faith – Tertius26

19 september 20213 november 2021

Time to Think. 7. The Case for Faith. What is Faith and What is the Evidence?

Share us >>

First, it is important to refute the not only sad but bad misconception that the Christian faith is ‘blind’. So, what is faith, Christian faith? The Biblical definition of faith is trust. And one can only trust someone if there is sufficient evidence to support the trust. In the original Greek Biblical manuscripts, the word pistis was used and in the later translations the Latin word fides. What exactly do these words mean and why is evidence so vital in Christian faith?

Pistis means trust and trust alone, in God and in His promises. Pistis literally means trust. Pistis (ˈpɪstɪs/ (Πίστις) in early Greek was the personification of good faith, of trust and reliability. And trust according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it is the assured reliance on the character, ability, strength or truth of someone or something. And in the Bible, of God. (which is impossible really if there is no evidence!) The word used in the Bible translation is the Latin word fides which means believe, confidence, loyalty, word of honor, truth, authenticity.

Thus, the Biblical word faith, the words pistis and fides, encompass all of the following: it is the trust of someone when there is sufficient evidence to support it, it is the reliability, the assured reliance on the character, on the ability, on the strength and truth of a person. It is the belief in, the confidence in, the loyalty and the word of honor, and authenticity, of the person in question, of God.

The earliest Christians understood pistis/fides as a relationship of trust and faithfulness between God and human beings, which also shaped relationships between human beings. Christians are unique in putting trust at the heart of their relationship with God and Christ. Biblical faith is embodied in a person, a Person with absolute and perfect integrity and faithfulness.

The definition of faith is, according to The Oxford Dictionary ‘A complete trust or confidence in someone or something.’ ‘Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see’ Hebrews 11:1 (NIV) ‘Do not see’ does not imply ‘blind’, that would be a gross misunderstanding of this passage and misconception of the Christian faith. Christian faith is based on evidence, the evidence in what we ‘see’ as we believe the person of God, followed by the actual seeing what He promised and be further evidence for future trust. The rest of the chapter Hebrews 11, gives a long list of people who believed God, had faith in Him, believed His promises but did not see it initially but then saw it fulfilled, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses. In verse 12 the writer asks, ‘How much more do I need to say?’ and he carries on, Gideon Samson, David and more. This is the foundation of the Jewish religion and Christianity. The evidence that God fulfills His promises. That we will always see through trusting Him what we do not yet see as we trust His character, His integrity.

“Faith is to believe what you do not yet see; the reward for this faith is to see what you believe.” Saint Augustine many centuries ago. In other words that what you believe, based on the character of God, you will see fulfilled. In this life and the hereafter.

According to the Oxford Learners Dictionary: ‘blind faith is an unreasonable trust in somebody/something’s ability.’ The Oxford Dictionary second meaning of faith is: ‘a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.’ This is neither fides nor pistis. It is everything but what Christian faith is about. ‘Blind faith’ is baseless, without evidence, mere religious beliefs i.e., Muslim faith, Buddhism, Hinduism. Christian faith is a relationship with a Person that one trusts, based, and build on experience as evidence.

What is the evidence given for Christianity – for faith, to trust God?

Biblical evidence: Christ’s evidence – the miracles: Luke 7, John 20, the Resurrection, historical evidence e.g., in Hebrews 11 – as has been discussed. Supported by accurate reliable documentation.
Personal evidence – radically changed lives; The experience of the reality of a personal love relationship with God – the delight of knowing Him. To Know and Love God vs Being Religious

My own radically changed life. See Tertius Venter Interview ‘The radical change that took place in my heart was not from a rational decision but in response to an overwhelming Love that became rational’

(and multitudes of other Christians through the ages)

Former atheist Lee Strobel – see below

These radical changes have their foundations in and supported by historical, archeological, cosmological, philosophical, and moral evidence added to the evidence of rational argumentation with the coherence of the Bible, history, life, and the reality experienced in this world (unlike any world religion) See my YouTube Channel : A Time to Think

The Biblical evidence. Christ continuously gave evidence in the miracles He did. And In Luke 7: 20-22 we read ‘When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to You to ask, ‘Are You the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” 22 … He replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.’ John 20: 30-31 ‘Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.’ The ultimate evidence, the resurrection, for His divinity. See Facts about the Resurrection. The apostles’ evidence for what they believed and said was the miracles people saw in their lives, the explosive growth of the church. See The Reliability of the Biblical Account of the Life of Jesus. Christians to this day experience God’s presence, faithfulness to His promises, signs, wonders and miracles in their lives as evidence for the living Christ in their lives.

