Another Answer to Questions Christians Cannot Answer

"If God is so perfect, then why did he create something so imperfect allowing pain, suffering and daily atrocities?" (from the article "50 Questions That Christians Cannot Answer." available at http://www.bukisa.com/articles/107211_top-50-questions-christians-cant-answer).  The site continues, "Don't get me wrong, they will have an answer for them. You will find, however, that their answers have no basis in verifiable fact or evidence whatsoever, and will be largely based in their blind faith. Their faith has mad (sic) them whole."

As noted in the previous blog to assume that some Christian some place on this earth or who lived in some time period could not legitimately answer these questions is a quantum assumption which though postulated is impossible to defend.  Maybe these questions cannot be answered to the satisfaction of the questioner but that in no way validates the questions presented nor invalidates such answers as are provided. As well, just as many of the questions are not validated with facts, one should not expect the answers will be either.  It is an unfair stipulation that even the questioner cannot abide.

As to the current question the prudent observer of life knows that evil exists in the forms listed and others beside.  For the honest seeker of truth, this and other questions are deserving of a thought out answer.  Most certainly there are questions that cannot be answered due to their illogical nature.  

Look first at the question being ask.  Of course it is an "if-then" question which taken at face value seeks to impugn the character of God.  In effect it is saying that God is responsible for evil in its various forms.  Therefore God is evil and not to be trusted if He even exists at all.

There are some other questions one might consider.  Is God really the origin of evil or is it found in man?  Is it a consequence of culture or as a natural bent of man?  Are there exceptions to this evil?  Is evil ever in its final form or is it ever dynamic?

There are answers if one is willing to enlarge his frame of reference!  The challenges in asking the question are the limiting factors one embraces.  Following are several question to be asked of the one proposing the initial idea.   

First, is it legitimate to postulate that because evil exists there can be no God?  This seems to assume a correlation between God's existence and evil's existence.  How can that link be legitimately established?

Similarly, is it legitimate to suggest that because evil exists there exists a malevolent even vengeful God?  Again this seems to assume a correlation between God's existence and that of evil.  How can that link be legitimately established?

Can one accept the assumption of a malevolent God and thus be able to postulate the opposite question?  "If God is so imperfect, then why did he create something so perfect allowing good in all of it multivariate forms?" There are a multitude of difficulties with such a thought, not the least of which is that in order for there to be imperfect, there 

must be an antecedent perfect (more in a moment).

 

Second, is it legitimate to say that what God originally created has not changed, either devolving or evolving?  In order for the initial question to have legitimacy, there can be no change from the original creation.  How can such be legitimately established.  So then if one allows for some form of change then the merits of the question fall apart.

Now for a rebuttal question.  If the original questioner is correct and such is as he has proposed, from where comes a sense of "good?"  From where does the standard that labels something or someone as "good" originate.  As noted, for there to be "evil" there must be an initial "good."  Since that is so, from where did that initial notion of "good" originate? 

The Bible explains that in fact the original creation was good.  It remained so for some period of time until man given the freedom to choose, then make the fateful choice to disobey.  In doing so he opened the door to evil. 

As well, because there is a right and it involves God then consider this.  If one can accept that God is good and that He involves Himself in the affairs of man, then, one must at least give the possibility that the wrong can in fact turn out to be a "right," an "evil" turned to a "good," and a "curse" turned to a "blessing," etc.  This is but one of the advantages of an open system of thought that allows for God's intervention in the affairs of mankind individually and corporately.

So why did He not intervene in the disobedience of the original man and woman?  He did, just not in a way that the skeptic chooses to label as proper and good.  You see, God does all things "well and good" but, He is the one who defines "good!"  For man to do so would result in a shortsighted and selfish good.

Once again the supposed nail in the "God" coffin is fragile at best and crumbles under the scrutiny of a few simple questions.

Answers to Questions Christians Cannot Answer

"The 50 Questions Christians Can't Answer" (from http://www.bukisa.com/articles/107211_top-50-questions-christians-cant-answer) as with most declarative statements/questions is steeped in an abundance of assumptions.  One does well to ask, what are the assumptions necessary in order for the particular question to have legitimacy. 

The first assumption is that some Christian some place on this earth or who lived in some time period could not legitimately answer these questions.  Such is quite an assumption.  Maybe these questions cannot be answered to the satisfaction of the questioner but that in no way validates the assumption underlying the questions presented.

