As a police officer and homicide detective, I’ve seen my fair share of injustice and hardship.But because the bible says God takes personal responsibility for murder (Deut. 32:39) and causes other horrific atrocities such as rape and kidnapping (Deut. 28:15-63), you overlook the grim biblical possibility that what you call "injustice" is the work of God, in which case logically you are accusing God of injustice.
Every time I’m asked to defend the existence of God in light of the evil we observe in our world, I take a deep breath and try to separate the emotional nature of this issue from the rational explanations I might offer.Then you aren't very godly. God "delights" to inflict horrific suffering on people, such as rape (Deut. 28:30, 63) so if God delights to see men rape women (v. 30), you cannot possibly go wrong in sharing God's same attitude.
I recognize the impotence of my rational response when trying to address to the emotional pain people experience when they suffer evil.Be careful that you don't automatically classify rape and parental cannibalism of children as evil, otherwise, you will be saying that God is the author of evil, since Deut. 28:15-16, 30, 53, asserts that God causes people to do those things.
At the same time, I think it’s important for us explore reasonable explanations. Natural evil is perhaps the most difficult category of evil we, as Christians, can address. It’s one thing to explain the presence of moral evil in our world (the evil actions of humans);Correction, according to Deut. 28, supra, the man who rapes a woman just might have been caused by God to do it, you don't know, but the point is that you cannot dismiss that possibility. You'd have been more accurate to expand your definition of moral evil from "evil actions of humans" to "evil actions of humans that God sometimes causes them to do".
it’s another to explain the existence of natural evil (earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural disasters). If an all-powerful and all-loving God exists, why does He permit natural evil?And how much time should we devote to that question, if it can be shown that God doesn't likely exist?
If God exists, it is certainly within His power to prevent such things.No, God was incapable of overcoming certain armies because they had chariots of iron:
19 Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots. (Jdg. 1:19 NAU)
Inerrantist scholars cannot resolve this contradiction with God's omnipotence, without inventing additional material neither expressed nor implied in the story:
In our text (v. 18a) the narrator explicitly attributes Judah’s successes in the hill country not to equivalent military power but to the presence of Yahweh. Then why could they not take the lowland? Why is Yahweh’s presence canceled by superior military technology? The narrator does not say, but presumably the Judahites experienced a failure of nerve at this point, or they were satisfied with their past achievements.Most scholars think Mark was the earliest gospel, and if so, then Jesus "could" not perform miracles in the presence of unbelief:
4 Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household."
5 And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them.
6 And He wondered at their unbelief. And He was going around the villages teaching. (Mk. 6:4-6 NAU)
Most scholars think Matthew borrowed much gospel text from Mark. If that is true, then because Matthew changes the "could not" to a "did not", and changing Mark's "no miracle" to "not many miracles" it is reasonable to infer that the Matthew-author thought Mark's phrase could be reasonably interpreted to mean that God's power was something less than absolute:
57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household."
58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. (Matt. 13:57-58 NAU)
(Wallace continues) :Why wouldn’t He? The problem of natural evil is irreconcilable unless there are necessary or good reasons for God to permit such evil.There aren't. God created a perfect Eden and populated it with Adam and Eve. If God never allowed the serpent into the garden, it is not likely the first two humans would have done anything more than remain the blissfully ignorant children they were. And again, we need not entertain the question of natural evil too long, if a case can be made that it is unlikely that a god exists.
If God exists, it is reasonable to believe that He would design a world in which free agency is possible (this is a necessity for true love to be achievable).You are dismissed. 5-Point Calvinists are Christians, and they deny that human beings have "free agency" the way you define it, and yet you talk as if "free agency" is a presupposition you can safely assume any reader would agree with you on. Nope. Atheists are not morally obligated to take sides in that in-house Christian debate. If spiritually alive people cannot even figure out freewill, you are irrational to expect spiritually dead people to do better on the subject.
In order to understand why God might allow natural evil, we have to do our best to examine the nature of the world around us, the nature of humans and the desires of God:Again, your Calvinist brothers and sisters think such talk is theological heresy, you can hardly expect atheists to take side in that in-house Christian debate. The more you depend on the "freewill" angle, the more justification you give atheists to dismiss your argument. Atheists are smart to insist that they won't be getting involved in such debate unless Christians all agree on how the bible defines "freewill", since if we are going to convert on the basis of apologetics arguments, it's only common sense that we first make sure those arguments are biblically justified.
Some “Natural Evil” May Be the Result of Necessity
God may tolerate some natural evil because it is the necessary consequence of a free natural process that makes it possible for freewill creatures to thrive.
Scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne suggests that God has created a universe with particular natural laws that make life on earth possible so that humans with free will can exist in the first place. As an example, the same weather systems that create tornadoes that kill humans also create thunderstorms that provide our environment with the water needed for human existence.But that's like saying that because daddy has a gun that can kill game for us to eat, it is a necessary evil that he also use it to kill innocent people. In Deut. 32:39, god credits himself with causing all murders and death, so God's creation of stormy weather systems isn't the issue, we've discovered that the problem is god himself and his "delight" to cause parents who disobey him to eat their own kids (Deut. 28:63).
