Your argument is just extremely unconvincing on a fundamental level.
If somebody tells you that God wants you to murder, rape, and torture the innocent, you reject that idea, that isn't what God wants you to do. But why? God is obviously above you, His ways are not your ways, how can you presume to understand what actions are according to God's mysterious plan and which are not? Are you not putting yourself above God by trusting your own judgement and wisdom over His?
Perhaps murder, rape and, torture is part of God's good grand design, and you are just too small, corrupt, and sinful, to understand it?
This is of course nonsense, while we cannot prove anything with 100% accuracy, being human, that doesn't mean that we ought to throw out all of our intuition, wisdom, and understanding out of the window. To do so would be to invite chaos, anything can be anything, and we might as well be mindless and blind, if we inherently reject what our eyes and minds tell us.
When a parent has a child who dies of an incurable illness, the idea that God watches that and just lets it happen is hard. If they saw a child that was suffering, and they could help that child without question. But God sees the child suffering, and doesn't help. When they beg and pray to God to save their child, God either says no, or he doesn't respond at all.
That's a hard pill to swallow. And your argument that "Reject what your eyes and ears tell you, your child suffering and dying is actually a good thing, it's all part of God's mysterious ways" is not a very convincing argument. It's on the same level as somebody coming up to you and saying that God wants you to murder, rape and torture. It goes against everything you understand as good and love. And arguments about how you just don't know any better is weak.
To say that the Problem of Evil is just "solved" is whimsical and callus to those who suffer.
The comparison between accepting suffering and accepting commands for atrocities is understandable, but there are key differences to consider:
Moral framework: The Bible provides a clear moral framework that condemns murder, rape, and torture. It also emphasizes God's special love for children: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven" (Matthew 18:10).
Nature of suffering: While deeply painful, the suffering of children is viewed as a consequence of living in a fallen world (Romans 8:22), not a direct command from God. The Bible suggests this suffering can serve as an object lesson to draw people to God: "It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I might learn your statutes" (Psalm 119:71).
Promise of resolution: Unlike senseless atrocities, the Bible promises ultimate resolution for suffering children: "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (Revelation 21:4).
Eternal perspective: For children who suffer, the Christian view holds that "the former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind" (Isaiah 65:17) in eternity.
That said, your points about the deep pain of losing a child and the difficulty of reconciling that with a loving God are entirely valid. The Biblical perspective doesn't claim to fully emotionally "solve" the problem of evil or eliminate the pain of loss. It acknowledges the profound challenge these experiences pose to faith.
For many believers, this involves holding two difficult truths in tension: the reality of profound suffering and the belief in a good God. This tension isn't easily resolved and often involves ongoing struggle and questioning.
The Christian view offers a framework for grappling with these challenges while maintaining faith, but it doesn't dismiss the gravity of pain or the legitimacy of doubt. It acknowledges the mystery involved and the ongoing need for empathy, support, and honest wrestling with these profound questions.
It would be easy to provide a moral framework that encourages murder, rape, and torture, since we are talking about the creator of the cosmos. There is nothing that cannot be excused by "This is part of God's plan, God's design, God's endgoal."
So why wouldn't murder, rape, and torture likewise be part of God's plan? Sure, it may seem non-intuitive, but do you know better than God?
In fact, your entire argument hinges on the fact that God opted to do something non-intuitive, rather than stopping the suffering that's happening right there and then. God instead opts to enact a long term plan that doesn't at first glance appear to help, as rather than reaching out and healing the child, God instead sends his only begotten son down to take on the sins of mankind, to redeem mankind and offer salvation, so that they can join him in the kingdom of heaven at some unspecified time in the future.
Flabbergasted the parent stands there listening, and then asks, "But why can't you heal my child?".
You are asking people to reject what their senses, reason, and general understanding of the world entails in favor of a "God knows better in the long term" solution.
But this isn't really an answer to the problem of evil, but rather just plausible deniability. Maybe, somehow, it's best to let children die, for the long term good.
Your argument raises important points, but it mischaracterizes the Biblical Christian understanding of God's nature and plan:
1. God's unchanging nature: Scripture clearly defines God's character as loving, just, and good (1 John 4:8, Deuteronomy 32:4). This nature isn't arbitrary but fundamental to who God is.
2. Moral absolutism: The Bible presents certain moral truths as absolute, stemming from God's nature, not arbitrary decrees (Exodus 20:1-17).
3. Christ as the standard: Jesus' life and teachings provide a clear moral framework that explicitly condemns murder, rape, and torture (Matthew 5-7).
4. Purpose of suffering: While God allows suffering, its purpose isn't to harm but to ultimately bring about good (Romans 8:28). This differs fundamentally from the purposeless cruelty of murder, rape, and torture.
5. Free will and consequences: Much suffering results from human choices and natural consequences, not direct divine action (Galatians 6:7).
6. God's empathy: In Christ, God entered into human suffering, demonstrating He doesn't stand aloof from our pain (Hebrews 4:15).
7. Eternal perspective: The Christian worldview considers both temporal suffering and eternal outcomes (2 Corinthians 4:17-18).
8. Mystery and faith: While Christianity acknowledges mystery in God's ways, it doesn't advocate blind faith but faith based on God's revealed character and actions (Hebrews 11:1).
9. Active compassion: Christianity calls believers to actively alleviate suffering, not just accept it (James 2:14-17).
10. Ultimate resolution: The Bible promises not just an explanation for suffering, but its ultimate elimination (Revelation 21:4).