Every time one would encounter the word ‘faith’ in the Christian Bible it can be replaced with the words ‘absolute trust in the Person of God’.

‘Faith is a response to evidence, not a rejoicing in the absence of evidence’ John Lennox, professor of mathematics, Oxford University, and Fellow in mathematics and science philosophy, Green Templeton College.

From a convinced atheist to a committed Christian, Lee Strobel, an award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune and best-selling author of more than twenty books describes in his book The Journey of Lee Strobel, as a journalist and a lawyer by nature, his investigation of Christianity:

As an atheist, he thought that the idea of an all-knowing, almighty, all-present, all-loving God was an absurd idea. God was created by men to help man cope in this hopeless world. He had a skeptical mindset, in the newsroom where he worked, he always wanted two sources of information before publication.

He realized that he had no moral compass for life and lived a self-destructive and self-absorbed life. He lived for himself and became a drunk with doubtful moral behavior. He had no real understanding of right and wrong. Bertrand Russell, atheist, ‘If there is no God, there is no universal right and wrong’ He would destroy someone who got in his way, and it did not bother him. He felt enraged over his inability to find the ‘elusive’ happiness in life.

Then his wife became a Christian. She was an agnostic and was befriended by Christians and she came to know Christ. Strobel’s response was ‘Don’t give money to the church, that’s all they want’ ‘Don’t ask me to go with you, I’m too smart for that’ Then he noticed the changes in his wife’s life, she became winsome and attractive, and he wanted to know what was behind that. He decided to go to church with her. The pastor blew his misconceptions about Christianity. ‘All fall short to God’s standard. Does God feel far?’ Sure, he thought. ‘That can all change through Christ in a personal relationship with Him’ He was touched by the words but remained an atheist, a skeptic.

Strobel decided to investigate the credibility of Christianity and realized that if he would find it to be true, it would have huge implications for his life. But the truth was important. Was Christianity fact or fiction?

He decided to take his journalism and legal training and systematically investigate the credibility of Christianity.

He had eight important questions that he investigated over a 1 year and 9-month period.

