It is often argued by atheists that a loving and powerful god would not allow evil to occur, and counterargued by theists that god honors free will. Let us, very briefly and only in a shallow way, examine this claim in light of what happened here.
Let's define free will as god allowing and enabling humans to make choices without influencing their minds or actions. (Obviously, this begs the question of how god can "enable" us to do so without influencing us, but let's keep this simple and grant as many theist's terms and intended meanings as possible.)
The trucker did not choose to kill seven children and, indirectly, one grandfather. In a world where free will, a loving and powerful god, and evil all coexist logically, I am willing to grant that according to those presuppositions, god could not stop someone from willfully killing someone else and maintain all three of the propositions above.
But what about accidents? Let's say that the trucker falls asleep behind the wheel, simply because he is tired, not because he is driving and dozing "on purpose". Would god be interrupting his free will to simply drop a pebble from heaven onto the windshield to wake him up? Or send an angel to tap his shoulder? Or speak softly in his ear? So if god chooses not to interfere in this scene, and the man's sleep, unintentional, results in the death of 8 people...what does that tell us?
God had a plan for it? Isn't this just ad hoc reasoning that still doesn't deal with the insufficiency of "free will" to explain how this could happen? It is the same at Sago, and with every single natural disaster. Even if god isn't causing these accidents, but simply standing there with a thumb in the divine anal sphincter, how is this god still good? Notifying/warning people of what is about to happen, if you believe the Bible, is not a violation of free will.
Some [morally corrupt] people might say, "well, no one was praying for those seven children," or, "they didn't know Jesus," [or Mohamed, or etc.], and that is why god didn't notify them. In this case, it would seem all the more imperative, if god actually loved those children, for god to look out for these children so that they might come to know god...assuming god wants to be known. It is sort of like a baby abandoned on your doorstep--do you allow a starving pack of wolves to eat it because no one is claiming it, or do you have the ultimate responsibility to ensure its safety until someone else does? Can you beg off the responsibility with, "I don't know this kid, it didn't ask me for help, I didn't want this kid, etc.?" Or, does that make it all the more definitive of whether you are loving and good in how you handle this situation?
Furthermore, there are obvious cases in the Bible where god interrupted people that were in no way asking god for an interruption. One that stands out in my mind is Saul. Saul was happy being a Christian-murdering Pharisee. He even says so in Philippians 3 and elsewhere. He uses the word "apprehended" in Phil. 3 to describe what happened on the Damascus road. If god is silent on warning people of imminent danger out of respect for "free will", what does it say of god to come down (in the form of Jesus) and basically scare the sh*t out of someone who was enjoying exercising this free will and wanted to continue doing it? Sounds to me like the "free will" defense for god's passivity in the face of natural evils (accidents, disasters, laws of physics) is pretty spotty for those who claim, on the other hand, that the Bible is true, and thus acknowledge god has interrupted people's lives on numerous occasions.
This same "free will" defense is often employed to counter atheist objections to god's refusal to demonstrate god's existence. IOW, god will not give any measure of evidence that god exists, such as writing "I AM GOD" in the sky with stars or clouds, or with schools of fish in the oceans, anytime people doubt, but theists contend that god must be believed. What theists are claiming here is that god's revelation of existence would be tantamount to disruption of the person's choice to believe that god exists or not. Again, turning to the Scripture, we found inconsistencies here, as god was supposedly revealed time and again to people who both did and did not want to worship god. God's self-revelation was not a problem for those people, was it? And what theists are doing here is conflating knowledge that something exists with ability to choose to worship/follow/obey/love it. Obviously, the Adam & Eve story is the clearest case of a Biblical account where people had no doubt that god existed, yet chose to disobey. In this sense, knowledge of god's existence does not contradict choice to follow or obey god, now does it?
