The fact that many things have a benevolent side and are the result of a good thing gone bad fits quite nicely with the curse on sin that has affected the whole world. So I would disagree with the insinuation that the Creator cannot control everything that this author makes in the article. This is a cop out and degrades the Creator God, but it is one attempt at getting God off the hook for the bad stuff in the world. The Bible makes it clear that God is the author of life and only He has the right to give AND to take life. Even if He has allowed us and Satan a certain amount of control here and now, He is the Creator and has ultimate control. I can find no where in Scripture that would support the idea of anything less than an omnipotent God.
E.3 (The Freedom of Man’s Will) begins with this: “the unhappiness in this world attributable to ‘acts of God’ … is small compared to the unhappiness which we inflict on each other.”
Oh how very true.
Yes, this is very true and it just goes to show that humans really are sinners by nature. This is another result of our choice to disobey God and go our own way. We are born unredeemed. We are born without spiritual life and are in fact, residents of the Kingdom of darkness. No one has to teach us how to lie, how to be selfish, how to be mean, how to be proud, how to be lazy, or how to say mean things. It comes naturally. We have to teach children how NOT to do these things. It is popular these days to say that kids are born with a blank slate. They are pure & undefiled and are later defiled by their experiences and by bad people. But this doesn’t fit the facts. This natural propensity to sin resulting from our alienation from God explains much of this suffering that we cause for others and that we experience from the hands of others.
It continues, “I am convinced that the majority of the things which make us most unhappy are the direct or indirect result of the sins and errors of people. Often, unfortunately, it is not the guilty person who suffers. But our evil actions are also the inevitable result of one of our highest blessings—our free will.”
No. Free will is a moral scape-goat. Free will (assuming it even exists) explains the ABILITY to make bad choices. But it does not explain the PROPENSITY for bad choices. Most explanations (including CS Lewis’s) muddle this point. Free will may make evil possible, but it is not the cause of evil, it is not the cause of the tendency. Evil cannot be the inevitable result of free will. Does not God have free will? If no, then we have an ability God lacks? Odd thought that… If yes, then God must inevitably be evil, like us. If we blanch at the thought (who wouldn’t?) and insist that God is Perfectly Good (as many do.) then free will is exonerated from causing evil.
Right. Our free will explains our ability to make bad choices and our sin nature explains why we all have a propensity to make bad choices or the inability to do what we know we should do. Our sin nature also explains the pain and heartache of parenting as we experience firsthand the results of our child’s sin nature. Parenting also shows us our own sinfulness as we see our kids copying what we do. They see our sin, our double standards, our inconsistencies, our struggles, etc. They also experience suffering from our hands when we get angry at them, make unwise decisions they have to accept, and punish too harshly or not properly. We need to teach forgiveness, patience, love, grace, etc and not only teach these things but model them. Although we may get better at masking it when we get older, the fact that we cannot consistently do these things we want our kids to do is a reminder that we too are sinful at heart. This shows us that we too need a Savior to forgive us and rescue us from the penalty of sin.
Why do children cause such pain and heartache? Because they are born incomplete, ignorant and unable to control themselves. They are born this way not because their parents want it that way, but because God made it that way. The pain and heartache is caused by the incompleteness and ignorance of the child, and rectified over time (if ever) by “raising” the child toward completeness and knowledge (or wisdom).
God “made” it that way is a half truth and puts the blame on God. He "made" it that way only after man chose to rebel against Him. It was the predetermined punishment for sin that we, by sinning, chose to bring on ourselves. However, at great expense to Himself, God did make a way for us to be able to become perfect and overcome the pain and heartache of sin. He sent Jesus His Son to take our penalty for sin, to die in our place, so that we could be forgiven, redeemed, and restored to a relationship with Him. The process of becoming perfect is what we call sanctification and it begins the moment we enter into a relationship with God through faith in His Son, but it will be completed when we reach heaven where there will be no more sin, curse, pain, death, or suffering. God entered into our pain to rescue us when we did not deserve to be rescued. He suffered for us so that we could have a way out of our hopeless predicament.