How many witnesses were there?
Who wrote the Gospel accounts?
Are the gospel accounts historical records?
Is the idea of Christ as a deity just a legend?
How can we trust the oral tradition to pass the facts?
Would the disciples die for something they knew to be false?
Did Jesus fulfill Old Testament prophecies?
Did Jesus rise from the dead?
“The number of witnesses that were there” – this is always the first question in journalism. He discovered that there were many witnesses to the events of the New Testament and some eyewitnesses took the time to record their experiences, gave good historical evidence of their experiences with Jesus. John, Matthew, Mark, James, Paul and Luke.
“Who wrote the Gospel accounts?” He discovered that there was good historical evidence that the gospel accounts were actually written by the names they bear. He realized that the authors took pains to record only what they knew to be true. Luke was a first-century investigative reporter. See Luke 1:1-4. He investigated the events, spoke to many witnesses and wrote the accounts down in order. Peter said that they didn’t make up the stories, they were eyewitnesses. John wrote about what they had heard and seen and touched with their hands.
“Are the gospel accounts historical records?” Strobel used his training from Yale to take a set of documents and apply legal tests of evidence to determine the credibility. He wasn’t ready to accept the writings as the inspired word of God but had to admit they were ancient historical records.
“Is the idea of Christ as a deity just a legend?” He wondered if the oral transmission of the New Testament was distorted by legend and wishful thinking. Were the gospels written 60 to 100 years later and did they bear resemblance to the real Jesus? He soon realized that very early on Jesus was presented as divine. Matthew, Mark and Luke were written within 50 years of Jesus’s life. Paul’s letters within 16 to 20 years of Jesus’s life. Paul and Peter preserved early creeds which predate Paul’s writings, creeds that affirm Jesus in very exalted terms. Phil 2:6, Col 1:15, I Peter 3:22. I Cor 15:3- 7 is the creed of the early church that affirms the core of Christianity. This creed is dated by scholars as early as 2-5 years after Jesus’ life. Elements of the creed include eyewitnesses and testimony. Therefore, the references to the deity of Jesus were not developed by legends many years later. A.N. Sherman White (classical historian from Oxford): says that the development of legend takes more than 2 generations to wipe out the solid core of historical truth. Craig Blomberg: when you look at creeds and the early preaching in Acts, you see that within the first 2 years after Jesus’ death: a. significant numbers of Jesus’ followers formed a doctrine of the atonement b. they were convinced Jesus had risen from the dead c. they associated Jesus with God d. they believed they found support for these is the Old Testament. The German Historian in 1844 challenged any historian in history to find any case of legend growing up that quickly and wiping out a solid core of the historical proof
“How can we trust the oral tradition to pass the facts?” Strobel realized the significance of the fact that the followers of Jesus were going around telling people about Jesus in the same time frame in which he lived. F.F. Bruce: “If there was any tendency by disciples to depart from material facts in any way, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would serve as a corrective.” How could Christianity take root in the very city where Jesus died and rose again? If the disciples were saying false things about Him, then the movement would have ended. In the historical record, the followers appealed to common knowledge that their audience had about Jesus: Peter’s message in Acts 2: “You know what He did and that He rose. You are all eyewitnesses!” Their response: they didn’t deny Peter; 3,000 people said to Peter, “What do we do? We know we put Messiah to death.” Then those 3,000 believed that day and the Church was born in Jerusalem.
“Would the disciples die for something they knew to be false?” The disciples must really have believed because they were willing to die in support of the belief that Jesus really was the Son of God, who died on our behalf, and proved it by rising from the dead. But that’s not evidence: people all throughout history have been willing to die for religious beliefs. The DIFFERENCE: people will die for religious beliefs if they sincerely believe they are true, but never if they know they’re false. The apostles didn’t just believe the resurrection to be true; they knew it for a fact. They knew the truth and were willing to die for it.
“Did Jesus fulfill Old Testament prophecies?” Five dozen prophecies were written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Lewis Lapides, a Jewish scholar read Isaiah 53 and came to the conclusion that that is a picture of Jesus of Nazareth. He wondered if it was a forgery but then saw that the Jewish version of Isaiah 53 read exactly the same as the version used by Christians. He confirmed that Isaiah 53 was indeed about Jesus of Nazareth; became a Christian and the president of a network of 15 messianic congregations. Could anyone have fulfilled the prophecies? Was it easy? Peter Stoner of Westmont had 600 students try to come up with the odds that any human could fulfill just 8 of the prophecies (which was a very conservative consensus). The odds? One chance in a hundred million billion. What about fulfilling 48 prophecies? Luke 24:44—Jesus said that all written by the prophets must be fulfilled
“Did Jesus rise from the dead?” Strobel realized he was not the first one trained in law to take evidence for the resurrection and investigate it. Sir Lionel Luckhoo, a most successful lawyer in history, a defense attorney who won 245 murder trials consecutively, was an atheist and took his monumental knowledge, skill and beliefs and investigated the resurrection for years, from legal tests of evidence. “I say unequivocally that the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt” – Lionel Luckhoo. ‘Jesus died by crucifixion, was stabbed in the heart. Pronounced dead by experts. Placed in a sealed & guarded tomb. On Easter Sunday morning the body was gone. People proclaimed to their death they saw Jesus alive. The earliest writing says 500 people saw him at once. Jewish leaders wanted him dead, the Roman government wanted him to stay dead. The disciples weren’t going to take the body and then knowingly, willingly die for the lie – people don’t do that.’

Archaeology. Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and Acts (acts of the apostle and the early church) corroborates incidental details in his writings that are confirmed by archaeology. Why would he be careless about Jesus?

Lee Strobel’s investigations lasted 1 year 9 months and he wrote out on a legal pad all the evidence he gathered. He stated that against the huge avalanche of evidence it took more faith to maintain his atheism, he couldn’t. He was trained in journalism and law to respond to evidence and was convinced. He read John 1:12 ‘to all who believed Him and accepted Him, He gave the right to become children of God.’