I just got through responding to Jamie Bonnett on this same topic via email. He said (in part):
You said that you thought a tri-omni God was illogical, because of the evil and suffering in the world. Drawing from the Bible again, we live in a fallen world. Each of us are "not good." Ask yourself this question: Who taught you how to lie? Was there a pride and jealousy handbook that we all got at birth? Our very nature is "not good." (The standard of good being the opposite of what was mentioned above, given by the Bible, we can also discuss later if you want). However a God with the qualities you gave can exist in a setting like the world we live in. All three, all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good can be seen through an illustration: I guess a question anyone can ask is, "Why won't God stop the things that are bad in this World?" If He is all-powerful then He should be able to. What if a bad event led to a good event, a far reaching good event. I had a friend die of cancer at 22. Sad story, close friend. This kid was a Christian and everyone who walked through his door prayed for him. He died anyway after only 16 months with the disease. He was a Christian and now is in heaven (following the Bible here). So a God all-powerful chose to let this thing kill him and that's it. Well, what most found out later was that 6 of his came to believe in God through this sickness. Now not only will he go to heaven but also 6 of his friends who were not otherwise. God knew this seemingly bad situation could turn out for the better for others.Here's my response (in full):
Jamie,Note that in his mind it is not Jamie's burden to argue that a god exists, and provide evidence for it, but apparently it is my burden to defend why I don't believe! If I can't prove the unicorn doesn't exist, I am compelled to believe it does, apparently.
I don't want to spend too much time going back and forth. I have a lot of stuff that I've already written along these lines on my blog, so I'll try to reference it if possible.What if there was a book written about this purple unicorn detailing it very precisely and the contents of the book could not have been fabricated by any means? Just because you haven't seen it does this negate its existence?In the case of gods, we have *many* books claiming just this -- almost all of them of unknown or dubious origins. And almost all of them containing competing claims. This plays directly into an atheistic perspective on religious confusion from the lack of a *true* religion, or the argument from unbelief. No, I need not see the unicorn myself, but I need to see some tangible evidence of its existence.I noted your remark at the end about the justification of the Bible. Let's take a brief look at it. This Bible written over a period of 1600 years by 40 different writers, wait....stop there... is that possible?First, you beg the question with respect to the Bible's origins. Recent archeology has undermined the credibility of the traditional story of the Hebrew peoples and their history. The Hindu scriptures are older than the Jewish OT, and thousands of religions have lasted longer. None of these things indicate truth.Could you right now start writing a book archaeologically sound, able to foretell future events, as well as stand by it (your message) while others try to kill you?Again, it looks like you've been reading too much Ray Comfort and too little higher criticism. The supposed prophecies in the Bible have been systematically debunked for hundreds of years, largely hinging upon their vague/ambiguous declarations, and including the Jewish debunkings of supposed Christian 'proof-texts' in Isaiah and the Psalms and so forth about the Messiah. I've gone over this in detail before, where I point out the following failure of supposed biblical prophecy:
i) Fall prey to the fact that we cannot verify their authenticity in any meaningful way, because we receive them "after the fact" -- that is, after both the supposed delivery of the prophecy and its supposed fulfillment
ii) Are never explicit and specific -- almost every "prophecy" is extremely general and vague, no names, no exact dates, no exact details. Examples include when kings were "doomed" but details were never spelled out.