Consider the first question, "If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), why did he take six days to create everything? Why not speak everything into existence all at once?"  Assume for the sake of discussion that the questioner is not taking "pot shots" at the Bible and really does want to know the answers. 

Of interest and importance to the discussion are several matters to include the existence of God and as well the veracity of the Scriptural text.  Further the questioner seems to assume that the text is to be taken literally.  If such was not so the very asking of the question would be negated. 

Another point is that the question must be understood within the time and culture of the activity to which it refers.  Thus there is a necessary adjustment to the question.

The Scripture points out that God's creative week was not six days but seven.  What difference does that make?  A modicum of study reveals that in that day and culture numbers were significant.  In the case of seven, it is found throughout the Hebrew and for that matter the Christian Bible.  It is the number of completion or perfection. 

Another assumption necessary to the question is found in "If God is omnipotent (all-powerful),..."  Here one arrives at something of a problem.  How does the finite comprehend the all-powerful infinite?  One can in degree conceptually grasp the notion of "omnipotent" but to get one's "mental arms" around the notion is a tall order beyond the capacity of most people.

Consider the following.  How Much Power Does the Sun Produce?

The Sun's output is 3.8 x 10³³ ergs/second, or about 5 x 10²³ horsepower. How much is that? It is enough energy to melt a bridge of ice 2 miles wide, 1 mile thick, and extending the entire way from the Earth to the Sun, in one second.

Dr. Louis Barbier (available at http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sun.html)

Imagine then that the sun according to some estimates is 4.5 billions of years in age (this assumption is purely for the purposes of argument).  That means that in those years the energy from the sun alone would melt 1.4 X 10¹⁷ (141,261,570 with 9 more zeros) ice bridges.  Consider then that each ice bridge is 185,912,100 cubic miles in volume. Imagine the immense power necessary for such a bridge to be melted.  Most would agree that the numbers involved are beyond comprehension. 

Now move a step further and consider that the created is never greater than the Creator and thus considering just the energy spawned by the sun one can in some degree begin to see something of omnipotent.  Factor in that some astronomers estimate that there are a million such suns in the universe.  However, that does nothing to answer the question except for there to be one other factor included.

A God that vast could be impersonal and thus outside of man's consciousness and capacity to comprehend.  Again consider Hebrew culture and the names for God.  The creation account over and over uses the name Eloheim--the majestically powerful God.  After man is created another name appears in the text--Yahweh, the relational name for God*.  Bear in mind that the infinite God reduce the view of Himself so as to be available to finite man.  To be sure such a view is at best a very limited view no matter the capacities of the man involved.  Too it must be noted that it is a view that is never exhausted.  As long as man lives, there will always be more to learn of the infinite majestic God.

The final assumptive point to be made is this.  How does one know that God did or did not take the full 24 hours as referenced in the creation narrative.  If God is as omnipotent as the question suggests, is He not powerful enough to create as He pleases, 24 nanoseconds, 24 seconds, 24 minutes, 24 hours, 24 days...etc.? 

Hopefully these few thoughts germinate other thoughts which then might further flesh out the discussion on this and other questions.   

_________________________________

*The names are rough transliterations of the original names.

Unintended Messages

Often when one looks beyond what appears as the obvious, there is another message--truth to be discovered.  It can be both unintended and at variance with the initial statement.  In fact, it allows for another story quite different from the first.  So it is with the following.

If a god knew what the creatures that it makes would "freely choose" and it makes them anyway and punishes them for such choices...that's not only evil...it's insane. 

Name withheld

What can one make of such a statement?  A place to begin is with the tone and tenor of the statement.  One can certainly wonder at some things--two of several are as follows.  First, why is it that "a god" is valued in the negative?  Couldn't the question  be asked if not the positive, at least in the neutral?  Second, what "choices" are available and what are the implications based in there being "choices?"

First, the values present.  Keep in mind that when there is a negative, of necessity there must be a previous positive.  In other words, if one observes that God is "not good," there must be an antecedent "good" by which to make the "not good" observation.   

Therefore, for the writer's "evil" and "insane" to exist, there is an assumption that the opposite positive exists.  Such brings about another question.  What is the origin of that "good?"  Did this notion of "good" evolve?  Is it just a rational social construct?  Did it just happen by some random chance?  This is perhaps the major unintended messages of the statement.  There are more!

