> I had to say a little something in response to Thomas More, who wrote:
>
> <<If God is all powerful as
> people claim, then he didn't have to kick them out, nor did he have to
> allow evil to exist.>>
>
> The problem with this argument is that it assumes a divine perspective ("I can
> see no reason for evil to exist, therefore God can have no good reason"). The
> theistic answer is that this is not the best of all possible worlds (we CAN
> see this) but it is the best of all possible ways to achieve the best of all
> possible worlds (this we CANNOT see, not yet). IOW, "an imperfect moral world
> is the necessary precondition for achieving the morally perfect world" (Norman
> Geisler).
>
> The strongest counter argument comes from, e.g., Mackie, viz., God could have
> created free beings who never choose to sin. I think Alvin Plantinga has done
> the best job of answering that.
That's really my point, i.e. divine perspective. You can't assume that
God didn't intentionally create evil and pain for a reason or the
inverse. What I was trying to suggest in the original post is that the
argument that evil exists from an atheistic view doesn't work, but it
also doesn't work in an anti-evolution argument.
>
> << By arguing this way, you show the atheists are right.>>
>
> How so? Atheists are right only in pointing out the existence of evil. With
> that theists agree. But they are not right about that being proof of the
> non-existence of God, or the non-necessity of its provisional existence for
> the greatest good.
>
When you argue that that God had no hand in "evil," the atheists are
right. If, therefore, you argue God had no hand in "evil," either in it's
creation or His allowing it on Earth, then you have a real problem in
that your conceptual view of what God is must be flawed. I'm trying to
point out that God did create evil (if not, He's not the creator or the
conceptual view of God is wrong) and he does _intentionally_ allow it.
On the other hand, this isn't by definition a bad thing and I don't
really see why Christians would have a problem with it. We may not like
evil, it's destructive. But, on the other hand, it gives us a means for
personal growth, challange, etc. So, with that in mind, God does use
evil for good.
> <<How do you explain the unimaginably painful command God gave to sacrifice
> one's own son to Him?>>
>
> Easy. Abraham had the divine perspective. He trusted God. God had promised him
> that through Isaac would come a great nation. Therfore, Abraham reasoned, even
> after sacrificing Isaac, God would bring him back from the dead. That is in
> fact what God did, figuratively. He did it literally much later, with Jesus.
>
> So Abraham did not commit the fallacy of thinking only from a limited
> perspective. And his faith was rewarded.
That doesn't really answer the point. Was he stressed, did he feel
pain? If he didn't, why did he wait until the last minute to tell his
son what was going on? Indeed, why did God change his mind at the last
minute? I may not know why God does what he does, but I frankly doubt if
that action didn't cause pain.
Tom