The same plate tectonics that kill humans (in earthquakes) are necessary for regulation of soils and surface temperatures needed for human existence.Naw, your god is omnipotent, remember? God can cause an earthquake while also protecting children from being killed by it, so again, the problem is not earthquakes, but god himself. Or maybe you deny that God is all-powerful? If so, you probably account for the omnipotence-passages in the bible by saying they are a case of typical Semitic exaggeration, which is probably correct. In that case, I'd like to know why you don't think that view opens Pandora's Box: I wonder how many other theologically important statements in the bible are in reality nothing more significant than typical Semitic exaggerations? When Isaiah strongly argues for absolute monotheism (44:6), is this literally true, or just Isaiah employing typical Semitic exaggeration?
Some “Natural Evil” May Be the Result of the Nature of Free AgencyAtheists are perfectly rational to rebut you with your 5-Point Calvinist Christian sisters who insist that human freewill cannot be significant because it is God who causes people to choose they way they choose, and therefore, the problem of evil is with God himself. If your Calvinists insist that the bible doesn't teach that humans genuinely contribute, but only react like puppets, atheists have perfect rational justification to dismiss your argument and insist God's like-minded ones get their act together first. Otherwise, you are expecting spiritually dead atheists to correctly figure out which of the two contradictory theological systems (Calvinism, non-Calvinism) are biblically correct, and that's foolish.
God may also tolerate some natural evil because it is the necessary consequence of human free agency. Humans often rebuild along earthquake fault lines and known hurricane pathways, and they frequently cut corners on building guidelines in order to save money. Much of this activity results in the catastrophic loss that we see in times of ‘natural’ disaster. There are times when ‘natural’ evil is either caused or aggravated by free human choices.
Some “Natural Evil” May Be the Result of God’s NudgingIf true then God is stupid, since all through the bible he not only "stirs the heart" of various people to successfully motivate them to do what he wants:
God may permit some natural evil because it challenges people to think about God for the first time.
1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he sent a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying: (Ezr. 1:1 NAU)but God also sometimes forces unbelievers to sin, and then punishes them for it:
4 "I will turn you about and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them splendidly attired, a great company with buckler and shield, all of them wielding swords; (Ezek. 38:4 NAU)
16 and you will come up against My people Israel like a cloud to cover the land. It shall come about in the last days that I will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me when I am sanctified through you before their eyes, O Gog." (Ezek. 38:16 NAU)
21 "I will call for a sword against him on all My mountains," declares the Lord GOD. "Every man's sword will be against his brother. (Ezek. 38:21 NAU)
1 "And you, son of man, prophesy against Gog and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal;Does literally control people like this? Or is this semitic exaggeration? If Semitic exaggeration, then what criteria do you use to decide when a theologically important passage in the bible is mere exaggeration?
2 and I will turn you around, drive you on, take you up from the remotest parts of the north and bring you against the mountains of Israel. (Ezek. 39:1-2 NAU)
For many people, the first prayers or thoughts of God came as the result of some tragedy.Which doesn't count for much, since your all-powerful God can cause people to yearn for him simply by waving his magic wand:
14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. (Acts 16:14 NAU)
(Wallace continues:) When our present lives are in jeopardy or in question, we find ourselves thinking about the possibility of a future life. If an eternal future life is a reality, God may use the temporary suffering of this life to focus our thoughts and desires on eternity.Which makes God stupid and wasteful since according to Ezekiel he can cause us to think whatever thoughts he wants us to think. If God wants me to prioritize the spiritual side of my life, he doesn't need to step out of the way and allow me to endure horrific catastrophes, he can simply put those motives into my heart the way he allegedly did similarly to other people all through the bible.
Some “Natural Evil” May Be the Result of God’s NurturingWhich is counterbalanced by the obvious fact that half the people who experience evil don't turn to god, but become more closed to the idea that any god exists. Again, if God would just wave his magic wand and use his telepathy on us today like he allegedly did in bible times, he would need to allow a little girl to be raped just to get her to sympathize in adulthood with other rape victims...he can cause her to sympathize with such people by putting such motives into her heart directly.
God may permit some natural evil because it provides humans with the motivation and opportunity to develop Godly character.
You need to be careful with the argument that says good comes out of evil. yeah, sometimes it does, but the means don't always justify the ends. We could fix a lot of problems by nuking America's ghettos too. But if you think the resulting benefit didn't cancel the fact that this was murder, then you might wish to stop telling yourself that God is morally justified because his purpose is good. The ends don't justify the means...do they?
Or are you a Republican?
A world such as this requires human beings to cooperate and peacefully co-exist in order to successfully respond to its challenges.That preaches nice, but it is also true, according to your bible, that for thousands of years, the earth and God were doing just fine while this place was little more than a battle field where competing tribes killed each other and whoever won, was considered to be in the right.
The best in humanity often emerges as people respond in love and compassion to natural disaster.Which makes sense from a naturalistic point of view, but creates unending problems from a classical Christian theist point of view such as yours.
It’s in the context of disaster that moral character has the opportunity to form and develop. Good character (acts of love, compassion and cooperation) must be freely chosen. God has provided us with a world that provokes us to improve our situation, care for those who are in need, and become better human beings in the process. There are a number of ‘necessary’ or ‘sufficient’ reasons why God might create a world in which natural evil is occasionally permissible, particularly if God chooses to provide, protect and preserve the freewill of His children.Your Calvinist brothers are as spiritually alive as you, and they deny that we have freewill. You are a fool to expect spiritually dead atheists to figure out which interpretation of scripture is the right one.
