Published on June 3, 2007 By stillkoontz In Religion
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus

These are questions that man has wrestled with and religion has tried to answer for millennia. In America today, the most popular religion is Christianity and the God of this religion is very unique. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and ‘omniloving’ but yet humans are allowed to have free will and control their own destiny. One of the basic tenets of Christianity is also the belief in Jesus Christ who died for the sins of mankind so they could live in heaven for eternity if they believe in the Lord. Christianity is a very popular religion because it has a happy afterlife for believers, a sense of eternal justice and solace, and seemingly intuitive moral code. However, after a thorough look through the Bible with a critical mind, some of these ideas are brought into serious question. These issues are so extreme that there is only one conclusion to make: The idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, ‘omniloving’ Christian God contradicts reflection and logical thought and therefore the existence of a God with such qualities is impossible.

Christians believe in the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Mathew 7:12) and the Ten Commandments but what is forgotten or ignored by believers in Christ are the other morals exhibited and taught in the Bible: morals that are not so pleasing or intuitive to our feelings about right and wrong. Christians also believe that their God is a god of love and not only that but , as C.S. Lewis puts it, “God is Love”(17). Lewis compares this love to that of an “artist to and artefact”(30), “a man for a beast”(31), “a father to a son”(32), and “a man’s love for a woman”(33). It is clear although when looked closely God does not exhibit any of these types of loves.

The Christian Old Testament is filled with examples of questionable ethics and God’s pecular sense of love; beginning at the first book of the Bible, Genisis. In this book there is a man named Abraham who is considered to be the starting point of the monotheistic God of Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam. One day God says to Abraham, “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love so much, and go to the land of Moriah. There on a mountain that I will show you, offer him as a sacrifice to me." Obediently, Abraham begins to lead his son to the mountain and Isaac asks his father, “I see that you have the coals and the wood, but where is the lamb for the sacrifice?" Abraham answers chillingly, “God himself will provide one,” reminiscent of a horror story beginning to come to the bitter climax.

Once at the top of the mountain, Abraham binds his son and places him on the alter. He picks up his knife to kill his much-loved son when God suddenly changes his mind and brings an angel down to stop Abraham. God says that he just wanted to know if Abraham was truly an obedient servant to Him and through this horrendous act Abraham has proven himself.

Imagine what the consequences would be for this act if done today: child abuse, attempted murder, kidnapping, not to mention the ethical sins. More importantly, consider what this tells us about God and his ethics. He toys with people, even His favorite prophet, with the things that are most important to them and, at the last moment will reveal that it’s all just a test. At best this is a bad practical joke, at worst and most realistic this is sadistic.

Although, one can make an argument that God saves face because he stops Abraham from carrying out the sacrifice. It is clear however when looking farther in the Bible that He does not always change his mind. In Judges 11 there is man name Jephthah that asks the Lord give him a military victory and in return he will sacrifice the first person to walk into his tent. God gives Jephthah the great victory and who is the first person to go into his tent to celebrate the triumph? It is Jephthah’s only daughter “dancing and playing the tambourine.” He is crushed by her arrival but he knows that he must keep his end of the bargain with God. The daughter is given two last months to live, two months that God could have reconsidered as he did with Abraham, but alas, she is finally was sacrificed by her father.

What kind of love is God demonstrating during these two stories? It is clearly not the love for a piece of art or a pet as neither of these have the power of thought. Then it must be either that of a father’s love for his son or a husband’s love for his wife. Imagine a father telling his son to kill one of his brothers, letting him almost carry it out, but at the last moment recanting. Or envision a husband to making a deal with his wife to give her a new house but in return she must murder their only daughter. These two examples don’t correspond with Lewis’ categories of love either. God’s love looks more like disinterest, manipulation, and contempt.

Admittedly both of these cases of child sacrifice are small compared to the whole human population because they only affect several people. Perhaps God is good to humans on the whole but in personal circumstances sometimes things go wrong. Yet once again there are examples in the Bible that undermine this. Take for example Moses and his followers committing genocide to the Medianites. Moses’ army easily kills all the Medianite men and burn down there cities, but out of mercy the soldiers leave the women and children alive. This mercy angers Moses, who commands them to “kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately,” (Numbers 31: 17). This fate is not just reserved for the Medianite’s but God also commands Moses to eradicate the Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Hittites, Canaanites, and Amorites. But isn’t this just Moses’ commands and not from God? Surely not everyone should commit genocide. Conversely, when we look to Deuteronomy 13 we see that it is not an order just to Moses but to all Christians to kill those who believe differently and that this order comes directly from God.

