MELODY>> What do you have in mind?
Whew, well, you asked for it. What follows is very logical (Spock would approve), but it is ABSOLUTE DRIVEL to most people. And it is VERY long (logical arguments are seldom brief).
Twelve years ago, I developed a pure-logic defense of the existence of God. It does not rely on TAG or any sort of presuppositional arguments (it presupposes NOTHING). The ten-point framework was presented by Christian (but not Catholic) apologist Norman L. Greisler in his book, "Christian Apologetics" (though the elaboration of the ten points are predominately my own work). Note that this is basically an elaboration of St. Thomas Aquinas' "Unmoved Mover" argument:
A LOGICAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Including Refutations of Common Logical "Proofs"
Against the Existence of God.
The existence of God can *never* be proven by employing the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, etc) because these sciences deal exclusively with the natural world (hence the expression, "natural sciences"). God is a super-natural being (above or beyond the natural), and therefore the natural sciences are not adequate to address Him.
But those who claim, therefore, that the existence of God cannot be definitively proven have not considered another means by which we may seek the truth, namely logical analysis. Such an approach generally begins with "lower" truth(s) and, through a series of logical progressions, arrives at "higher" truth(s). Provided the "lower" truths are indeed true, and the logic is not flawed, this approach cannot arrive at anything except a correct conclusion.
To insure the purity of the "lower" truths, most proofs begin in a blank universe and go from there, proving first that *something* exists, and this becomes a groundwork for the development of "higher" truths. Because the proof began with *nothing*, the purity of the truths is based solely on the accuracy of the logical approach.
There have been many proofs proposed both for and against the existence of God. Some proofs for God are logically flawed, but several have been proposed which have stood impenetrable. Without exception, every proof against God is logically flawed.
The following is a proof employing a ten-step logical process, which may be summarized as follows:
1. Some things exist (e.g., I cannot deny my own existence)
2. My non-existence is possible
3. Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.
5. Therefore, a first uncreated cause of my current existence must exist.
6. This uncreated cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect.
7. This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called "God."
8. Therefore, God exists.
9. This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures.
10. Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists.
The summary looks quite impossible, but read on - the elaboration is quite sound. This is basically an ontological proof, or a proof which is based on the nature of existence (being). There has been an unfortunate tendency of Western logicians to carry proofs beyond the realm of common sense and reason. For example, if I state that "Circles are Round," some idiots will say, "You cannot state that circles are round until you define what 'roundness' is." If you are one of these idiots, stop reading this right now, and delete this file from your computer (or throw away your hard copy). If you cannot deal with a concept like "Circles are Round" without blowing a fuse, then I can hardly expect you to deal with this paper because I’m not about to define every trivial term.
For the rest of you, this proof is not the work of a single individual (certainly not me) - it is a compilation of logical axioms (much as a mathematical proof is a compilation of mathematical axioms). The biggest contributors are St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Athanasius (Bishop of Alexandria, fourth century). For this particular presentation, I am deeply indebted to apologist Norman L. Greisler, whose book, "Christian Apologetics" I have borrowed heavily from. This proof has never been refuted, despite the effort of thousands of logicians:
Proof for the Existence of God
1. Something undeniably exists.
proof: I exist.
proof: I cannot deny my own existence without affirming it (i.e., a non-existent being cannot deny his existence). One must exist to deny that he exists, which is self defeating. Whatever is undeniable is true, and whatever is unaffirmable is false. Hence, I undeniably exist. I am "something" (since I am not nothing, for nothing cannot have existence). Hence, something undeniably exists.
----------------------------------------------
NOTE #1: All existence must be either necessary or unnecessary, and must either be possible or impossible. This yields four possible "modes" of existence:
1 - Possible Unnecessary Existence (dragons, computers, unicorns)
2 - Impossible Unnecessary Existence (square circles, etc)
3 - Possible Necessary Existence (An existence which must exist)
4 - Impossible Necessary Existence (self-contradictory; INVALID)
Note two things: First, things can "possibly" exist regardless of whether they actually do exist (unicorns, for example, are possible existences). The fact that something does exist does not make it necessary, but does prove that it is possible.
