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 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jun 04, 2007
Epicurus quote
Similar Quotes. About: Life quotes, Happiness quotes, Youth quotes, Death quotes.
Add to Chapter...

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?”


Lulap according to this internet site it does exist

WWW Link
on Jun 04, 2007
"Lulap according to this internet site it does exist"


OMG, lol, quote sites are not worthy references. They are just dumps for spurious crap half the time.

The snippet above is from David Hume, borrowed from Lactantius, an early Christian theologian. Chapter 13 of On the Anger of God. If anyone has anything before that, I'm not aware of it. I doubt seriously that Epicurus framed his logic in this way, since he didn't live in a monotheistic society.

You'll note he doesn't pose the idea that Epicurus is an Atheist, rather that he believes gods exist but just doesn't care about evil or good. Epicureans really didn't believe in such absolutes, anyway. If you look into Epicurean philosophy, you'll find that it has to be twisted hard to even approach the average modern Atheist outlook, if it could ever fit at all.
on Jun 04, 2007
Oop, I found a reference to Philo using this as well. He was a Hellenized Jew known for a synthesis of Greek and Judaistic philosophy. If I had to point to the real source of this version of Epicurus, that'd be my guess.

EDIT:Bleh, nm, that's also Philo via Hume. He fictionalized a discussion using Philo. I think all you really need for this is Hume. I have a headache. I'll try and find the original work the paradox is based upon later, if it exists.

In the end, though, this is about the impossibility of the mortal understanding the divine. The argument nullifies the conclusion.

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

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.


That there are evils in the world is a reality. With all due respect, Stillkoontz, neither the presence of evil or disorder, nor carefully analyzing these questions, nor critically looking through the Bible disprove God’s existence or His Infinite Goodness, Wisdom, Power and Love. Your conclusion---- “that 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”----is not reasonable.

It is because you concentrate on some particular evils failing to avert to the good and to grasp the universal aspect of all creation. Reason tells us the positive evidence for God’s existence and of His Goodness is certain and solid. If we fail to understand all God’s ways, that’s not evidence that God does not exist, but that our human intelligence is finite and limited. To say, after careful analyzing of questions, and critically looking through the Bible, etc., that we fully comprehend all God’s ways and then deny that there is a God is to hold that the human mind is the infinite, ultimate, and infallible criterion of all truth. That is not reasonable.

It is also foolish to abandon belief in the existence of an All Loving and Good God because we have difficulty reconciling evil and our freedom to commit it.

I would start from the premise that God is All good and did not create evil since evil is the negation of good. God made the world for reasons best known to Himself and He permitted evil to exist in it. St.Augustine said that “God Almighty would in no way permit evil in His works were He not so omnipotent and good that even out of evil He could work good.”

Your quote above essentially says, “there is evil, therefore there is no God”. I reply, there is good, therefore there is a God and that the only explanation of evil is that God does exist. Evil cannot exist apart from created beings to experience it. God didn’t created evil, but He does create people with free will. The good in them cannot be explained without God while the evil can be explained with God. He permits it only because He is Good and Powerful enough to draw from it a benefit greater than any harm it can effect. This mystery is very hard for us to fully comprehend and understand.

He made us free in order to love Him or reject Him. Because God is love, He asks the freely given love of man and not a compelled love. Because He is just, He will not deprive man of free will which is in accordance with his rational nature. Nor is this against the omnipotence of God, for even His power does not extend to contradictory things. Man cannot be free to love and serve God without being free to reject Him and rebel against Him. We cannot have it both ways. Even God, if He wants men to be free cannot take from them the power (free will) to choose evil. If He enforces goodness, He takes away freedom. If He leaves freedom, He must permit evil, even though He forbids it and for us to engage in evil is sin. It is man’s dignity that he is master of his own destiny instead of having to develop just like a tree which necessarily obeys natural law.

Men misused their freedom and sin and brutality resulted. But it was impossible to give men the gift of freedom and the dignity of being master of their own destiny without risking the permission of such failures. Being All powerful, there is no reason why He ought to do our bidding. Being All Just, He is not going to give us something and let us think that to be our real good when it is not. Being All Loving, He will not cause impossible difficulties. God positively wills that all the good that happens. He permits suffering only when He foresees that good can come from it. God did not will sin or evil, but having made men free, He permits it and its consequences. This permission is a less serious thing that would have been depriving us of freedom.

The world with its difficulties may be a problem difficult to reconcile with the existence of God, but the same world without God would be in utter chaos leaving the same miseries to be endured in hopeless despair.
on Jun 04, 2007
OMG, lol, quote sites are not worthy references. They are just dumps for spurious crap half the time.


on Jun 04, 2007
BAKERSTREET POSTS:
In the end, though, this is about the impossibility of the mortal understanding the divine. The argument nullifies the conclusion.


Gee, BS, I guess we were posting at the same time. This reply of yours is just about as succinct as it gets.
on Jun 04, 2007
This is me, resisting the urge to tear into Lula's mythologies. All hail my self control!!
on Jun 04, 2007
STILLKOONTZ WRITES:
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.


If Almighty God could not foresee the future, instead of being more easily understood, things would be absolutely inexplicable. It is precisely because He foresaw the future and the greater good He will draw out of these present evils that He has permits them. But apart from this, why did God knowing what would happen create men free to please or offend Him? First, because His foreknowledge in no way makes anyone offend Him. Knowledge does not cause things to happen. Things that happen give rise to the knowledge of them. Second, as mentioned above, God gave us free will so that we might have the nobler dignity of being masters of our own destiny, not having to serve Him necessarily or blindly as do trees or inanimate planets and stars. God did not want a forced love from beings capable of an intelligent appreciation of the good. But once God makes man free, he is free either to love God or to reject Him..to serve Him or to rebel against Him...that is physically. No man is morally free to reject God for God forbids that warning him of if disastrous results.

