The Problem of Good

[orangebox21]

---

Just as a recap, beginning in post#99:
You quoted me as saying:

I'm not sure what you mean 'need' but certainly it has been shown that sin is not without purpose.  If sin did not exist in the world then we would not know God's justice nor His mercy.

It would be irresponsible for sin to not be punished and I agree it would be unjust for God to do so.  That is why "He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."  This is the great exchange and we see both God's wrath (punishment of sin) and His mercy in the same event without violating His holiness.

I summarized these points in post#110 when I wrote:

God has a purpose for sin.  God has used the existence of sin to show His mercy and His justice and there is no clearer picture of that than at the cross where His wrath was poured out onto the Son and the righteousness of the Son was poured out onto believers.  This is the power of the death of Christ and the means of salvation to all who believe.

A summary you at first thought to be circular reasoning (#99) but later agreed was not (#116), although you still have a contention (#103):  

It's still all circular. You haven't even explained why we "need" sin in the first place. Keep in context that you're talking about an infinitely powerful god with an infinite number of ways he could have chosen to deal with.

To which I responded by challenging the premise upon which the question was based by asking (#115)

How do you know God had an infinite number of ways He could have chosen to deal with?

To which you responded: (#116)

Are you saying that God isn't all powerful?

We were then off and running on that line of reasoning.  I'm certainly happy to continue dialog shedding light on God's omnipotence.  At the same time, if the foundation for your belief is that sin is unnecessary because God has an infinite possible choices he could have made, then you will need to prove that knowledge claim.  Prove to me, unequivocally, that God has an infinite possible number of choices He could have made.

---

God is all powerful except when you ask Him to do nonsensical things.
If someone cannot lie, then he/she can only tell the truth.  The conditional is self-evident.  I'm not claiming that I justify God.

But that wasn't what I said. I never said you need to justify God, and I understand the tautological nature of only being able to tell the truth if you cannot lie.

Justify:  1.show or prove to be right or reasonable.  If you are asking me to prove that God cannot lie then you are asking me to justify God.  I'm not trying to argue about words here I'm trying to communicate to you what is meant by 'justify God'.  What then do you mean by prove?  Are you asking me to show to be reasonable, or prove to be right?  Something else?  

What I said is that there's no possible way you can know that God cannot lie. The only way that can be communicated to you is if God tells you, and you have to trust that God is telling the truth; you can't actually know it.

In the sense that I can reasonably know something, I would claim that I can know that God cannot lie.  In the sense that God is eternal and I don't know everything He has ever said and have no means to test and prove it, then I would agree with you that apart from God telling me and my trust in Him, I cannot know.

Seriously: prove to me in an undeniable way that God cannot lie. Any proof you would bring could always be the result of some other deceit.

If you are asking me to prove that God cannot lie I can't.  All I can know is what He has revealed about Himself.  It's the same as asking me to prove that God is all knowing.  The only way to know God is all knowing (to test to see if that were true) would be if I were all knowing myself (which I am not).  When Jesus says I am the truth, how can I know if that's true.  If the truth exists, it would be self-validating and there would be no way prove itself apart from itself.  So yes, some things I have to take at His word. 
This premise is common to all methodology relating to knowledge.  How do we know there isn't life on other planets?  On the one hand we have to claim that we can't know because to make such a claim would require us to have been everywhere and seen everything.  On the other hand, we can reasonably say that there isn't life on other planets because it has yet to be proven otherwise.  At one point we knew that the atom was the smallest particle in existence until protons, neutrons, and electrons were discovered.  If, at the time we knew that the atom was the smallest particle in existence, I asked you to prove it, you would have.  You would have proved that the atom was the smallest particle in existence, and yet, it isn't.

Like I said before, sin and suffering are a part of God's decree to bring about His purposes.  And one of those purposes is the revelation of God's mercy and justice.

But why is it necessary for him to show us mercy and justice?

I can't say that I have an explicit answer for that question.  We're essentially asking: is a world in which God has demonstrated His mercy and justice better than a world in which He didn't? 

That'd be like me letting my daughter stick a fork in an electric socket, then when she asks me why I didn't warn her, if I said "so you could learn a lesson". I mean, yes, that would teach her a lesson... but so would telling her.

In what Biblical account is a person not warned before his/her punishment?  Am I not here warning you not to "stick a fork in an electric socket?"  Am I not here warning you to repent?

And what are these "purposes" you speak of?

Just do a key word search in the Bible for purpose, decree, predestine, etc.  I'll note two.  It was God's purpose that Christ be crucified (Acts 2:22-24).  It is God's  purpose that salvation is freely received (Romans 9:10-18).