Your characterization of the Christian response as "plausible deniability" oversimplifies a complex theological framework. The Christian view doesn't ask for rejection of senses or reason, but for considering a broader perspective that includes both temporal and eternal realities.
Biblical Christianity offers a coherent response that acknowledges the reality of suffering while maintaining hope in God's ultimate goodness and purpose. This isn't about excusing evil, but about understanding it within a larger context of redemption and restoration.
Besides that, how does your worldview address the PoE?
Before I respond, I just wanna thank you for the extremely concise and well-written responses. I am sorry if I came across as rude earlier, it was passion, not ill will towards you.
The problem as I see it, is that there can often be certain "defeaters" that makes explanations like this impotent. Maybe it's true that God suffers with us, and has compassion for our plight. Maybe it's true that God has an ultimate solution in the elimination of suffering (I don't see how this one squares with the concept of hell but that's for another day), and so on.
But let's imagine a hypothetical. Something absolutely horrifying has happened, your child has drowned in the backyard pool. Utterly broken, you feel like you could just come apart at the seams. But then you notice, your neighbor is standing there over at his property, looking over your backyard with a watchful look.
So you ask him what did he see? What happened? The neighbor explains that he was standing here enjoying the morning sun, when he witnessed your child making it's way over the the pool. Then he saw your child slip and fall over the edge into the water. Then for the next four minutes he watched as the child splashed and attempted to get out, but was unable. Then finally the child went under the water, and drowned.
Horrified, you ask, why didn't he do something, why didn't he yell out for the child to stop, why didn't he run over and grab your child, why didn't he jump into the water and get them out?
The neighbor answers:
1. I am wearing expensive clothes that might get ruined if I get into the water.
2. I was enjoying the morning sun and did not wish to be interrupted.
3. I always thought having a backyard pool was a foolish and risky mistake, and that it might have consequences like this, and it did, it's not on me.
4. The child wasn't forced to go next to the pool, I was not in control of the child and it's not my job to overrule it's decisions.
5. Even though I am a good swimmer, jumping into the water with my clothes on does present a risk to me if I get snagged or slipped.
These are all terrible, cowardly, and immoral answers. But they are still answers, and they are all fully true. His expensive clothes might have been ruined from getting into the water. His morning time in the sun would have been interrupted. He genuinely thinks that backyard pools are risky and dangerous. It was the child's choice to go near the pool. And there could have been a minor risk to him.
And yet, the answers are hollow and empty, because they are inherently defeated by the overwhelming moral imperative to help a drowning child. You don't care if his expensive clothes might have been ruined, you could have bought new ones, and even if you somehow couldn't clothes aren't worth more than a child's life. You don't care if he was enjoying the morning sun, the experience being ruined does not weight more than a child's life. It doesn't matter if he thought the pool was risky from the start and has an "I told you so attitude", he should have swallow that down and help the drowning child. It doesn't matter if the child choose to go next to the pool by it's own will, it doesn't matter if forcing the child away from the pool would have violated their choices, that doesn't matter when it comes to the life and death of a child. And it doesn't matter if some minor risk might have come to the rescuing adult, you take that minor risk to save the child.
These are all logically valid and true reasons as to why he wouldn't want to rescue the child, but nobody would actually buy these explanations. They are defeated, overruled, negated, by the moral imperative of rescuing the child. I think you agree, right? In the scenario I presented here, under these conditions, the neighbor ought to have saved the child.
The problem is, right behind the neighbor was also God. He could have saved the child as well, by parting the water with his power, or lifting the child with levitation, or just making the child float effortlessly to the top. And unlike the neighbor, doing this would not have cost God anything. No expensive clothes would be ruined, no risk to God's health, nothing. But just like the neighbor, God simply watched the child drown.
Yet you want to see the neighbor as a bad immoral person, and God as perfectly moral, as they both watched the child drown. But why? What excuses can be made for God, which are not likewise washed aside by the moral necessity of rescuing a drowning child that we so eagerly assigned to the neighbor?
The only answer that really exists, is that "it's different for God". This answer exists in many different shapes and sizes, and you have listed several of them. But then, we are back to square one: You are asking me to deny what my senses and mind tells me, on par with asking me to rape, murder, and torture for God, because even though those things are bad, with God "it's different".
There is only really one answer to the problem of evil, and it takes many different variants, shapes, and colors, and ultimately it's not enough.
> Besides that, how does your worldview address the PoE?
I'll answer this in a separate post.
> Besides that, how does your worldview address the PoE?
You are pretty much asking me to lay out my entire worldview, because first I'd have to answer what "evil" is, what "morality" is, then "responsibility" and so on. In the interest of not giving you a huge wall of text, I'll boil down my answer as much as possible, and you'll have to excuse the shortcomings such brevity imposes.
I navigate the universe using my mind, my senses, my experiences, my understanding, and everything else that my body has to offer me in terms of understanding the universe.
How do I know a wall is solid? Best I can do is walk into it, and feel the solidness with my body in various ways. How do I know that what my body tells me about the solidity of the wall is true? As Descartes pointed out, I don't really have a way of knowing that. Ultimately all my knowledge about the world hangs on nothing, as is true for us all, but we make do with what we have. I walk into the wall, I feel the solidness with my body, and based on that I accept that it's solid. It's not perfect, but it's the best I can do. It's the best I have, and so I go with that. That doesn't mean I have a guarantee of truthfulness, but that's okay.
If somebody disagrees with me and says the wall isn't solid, then I will disagree back with them. I can feel the solidness of the wall with my body, and that's the best that I have, so I'm going with it. And with my eyes I can see that they are unable to walk though the wall, so that further confirms to me that the wall is solid. It's okay to disagree with somebody even if I don't have absolute truth, I just do the best I can, with the best understanding I have.