Second, I have NOT said (yet) that there is such a thing as a "Possible Necessary" existence (#3). At this point, I have only stated that it is a valid mode. Whether such an existence does indeed exist remains to be proven.
----------------------------------------------
NOTE #2: It is possible to logically derive several characteristics of a "Necessary Possible" Existence. Remember, I have not yet proposed that such an existence does exist, but if it did, these must be some of its properties:
A quick word about language - the word "potential" here is contrasted with "actual" to differentiate what "might be" with what "is". To say that an existence has "potential" in a particular characteristic means that characteristic is subject to change
For example, a circle may be large or small, so it has size potential, but it may not be square (because circles must be round in order to be circles). Therefore, a circle has no potential with regard to shape. I say below that a necessary existence has no potential with regard to anything; this means that such an existence cannot vary a single one of its characteristics. "Potential" is not to be confused with "possible."
A. A necessary being cannot not exist. The non-existence of a necessary being is impossible.
proof: If there is a necessary being, then it must exist necessarily. If such a being must exist, then it is not possible for it not to exist.
B. A necessary being must be pure actuality with no potentiality whatsoever (i.e., it must contain no "maybe" (potentiality), only what "is" (actuality)).
proof: If a necessary being has any potentiality with regard to its existence, then it is possible for a necessary being to have a possible existence, and thus a possible non-existence. However, a necessary being must exist necessarily.
C. A necessary existence would be changeless.
proof: Whatever changes must have the potential for change. However, a necessary being has no potentiality whatsoever (proof 2B). Hence, a necessary being would be changeless.
D. A necessary being must have a non-temporial and non-spatial existence.
proof: Space and time involve potential change in moment and position. However, a necessary being cannot change (Proof 2C) and has no potentiality with regards to its existence (proof 2B). Thus, a necessary being cannot exist in space and time.
E. A necessary existence must be eternal.
proof: If a necessary being had ever not existed, then its non-existence would be possible. But a necessary existence has no possibility with regard to non-existence (proof 2A).
Furthermore, whatever comes to exist moves from a state of potentiality to a state of actuality. However, a necessary being has no possibility for potentiality. Likewise, for the same reason, a necessary being could not ever cease to be; it has no possibility for non-existence.
F. There can be only one necessary existence.
proof: There is no way that one thing can differ from another unless there is some potential for differentiation. But in a being of pure actuality there is no potential for differentiation. A necessary being has no potential whatsoever. There cannot be two or more necessary existences, since these could not differ from one another in being. If two existences cannot differ in existence, they cannot be different, since they define the same thing.
G. A necessary being must be simple and undivided.
proof: If a necessary being were not simple and undivided, then it would be composed of different components. However, there is no potentiality for differentiation within a necessary being. Hence, a necessary being must be simple and undivided.
H. A necessary existence must be infinite in whatever attributes it possesses (i.e., if it is knowing, it must be all-knowing, if it is good, it must be all-good, etc).
proof: Only that which has potentiality can be limited. A necessary being has no potentiality with regard to its existence, hence a necessary being cannot be limited by anything in and of itself. Pure actuality *is* being; everything else only *has* being in one form or another depending on its limiting potential.
I. A necessary being must be uncaused.
proof: Whatever is caused passes from a state of potential existence to actual existence (that is what causality means). However, a necessary being has no potential with regards to its existence. Thus, a necessary being cannot be caused.
Furthermore, It is impossible for a being to cause itself.
proof: In order for a being to cause itself, it must be simultaneously in a state of potentiality and actuality. However, a state of potentiality means the possibility of non-actuality, and a state of existence cannot be simultaneously possibly non-actual and positively actual. Hence, it is impossible for a being to create itself.