Based on evidence his life was revolutionized. His 5-year-old daughter saw the changes in her daddy’s life – “I want God to do for me what He’s done for Daddy”

The Case for Christ: A Journalists Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus

4 september 202114 oktober 2021

Time to Think. 6. Moral Relativism

Share us >>

Morality without God. Relativism.

What kind of moral person would different moral viewpoints produce? Mother Theresa is an example of a good moral system or viewpoint and Hitler of a bad moral viewpoint. Everyone strives to be moral, hopefully. When accused of an immoral action, one would almost always offer reasons to defend the action and seldom denies the immoral principle underlying the action. ‘What you have said is a lie’ And one will defend the reason for the lie or deny that it was a lie though never the principle that to lie is immoral. We all have a deep sense of what is right, what is moral. But what are the implications and consequences if there is no objective moral standard, no transcended standard outside of us, no God? If an opinion exists that a blatant lie or blatant dishonesty, is sometimes bad and sometimes good?

What are the kinds of people one would expect moral relativism would produce? Both relativism and subjectivism claim that there is no universal truth or objective truth. In relativism, morality or truth exists in relation to culture, traditions, and society, while in subjectivism, morality or truth is subjective and personal. According to these views, things are true only in respect to the individual or set of individuals who holds them. Truth is relative to the subject. When we accept that ‘what is right for me is not necessarily right for you’ it would mean that people who don’t really care about others’ moral viewpoint as what is right for ‘me’ is what is important. It would produce people whose society marches to beat of each individual’s own drum, making one’s own moral rules. A sociopath is a person with no conscience, he freely changes his moral values – this is the fully expressed relativist. If it is all relative and if the decision that something is morally right or wrong depends on variables, on people, ideas, societies, all that change over time, we might find ourselves in a difficult situation, that no principles can be laid down or taught. We will find that we are in changing situations all the time and that morality becomes such a dynamically changing entity that it will crumble to nothing but individual taste i.e. Hitler, Mao Tse-tung, Stalin, cannibalism.

There are three types of moral relativism that attempt to justify relativism.

“Society does relativism”e., cultural relativism or descriptive relativism

The claim: We used to think morality was objective, but that was before we encountered other cultures and their moral practices. Now we see that people do in fact differ morally across cultures. So, morality is just a function of culture.

Response: Even if this observation is true, then it still does not follow that no one is objectively correct. It is not so clear that there is such a wide diversity of morals. Instead, it could be a difference over the facts, not the values. Example: abortion. Pro-life and pro-choice both hold to value that we should not take the lives of innocent human persons. But they differ over who counts as a person. Some of the apparent differences between cultures are the differences in the facts as they see it. Observation only, is not a sound conclusion for relativism. It tells us about the culture and not about morality.

“Society says relativism”

Claim: You ought to do what society says. You ought to do what your society says you should do. Right and wrong are society-directed. And cultural ideas are equally valid.

Replies: But then there can’t be an immoral society – each society has its own values, and you cannot critique another society from the outside – by what standard can you critique another society? And one cannot critique one’s own society. And by definition, there cannot be immoral laws, again by what standard? The example of the Nuremberg Trial and how the Nazis appealed to this idea – that there are no overarching moral truths by which we can judge another culture. They were following orders, what their societal structure demanded, but the international tribunal did not accept it. The Nazis were immoral. But on ‘society says relativism’ view, we could not have judged the Nazis. Yet, what they did was clearly immoral. Corrie Ten Boom would have been immoral, too, for going against the laws of her society at the time (i.e., when under Nazi rule). Yet, that conclusion is wildly counterintuitive. ‘Society says relativism’ reduces morality to what the law says and not to what is moral. Furthermore, you cannot critique your own society. If this type of relativism were true, then it would be immoral to go against your own society. And there cannot be any moral reformers, who by definition would be immoral going against society. Yet, this too seems clearly mistaken. There are by definition no immoral laws, it reduces what is moral to what is legal.

“I say relativism”

This is individual ethical relativism. What is right for one person might not be right for another, the most radical form of relativism. Also known as subjectivism. But moral truths are known directly and immediately – you don’t come to a conclusion, you know it. Examples: murder is wrong, torturing babies for fun is wrong, etc. These are clear-cut examples of moral truths, and the burden of proof should be on the relativist who denies them.