Human parents have no power to do other than engage in this multi-year process. It’s slow and painful. Question: is God also limited in this way? That seems a stretch. Is God simply unable to instruct us better?
The instructions, the way God wants us to live, the rights and wrongs of life, etc. are plain and clear for all to see. + The truths and moral commands in God’s Word first of all serve the important function of revealing to us who God is. Sin is wrong because God is holy. Idolatry is wrong because God is the one and only God. Murder is wrong because God is the author of life. Adultery is wrong because God is pure and faithful. Lying is wrong because God is trustworthy and true. Stealing is wrong because God is trustworthy and honest. Coveting is wrong because we are to find our joy and satisfaction in Him instead of in things. Etc. The character of God Himself serves as the absolute standard for morality. + The moral commands in Scripture also show the best way to live. They show us how we were designed us to live and are helpful because without this guide, we would not know many of these things. + The moral commands of Scripture also function to show us our own sin and moral weakness. It’s no secret that no one is perfect. No one can keep all the commands and as such, we are all sinners. God didn’t give us the commands first and foremost so we would obey them. He knows we can’t. He does require our obedience, but a higher purpose for the commands is that through them, we would see our sinfulness and our desperate need for forgiveness and a Savior. A person who doesn’t think he is sick doesn’t realize that he needs a doctor. In the same way, until we realize we are indeed sinful and in need of grace and forgiveness, we will not seek a Savior or God. This is one important reason God gave us a conscience. + The moral commands also function to point us to Jesus who did perfectly keep every command of God. They point us to Jesus who alone is able to save us because of His sacrifice on the cross for us. God has instructed us well enough and has even gone beyond that! He has even provided a way to be forgiven and to come back into relationship with Him and to get a new nature so that eventually we will become perfect once again. He has provided a way to solve the problem of evil at great cost to Himself! It is not God’s fault that things are the way they are, but He does allow suffering temporarily in the present. And in the midst of it all, He is still working out His perfect plan of redemption, as the story of the cross shows.
Free will is not to blame for the world’s evil; it’s our innate, God-given compulsions and ignorance that are to blame. If God so loves us that He must give us free will, why could He not arm us with more information and self-control so we’d use it better? That’s the real question.
Again, He did arm us with all the information we need and He prepared a way for us to deal with this problem. Since Adam sinned, every human being has been born with a sin nature except the God/man Jesus. This is not God’s fault, but rather a judgment for our sin. The Bible does not give us all the answers. Why does God intervene at times and not at other times? Why do some people get sick and others live a full healthy life? (Sometimes "good people" get sick and "evil people" seem to prosper although there is no truly good person except God.) The questions are endless and as finite human beings we just cannot answer them all. But we should at least believe the information/truth that God has told us and trust Him for what He has not told us. Often times, we think that if God is good, then He should make everyone’s life happy. And if He doesn't then He is either weak or evil Himself. But that is a misunderstanding of who God is and what His purpose is in life. He does love us and He does care when we suffer, but He has a greater purpose for our lives than always being happy. Happiness is temporary and fleeting. He desires ultimate happiness – eternal happiness/satisfaction - for us and that means that we have to see our sin, experience our own moral weakness, realize we cannot be moral according to His standards on our own, and come to Him for help. He has done more than could be expected to rescue us from this dilemma of our own making. The Bible presents a perfect omnipotent Creator creating the universe according to His plan so that it was VERY GOOD. It was then corrupted by sin and cursed as a result of punishment for that sin. And since that time, God has been at work in this world and in the affairs of men to bring about His perfect plan of redemption – first of all redeeming mankind through the death of His Son on the cross which He brought about according to His plan. But then also, He is working towards the future redemption of this world/universe and the complete redemption of His children as well. He will restore this earth or recreate it and the new heavens and earth will be better than the old in one significant way. Having been fully sanctified and saved from the presence of sin, we will not be able to sin any longer. Only good will exist for the rest of eternity and sin and all evil will be destroyed forever. This is the salvation story from creation to eternity that the Bible presents.tjguy_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