Thus, because a necessary being cannot be caused, and cannot cause itself, it must be uncaused.
---------------------------------------------
(We are finally ready for step #2 of the proof (there are 8 more...)
2. My Non-Existence is Possible.
proof: Something undeniably exists.
proof: Item #1.
Existence must fit one of three logical categories: possible, impossible, or necessary (See Note #1)
My existence is not impossible.
proof: I do exist. Impossible beings cannot exist. Hence, my existence is not impossible.
My existence is not necessary (i.e., it is possible that I might never have come into existence).
proof: My existence does not meet the criteria established for a "Necessary Existence" in Note #2. Because my existence does not meet all the requirements of a necessary being, my existence is not necessary.
My existence is possible.
(Proof: My Existence is either possible or impossible. But I do exist (Proof: Item 1), and impossible beings cannot exist. Thus, my existence is not impossible. Thus, my existence must be possible). My mode of existence is therefore, "Possible Unnecessary." It is therefore possible that I might never have come to exist.
3. Whatever exists that has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.
proof: Whatever has the possibility for nonexistence must be caused to exist because possibility is not actuality. The existence of a potential existent must be either self-caused, caused by another, or uncaused. Such a being cannot be self-caused, because a self caused being is impossible.
proof: See Proof 2I.
Such a being cannot be uncaused.
proof: If such a being were uncaused, then mere possibility would be grounds for actuality. However, nothing cannot create something. Thus, a being which has the possibility not to exist cannot be uncaused.
Thus, a being which has the possibility not to exist must be caused to exist by another.
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.
proof: This chain of causality ("A" causes "B" which causes "C", etc) either *is* or *is not* the ground of all contingent (non-necessary) beings. If this chain is not the ground, then the series is dependent on a cause beyond it (an uncreated being). If all causality is within this series, then there is a simultaneous mutual self-causaility going on. Self-causality requires a being to be simultaneously in a state of probability and actuality, which is logically impossible. Thus, all causality cannot be within this series, thus there must be an uncreated being as the ground of all causality.
5. Therefore, a First, Uncaused Cause of my current existence exists.
Proof: This follows logically from the above, but for the skeptical, I will logically elaborate: If I undeniably exist (Item 1) and my non-existence is possible (Item 2), then I must have a cause that actualizes my existence.
Proof: I am not non-existent (Item 1), but I could be (Item 2). But the first cause of all contingent existence (like me) cannot itself be contingent.
Proof: If the first cause of contingent existence were contingent then this cause would not be the *cause* of the contingent; it would be an *effect*.
Proof: The first cause either *is* or *is not* contingent (i.e., caused by another). If it is caused by another, then it is not a first cause. Thus, this first cause is not contingent. There cannot be a chain of such causes (i.e., non-contingent beings being caused by non-contingent beings) because non-contingent beings cannot be caused (or they would be contingent, and thus not non-contingent).
This first cause *is* the cause of the contingent because the contingent undeniably needs a cause (Item 3). Thus, the very first cause of my existence is not contingent.
A Non-Necessary existence is contingent (Item 3); a Necessary existence is not contingent (Note 2). Since the first cause of all contingent existence is not contingent (non-necessary), then the first cause must be necessary.
6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect.
Proof: A necessary existence (e.g., this uncaused cause) must be necessary, pure actuality, changeless, and non-spatial, one, simple, infinite, and uncaused (Note 2).
A. Such a being is also all-powerful.
Proof: By power, we mean what can effect a change in another; that is, what can cause something else to be or not to be in some way. But this is precisely what the uncaused cause is, namely, that which is causing the very being of everything that exists. Hence, it has non-limited causal power in its very being which can effect anything that is possible to effect (Of course, it does not have the power to do the impossible (i.e, draw a square circle, etc) because the impossible cannot be). This unlimited cause cannot *not* be, but it has the power to make come to be whatever can come to be. Thus, it is all-powerful.