There are seven fatal flaws in relativism. a. If morality is relative, then relativists can never say something is wrong i.e., in itself. They cannot claim something is intrinsically or objectively wrong for all people. b. Relativists cannot complain about the problem of evil. To be consistent, evil must be relative to individuals. c. Relativists cannot place blame or accept praise. We praise people like Mother Theresa for doing truly good things, not simply if she did what we happen to like. But on relativism, there is no objective goodness or badness. Praising or blaming another is to make a moral judgment. But, on this view, there is nothing for which to praise or blame another. Relativists cannot claim anything as unfair or unjust. These concepts are normative, too, and presuppose a universal standard. But they make no sense if morality is relative to individuals. e. Relativists cannot improve their own morality. Example of bowling: you can improve your bowling when you have a standard against which you can measure your performance. But here, there is no such standard, if relativism is true. Individuals can change their morality, but that does not solve this problem. f. Relativists cannot have meaningful moral discussions. – if you cannot improve your morality. If there is no such thing as a common good, then such discussions (e.g., in politics) are meaningless. g. Relativists cannot promote the obligation to be tolerant. Tolerance makes sense only if it is an objective moral truth. If there are no interpersonal moral obligations, then there is no basis to promote the virtue of tolerance.

The Consequence of Practicing Moral Relativism is a world in which nothing is wrong, evil or good for all people, nothing is worthy of praise or blame, there is no accountability, no meaningful moral discourse or improvement, a world with no moral tolerance. Nobody can live this way and nobody really does! But relativism is the most pervasive viewpoint. People can talk this way but cannot live it. One sees what peoples’ real moral intuitions are when their guard is not up. Example: The relativist cannot complain of injustice, but they do, ‘that’s not fair, that is my seat, I was here first.’ If people were to speak up against injustice, they deny relativism. But if they don’t speak up about injustice, then they deny their humanity.

But the relativist might still say you shouldn’t force your morality upon me. He is then, in fact, using morality to say this – his own moral standpoint. ‘Everyone should decide their own right/wrong – so I decide you are wrong! Reply: “Why not?” They will in turn push their morality upon you. The relativist cannot accept this in practice because they are human beings – if you speak against injustice, you deny relativism and if they don’t speak out, they deny their humanity.

If one would take his cellphone and walk away, he would immediately object which forces the relativist to see that she/he really holds to an objective standard. We do not want people to be relativists towards us. We want them to be virtues – show high moral standards. People often are relativists naively, or unreflectively. When they are wronged, they quickly become moral absolutists.

If relativism is true that none of the following prima facie bindings can always be true under ordinary circumstances: it is wrong to kill innocent people for no reason, or to torture people for fun, or to rape, that one should do justice and treat people equally, or obey just laws.

Relativism commits two fallacies. 1. Conventional ethical relativism cannot account for moral reformers, who stood up against culture. E.g., Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. But in reality we think that they were doing right in their actions. 2. Relativism cannot account for moral progress. We tend to think that we have improved morally over time (e.g., we no longer permit slavery). But, if relativism is true, then we cannot get closer to getting better, as there is no such thing as better.

Relativism fails. It makes no sense and cannot overcome reality. Objective morals exist, but what is a moral law then? The moral law is not, e.g., something testable by science. But moral laws exist and implicate an objective moral lawgiver. See my talk on morality.

Credit to Greg Koukl, Biola University, California.

16 augustus 202126 augustus 2021

Time to Think. 4.The Problem of Evil.

Share us >>

The Existence of Evil

God or no God – how does the existence of evil point to the existence of God

Evil cannot be a problem for the atheist. How can this be? You may ask. Evil is real. What is evil and how did it come about, why does it exist? What is the explanation from a materialistic/atheist viewpoint and from the Christian viewpoint? How are evil and suffering connected? The existence of evil poses three arguments against the existence of God. What are they and how do we deal with these arguments?