iii) Are often retro-interpreted -- typically because of their ambiguity (Isa 7:14 and Isa 53 are both a fine example of this), to fit a preconceived notion of the reader, and to align with the reader's presuppositions and theology. This is why the Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, right?Is it possible for you to pass on your passion so that the message of this book will continue to be sound, with no one over a 1600 hundred year period losing interest in fulfilling their part or even shrink back because others don't like what is being said. This simple fact about the Bible should at least intrigue us to open it to see what its contents hold.I've read it many times. Many people have passed on mythology and religion for reasons of interest and academic importance. The Church insured that only their particular (approved) translations and MSS received attention and revision.For the sake of time, let me state one fact. If a book, say this Bible, has a statement that science only finds out to be true a thousand years later, is this important? Isaiah 40:22 says that the earth is a circle. Science didn't come across this until 500 years ago.First, the Greeks estimated the radius of the earth thousands of years ago. Second, in that same poetic passage, it remarks about the "pillars of the earth". Others have debunked claims of scientific foreknowledge in the Bible (also here), not so much medical, which are always a poor representation [think bird blood for leprosy], but especially the earth being round and "hung upon nothing." Of course, when people point this out, they always fail to point out that in that same book of the OT (Job) from which they quote, that many references are made to "the pillars of the earth" and implications about its flatness and "foundation" are made. They also fail to point out the poetic context of all of this.Well, how could mankind complete this book with the foreknowledge, scientific facts, and precision that it contains?Dude, you need to get off the Kool-Aid you're drinking. The Bible is full of absurdities. See here for an extended list:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm
And here for an extended list of its contradictions:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.htmlSimply put, the problem of non-belief, from infidels website, is that it assigns human attributes to a God. Why should God react the way Theodore Drange thinks he should?If this is your idea of serious engagement of philosophical arguments, then I probably ought not waste more time trying to substantiate them. That said, I think you may have a kernel of wisdom hidden in that statement. The problem with assigning unintelligible attributes to god is that we lose the ability to have meaningful discussions. For instance, if you say, "God is good," and I say, "Oh, good, like someone who doesn't order the execution of infants, right?" You have two choices: (i) hope that I don't know 1Sam 15:3-4; (ii) admit that this is a right and proper standard of goodness, and realize that your god doesn't measure up to it. If you try to say that God is "good in a different way than we understand," then you shouldn't use the word "good" in describing God. You may as well use a meaningless word, "wegoweinqowijeqm," since we don't understand that either.
Apply this in the same way to the argument from nonbelief and the problem is crystal clear -- if God does exist and wants me to know it, then God would relate this knowledge to me in a way that is comprehensible and clear.
Voltaire once asked,The silly fanatic repeats to me ... that it is not for us to judge what is reasonable and just in the great Being, that His reason is not like our reason, that His justice is not like our justice. Eh! how, you mad demoniac, do you want me to judge justice and reason otherwise than by the notions I have of them? Do you want me to walk otherwise than with my feet, and to speak otherwise than with my mouth?I doubt that God exists because of what I do understand, and you tell me that my doubts are trumped by your faith in incomprehensible things. *shrug* This is "pettifogging sophistry".
The problem with your proposed theodicy, and it is an old one -- generically claiming that "greater goods are accomplished through lesser evils," is that God can, *by definition*, always accomplish *anything* through a method which is only good, and contains no evil. As a simple example, God could have led those six people to Itself through use of the supernatural, or special revelation, as the Bible records God having used many many times before. Balaam's ass is always a funny one.
Also, you cannot blame human beings for tornadoes and hurricanes, as though these *had* to happen as a result of "the fall" or some other such thing. Natural evils can only be laid at the foot of the one who instituted natural laws. Formally, as Epicurus wrote the problem of evil (PoE):P1) The gods can either take away evil from the world and will notIf C1, C2, or C3 is true, then the Being is not worthy of our worship and service (not to mention that we still don't know anything about it).
P2) Being willing to do so [take away evil from the world] cannot
P3) They [gods] neither can nor will [take away evil from the world], or lastly,
P4) They are both able and willing [to take away evil from the world].
C1) If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. (if P2)
C2) If they can, but will not, then they are not benevolent. (if P1)
C3) If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. (if P3)
C4) Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist? (if P4) [reductio ad absurdum for P1]
Finally, your last point misses by a mile:I believe that since no one can know everything it is impossible to say there is no God. You don't possess all knowledge therefore can't make that statement. It does not mean however that you can't question anything. From the Bible, this is my presupposition I work from, you can gain knowledge which leads to experience or experience which leads to knowledge. The validity of the Bible holds up like no other giving people something to think about. I would be more than happy to discuss things further with you.Simple thought experiment: do square circles exist, James? If not, why not? And, if you claim "no," then does the above that you wrote apply?
Some things are true by definition and deduction -- the tri-omni god's nonexistence is one of those things, from the PoE above. It doesn't require particular knowledge of facts or evidence, only logical consistency.
**UPDATE: Jamie and I have had a little more conversation, see here**