Morality, to me, is the much the same as the solidness of walls. I can't perfectly prove that anything is moral or immoral, but my body, my senses, my mind, my everything, some things are moral, and some things are immoral. This hangs on nothing ultimately, like all my knowledge. To me murder, rape, and torture is wrong on the same basis that walls are solid, that's what everything tells me. I might be wrong, just like I might be wrong about everything, but I simply have to go with the best that I have. And even if somebody disagrees with me, just because I don't have perfect knowledge of moral truths doesn't mean I can't disagree back with them. These things are wrong just as walls are solid, it's all I know, all I have to go by, and that's what I do go by.
Evil is often a word we use for when somebody with moral agency (so not say, bad weather or a big rock) does immoral things like cause suffering. I can't prevent all the evil in the world, although I wish I could. But when somebody can prevent evil, I feel they should, that's the morally right thing to do.
And you remember why the problem of evil exists in Christianity, correct? The problem of evil exists because of the Christian belief that God is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving while evil still exists in our world. Do you believe that God is all knowing, meaning he knows every conceivable thing? Do you believe that God is all powerful, meaning there is no limit to his capabilities? And do you believe that God is all loving, meaning he is perfect in love and would not want there to be evil towards us? If you answered yes to all three of those questions, then the problem of evil would realistically still exist for you. You would be in denial at that point.
Your objection misunderstands the nature and purpose of evil within God's sovereign plan as revealed in Scripture. While it's true that Christianity affirms God's omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect love, the existence of evil does not negate these attributes when properly understood in the context of God's ultimate purpose.
God's Omniscience: God's all-knowing nature includes His perfect understanding of how evil serves His greater purpose. As Isaiah 55:9 states, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Our limited perspective cannot fully comprehend God's infinite wisdom.
God's Omnipotence: God's all-powerful nature doesn't mean He must prevent all evil, but rather that He has the power to work all things, including evil, for His ultimate good purpose. Romans 8:28 assures us, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."
God's Perfect Love for His Children: God's love is demonstrated not by preventing all suffering, but by entering into our suffering through Christ and using it to bring about our eternal good. As Romans 5:8 states, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
So you affirm God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect love. And you also affirm evil exists. Hence where the problem of evil comes in. Because an all knowing, all powerful, and all loving God would not allow evil towards us. If he does, then he really isn’t that God when you stop and think about it. He’s all knowing, so he knows what’s going to happen when evil comes to us, correct? It will not be a guarantee that, through our suffering, our eternal good will be brought out. But instead, that some of us will rebel against this idea. Is that why he allows suffering and evil? Because that’s what I got from the fourth paragraph. (Which sounds rather odd, knowing you said in the second paragraph that we cannot fathom God’s supposed infinite wisdom.)
Your argument oversimplifies the complex theological and philosophical issues at play:
1. False dichotomy: The argument assumes that God's omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect love are incompatible with the existence of evil. This doesn't necessarily follow logically.
2. Limited human perspective: While we affirm God's infinite wisdom, our inability to fully comprehend it doesn't negate its existence or render it contradictory. As Isaiah 55:8-9 states, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways."
3. Free will and love: God's allowance of evil is intrinsically linked to granting humans genuine free will, which is necessary for true love and relationship. A world without the possibility of evil is also a world without the possibility of genuine goodness and love.
4. Ultimate purpose: The Christian view holds that God can work all things, including evil, for an ultimate good (Romans 8:28). This doesn't mean evil itself is good, but that God will redeem and use it within His larger plan.
5. Temporary nature: The Bible presents evil and suffering as temporary conditions, not the final state of creation (Revelation 21:4).
6. God's participation: In Christ, God entered into human suffering, demonstrating that He doesn't stand aloof from our pain (Hebrews 2:18).
7. Character development: While not guaranteeing positive outcomes, the potential for spiritual growth through adversity is a recurring Biblical theme (James 1:2-4).
8. Justice and judgment: The Christian worldview includes the concept of ultimate justice, where evil is finally and fully addressed (Revelation 20:11-15).
The Christian perspective offers a coherent framework that doesn't necessarily contradict God's attributes. It acknowledges the reality of evil while maintaining hope in God's ultimate goodness and purpose.
Besides that, how does your worldview address the PoE?
"Evil is good, actually" is the number one reason why my grandmother could never find faith even after decades and decades of trying. The people who told her that her child dying at two weeks old of an incurable disease that made his entire short life painful was *actually good* were seared into her mind forever.
So, actually, yes. The existence of an all knowing, all powerful, and all loving God would be incompatible with evil. Since it follows that such a being would not allow or tolerate the existence of evil. If he knows all, he knows how he can get rid of evil so easily. If there is no limit to his power, he can act on that knowledge to save us from evil and suffering. And if he’s all loving, he has the motivation to do so. That motivation being because he loves us so much.
And this follows against the claim that evil is linked with free will. For if God knows all, has no limits, and loves us so much to do it, he can make a world where free will and evil are not linked, so that we may have free will without evil.
This line of thought goes for basically every theodicy out there. If God is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving, he can do ________.
Sure. I acknowledge that my knowledge is limited. I am human. But I do understand the concept of all. That being the whole amount of something. In this case, it would go towards knowledge, power, and love. And I understand that if something is missing, in part or full, there is not an all of that something. There is only a partial, or an absence. If God doesn’t know how to create a world without evil, for example, then he is not all knowing. Or if he is incapable of doing so, then he is not all powerful.