Evil cannot be a problem for the atheist because in a materialistic worldview there is no objective right or wrong. Materialism implies no free-will – man is just a moist robot reacting to physical and chemical processes, to genes and the environment. There is nothing transcended. I quote new atheist Sam Harris ‘Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it’. With no choice, evil is not possible with a materialistic worldview and therefore neither the consequences nor responsibility for one’s actions. “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music”. ― atheist Richard Dawkins. If materialism is true, the “thoughts” we have and the “conclusions” we reach, are produced, and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. But man cannot live with this worldview and the atheist has to make leaps of faith to the upper level (where God exists) as it is not tenable to remain on the lower level (where God does not exist) and live as if there is no evil. See Francis Schaefer’s, ‘The Two-Story Universe’ in my video on “The Absurdity of a Life without God’

Evil and suffering are real. But what is Evil?

The Existence of Evil Poses Three Arguments against The Existence of God: The logical argument, the evidential argument, and the existential problem and I will address all three.

But first, from the Christian perspective. What is evil and why suffering? The existence of God, of a mind, who is love, created humans in His image¹, to love Him. Love demands free will. To love without being free to choose to love is a contradiction in terms. Wrong choices lead to personal and natural evil and suffering. God ‘wills’ what is good because He is good. Moral action conforms to God’s nature and the more it conforms to His nature, the better it is.

We have to distinguish between evil and suffering as the consequence of wrong choices.

I. Evil – God is good and not the reason for evil/suffering. The fall of Man is². Or, if you would, original sin having chosen against the will of God³, against what is good against who He is. And this is the reality of every person’s life, every day⁴, selfish choices. The consequence is suffering.

A. Personal evil. Choosing self, people, and things above God

B. Natural evil. The world was perfectly created⁵, but it is now a broken reality. E.g., tectonic plates that move and cause earthquakes and tsunamis⁶ is the result of convection currents generated by radioactive decay, mutations in DNA and RNA is always an anomaly, a degenerative process, and the cause of the emergence of viral and bacterial pathogens causing disease and destruction, cancer (also in children), etc. The second law of thermodynamics is a process of decay – the universe is decaying.

The whole creation has been groaning together in the pains …⁷

But there is a promise. God will renew and restore⁸. Hope for broken relationships and the broken world.

II. Suffering – The Fall of Man is the reason

A. Personal Suffering – because of evil

‘Black suffering’ because of evil – God is not the reason. E.g., broken relationships as a result of one’s arrogance or pride. Or because laws were broken, and one has to pay a fine or be in jail. This is accompanied by guilt feelings.

‘White suffering’ – this is from God as in the story of Job or personal e.g., hardships as a result of following Christ. But the fall of man, evil, is still the underlying cause. If there was no sin, no satan, Job would not have suffered and there would have been no pain to love and live for God. ‘White suffering’ is without guilt feelings, knowing it is a result of having done the right thing.

B. Shared Suffering of Humanity the consequence of natural evil -consequence of the evil of humanity-

Light is an entity⁹, a ‘thing’ with a distinct and independent existence with physical properties. Darkness is not an entity, has no physical properties, just the absence of light. Light does not depend on darkness but makes it possible that darkness exists. Light can exist without darkness. The concept of darkness, however, cannot exist without light.

God is an entity. A subject with properties. Evil is not the absence of God but evil is also an entity with properties, e.g. evil intentions. It is something negative and in particular relational. God, an absolute and an entity, does not depend on evil. Evil cannot exist without good. The existence of God makes evil possible, but God can exist without evil. The concept and entity of evil cannot exist without God because the essence of evil is to choose against God, and no concept or entity to compare evil to or to decide that an act is evil. A further point in the argument for objective moral values because God exists.

The Existence of Evil Poses Three Arguments against The Existence of God.

The logical argument, the evidential argument, and the existential problem.

1. The logical argument.

The argument An omnipotent (almighty) God would be able to eliminate evil. b) An omniscient (all-knowing) God would know how to eliminate evil. c) An omnibenevolent (all-loving) God would want to eliminate evil. d) However, evil exists.

So, this “God set” is inconsistent. Either God is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, given that evil exists, or evil wouldn’t exist.

The God of traditional theism doesn’t exist, and it is irrational to believe in an all-knowing, almighty, all-loving God.

Response: Free will is the defense. To love without being free to choose to love is a contradiction in terms. Wrong choices lead to personal and natural evil.

Alvin Plantinga’s ‘The Free Will Defense’

i. God’s existence is not logically incompatible with evil – God might have reasons for allowing evil. If reasons are possible, then God’s existence is not a logical incompatibility with the existence of evil. A world with moral good is better than a world without it. But only free agents can do moral good.

ii. Could God have created free moral agents who never do wrong: genuine moral freedom entails the possibility of going wrong. It is up to free creatures whether or not they go wrong.

