Is God ever wrong?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
David Hume argued that only three possibilities exist:

I. God is not omnipotent
II. God is not omni benevolent
III. Evil does not exist

Since we have sufficient direct experience to support the existence of evil, if God exists he is either an impotent God or a malicious God; not the God of classical theism. Hume concluded that God therefore does not exist.

Why does benevolence entail that evil is prevented?

@deepthought said
Why does benevolence entail that evil is prevented?

The Christian God is not just benevolent, He is omnibenevolent. (Perfect with limitless goodness). Combine this in a given deity with omnipotence (the state of being all-powerful) and we have a problem. Why would a perfectly good God who has the power to prevent evil allow it to happen anyway? - This question was put most powerfully by D.Z Philips who presented the example of a child dying of cancer. Either God could not prevent such suffering or He would not. If he could not He was not all-powerful and if He would not he was not all-loving. The existence of such suffering/evil disqualified Him from being both.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The Christian God is not just benevolent, He is omnibenevolent. (Perfect with limitless goodness). Combine this in a given deity with omnipotence (the state of being all-powerful) and we have a problem. Why would a perfectly good God who has the power to prevent evil allow it to happen anyway? - This question was put most powerfully by D.Z Philips who presented the e ...[text shortened]... ld not he was not all-loving. The existence of such suffering/evil disqualified Him from being both.

Scripture teaches that the suffering in this world is nothing to what is to come. Since we have no concept on eternality how could we possibly make a judgment call?

@kellyjay said
Scripture teaches that the suffering in this world is nothing to what is to come. Since we have no concept on eternality how could we possibly make a judgment call?

Another side step.

You're pretty good at those.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Another side step.

You're pretty good at those.

I don't think so. This world and everything in it is temporary, except our lives. Even Jesus, while here as a man, kept His focus on the joy set before Him. Focusing only on the here and now, blinds to all else. Ignoring this has cut yourself of all the hope we have been given; it doesn't change anything here by denial; children still die of cancer, but there is hope, hope that cannot be overcome by the evil here.

@kellyjay said
I don't think so. This world and everything in it is temporary, except our lives. Even Jesus, while here as a man, kept His focus on the joy set before Him. Focusing only on the here and now, blinds to all else. Ignoring this has cut yourself of all the hope we have been given; it doesn't change anything here by denial; children still die of cancer, but there is hope, hope that cannot be overcome by the evil here.

The question regarding the existence of evil and how this finds equilibrium with a deity who is both omnipotent and perfectly loving is at the very heart of my atheism and has been debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries. It is not something that can be dodged or placated by weak replies of hope or human frailty.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The question regarding the existence of evil and how this finds equilibrium with a deity who is both omnipotent and perfectly loving is at the very heart of my atheism and has been debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries. It is not something that can be dodged or placated by weak replies of hope or human frailty.

So what does that heart do? Calls things evil in one breath, and declares there is no such thing as evil in the next? I can call the death of a child an evil thing; for that matter, all deaths I view as evil, death is an enemy of God, who is a God of the living.

Is death nothing but a natural process for you? If it's part of the natural order of things, why call it evil?

@kellyjay said
So what does that heart do? Calls things evil in one breath, and declares there is no such thing as evil in the next? I can call the death of a child an evil thing; for that matter, all deaths I view as evil, death is an enemy of God, who is a God of the living.

Is death nothing but a natural process for you? If it's part of the natural order of things, why call it evil?

So why does an all-powerful and perfectly loving God allow such evil? And why do we exist in a world where such random child suffering is a 'natural process'? Why has such a deity allowed such a thing to be natural when he apparently has the heart and power to prevent it?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The Christian God is not just benevolent, He is omnibenevolent. (Perfect with limitless goodness). Combine this in a given deity with omnipotence (the state of being all-powerful) and we have a problem. Why would a perfectly good God who has the power to prevent evil allow it to happen anyway? - This question was put most powerfully by D.Z Philips who presented the e ...[text shortened]... ld not he was not all-loving. The existence of such suffering/evil disqualified Him from being both.