B. Such a being is also all-knowing.
Proof: Knowing beings exist.
Proof: I am knowing.
Proof: I cannot meaningfully deny that I can know without engaging in an act of knowledge.
But whatever I am, I have been caused to be (Item 5). Now, I am the cause of what I have *become* (such as level of knowledge), but I am not the cause of what I *am* (such as being capable of knowledge).
Proof: I either *am* or *am not* the cause of my being (e.g., what I am). If I *am* the cause of my being, then I am a self-caused being. But a self-caused being is impossible (See Note 2-I). Thus, I am not the cause of my being.
Hence, what I am (such as a knowing being) is caused to be by the cause of all finite beings (through the chain of causality). But a cause can communicate to its effect only what it has to communicate (i.e, it cannot give what it does not have to give). If my Mind (ability to know) is received, then the first cause of my existence must also have a Mind (ability to know). The intellectual does not arise from the non-intellectual (something does cannot arise from nothing). But if this first cause is knowing, then it must be all-knowing (Note 2-H). And since this first cause is simple, eternal, and unchanging, then whatever this cause knows (which is everything that is possible to know) must be known simply, eternally, and in an unchanging way.
C. Such a being is also all-good.
Proof: There is such a thing as good-ness (fair play, justice, etc). By applying the principles in 6-B (above), we can conclude that the cause of all goodness must itself have goodness, and what attributes it possesses it possesses infinitely.
---------------------------------------------------------
Note 3: Right about now, some of you who have been following this carefully may be saying "Ah Ha! You say that, because there is such a thing as knowing and goodness, then the cause of these things must be knowing and good. But there is also such a thing as bad-ness and ignorance, which means this same cause must be bad and ignorant (and that this badness and ignorance must be infinite). But a being cannot be all-good *and* all-bad (knowing/ignorant, powerful/weak, etc). Thus, such a being cannot exist. Therefore, you are a real dolt for saying that such a being does exist."
But before you go patting yourself on the back for disproving 1500 years of logic, let me explain logically how the existence of ignorance, weakness, etc does not preclude an absence of ignorance, weakness, etc. in the first cause of all being.
Actually, I will explain two ways. First, some things which we often think of as existing do not (in actual reality) exist at all. For example, there is really no such thing as darkness (it is the absence of light). (This reminds me of the expression, "All the darkness in the universe cannot overcome the light of a single candle." - the reason is that darkness does not really exist.) Also, Cold is really the absence of heat. Likewise, bad is the absence of good; ignorance is the absence of knowledge; weakness is the absence of strength, etc. Of course, there are varying possible degrees of absence/presence of all these attributes (dim/bright, lukewarm/hot, stupid/smart/brilliant, good/"saintly", timid/dynamic, etc). Because we are finite beings in a finite world, we are capable of possessing attributes only in a finite manner. Thus, we cannot be all-good, and we will therefore be "bad" in whatever degree goodness is lacking (the same applies to knowledge, strength, etc).
(Note that it is invalid to turn some of my prior points around and claim, for example, that strength is defined as the absence of weakness (rather than weakness being defined as the absence of strength). If one were to make such a reverse claim, and define strength only in terms of weakness (and therefore, claim that "strength" does not really exist), then one could logically proceed to claim that the first cause is not all-strong, but all-weak, and that whatever strength we possess is a reflection of our inability to emulate this first cause in an infinite manner. However, such a reversal is logically invalid. To be strong (as in this example) implies the power to effect change, or, put another way, the power to be a cause. If the First Cause is infinitely weak, it would have no power to effect change, and therefore it could not be a First Cause. Similar reasoning prohibits reversing the other points above).