At any rate, Skillkoontz, there is a God and we are free. If we cannot see a satisfactory explanation of the difficulties that occur to us, then we trust in God in such matters. Many speculative questions which we would like to have solved have been left mysteries, either because our minds cannot grasp the solution even if they were explained, or simply because God does not choose to justify Himself to His own creatures......yet, if He ever will?
on Jun 04, 2007
because there was no accusation. only in your lil obsessed, depressed head.
on Jun 04, 2007

SHHHHH. LW and SC, enough already. Time out!

Here is SC post:

SC POST:
(Citizen)Sean Conners aka SConn1June 4, 2007 11:37:35Reply #10
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.


Perhaps I'm dense, but when I read this for the first time and now for the second and third, I don't read it as Sean accusing anyone of plagerism.
on Jun 04, 2007
Sean and whip,

I have never read any of Paine's writings but now I will. Haha, sorry if that caused a stir.


The quote stuff,

Sorry if it there was confusion about it. I didn’t research it all the much. I just thought it was thought provoking and an interesting way to start my essay.

KFC,

I think there is a major problem thinking like that. If parts of the Bible are clearly wrong then why are they in there? Why doesn’t the church now just take it out? Because it’s the Word of God. Once you allow people to just take the bits and pieces they like then the Bible loses all credibility. This is one of the reasons I can’t accept it, either you take the whole thing, or none of it. It seems like an excuse to say Jephthah was wrong and it has nothing to do with God. Obviously it does if it’s in the Bible. I understand that you can interpret the Bible differently, but to me, it's an all or nothing, and so I choose to believe in none of it.
on Jun 05, 2007
I do not take the bible as 100% the word of God. It's man's interpretation of the word of God, and it can be manipulated. People can read one scripture to mean many different things, who know what God really meant by it, and who knows if the people who wrote the bible got it right from God? I think the bible has a lot of good ideas about how we should live our lives, but it's hard for me to believe that everything in the bible is straight from God. I'm more of a believer in spirituality rather than organized religion.
on Jun 05, 2007
This is one of the reasons I can’t accept it, either you take the whole thing, or none of it. It seems like an excuse to say Jephthah was wrong and it has nothing to do with God.


how much scripture have you read? When David committed adultery was he wrong? It's in scripture. Adam and Eve sinned. Were they wrong? It's in scripture.
Have you ever read the book of Judges? I think you need to start reading it before you start judging it.

I do take the whole scripture and believe the whole scripture is God's written word to mankind. But when you start taking scripture out of context pulling out stories without the beginning or the end in mind to make your point it's kind of suspect.

If parts of the Bible are clearly wrong then why are they in there?


the bible isn't wrong. I didn't say that. The bible is filled with men and woman who were flawed. It's what makes the bible so right. If it was all perfect we would be so discouraged and inadequate. We can see clearly these people were human beings covered in sin just like us. There are no perfect human beings on earth.

Well....there was one....and he died.

We can learn from those who make bad mistakes just as easily as we follow those who do good can't we?

I understand that you can interpret the Bible differently, but to me, it's an all or nothing, and so I choose to believe in none of it.


That's your premise to begin with isn't it? This whole I'm trying to understand scripture is nothing but a hook right? And you CHOSE the right wording. Choose it is.

If you don't believe it and the God who wrote it, why do you spend so much time writing on the subject? This is only one of a few you've put up recently.

What exactly do you believe?



on Jun 05, 2007
Baker,

You write many thought provoking things that make my head hurt. Thanks.

I think there’s a misunderstanding with what I was making a case against in my essay. I was making a case (however weak) against the idea of a Christian type of God, an all loving, omnipotent, creator, personal God. The Christian God is also an anthropomorphic God, which, as you pointed out, my argument deals a lot with. Hopefully that clears up some of the confusion.

“Have you read much about quantum mechanics? How does "common sense" fare there?”

Quantum mechanics and science in general are completely separate topics than that of religion and morals. With science we can get hard data on things and use math to back up theories. This is not the case with morality and, in most cases, religion. All we can use is our intuition and logic, and that is why I base my arguments off it.

“In the end, though, this is about the impossibility of the mortal understanding the divine. The argument nullifies the conclusion.”

I think that more or less sums up your main point on the issue. And you say how my ideology is the “height of arrogance” to the point of “hubris.” I don’t think its hubris to point out the flaws of the world and then put the blame where blame would belong, if there were a god. I think it may be the height of ignorance to say that these things are beyond us because he’s God. What is the point of thinking if everything can be boiled down to the point that we can’t understand it? In my opinion, it’s an unacceptable belief, however easily defendable. As humans, we strive to understand everything even our creator. It would be a cruel trick if all of our thinking was for nothing. But I guess we get back to our inability to truly understand god and how its not really cruel if He doesn’t think so, even if to us it’s be a pretty dick move. In that line of thought, our comprehension doesn’t matter because it’s just wrong anyways so don’t worry about thinking. Ignorance to the extreme.

Finally, I believe you claim that we can’t explain gravity, but I think we have a pretty good theory on it-mass attracts mass. What part of gravity is unexplained?
on Jun 05, 2007
OK, here's a trick. It's called "reading in context":

i didn't see any references...maybe i missed them.


Why would there be a need for references? Usually to credit someone else for their work rather than gather accusations of plagiarism. Sean did not ever directly accuse anyone of plagiarism, but I read it as an implication as well.

3 Pages1 2 3