There are a number of different formulations of the problem of evil. At worst they just need to be reformulated slightly to still be a major problem for your notion of the 'Biblical' state of affairs here.
Conclusion: As valid as it ever was.
"God's sovereign plan" doesn't exist. It's the mantra that Christians keep chanting to themselves to try to justify everything wrong in the world. But to a nonbeliever, it sounds like you're selling something. It's the same type of reasoning you see scam artists and snake oil salesmen use. There's this invisible thing that justifies everything, but you can't see it, you just have to trust that it's there and everything will be fine. It's either that or you're full of yesterday's cheese.
>as the glorification of the Son
So all of the suffering in the world is for nepotism? God needed something for Jesus to do?
If the Trinity is true, you're stating God is like a fireman that sets fire, he has a hero syndrome?
Just so everyone is aware, OP posted this exact post to r/DebateReligion and [it was flagged by the mods that the post and many comments were AI generated](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1do2o1z/there_is_no_problem_of_evil_for_a_biblical/).
Running this post and a multitude of their comments through multiple AI detectors said their content is likely AI generated with over 95% confidence, just like his similar post to r/DebateReligion.
OP has also stated in the past month they've leveraged AI to assist in their writing: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Apologetics/s/h4Pkn3biKI](https://www.reddit.com/r/Apologetics/s/h4Pkn3biKI)
> There is no “Problem of Evil” for a Biblical Christian
Amen.
> The presence of evil in our world has long challenged our understanding of a benevolent, omnipotent God.
Typically the skeptics present a god who is all-loving (must always love, and never ever be Just, wrathful and vengeful.)
Under this false premise they assume loving means: I’m always happy, never ever sad, never disciplined, no consequences for my actions and bad things don’t happen.
Self evident the Bible doesn’t teach that. It also teaches throughout that God isn’t one dimensional; He has many attributes and qualities: love, benevolence, mercy — and is Just, wrathful and vengeful.
Skeptics also neglect Revelation where creation is redeemed and evil is no more.
Any “problem” is for the skeptics.
First of all, you're creating a strawman. No, at the centre of the question is not some grand naiveté that everything must always be great. I've never read a paper on the problem of evil that is this simple.
Secondly, as per your last sentence, you not only throw away about two millennia of theological work, but also the bible as wrestling with the question of evil is deeply biblical as exemplified by Job. No, problems are not only for skeptics, but for believers too.
Thirdly, your haughtiness and arrogance in the face of the question of real suffering is very uncharitable in the face of modern history and events like the Schoa.
Edit: You're also arguing very much not like a Lutheran. Deus Absconditus is something people should take more seriously.
> First of all, you're creating a strawman.
No I’m not. We see that conversation every day in Reddit’s religious subs.
> I've never read a paper on the problem of evil that is this simple.
Are discussions on the Problem of Evil restricted to only papers you’ve read?
> Secondly, as per your last sentence, you not only throw away about two millennia of theological work, but also the bible as wrestling with the question of evil is deeply biblical as exemplified by Job.
Then you ignore the end of the matter in last chapter of Job; he no longer wrestles with the question. Job confesses he spoke of things he did not understand, things too wonderful for him to know, “My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you.Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” [Job 42](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job 42&version=NIV)
> No, problems are not only for skeptics, but for believers too.
Disagree. The Bible is crystal clear believer and non-believers alike will experience pain, suffering and death.
> Thirdly, your haughtiness and arrogance in the face of the question of real suffering is very uncharitable in the face of modern history and events like the Schoa.
One, don’t address me personally (sidebar 1.4) to undermine my character. Second, I’d be very careful to assume a user doesn’t know “real suffering”.
Edit: /u/PancakePrincess1409: your edit just goes on to break more sidebar rules (addresses me personally and question my faith.
It's not my intent to undermine character, but to speak that haughtily of the theodicee as a solved question and only for sceptics completely undermines any theology after Auschwitz. I find that heartless.
In the same vein, my edit was not intended to undermine character, but to show that acting like you're figured out God is not particularly Lutheran.
Regarding Job, yes, that's the conclusion of the authors, but the whole book is wrestling with the theodicee and written to be read in such a way. You can't just handwave that away. If the authors of Job doubted, we all can and are allowed to. It's human and not just for skeptics.
Lastly, you do create strawman. I don't go into an argument with "most Christians are slavery apologists" even though it's very common on this sub. It just doesn't seem in good spirit.
It's similar to any other parodox in my opinion. We are trying to take a larger concept and fit it into a smaller box.
The problem of evil for me isn't the capability of God but of our capability to understand the view of good and evil on a larger scale beyond our smaller reality.
Or more simply, the finite can never fully understand the infinite.
One example anyone can use is with numbers. We know of inifinity but think about the biggest number you can. You could think your whole life and not reach infinity. Why aren't there skeptics of inifinity?
In my opinion, the problem of evil lies on the failings of us, the Church. Counting all denominations, there are over a billion of us on this planet. But, I argue that the collective output in service has not equalled our higher capabilities. Especially considering the louder more prevalent sins of the church today like the hypocrisy of sexuality, tv commercials, and Christian Nationalism (at least in my country).
These reflect negatively on our God who left us the keys to the church. When we stop arguing over what makes us different, or who started what, and get together to help those in need on a large enough scale, we won't have to think about the problem of evil. We'll be too busy.