The second way in which I can demonstrate how the concept of imperfection does not necessitate the presence of imperfection in the First Cause is this: An effect is like the cause only in the actuality that the cause communicates. For example, the immediate cause of an egg becoming hard-boiled is the hot water. This cause communicates hot-ness to the egg (a property which the water has), but not hardness, because hardness (i.e, being firm) is not a property of water; water is mobile. Heat communicates heat, but the hot water does not communicate hardness. The hardness of the egg is due *not* to the actuality communicated by the cause, *but* to the condition or potentiality of the effect to receive causal efficacy. What this means is that some things are due to the finite and limiting potential in which the causal power is received. The attributes communicated to a being by a cause will be reflected by that being only to the degree that that being is capable of reflecting them, as limited by its nature, because the nature of the cause must be different than the nature of the effect (if it were not, the cause and effect would be identical, and then there would be no cause/effect relationship).
---------------------------------------------------
7. This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called "God."
By "God" we mean that which is worthy of worship, that is, what has ultimate worth-ship. In other words, God is the Ultimate who is deserving of ultimate commitment. Nothing has more intrinsic value than the ultimate basis and source of all value. Hence, nothing is more worthy of worship than the infinitely perfect uncaused cause of all else that exists. Therefore, it is appropriate to call this infinitely perfect cause "God."
(Actually, you could call this source whatever you wish, but whatever you call it will only be appropriate (that is, technically correct) if it reflects the characteristics of this uncaused cause as stated above. Calling this Cause by a name such as Zeus or Ra would not be accurate, since these names denote a type of being which do not conform to the descriptions established above. "God" is a high-mileage term; terms such as "The Almighty," "Creator," or "King of Kings" are acceptable, although they each tend to emphasize only one of the characteristics of the Uncaused Cause.)
8. Therefore, God Exists
Proof: An Uncaused Cause exists (Item 5) and this Cause is appropriately called "God" (Item 7). Thus, God exists.
What is known in religion as the ultimate object of worship or commitment (viz, God) is by reason known to exist. What logic demonstrates (via the above argument) is not an abstract unmoved Mover, but a real concrete Ground for our being, appropriately called "God," and worthy of our ultimate commitment.
9. This God is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures.
Proof: In order to make this proof stick, I must introduce the Christian Scriptures themselves, even though I have not logically derived them (every introduction so far has been logically derived or considered common knowledge (language, etc)).
However, this in no way compromises this proof because I am not trying to prove that God exists because the Scriptures say He does; I am only demonstrating that the God which is already proven to exist possesses the same characteristics as those of the God described by Christian Scripture.
The God of Christian Scripture is said to be eternal (1Col 1:16, Heb 1:2), Changeless (Mal 3:6, Heb 6:18), Infinite (1King 8:27, Isa 66:1), All-Loving (John 3:16, 1John 4:16), and All-Powerful (Heb 1:3, Mat 19:26). But there cannot be two infinitely perfect, changeless, eternal beings. First, there can be only one infinite and necessary Being (See Note 2-F). Second, there could not be two beings who have all possible perfections attributable to them
Proof: In order to be two distinct beings, one would have to differ from another; where there is no difference, there is only one being. But there can be no difference unless one being has something that the other does not. But if there is something that an infinite being can have but one lacks, then the one lacking is not absolutely perfect or infinite. Hence, there can be only one absolutely perfect being. So if there cannot be two such beings, then the God described in the Bible is identical to the God demonstrated from the above argument.
10. Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists.
Proof: (This has been much easier since Step 6) If there is only one God, and the God described in the Bible is identical in characteristics to Him, then it follows logically that the God described in the Bible exists. For there cannot be two infinitely perfect beings; there cannot be two such ultimates or absolutes, etc. Hence, the God portrayed in Scriptures does indeed exist.
Note that this does not prove Scriptures; it does not mean that everything that the Bible *claims* that this God said or did, he actually said or did. Whether or not what the Bible says about this God is another question.