Do you have a reference for the notion that the Christian God is omni-benevolent? What I mean is what is your reason for this claim. At face value it's not true as this is the God that destroyed cities for their unrighteousness and showed favoritism to the descendants of Abraham. I'm wondering if you're repeating what is essentially a strawman argument.

I've got a main point, which is essentially that benevolence does not entail intervention, but we can delve into that once we've decided whether omnibenevolence is a feature of God.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
So why does an all-powerful and perfectly loving God allow such evil? And why do we exist in a world where such random child suffering is a 'natural process'? Why has such a deity allowed such a thing to be natural when he apparently has the heart and power to prevent it?

Truth and consequences, nothing is random; everything has a cause until we reach something that owes its Existence to itself.

@deepthought said
Do you have a reference for the notion that the Christian God is omni-benevolent? What I mean is what is your reason for this claim. At face value it's not true as this is the God that destroyed cities for their unrighteousness and showed favoritism to the descendants of Abraham. I'm wondering if you're repeating what is essentially a strawman argument.

I've got a m ...[text shortened]... rvention, but we can delve into that once we've decided whether omnibenevolence is a feature of God.

Christians themselves describe their God as omnibenevolent. (Have yet to encounter one who doesn't). I agree that biblical evidence 'clearly' suggests otherwise. However, due to Christians attributing this characteristic to their own God I think it can hardly be considered a strawman argument.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Christians themselves describe their God as omnibenevolent. (Have yet to encounter one who doesn't). I agree that biblical evidence 'clearly' suggests otherwise. However, due to Christians attributing this characteristic to their own God I think it can hardly be considered a strawman argument.

A contextual quote would be excellent.

@kellyjay said
A contextual quote would be excellent.

As I say, omnibenevolence is something Christians for centuries have attributed to God. Do you disagree with this?

Invariably they quote Psalm 18:30, "As for God, his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him." (NIV)

@ghost-of-a-duke said
So why does an all-powerful and perfectly loving God allow such evil? And why do we exist in a world where such random child suffering is a 'natural process'? Why has such a deity allowed such a thing to be natural when he apparently has the heart and power to prevent it?

I had a look at the Wikipedia page on omnibenevolence. There's quite a nice example there, where a fawn is burnt in a forest fire and suffers pointlessly before its inevitable death. So this isn't so much "the problem of evil" as "the problem of arbitrary suffering."?

This does seem to remove the "It's our own fault" theodicy. A reasonable enough argument would go along the lines of: "I am not an axe-murderer, for the want of an axe, so cannot call myself innocent as I would do murder if I had an axe. You are also not an axe-murderer, but cannot claim that you are my moral superior as you are also without an axe.". This does not entirely work as the mens rea component seems to be present in me in this example. So to completely remove evil I would have to be incapable of thinking of murdering someone with an axe. But to cover all bases, so to speak, I would have to be incapable of thinking. So for us to experience the world as active conscious agents evil must be possible for us.

I wonder if this line of argument can be extended to deal with the problem of random suffering.

@deepthought said
I had a look at the Wikipedia page on omnibenevolence. There's quite a nice example there, where a fawn is burnt in a forest fire and suffers pointlessly before its inevitable death. So this isn't so much "the problem of evil" as "the problem of arbitrary suffering."?

This does seem to remove the "It's our own fault" theodicy. A reasonable enough argument would go a ...[text shortened]... .

I wonder if this line of argument can be extended to deal with the problem of random suffering.

I have my doubts sir, but while you ponder on it I have (to be on the safe side) issued instructions for the removal of all axes from your neighborhood.

For me, the arbitrary and pointless suffering of the fawn you reference 'becomes' evil when a supreme being who has the power (and alleged heart) to prevent it fails to act. (Especially when such an act has no bearing on our autonomy as conscious agents).