God doesn’t leave all the dirty work to humans however, and stories of God’s personal reckoning are throughout the Christian Old Testament. Within its pages are the stories of Sodom and Gamorrah, numerous varieties of plagues, and years of horrible droughts. The Flood is the best-known story of God personally punishing countless humans where He kills the entire human race minus one family. Hitler killed millions of Jews and Saddam Hussien killed thousands of Kurds; both of these are considered horrendous, immoral acts. However, both of these are mere drops in the bucket compared to how many humans God has killed. No act of genocide can be considered moral, much less loving, and therefore through His actions, God cannot be considered moral or loving.

There is something intuitively wrong about child sacrifice (and human sacrifice in general) and the same is understood with genocide. A God that not only condones these acts but also promotes them is not a moral, loving God.

One, like Rev. Vern Lasala, Chaplain of Ohio Northern University, might object here and say that all these examples are from the Christian Old Testament and that much of what is in it should not be taken so literally. Instead, the Reverend says, look for the truth in these stories. Admittedly, this does help for many stories about God’s retribution towards evil men but it is still hard to see a good truth in the stories of child sacrifice. Perhaps God wants to see proof of obedience with the case of Abraham, but surely there has to be a limit to this. With Jephthah, there is no limit, and the lesson, if there is a lesson, is hard to see.

So far, only Old Testament examples have been given, but there is one example of God’s injustice, lack of love, and contempt for his own creature that transcends both Testaments and even is seen in a greater amount in the New Testament – Hell. This is the land for “all those who die in personal mortal sin, as enemies of God, and unworthy of eternal life, will be severely punished by God after death,”(Catholic Encyclopedia). It is referred to in the New Testament in Mark 9: 43 as the “unquenchable fire”, and the “pits of darkness” in 2 Peter 2:4. It is understood through these verses and others that Hell is the place of eternal damnation for those who don’t follow God.

This concept helps people with their desire for justice and solace that there is some eternal life, but when more closely examined problems arise. First, it seems unbalanced. A humans life can range anywhere from zero to 120 years at the maximum, and even when 120 years is compared to eternity, life is really no time at all. So to suffer forever for the sins during life is lopsided at best.

Next, the problem develops of God’s forgiveness. The Christian God is “God of forgiveness, Gracious and compassionate, Slow to anger and abounding in loving-kindness” (Nehemiah 9: 17) and Jesus, even on the Cross, has the power to forgive his enemies in Luke 23: 34. Since God is limitless in his powers it would stand to reason that he would have limitless powers of forgiveness, which would mean that everyone automatically got into heaven. This leads to a choice similar to the one in the beginning of this essay; either God is loving, limitless and there is no hell, or He is not loving, allowing him to be limitless but Hell to exist, or He is loving but is not able to forgive everything. However, the last one puts a limit to his power. The one that is chosen does not matter. What matters is that none of these correspond with the Christian idea of a loving, limitless God where there exists a hell.

The question of forgiveness is also brought up when scrutinizing the main belief of Christianity: Jesus death and resurrection on the cross. Jesus died to have our sin forgiven so we can live forever in heaven. The sin that Jesus specifically died for was original sin from Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit. This as seen before is not to be taken literally but symbolically. The irrationality of the situation is best summed up by Richard Dawkins, atheist and Oxford professor, in “The God Delusion” writing, “Symbolic? So…Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in a vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual?” (253). If God was as forgiving and powerful as proclaimed He could just say that all was forgiven without having to have his only son tortured and killed. The necessity of the crucifixion shows a God that is not all-powerful.

Another aspect of Christianity that raises questions about the qualities of a Christian God is the claim of human free will. According to the Catholic Encylcopedia,
“God has created man, has commanded him to obey the moral law, and has promised to reward or punish him for observance or violation of this law, made the reality of moral liberty an issue of transcendent importance. Unless man is really free, he cannot be justly held responsible for his actions, any more than for the date of his birth or the colour of his eyes.”
To repeat from before the characteristics being brought into question in this essay are omniscience, omnipotence, and His benevolence. The affects of free will on these three aspects must be considered when dealing with a Christian God.

In Christianity, God is everywhere at all times; His presence permeates throughout the universe. It has been proven by science that time and space are intricately intertwined and without one, there is not the other. It stands to reason then that outside the universe time is not a factor; it is simply non-existent. So, because God ccreated the universe, He had to be able to exist out of the universe. Since God exists outside of the universe, He exists outside the constraints of time. With the ability to be omniscient, not only in space but also time, He knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen as if it all has already happened. But how does this contradict free will? It does not by itself but when the other characteristics of a Christian God are considered, the problems are clear.