Consider the "freely choose" thought.  The notion of free choice means that the possibility of there not being free choice exists.  In this case the created is vested with a certain capacity to make choices.  If that capacity did not exist then there would be no choice and thus a whole host of other elements would not be present.   There is for example, the matter of opportunity which is present when there is choice.  Said another way, remove choice and opportunity is removed.

One of the opportunities present is that of relationship.  Choice is necessary for there to be relationship.  Thus the created was vested not just with the opportunity of choice but also the opportunity to be blessed with relationships from those choices.

Then there is the matter of responsibility.  The initial statement is based in the notion that the created is held accountable for poor decisions that grow out of the previously reference free will.  If one accepts that there is responsibility, then one must assume that there is a standard by which to divide responsible from irresponsible.  That being so, the writer must assume that the creator did not make clear the dividing line.  Quite an assumption! 

As with any number of choices, there is an outcome.  Notice the assumption is that the outcome of choice is punishment.  Again the unintended message is that if there is the possibility of "punishment" there then must be the possibility of "blessing."  Thus, the choices one makes may be dire in outcome or could result in opportunity, responsibility, relationship, and blessing.   

Interesting that the whole notion of the created making right choices and being blessed is ignored.  The focus is upon the consequences of wrong choices.   This of course is a reflection of the writer's view of the "creator" and as well the "created."

The final observation is this.  Quite right, the writer observes that the created has a propensity for failing and that points to another element of the discussion.  If such is so, then would it not seem logical that the creator would create a solution to the need of the created?  Well such would not be apparent to one who takes a dim view of the Creator!

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever, believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.  For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him."  John 3:16-17

Graphic from "...Why does God Need Me?" Part IV

...Why Does God Need Me? - Part IV

Noted in the last post was that Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias develops the ramifications of Divine love in the following manner.

The greatest love leads to freedom of choice.

Freedom of choice leads to the possibility of sin and evil.

Sin and evil leads to the possibility of a savior

A savior leads to the possibility of redemption.

(see previous post for citation)

The following is an adaptation of those four thoughts. Think for a moment what those four statements mean in the context of epic conflict between good and evil.   For there to be genuine love there must be the freedom of choice which allows a man to accept or to reject that love.  God is love and as previously noted "God's love Expressed" is a portion of but not the totality of "God is Love."

Note:  See next Blog for larger image of graphic

God was under no obligation to express that love but He did and did so in two ways.  "Man was vested with the choice/capacity to receive God's Love" is the first action to be considered.  Therefore, because of God's grace and mercy, man has the opportunity to choose.  He can choose to accept or rejected that God's Love Expressed.  The second will be considered in a moment.

The point is that where there is choice, there is conflict. What conflict? There is the conflict between good and bad, the right and the wrong, the God way and the man way etc. 

The Scripture tells us that there is one who opposes God.  He is Satan or Lucifer as he is sometimes called. He is the antithesis of God in concept and purpose but not in power.  This conflict with God is of proportions beyond what we sense, know, and for that matter, understand.  That being the case the second part of the initial question, "...why does God need me?" has to do with this conflict. 

It does not end there but finite man, once he accepts "God's Love Expressed" comes to a most difficult place.  It is here that "Man understands that he is sinful and evil."  Left to his own ends, as previously noted, man will wreak havoc upon man, culture, and nature.  However the one who genuinely understands that he is sinful is faced with a choice.  Deny and excuse away the sinfulness or take action.

What action?  Another choice.  It is at this point that, "Man acknowledges the need for a Savior."  No matter how well intentioned or strong of will a man might be there comes a point where his needs outdistance his capacities.  The outcome is that he then is presented with the opportunity to look beyond himself.

Digress for a moment to consider a second outcome of "God's Love Expressed." It is in "God provides a Savior."  God made the choice to do what man could not do.  God provided a way for man to reconnect with God and find a solution for his sin and selfishness.

God by choosing to provide a Savior arranged it so, "Man is redeemed from sin and has fellowship with God."  Again, what man could not do God did.

Yes, in all of this there are choices tantamount to stepping off into the unknown for there is a degree of mystery.  To remove the mystical/spiritual and unknowns from faith is to remove the revelatory nature of faith and thus reduce it down to some kind of Judeo-Christian rationalism.

God vested man with the power to make choices.  However, that is where it ends for man try as he will cannot control the outcome of those choices.  On one hand there are the choices that lead to forgiveness for sin and a connection with God.  On the other hand, "Man remains selfish, sinful, and separated from God."  Indeed it is all a matter of one's choices.