We have logically demonstrated that the God of Christianity exists. The basic structure of this proof has proved infallible through over 15 centuries of skepticism. If you have any questions or comments about this proof, I encourage you to contact me.
It would be too much to expect that the above proof would actually convert an atheist. But if this proof has at least opened someone's mind to the mere possibility that the theists might have a leg to stand on, I highly recommend the book "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, available from virtually any Christian bookstore and stocked by most general-interest book sellers (Waldenbooks, B.Dalton, etc). This short (190 pages in a 4x7 paperback) inexpensive ($3.95 for the Collier version) book is highly readable (unlike the above rather tedious proof) and presents a barrage of justifications for theistic beliefs (Lewis was formerly an atheist who reasoned himself to Christianity). I honestly believe that no one can read this book with an open mind and finish as anything but a believing theist (and a Christian to boot!).
"Mere Christianity" will lead the reader to just that - "Mere" Christianity. If you decide you want the fullness of the Christian Truth, I encourage you to save yourself a lot of time by looking toward the Catholic Church (I'm trying to save anyone from the bitter road I had to take before I realized where the fullness of Christian Truth could be found). Now, the Catholics have often gotten a bum rap ever since they were founded (ca 33 AD), and you may (or may not) have heard all sorts of mis-information about what The Church is and what it teaches. But if you want to find the fullness of Divine Truth, look to the Church's own writings. You can obtain extensive book lists from the following sources:
Catholic Answers TAN Books Ignatius Press
P.O. Box 17181 P.O. Box 424 15 Oakland Ave
San Deigo, CA 92177 Rockford, IL 61105 Harrison, NY 10528
If you have any questions, comments, criticisms, or accusations regarding the Catholic Church, I welcome your letters (no matter how extreme) at the above address. I ask only that, if you offer criticism, that you be as detailed, clear, and precise as possible, so that I may respond as effectively as possible. If you have a gripe, tell me WHY (not just WHAT). The Catholic Church is as True as the God who established it, and being such, can withstand any claims to the contrary.
============================================================
Here, I will show how the most common logical "disproofs" of God are disprooved as logically flawed:
COSMOLOGICAL "DISPROOF" OF GOD
St. Augustine noted that creation itself proves the need for a creator, the uncaused cause. Augustine argued that everything needs a cause except God.
Some atheists argue (as Bertrand Russel did) that either everything *does* or *does not* need a cause, and that Augustine's exception was self-serving. If everything needs a cause, he reasoned, then so does God. But if God does not need a cause, then neither does the world. But if the world needs no cause, then it does not need God. Hence, whether everything needs a cause or does not need a cause, there is no God.
However, if we push the principle of causality all the way (as Russel proposes in step one), then we launch on an infinite regress and never reach a first cause. Since no first cause can ever be reached, than no first cause can effect a second cause. And if the second cause is never caused, then neither will be the third. This launches an infinite digress in which nothing is caused.
Russel tries to establish a logical dichotomy but fails when his first branch (step one) is arrived upon by logical paradox. Hence, Russel's objection fails.
MORAL "DISPROOF" OF GOD - Pierre Bayle's Famous Dilemma for Theism
Evil exists. If there were an all-powerful God, he *could* destroy this evil if He wanted to. And if He were all-Good, surely He *would* destroy this evil. Thus, one of these four conclusions "must" be true:
(1) - God is impotent and cannot destroy evil
(2) - God is manevolent and will not destroy evil
(3) - God is both manevolant and impotent
(4) - There is no theistic God at all
In conclusion, a finite God is the only kind of God possible in this delemma - the infinetely perfect and all-powerful God of theism is ruled out.
Bayle's delemma is flawed on two fronts:
(1) If the existence of evil ultimately disproves the existance of God, then the existance of good ultimatly proves the existence of God.. However, this is employing the same logic to arrive at two contradictory conclusions. Thus, the logic is flawed.