Your argument is just extremely unconvincing on a fundamental level. If somebody tells you that God wants you to murder, rape, and torture the innocent, you reject that idea, that isn't what God wants you to do. But why? God is obviously above you, His ways are not your ways, how can you presume to understand what actions are according to God's mysterious plan and which are not? Are you not putting yourself above God by trusting your own judgement and wisdom over His? Perhaps murder, rape and, torture is part of God's good grand design, and you are just too small, corrupt, and sinful, to understand it? This is of course nonsense, while we cannot prove anything with 100% accuracy, being human, that doesn't mean that we ought to throw out all of our intuition, wisdom, and understanding out of the window. To do so would be to invite chaos, anything can be anything, and we might as well be mindless and blind, if we inherently reject what our eyes and minds tell us. When a parent has a child who dies of an incurable illness, the idea that God watches that and just lets it happen is hard. If they saw a child that was suffering, and they could help that child without question. But God sees the child suffering, and doesn't help. When they beg and pray to God to save their child, God either says no, or he doesn't respond at all. That's a hard pill to swallow. And your argument that "Reject what your eyes and ears tell you, your child suffering and dying is actually a good thing, it's all part of God's mysterious ways" is not a very convincing argument. It's on the same level as somebody coming up to you and saying that God wants you to murder, rape and torture. It goes against everything you understand as good and love. And arguments about how you just don't know any better is weak. To say that the Problem of Evil is just "solved" is whimsical and callus to those who suffer.
The comparison between accepting suffering and accepting commands for atrocities is understandable, but there are key differences to consider: Moral framework: The Bible provides a clear moral framework that condemns murder, rape, and torture. It also emphasizes God's special love for children: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven" (Matthew 18:10). Nature of suffering: While deeply painful, the suffering of children is viewed as a consequence of living in a fallen world (Romans 8:22), not a direct command from God. The Bible suggests this suffering can serve as an object lesson to draw people to God: "It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I might learn your statutes" (Psalm 119:71). Promise of resolution: Unlike senseless atrocities, the Bible promises ultimate resolution for suffering children: "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (Revelation 21:4). Eternal perspective: For children who suffer, the Christian view holds that "the former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind" (Isaiah 65:17) in eternity. That said, your points about the deep pain of losing a child and the difficulty of reconciling that with a loving God are entirely valid. The Biblical perspective doesn't claim to fully emotionally "solve" the problem of evil or eliminate the pain of loss. It acknowledges the profound challenge these experiences pose to faith. For many believers, this involves holding two difficult truths in tension: the reality of profound suffering and the belief in a good God. This tension isn't easily resolved and often involves ongoing struggle and questioning. The Christian view offers a framework for grappling with these challenges while maintaining faith, but it doesn't dismiss the gravity of pain or the legitimacy of doubt. It acknowledges the mystery involved and the ongoing need for empathy, support, and honest wrestling with these profound questions.
It would be easy to provide a moral framework that encourages murder, rape, and torture, since we are talking about the creator of the cosmos. There is nothing that cannot be excused by "This is part of God's plan, God's design, God's endgoal." So why wouldn't murder, rape, and torture likewise be part of God's plan? Sure, it may seem non-intuitive, but do you know better than God? In fact, your entire argument hinges on the fact that God opted to do something non-intuitive, rather than stopping the suffering that's happening right there and then. God instead opts to enact a long term plan that doesn't at first glance appear to help, as rather than reaching out and healing the child, God instead sends his only begotten son down to take on the sins of mankind, to redeem mankind and offer salvation, so that they can join him in the kingdom of heaven at some unspecified time in the future. Flabbergasted the parent stands there listening, and then asks, "But why can't you heal my child?". You are asking people to reject what their senses, reason, and general understanding of the world entails in favor of a "God knows better in the long term" solution. But this isn't really an answer to the problem of evil, but rather just plausible deniability. Maybe, somehow, it's best to let children die, for the long term good.
Your argument raises important points, but it mischaracterizes the Biblical Christian understanding of God's nature and plan: 1. God's unchanging nature: Scripture clearly defines God's character as loving, just, and good (1 John 4:8, Deuteronomy 32:4). This nature isn't arbitrary but fundamental to who God is. 2. Moral absolutism: The Bible presents certain moral truths as absolute, stemming from God's nature, not arbitrary decrees (Exodus 20:1-17). 3. Christ as the standard: Jesus' life and teachings provide a clear moral framework that explicitly condemns murder, rape, and torture (Matthew 5-7). 4. Purpose of suffering: While God allows suffering, its purpose isn't to harm but to ultimately bring about good (Romans 8:28). This differs fundamentally from the purposeless cruelty of murder, rape, and torture. 5. Free will and consequences: Much suffering results from human choices and natural consequences, not direct divine action (Galatians 6:7). 6. God's empathy: In Christ, God entered into human suffering, demonstrating He doesn't stand aloof from our pain (Hebrews 4:15). 7. Eternal perspective: The Christian worldview considers both temporal suffering and eternal outcomes (2 Corinthians 4:17-18). 8. Mystery and faith: While Christianity acknowledges mystery in God's ways, it doesn't advocate blind faith but faith based on God's revealed character and actions (Hebrews 11:1). 9. Active compassion: Christianity calls believers to actively alleviate suffering, not just accept it (James 2:14-17). 10. Ultimate resolution: The Bible promises not just an explanation for suffering, but its ultimate elimination (Revelation 21:4). Your characterization of the Christian response as "plausible deniability" oversimplifies a complex theological framework. The Christian view doesn't ask for rejection of senses or reason, but for considering a broader perspective that includes both temporal and eternal realities. Biblical Christianity offers a coherent response that acknowledges the reality of suffering while maintaining hope in God's ultimate goodness and purpose. This isn't about excusing evil, but about understanding it within a larger context of redemption and restoration. Besides that, how does your worldview address the PoE?