It is a safe Christian belief to have that God is omnipotent but chooses not to control everything; that He allows his creations to do what they want. With this free will people have the power to do both good and bad. Not only that but because God is omniscient he knows exactly what harmful things will happen, but he still lets these actions take place. The problem becomes clearer when considered from creation. As God contemplated creation, He knew through his omnipotence precisely what would happen during the entire time of existence; all the terror, sin, strife, and death (assumingly even Jesus’ death on the Cross) would be apparent to him as if it had already happened. Even so He created the universe as it would be. He allowed all the bad actions of free will to take place; a loving God would not.

This is not where this problem ends however. When looking at the same example of creation, it becomes evident that free will also contradicts His omnipotence. Before God created the universe He had an image in his mind of what would happen during the whole of existence and He created it. With this knowledge of what was to come, it leads to the conclusion that God made everything with a purpose, even those who sin were created to sin, and those who were not, were created not to. This contradicts the idea of free will. These two characteristics of Christianity are clearly exclusive ideas. Free will cannot exist with an omnipotent God, and vice versa.

Through careful analysis of the ethical and logical implications of an omnipotent, omniscient, omniloving God one cannot help but question the existence of a Christian God. There are numerous examples of God’s lack of morals in the Old Testament, from child sacrifice to genocide. Hell is found in both Testaments and also exhibits God’s malevolence and inability to forgive which contradicts one of the basic tenets of a Christian God. To go along with this, there is the logical impossibility of an all-powerful God and freewill. With these aspects considered it is clear that the Christian God has major issues that deny its possibility of existence. Chapman Cohen once said that “Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.” With this in mind, the reader should take these bits of fact and thought and look within to find the truth."

Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jun 03, 2007
I agree with a lot of points here, but they aren't testaments against God, rather our view of God. The morality of human mythology is a judgement on the the people who adhere to it, not the gods or God that we shanghai into service of them. The original lead-in says it all:

"“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus"


If I am not mistaken that is Epicurean philosophy by way of David Hume. It uses as its base the concept of "evil". Well, to Epicurus, and even Mr. Hume, "evil" is no doubt something very different than what you or I might call evil. Therefore his judgment of God would be different than ours. Therefore as far as determination of the exitstence of a separate entity, it's useless as a test.

Such thinking RELIES on the fact that God is in fact the author of whatever religious tradition is used as the test. You could easily go back to the middle ages and test, say, the Inquisition as well. After all, the Pope was God's voice on Earth, and since the Pope wanted all that awful stuff undertaken, God must have too, right?

Well, the vast majority of Catholics don't even believe that now. The same could be said for Islam. We'd call bin Laden's god an "evil" god. He'd call ours evil for NOT being what we call evil. In the end, evil is in the eye of the beholder. Once we decide that the TRADITION wasn't authored by God, it becomes just another VIEWPOINT of what God might think.

I deal with questions like this in the same way I deal with the usual concept of Heaven. Would you want to live there? Sure, an omnipotent and omniscient God would both know what was going to happen and be able to prevent it. We wouldn't be allowed to act in any way that could run contrary to perfect peace and happiness.

Most of us would call that a police state in the extreme. THAT is considered an evil, isn't it? If we were all from birth placed in a Mr. Rogers-esque kindergarden where all our needs were met and nothing was ever risked, would we really find happiness there? How did that work out for the AI in the fictional movie "The Matrix?"

So, you have a dichotomy of the worst kind. If God allows evil to happen, you claim God is evil, and so there can't be a God. If God STOPS all evil from happening, you have a totalitarian monster for a God and therefore God is evil, and there can't be a God. In the end, it seems like human standards of reality just aren't up the the task.

After all, how good do we do when we try to play God? It's the stuff of many a Twilight Zone, and they don't end happily. So, if we can't do it with all our understanding of "good" and "evil", then perhaps our IDEA of God is what is to blame. After all, even in a best case scenario God ends up being evil. Maybe we haven't really figured out what "good" and "evil" really are yet.

Both "good" and "evil" are not realistically defined by "common sense". Period. We can't decide on abortion, gay rights, "freedom", charity, etc. Pride, Envy, Wrath, Lechery, Averice, Greed, Sloth, all are considered "deadly sins" and yet those acts that are formed from each are highly debated as far as "evil". There is no "common sense" involved, because the conclusions are far from common.

If you take "evil" out of the Epicurean equation, what standard do we have to judge? Until "evil" is REALLY "common sense", then any judgment of God would be so subjective as to be worthless.
on Jun 03, 2007
I'm wondering if that was clear. To put a finer point on it, consider the Inquisition example. At the time, people thought that was the will of God. A few thousand years earlier, people thought that the Israelites committing genocide in Palestine was the will of God. Right now, many Muslims think that terrorism is the will of God.