(2) The theist might object to Bayle's claim that "evil is not defeated." Such a claim involves two challengable premises:
(a) It assumes nothing has been done to defeat evil up to this point. On the contrary, many Christian theists believe that evil was defeated by Christ on the Cross. This is a possibility, and one would have to consider and refute the possibility before proceeding (but that's another story..)
(
Bayle assumes that since evil has not been defeated (an assumption he does not prove), then it never will be defeated. He implies (but does not prove) that if an all-good and all-powerful God has not defeated evil *by now* then He never will. A theist, however, may argue that God *will yet* destroy evil when Christ returns.
If evil *has* been defeated, then the manifistation of that defeat may not be presently apparent. If evil *has not* been defeated, then we should allow God to defeat it in the manner He chooses.
THEISM IS CONTRARY TO HUMANITARIANISM (Albert Camus)
In his book, "The Plague," Albert Camus creates a city which is beseiged by a plague - divine punishment for evil conduct. One must either join the doctor, who fights the plague, or the priest, who refuses to fight it least he fight against the God who sent the punishment. Fighting the plague is humanatarian, but also fights the punishment God has imposed. Thus, it follows, if humanitarianism is right, then theism is wrong. And if there is a God, He must be resisted, because he is not even humanitarian.
This argument is based on a false dichotomy; it assumes a disjunction between fighting the plague and being a believer in God. The theist may claim that fighting the plague is working *for* God, who is against all evil and suffering. In fact, the theist may go so far as to say the only way to effectively counter the plague is by a belief in God.
Camus' argument assumes that since God sent the plague, only a humanitarian has a right to fight the plague. But the theist may argue that men have brought the plague on themselves as a result of their rebellion against God, and the only way to correct the situation is to surrender to God. If this were true, then fighting the plague would really be a fight against man's stubborn self-will. Simply because someone may have made his own bed of thorns does not mean that a believer cannot help heal the wounds that a person gets from lying on it.
Allowing men to see the disasterous consequenses of their sin would certinally encourage merciful handeling resulting in healing and Godward movement. In this way, the theist could argue that only theism is truly humanitarian, since only theism offers hope of saving man from his self-inflicted plague.
The logic by which anti-Theists hope to get mileage from this scenerio does not account for the possibility that suffering may ultimately lead to the greatest good. God may choose to *permit* suffering (via human freedom) without *promoting* it. This can be thought of on two fronts; first, God (in His mercy) may choose to foreshadow the results of evil conduct while we are still in this life (and have opportunity to repent, even on our death bed). For, according to Theists, unrepended evil will lead to the utter damnation of the soul, a fate far worse than poverty, sickness, or death of this lifetime.
It is known that in many instances, the greatest good requires pain and suffering first (medical procedures are good examples). History has demonstrated that times of great suffering often are accompanied by significant religious revival. A merciful and just God may choose to discipline an evil person, just as a loving parent will discipline a child.
INNOCENT SUFFERING
It is an undeniable fact that evil exists, and (if evil is not considered desirable) the world could stand some improvement. Not every evil is deserved; poverty, hunger, crime, and desease often strike innocent victims. But an all-powerful and all-just God would not allow innocent suffering. Even *one* instance argues against such a God.
This argument is self-defeating. From the above premise, we may draw the following conclusions:
If God must work to achieve the greatest possible good in the world, AND
If *permitting* evil is the best way to achieve the greatest good, THEN
permitting evil is the best way to achieve the greatest good.
If the atheist backs off his premise that God must work to achieve the greatest good, then he looses the force of his argument, for if God does not have to do his best, then one has no legitimate grounds for complaining that this world is not the best God could have done.
It can be demonstrated that evil is necessary for good; many virtues (like patience and courage) are not possible without evil, and the highest degree of some pleasures and virtues (like forgiveness and reconciliation) are not acheivable without some evil or pain. Hense, it is necessary for God to permit the first order evils in order to acheive the second order good.
The Glorify God Community
Author