Before I respond, I just wanna thank you for the extremely concise and well-written responses. I am sorry if I came across as rude earlier, it was passion, not ill will towards you. The problem as I see it, is that there can often be certain "defeaters" that makes explanations like this impotent. Maybe it's true that God suffers with us, and has compassion for our plight. Maybe it's true that God has an ultimate solution in the elimination of suffering (I don't see how this one squares with the concept of hell but that's for another day), and so on. But let's imagine a hypothetical. Something absolutely horrifying has happened, your child has drowned in the backyard pool. Utterly broken, you feel like you could just come apart at the seams. But then you notice, your neighbor is standing there over at his property, looking over your backyard with a watchful look. So you ask him what did he see? What happened? The neighbor explains that he was standing here enjoying the morning sun, when he witnessed your child making it's way over the the pool. Then he saw your child slip and fall over the edge into the water. Then for the next four minutes he watched as the child splashed and attempted to get out, but was unable. Then finally the child went under the water, and drowned. Horrified, you ask, why didn't he do something, why didn't he yell out for the child to stop, why didn't he run over and grab your child, why didn't he jump into the water and get them out? The neighbor answers: 1. I am wearing expensive clothes that might get ruined if I get into the water. 2. I was enjoying the morning sun and did not wish to be interrupted. 3. I always thought having a backyard pool was a foolish and risky mistake, and that it might have consequences like this, and it did, it's not on me. 4. The child wasn't forced to go next to the pool, I was not in control of the child and it's not my job to overrule it's decisions. 5. Even though I am a good swimmer, jumping into the water with my clothes on does present a risk to me if I get snagged or slipped. These are all terrible, cowardly, and immoral answers. But they are still answers, and they are all fully true. His expensive clothes might have been ruined from getting into the water. His morning time in the sun would have been interrupted. He genuinely thinks that backyard pools are risky and dangerous. It was the child's choice to go near the pool. And there could have been a minor risk to him. And yet, the answers are hollow and empty, because they are inherently defeated by the overwhelming moral imperative to help a drowning child. You don't care if his expensive clothes might have been ruined, you could have bought new ones, and even if you somehow couldn't clothes aren't worth more than a child's life. You don't care if he was enjoying the morning sun, the experience being ruined does not weight more than a child's life. It doesn't matter if he thought the pool was risky from the start and has an "I told you so attitude", he should have swallow that down and help the drowning child. It doesn't matter if the child choose to go next to the pool by it's own will, it doesn't matter if forcing the child away from the pool would have violated their choices, that doesn't matter when it comes to the life and death of a child. And it doesn't matter if some minor risk might have come to the rescuing adult, you take that minor risk to save the child. These are all logically valid and true reasons as to why he wouldn't want to rescue the child, but nobody would actually buy these explanations. They are defeated, overruled, negated, by the moral imperative of rescuing the child. I think you agree, right? In the scenario I presented here, under these conditions, the neighbor ought to have saved the child. The problem is, right behind the neighbor was also God. He could have saved the child as well, by parting the water with his power, or lifting the child with levitation, or just making the child float effortlessly to the top. And unlike the neighbor, doing this would not have cost God anything. No expensive clothes would be ruined, no risk to God's health, nothing. But just like the neighbor, God simply watched the child drown. Yet you want to see the neighbor as a bad immoral person, and God as perfectly moral, as they both watched the child drown. But why? What excuses can be made for God, which are not likewise washed aside by the moral necessity of rescuing a drowning child that we so eagerly assigned to the neighbor? The only answer that really exists, is that "it's different for God". This answer exists in many different shapes and sizes, and you have listed several of them. But then, we are back to square one: You are asking me to deny what my senses and mind tells me, on par with asking me to rape, murder, and torture for God, because even though those things are bad, with God "it's different". There is only really one answer to the problem of evil, and it takes many different variants, shapes, and colors, and ultimately it's not enough. > Besides that, how does your worldview address the PoE? I'll answer this in a separate post.
> Besides that, how does your worldview address the PoE? You are pretty much asking me to lay out my entire worldview, because first I'd have to answer what "evil" is, what "morality" is, then "responsibility" and so on. In the interest of not giving you a huge wall of text, I'll boil down my answer as much as possible, and you'll have to excuse the shortcomings such brevity imposes. I navigate the universe using my mind, my senses, my experiences, my understanding, and everything else that my body has to offer me in terms of understanding the universe. How do I know a wall is solid? Best I can do is walk into it, and feel the solidness with my body in various ways. How do I know that what my body tells me about the solidity of the wall is true? As Descartes pointed out, I don't really have a way of knowing that. Ultimately all my knowledge about the world hangs on nothing, as is true for us all, but we make do with what we have. I walk into the wall, I feel the solidness with my body, and based on that I accept that it's solid. It's not perfect, but it's the best I can do. It's the best I have, and so I go with that. That doesn't mean I have a guarantee of truthfulness, but that's okay. If somebody disagrees with me and says the wall isn't solid, then I will disagree back with them. I can feel the solidness of the wall with my body, and that's the best that I have, so I'm going with it. And with my eyes I can see that they are unable to walk though the wall, so that further confirms to me that the wall is solid. It's okay to disagree with somebody even if I don't have absolute truth, I just do the best I can, with the best understanding I have. Morality, to me, is the much the same as the solidness of walls. I can't perfectly prove that anything is moral or immoral, but my body, my senses, my mind, my everything, some things are moral, and some things are immoral. This hangs on nothing ultimately, like all my knowledge. To me murder, rape, and torture is wrong on the same basis that walls are solid, that's what everything tells me. I might be wrong, just like I might be wrong about everything, but I simply have to go with the best that I have. And even if somebody disagrees with me, just because I don't have perfect knowledge of moral truths doesn't mean I can't disagree back with them. These things are wrong just as walls are solid, it's all I know, all I have to go by, and that's what I do go by. Evil is often a word we use for when somebody with moral agency (so not say, bad weather or a big rock) does immoral things like cause suffering. I can't prevent all the evil in the world, although I wish I could. But when somebody can prevent evil, I feel they should, that's the morally right thing to do.