Well, we don't apply divinity to terrorism or the Inquisition because we now reject the idea that such was the mandate of God. Well, the same can be applied to the evils of the Old Testament, yet we continue to use such as a base definition. Why? Said source material is, or at least should be, just as suspect.

So, in the end, what you have is a criticism of man's concept of God, not a judgment of God. No different than a criticism of Medieval chemistry. Just because we now don't believe that there are only four elements, do we disallow the existence of elements? Just because our (currently) primitive concepts of God are wrong, does that disallow the existence of God?
on Jun 03, 2007
This was an interesting viewpoint and a good read. You have obviously put a lot of thought into what you have written here. (I liked the Epicurus lead in, it grabs the reader.)


I'm wondering if that was clear. To put a finer point on it, consider the Inquisition example. At the time, people thought that was the will of God. A few thousand years earlier, people thought that the Israelites committing genocide in Palestine was the will of God. Right now, many Muslims think that terrorism is the will of God.


So in other words....it is not the will of God it is the will of man. Man is one scary son of bitch.

If God knows the choices I will make and what the outcome of my life is (as in heaven or hell), why does he even bother playing this stupid game called life? Because he is playing and we are his toys, that is if he even exists and he is not a figment of our wishful imaginations.
on Jun 03, 2007
"So in other words....it is not the will of God it is the will of man. Man is one scary son of bitch. "


You just figuring that out? Like I said, if we really know what good and evil are all about, why do we screw up when WE play God? Why is "playing God" synonymous with doom? If we can't even emulate God's job without causing disaster, maybe we don't know what it is.

Could it be that our concept of what God is, and what God does, is totally bogus? Maybe the concept of evil, which we seem to use as a scale on which we weigh God, is totally bogus as well. We used to drill holes in people's heads and believe that there were four elements, but our ignorance at the time didn't disallow the viability of psychology and chemistry.

Your limited observations of the "game" might be just as bogus. The whole problem here is the idea that there is anything approaching "common sense". Now believing in THAT is like believing in the tooth fairy.


on Jun 03, 2007
little-whip


Fascinating.
on Jun 04, 2007
Baker,

I think that an omnipotent God could have made a place without any evil and with us having free will if he was all loving and wanted to. If there are no limits to an all loving God then he can do everything, even that. God could find a way to make it so it wasnt a evil totalitarianism. So that leaves a few alternatives in my opinion, that kinda go back to the quote: either he's not all loving or there is no god.

Next, let's assume that we are wrong about the concepts of evil and there is an omnipotent god. Why would he have us understand the concept of evil in such a way that it makes things that happen look bad, and by that, make Him look bad? It all goes back to the creator and architect. Even if we're wrong, it was Him that makes us wrong.

I may not be completly understand what your trying to say so I apologize if what I just wrote doesnt apply.
on Jun 04, 2007
In Judges 11 there is man name Jephthah that asks the Lord give him a military victory and in return he will sacrifice the first person to walk into his tent. God gives Jephthah the great victory and who is the first person to go into his tent to celebrate the triumph? It is Jephthah’s only daughter “dancing and playing the tambourine.” He is crushed by her arrival but he knows that he must keep his end of the bargain with God. The daughter is given two last months to live, two months that God could have reconsidered as he did with Abraham, but alas, she is finally was sacrificed by her father.


But you're assuming God sanctioned this LW. Just because it's in scripture doesn't mean that God went along with this foolishness. The tragedy of Jepthah's foolish act stands as a reminder to the perversness of human wisdom when we fail to depend on the living God. Just because he stuck to a vow doesn't mean it was right.

You must remember the theme of Judges. "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." This was said repreatedly in Judges including the very last verse. This verse appropriately summarizes the events of the book. In fact if you go back a chapter you'd see that God said to them, "I'm done with you. I'll not deliver you anymore. Go cry to your foreign gods which you have chosen. Let them deiver you in your time of trouble."

Jephthah was no different. As a matter of fact, the peoople at first had hesitated to call him as judge over the tribes on the east bank because his mother was a prostitute and his own brothers had driven him away.

We must remember that just because God's approval of a person is in one area there is no guarantee of approval in all areas of life. For instance, David was also Spirit-led and a man after God's own heart, but not everything David did should be imitated by believers.

I could go into this more at length with the whole vow thing...but I'll spare you. Vows are not unbiblical but there are some dangers to avoid in making them. Jephthah didn't think this through and his foolishness cost him.