Free will defense is successful. Philosophers no longer believe the logical problem exists, for the free will defense answers it. No one can disprove God’s existence by the logical problem from evil.

2. The evidential argument.

The argument. In a court of law, it appeals to the preponderance of the evidence, in other words beyond reasonable doubt. There is some evidence for God’s existence but weighed against all the evil in the world the scale tip heavily against the existence of God.

Response. The argument is based on probability and inference. Similar to an argument that goes from ‘there is no good that we know of’ to ‘there is no good’, which is an inference. The argument goes from no apparent reason for all the evil in the world to no morally sufficient reason: from inscrutable incomprehensible evil (that we cannot understand) to pointless evil (for which there is no reason).

Why should we expect to see God’s reasons, to have access to His knowledge? We are morally free creatures who can do and indeed do wrong.

The evidential argument makes God’s existence less probable but there is strong evidence for God’s existence; objective morality, beginning of the universe, finetuning of the universe, evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, reliability of the New Testament manuscripts. Our lack of comprehensive knowledge of God’s knowledge and intentions with the concept of free will, make the existence of God very likely.

3. The existential problem.

Evil exists. Atheists have no definition for evil, what evil is and why it exists, and see it as either undeserved and/or unnecessary purposeless suffering. But evil exists and it is very personal.

Response one’s reaction to evil and suffering determines its meaning. Evil draw people closer to God or destroy their belief in God. Either despair, indifference, or growth.

See my video ‘What is this Virus? And God?’

The above pertained mostly to moral evil

Natural Evil.

The free process defense for natural evil is similar to the free will defense.

A world in which free creatures can exercise genuine creativity, thereby bringing about truly novel effects is better than a static one, in which we could not exercise creativity at all. In Biblically creation, God gave man dominion¹⁰. We often exercise it badly, but we are given it to make a real difference in the world. A static world would not allow that. The natural world is complex (technical) and composed of a high number of interrelated, dynamical, dissipative systems which are sensitively dependent on initial conditions. Free creatures with genuine free creativity and a complex world will lead to natural evil. God did not make a complex world in which natural evil cannot exist.

If the world is indeed complex: composed of a very high number of interrelated chaotic systems (complex). A slight nudge in initial conditions will result in natural disasters that God did not do. If the world were not like that, we could never do anything novel to fulfill God’s mandate to us. So why didn’t God make the world stable, to begin with? Why is it unstable? Because of the fall of man, sin – fall and rebellion of Satan¹² with its effect on the earth. The initial equilibrium state that God created was disturbed by the fall of Satan, such that natural phenomena, natural evils, occur, ultimately because of sin in the world created by God in which we can make a difference

Conclusion: even God cannot make a complex world in which natural evil could not occur (free process defense is very analogous to free will defense – man’s choices). Just as He ‘cannot’ make a square circle, it is illogical and against God and human rationality.

CONCLUSION

God is a good God. He did not need evil to exist in order for His goodness to be good. He did not need to create at all, nor did He need people. He freely made a decision to create and decided to gift creation with freedom, thereby to receive greater glory from it. He also made evil and suffering possible; He did not create evil but made it possible.

This Discussion on YouTube

¹ Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. Genesis 1:26

^{2 & 3}The fall of man is a term used to describe the transition of the first man and woman from a state of innocent obedience to God to a state of guilty disobedience. Genesis 3:1-24.

⁴All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. Psalm 14:3 There is no one righteous, not even one. Romans 3:10-12

⁵God saw all that He had made, and it was very good. Genesis 1:31

⁶The Earth’s crust is broken up into pieces called plates. The crust moves because of movements deep inside the earth. Heat rising and falling inside the mantle creates convection currents generated by radioactive decay in the core. Plate tectonics cause earthquakes and volcanoes.

^7&820 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. Romans 8: 20-22

⁸… until the time for the final restoration of all things, as God promised long ago … Acts 3:21

⁹ A subject is a being who has a unique consciousness and/or unique personal experiences, or an entity that has a relationship with another entity that exists outside itself. A subject is an observer, and an object is a thing observed.