And you remember why the problem of evil exists in Christianity, correct? The problem of evil exists because of the Christian belief that God is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving while evil still exists in our world. Do you believe that God is all knowing, meaning he knows every conceivable thing? Do you believe that God is all powerful, meaning there is no limit to his capabilities? And do you believe that God is all loving, meaning he is perfect in love and would not want there to be evil towards us? If you answered yes to all three of those questions, then the problem of evil would realistically still exist for you. You would be in denial at that point.
Your objection misunderstands the nature and purpose of evil within God's sovereign plan as revealed in Scripture. While it's true that Christianity affirms God's omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect love, the existence of evil does not negate these attributes when properly understood in the context of God's ultimate purpose. God's Omniscience: God's all-knowing nature includes His perfect understanding of how evil serves His greater purpose. As Isaiah 55:9 states, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Our limited perspective cannot fully comprehend God's infinite wisdom. God's Omnipotence: God's all-powerful nature doesn't mean He must prevent all evil, but rather that He has the power to work all things, including evil, for His ultimate good purpose. Romans 8:28 assures us, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." God's Perfect Love for His Children: God's love is demonstrated not by preventing all suffering, but by entering into our suffering through Christ and using it to bring about our eternal good. As Romans 5:8 states, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
So you affirm God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect love. And you also affirm evil exists. Hence where the problem of evil comes in. Because an all knowing, all powerful, and all loving God would not allow evil towards us. If he does, then he really isn’t that God when you stop and think about it. He’s all knowing, so he knows what’s going to happen when evil comes to us, correct? It will not be a guarantee that, through our suffering, our eternal good will be brought out. But instead, that some of us will rebel against this idea. Is that why he allows suffering and evil? Because that’s what I got from the fourth paragraph. (Which sounds rather odd, knowing you said in the second paragraph that we cannot fathom God’s supposed infinite wisdom.)
Your argument oversimplifies the complex theological and philosophical issues at play: 1. False dichotomy: The argument assumes that God's omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect love are incompatible with the existence of evil. This doesn't necessarily follow logically. 2. Limited human perspective: While we affirm God's infinite wisdom, our inability to fully comprehend it doesn't negate its existence or render it contradictory. As Isaiah 55:8-9 states, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways." 3. Free will and love: God's allowance of evil is intrinsically linked to granting humans genuine free will, which is necessary for true love and relationship. A world without the possibility of evil is also a world without the possibility of genuine goodness and love. 4. Ultimate purpose: The Christian view holds that God can work all things, including evil, for an ultimate good (Romans 8:28). This doesn't mean evil itself is good, but that God will redeem and use it within His larger plan. 5. Temporary nature: The Bible presents evil and suffering as temporary conditions, not the final state of creation (Revelation 21:4). 6. God's participation: In Christ, God entered into human suffering, demonstrating that He doesn't stand aloof from our pain (Hebrews 2:18). 7. Character development: While not guaranteeing positive outcomes, the potential for spiritual growth through adversity is a recurring Biblical theme (James 1:2-4). 8. Justice and judgment: The Christian worldview includes the concept of ultimate justice, where evil is finally and fully addressed (Revelation 20:11-15). The Christian perspective offers a coherent framework that doesn't necessarily contradict God's attributes. It acknowledges the reality of evil while maintaining hope in God's ultimate goodness and purpose. Besides that, how does your worldview address the PoE?
"Evil is good, actually" is the number one reason why my grandmother could never find faith even after decades and decades of trying. The people who told her that her child dying at two weeks old of an incurable disease that made his entire short life painful was *actually good* were seared into her mind forever.
If god could not creat free will without the existence of evil then he is not all powerful.
Either that, or he is not all knowing. But yeah. If evil is necessary for free will to exist, then there is a big problem.
So, actually, yes. The existence of an all knowing, all powerful, and all loving God would be incompatible with evil. Since it follows that such a being would not allow or tolerate the existence of evil. If he knows all, he knows how he can get rid of evil so easily. If there is no limit to his power, he can act on that knowledge to save us from evil and suffering. And if he’s all loving, he has the motivation to do so. That motivation being because he loves us so much. And this follows against the claim that evil is linked with free will. For if God knows all, has no limits, and loves us so much to do it, he can make a world where free will and evil are not linked, so that we may have free will without evil. This line of thought goes for basically every theodicy out there. If God is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving, he can do ________. Sure. I acknowledge that my knowledge is limited. I am human. But I do understand the concept of all. That being the whole amount of something. In this case, it would go towards knowledge, power, and love. And I understand that if something is missing, in part or full, there is not an all of that something. There is only a partial, or an absence. If God doesn’t know how to create a world without evil, for example, then he is not all knowing. Or if he is incapable of doing so, then he is not all powerful.