Too many times God gets blamed for what man has done all by himself.
on Jun 04, 2007
good article, and certainly food for thought in this...but one question...isn't this pretty close to what thomas paine said in his "common sense" writings that he offered in the 18th century? i didn't see any references...maybe i missed them. that is always possible when i am multitasking and have to read things quickly.
on Jun 04, 2007
"I think that an omnipotent God could have made a place without any evil and with us having free will if he was all loving and wanted to. If there are no limits to an all loving God then he can do everything, even that. God could find a way to make it so it wasnt a evil totalitarianism. So that leaves a few alternatives in my opinion, that kinda go back to the quote: either he's not all loving or there is no god."


You are making the assumption that you understand what is going on. Like I said, the world was brimming with evil to the medieval man. Wolves were evil, night was evil, scary caves were evil. Maybe my "evil totalitarianism" might not be evil, granted, but in the same light a lot of the things you have difficulty with in our reality might be your own medieval wolf.

If you took a caveman to a football game, I wonder if he'd understand what was going on? You make the gross assumption that there are basic blocks of logic that you can apply to understand anything, no matter how ignorant you are of its nature. Well, if a witch floats, and wood floats, then witches must be made of wood. Got a light?

"Next, let's assume that we are wrong about the concepts of evil and there is an omnipotent god. Why would he have us understand the concept of evil in such a way that it makes things that happen look bad, and by that, make Him look bad? It all goes back to the creator and architect. Even if we're wrong, it was Him that makes us wrong. "


Again, you rely on the data you already openly question. You hinge your logic on the Old Testament role of inventor and tinkerer, yet you reject the actions of said God. If that's the case, why do you hang so hard on their definition of God? Is it their definition or nothing?

You demand solid definitions of God based upon indefinable emotions. You question the existence of God and assume the existence of something so esoteric as "love". You are personifying something that isn't a person. You are anthropomorphizing a being beyond our imagination. We can't even explain GRAVITY, and yet you assume we can understand God?

IF God is THIS, THEN God must NOT be THAT. IF God is THAT, THEN God must be THIS. These only work if you have one side or the other of the problem. Also note the 'is' and the 'be'. You rely heavily on definitions that are constant. Love, evil, God's state of being. What if they aren't constant? What if they defy definition?

You pose a world with no discovery. No mystery. No challenge. All the things that give us reason to be alive. Then you claim that God can't exist because we have these things. That, to me, defies logic. A good parent would put their children's puzzles together for them, I guess...

You are under the assumption that there is a necessity for you to understand this, or that God is concerned about how He appears. Why do you assume this? You're imposing a moral sense of fairness and justice, when you have 10,000 years of flawed versions as examples of how misguided our standards can be. Why does God have to fit in your mold in order to exist?

Could an omnipotent and omniscient God just simply not care whether or not you understand? What if He cares but leaves it up to you to get it right? Would that be "evil"? Didn't we decide that we have spent the last, oh, 100,000 years trying to understand what "evil" is and not getting that right, either?
on Jun 04, 2007
Have you read much about quantum mechanics? How does "common sense" fare there? Why do you assume the nature of the universe could be defined by little more than a lofty-sounding limerick?
on Jun 04, 2007
To me it is just the height of arrogance to sit and point out all the flawed molds we've tried to put God in throughout history, and in the same breath say He either fits into yours or He doesn't exist. What makes your mold so valid? Do you really pretend your logic is the final, unbeatable definition of what God must be in order to be God?

That which we can't define, can't exist is what this seems to say. If it is beyond our comprehension, it can't exist, because our comprehension is the final judge of reality. Hubris to the extreme.
on Jun 04, 2007
sorry, meant "age of reason" ...got my paine texts mixed up. no accusation of plagarism, i just wondered if they were inspired by paine's writings.

but the continued flattery is nice
on Jun 04, 2007
"And only an overinflated ego like your own could continually mistake derision for flattery. Every time you open your mouth you prove once again what a freakin' narcissist you are."


To quote the bard: Love me or hate me, its still an obsession.

...or was that Lady Sovereign... Oh well, Shakespeare prolly said it first.
on Jun 04, 2007
To quote the bard: Love me or hate me, its still an obsession.


i have,,,thanks for bringing up that nugget of wisdom again.

keep spewin yer lil special brand of hate lil girl   
on Jun 04, 2007
STILLKOONTZ WRITES:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus


Stillkoontz, is this a true quote of Epicurus? I gather from Bakerstreet’s comment that it might not be. Epicurus lived from 341-271 BC during the Hellentistic period when hosts of Olympian gods were held as divine beings. In researching Epicureanism, I couldn’t find any reference or mention of the one true God of Abraham , Moses, and later Christianity and so, it seems strange that he would ask these specific questions.
3 Pages1 2 3