Christian Paradox

[rjh4 is back]

The whole "problem of evil" thing is certainly not limited to Christians, though.

Correct, hence I'm an atheist.

Not exactly what I was getting at but it is a funny response.

That essentially sounds like a cop out answer.

I don't see how. The charge was essentially that there is a logical contradiction in the Christian world view given propositions 1-4. Conclusion 5 resolves that.

God, in general, is a proposition that I view to be humanity's attempt to explain away things they can answer and in doing so they planted logically contradicting qualities on to a supreme being. They are logically contradicting on their own, but then even more so when you consider evil.

No wonder you are an atheist. You presupposed God does not exist from the outset. To you, God is a mere proposition. Doing so puts you as the prime authority for your world view; makes you autonomous from God Himself. But, in the end, your world view is unintelligible.

This answer seems to once more be a weak attempt to weasel out of a real answer. Any answer that requires I state I do and don't know at the same time is absurd. You're essentially saying I have to accept, without any evidence, that God has a reason and it's good yet you're unable to provide any justification. So the way I see it, the answer is useless.

Remember, E, I am arguing from a presuppositional view that God exists and that the Bible is the Word of God (God's revelation of who and what He is to His creation). So given that the Bible says that God is good (in fact, He is the standard of Goodness) and is all powerful, the conclusion follows from the propositions given the presuppositions. So, from my point of view, I am saying you should accept, without evidence, that God has a reason and it is good. You seem to have an aversion for accepting God based on God's revelation alone. You need to have proof that it is really from God. So you put God to the test, i.e., some logical or evidentiary test, and from the results, you decide. So then you are saying that you are a higher authority than God himself and/or logic or evidence is a higher authority than God himself. So, I do think you should change your presuppositions altogether.

There is also a destructive line of belief that comes from that answer. Mother Theresa is considered a holy woman, on the fast track to sainthood because she cared for the dying. I think she was an abominable woman. She thought suffering was the way to be closer to God. As a result she built hospices and did nothing to ease the actual pain and suffering or try to save the dying. Instead she told them they were closer to God and would go to heaven. She was given money, millions, and instead of building hospitals that could have cured people of common ailments, she built monasteries and homes for the dying. People suffered and died in agony when simple medicines could have saved their lives.

I believe Mother Theresa to be one of the most evil people to ever exist, but most people view her as holy because what she did was in the service of God. It's disgusting. Somehow applying it to God makes it okay to sit and watch as people die while people give you millions and millions of dollars.

You may be right about Mother Theresa. I have no love for the Catholic Church and the whole issue of sainthood as practiced by the Catholic Church is useless. But I do not see how what Mother Theresa did or did not do has anything to do with the original case. People can always take something approved by God and turn it into something awful.

To say good and evil exists merely asserts there are qualities with which we assert is good and others we assert as evil. It's true that what others consider evil might be considered good by another. However, objectively we can all agree that something is evil if it is morally wrong, and every person has their own morals. Therefore, evil exists.

When you say something is "morally wrong", that also presupposes an objective, universal standard of what is right and wrong. If that is not so, it leads to something that is unintelligible.

Consider some act A. Person 1 thinks the act is "morally wrong" but person 2 thinks the act is "morally right". So, based on your point of view, act A is considered evil by person 1 and good by person 2. So what then is the "problem of evil" from your point of view? Since act A is both good and evil, depending on the person, is God supposed to allow or stop the act relative to the stated "problem of evil"? How is a Christian supposed to respond to the "problem of evil" when this is what you mean by it? The statement of the problem is not even rational or intelligible when one looks at what you mean by "evil", i.e. given your presuppositions.

---

if an animal is shot dead will you blame the animal for getting into the way of bullet or will you blame the shooter??

Not analogous at all. God exists and has revealed to His creation, particularly mankind, what God expects of us and the consequences of failure to meet the expectations. He has also revealed to us that we, ourselves, fail to live up to God's standard but has provided a solution so that we do not have to suffer the consequences (Jesus, God with us, came to earch, lived a perfect life, and died in our place. If we trust in Jesus and what He did, then we do not have to pay the price ourselves). So God reveals all of this to you and you do not take advantage of the solution. Who then is to blame? The one who set up the rules and has the authority to do so, or the one who hears and knows what the rules are and fails to follow them? I would say the latter.