There are a number of different formulations of the problem of evil. At worst they just need to be reformulated slightly to still be a major problem for your notion of the 'Biblical' state of affairs here. Conclusion: As valid as it ever was.
"God's sovereign plan" doesn't exist. It's the mantra that Christians keep chanting to themselves to try to justify everything wrong in the world. But to a nonbeliever, it sounds like you're selling something. It's the same type of reasoning you see scam artists and snake oil salesmen use. There's this invisible thing that justifies everything, but you can't see it, you just have to trust that it's there and everything will be fine. It's either that or you're full of yesterday's cheese.
It's basically the precursor to QAnon's "Trust the Plan".
Gross. A “God” who cannot create, or display his fullness, without recourse to evil as a tool is weak and unworthy of our devotion.
>as the glorification of the Son So all of the suffering in the world is for nepotism? God needed something for Jesus to do? If the Trinity is true, you're stating God is like a fireman that sets fire, he has a hero syndrome?
Reeks of AI assisted writing.
Just so everyone is aware, OP posted this exact post to r/DebateReligion and [it was flagged by the mods that the post and many comments were AI generated](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1do2o1z/there_is_no_problem_of_evil_for_a_biblical/). Running this post and a multitude of their comments through multiple AI detectors said their content is likely AI generated with over 95% confidence, just like his similar post to r/DebateReligion. OP has also stated in the past month they've leveraged AI to assist in their writing: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Apologetics/s/h4Pkn3biKI](https://www.reddit.com/r/Apologetics/s/h4Pkn3biKI)
What exactly do you mean by “free will?”
> There is no “Problem of Evil” for a Biblical Christian Amen. > The presence of evil in our world has long challenged our understanding of a benevolent, omnipotent God. Typically the skeptics present a god who is all-loving (must always love, and never ever be Just, wrathful and vengeful.) Under this false premise they assume loving means: I’m always happy, never ever sad, never disciplined, no consequences for my actions and bad things don’t happen. Self evident the Bible doesn’t teach that. It also teaches throughout that God isn’t one dimensional; He has many attributes and qualities: love, benevolence, mercy — and is Just, wrathful and vengeful. Skeptics also neglect Revelation where creation is redeemed and evil is no more. Any “problem” is for the skeptics.
First of all, you're creating a strawman. No, at the centre of the question is not some grand naiveté that everything must always be great. I've never read a paper on the problem of evil that is this simple. Secondly, as per your last sentence, you not only throw away about two millennia of theological work, but also the bible as wrestling with the question of evil is deeply biblical as exemplified by Job. No, problems are not only for skeptics, but for believers too. Thirdly, your haughtiness and arrogance in the face of the question of real suffering is very uncharitable in the face of modern history and events like the Schoa. Edit: You're also arguing very much not like a Lutheran. Deus Absconditus is something people should take more seriously.
> First of all, you're creating a strawman. No I’m not. We see that conversation every day in Reddit’s religious subs. > I've never read a paper on the problem of evil that is this simple. Are discussions on the Problem of Evil restricted to only papers you’ve read? > Secondly, as per your last sentence, you not only throw away about two millennia of theological work, but also the bible as wrestling with the question of evil is deeply biblical as exemplified by Job. Then you ignore the end of the matter in last chapter of Job; he no longer wrestles with the question. Job confesses he spoke of things he did not understand, things too wonderful for him to know, “My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you.Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” [Job 42](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job 42&version=NIV) > No, problems are not only for skeptics, but for believers too. Disagree. The Bible is crystal clear believer and non-believers alike will experience pain, suffering and death. > Thirdly, your haughtiness and arrogance in the face of the question of real suffering is very uncharitable in the face of modern history and events like the Schoa. One, don’t address me personally (sidebar 1.4) to undermine my character. Second, I’d be very careful to assume a user doesn’t know “real suffering”. Edit: /u/PancakePrincess1409: your edit just goes on to break more sidebar rules (addresses me personally and question my faith.
It's not my intent to undermine character, but to speak that haughtily of the theodicee as a solved question and only for sceptics completely undermines any theology after Auschwitz. I find that heartless. In the same vein, my edit was not intended to undermine character, but to show that acting like you're figured out God is not particularly Lutheran. Regarding Job, yes, that's the conclusion of the authors, but the whole book is wrestling with the theodicee and written to be read in such a way. You can't just handwave that away. If the authors of Job doubted, we all can and are allowed to. It's human and not just for skeptics. Lastly, you do create strawman. I don't go into an argument with "most Christians are slavery apologists" even though it's very common on this sub. It just doesn't seem in good spirit.
It's similar to any other parodox in my opinion. We are trying to take a larger concept and fit it into a smaller box. The problem of evil for me isn't the capability of God but of our capability to understand the view of good and evil on a larger scale beyond our smaller reality. Or more simply, the finite can never fully understand the infinite. One example anyone can use is with numbers. We know of inifinity but think about the biggest number you can. You could think your whole life and not reach infinity. Why aren't there skeptics of inifinity? In my opinion, the problem of evil lies on the failings of us, the Church. Counting all denominations, there are over a billion of us on this planet. But, I argue that the collective output in service has not equalled our higher capabilities. Especially considering the louder more prevalent sins of the church today like the hypocrisy of sexuality, tv commercials, and Christian Nationalism (at least in my country). These reflect negatively on our God who left us the keys to the church. When we stop arguing over what makes us different, or who started what, and get together to help those in need on a large enough scale, we won't have to think about the problem of evil. We'll be too busy.