... and let me hurry to add that, although I do not accept ID or other forms of creationism, this matter (God’s Goodness) has no bearing on that question. sean s.sean samis_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

I’ve read the Epilog, and need to re-read it, but some points stand out right away. The point of E.2 (The Regularity of Natural Law) seems to be that God is not all-powerful, that there are things even God (or gods) cannot do. This is reasonable although the Bible occasionally says the contrary so I wonder if Christians actually tend to agree with this. E.3 (The Freedom of Man’s Will) begins with this: “the unhappiness in this world attributable to ‘acts of God’ ... is small compared to the unhappiness which we inflict on each other.” Oh how very true. It continues, “I am convinced that the majority of the things which make us most unhappy are the direct or indirect result of the sins and errors of people. Often, unfortunately, it is not the guilty person who suffers. But our evil actions are also the inevitable result of one of our highest blessings—our free will.” No. Free will is a moral scape-goat. Free will (assuming it even exists) explains the ABILITY to make bad choices. But it does not explain the PROPENSITY for bad choices. Most explanations (including CS Lewis’s) muddle this point. Free will may make evil possible, but it is not the cause of evil, it is not the cause of the tendency. Evil cannot be the inevitable result of free will. Does not God have free will? If no, then we have an ability God lacks? Odd thought that... If yes, then God must inevitably be evil, like us. If we blanch at the thought (who wouldn’t?) and insist that God is Perfectly Good (as many do.) then free will is exonerated from causing evil. So whence evil? After the CS Lewis quote, the essay discusses the decision to have a child, and the pain and heartache of that choice (which I know, I have two children.) It compares God’s experience to a parents. This is getting closer to reality. Why do children cause such pain and heartache? Because they are born incomplete, ignorant and unable to control themselves. They are born this way not because their parents want it that way, but because God made it that way. The pain and heartache is caused by the incompleteness and ignorance of the child, and rectified over time (if ever) by “raising” the child toward completeness and knowledge (or wisdom). Human parents have no power to do other than engage in this multi-year process. It’s slow and painful. Question: is God also limited in this way? That seems a stretch. Is God simply unable to instruct us better? Free will is not to blame for the world’s evil; it’s our innate, God-given compulsions and ignorance that are to blame. If God so loves us that He must give us free will, why could He not arm us with more information and self-control so we’d use it better? That’s the real question. CS Lewis wrote (and was quoted in the essay), “The better stuff a creature is made of—the cleverer and stronger and freer it is—then the better it will be if it goes right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong.” This may be true, but only if this “stuff” does not consider better information. I seriously doubt there’s much evil in the world because we know too much. Even when technology leads us astray, it is almost invariably because of things we DIDN’T know. There’s a lot more to be said on this, of course, but time constrains me for now. sean s.sean samis_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Your #2, Silver Fox is very logical, but I don't think it's about logic. Until the problem of pain is sorted out TO THEIR SATISFACTION, they just wouldn't want to know if ID is true. Indeed, a putative confirmation, however half-baked, that it is false, would actually provide a smidgeon of perversely bitter comfort, I suspect.Axel_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

God is the definition of good therefore inherently He is good. The question is do you have faith that He is good? Even when things from an earthly and human perspective might appear to challenge this?Dr JDD_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

A beautiful essay, Mr Sewell! I am glad to have been allowed to read it. Thank you for sharing it. I will try to share it in turn with many friends. I've ordered a couple of copies of your entire book, too.DennisM_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

I read the epilogue. Excellent! One point needs to made, though. While pain, suffering, and evil may be A)inevitable given human freedom and B)used by God to deepen our compassion & patience, that does not mean that God wants pain, suffering, and evil. We can think of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, knowing what was coming in 70AD. Or Jesus' anger that death had taken his friend Lazarus. Or that God promises to give us new bodies not subject to age, disease, and death.anthropic_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

My view (I'm a Spiritualist) is that there already is a perfect world where there is no suffering ... the afterlife. So if we are here in the physical world, there is a reason we left that perfect world to come here and there would be no point in being here on earth if it was perfect like the afterlife is. It is hard to understand what purpose could justify the great pain some people experience here on the earth, but the fact that we are eternal beings might give us a different perspective on the earth life once we are past it.Jim Smith_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

it is increasingly obvious that scientific and logical arguments alone will never reach these angry opponents of design, at some point you have to deal with the real reasons they are angry
I think it's difficult to deal with the psychological obstacles people have. One idea, instead of talking about theology, might be to help people see that design doesn't necessarily mean God. ID opponents often link the concepts (ID = God)- so they're anti-design because they suffer from various anti-God psychoses which are challenging to cure. But there are several philosophical positions one could take in accepting design, without having to conclude that it is necessarily God, in the theistic sense.
As design advocates, we often respond “bad design is still design.”
That argument is good, as I see it. ID is not meant to explain the workings of God. It opens the door to theology, but you have to accept that design exists first. "Bad design" is a judgement about the design. If a design-opponent says "yes, there's evidence of design, but it's 'bad design'" -- that moves the discussion out of ID theory and on to other things. The ID proposal ends there. It has successfully shown (for that person) that there is design.Silver Asiatic_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Is God Really Good? All the time.Mung_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply