Omnibenevolence and the problem of evil

[Lucian Hodoboc]

The term omnibenevolence means unlimited or infinite benevolence, or perfect goodness. It is often used to describe one of the attributes of God in the Christian faith, along with omnipotence (all-powerful) and omniscience (all-knowing). However, many people have challenged the idea that God is omnibenevolent, given the presence of evil and suffering in the world.

Evil and suffering can be classified into two types: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil refers to the actions and choices of human beings that cause harm or injustice to others, such as murder, rape, theft, war, etc. Natural evil refers to the events and conditions of nature that cause harm or distress to living beings, such as earthquakes, floods, diseases, famine, etc.

The problem of evil is the apparent contradiction between the existence of an omnibenevolent God and the existence of evil and suffering in the world. If God is all-good, then He would want to prevent or eliminate evil and suffering. If God is all-powerful, then He would be able to prevent or eliminate evil and suffering. If God is all-knowing, then He would know how to prevent or eliminate evil and suffering. Therefore, if God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then there should not be any evil or suffering in the world. But there is evil and suffering in the world. Therefore, either God does not exist, or He is not omnibenevolent, omnipotent, or omniscient.

Some possible responses to the problem of evil are:

• The free will defense: God gave human beings free will, which means they can choose to do good or evil. God respects human freedom and does not interfere with their choices. Therefore, moral evil is not caused by God, but by human beings. However, this does not explain natural evil, nor does it justify why God allows so much evil and suffering to result from human choices.
• The soul-making defense: God allows evil and suffering in the world as a way of testing and developing human souls. Evil and suffering provide opportunities for human beings to grow in virtues such as courage, compassion, faith, etc. Therefore, evil and suffering have a positive purpose and value in God’s plan. However, this does not explain why some people suffer more than others, nor does it account for the amount and intensity of evil and suffering that seem excessive or unnecessary for soul-making.
• The greater good defense: God allows evil and suffering in the world as a part of a larger scheme that ultimately leads to a greater good that outweighs the evil and suffering. Evil and suffering are necessary for some greater good that we may not understand or appreciate from our limited perspective. Therefore, evil and suffering are compatible with God’s goodness and wisdom. However, this does not specify what the greater good is, nor does it show how it logically requires or justifies the evil and suffering that occur in the world.

These are some of the main arguments that attempt to reconcile God’s omnibenevolence with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. However, none of them seem to be fully satisfactory or convincing. They either raise more questions than they answer, or they imply that God’s goodness is different from or inferior to human standards of goodness. Therefore, one may conclude that the vast amount of suffering existing in this world points towards a God who is not omnibenevolent.

 

[Messy]

Soul making defense. I don't think God can stop all unnecessary suffering, because it causes other suffering. He can never do it right for everybody, cause everyone sins. For instance some person tries to rape someone else. Totally unnecessary to become holy. O.T. times are gone. You can't kill him. He gets one month prison max in Holland. And you have to forgive if he stops doing it. He may even get saved and lead you to Jesus.
God can now kill all the bozo's and start the new heaven and earth, but He'd have to kill everyone. And God cannot just do what He wants on earth. He's only the Owner. We rent it. If I rent a house and invite murderers and drug addicts and thieves, I can't go to the owner and say: hey it's a mess here. I'm gonna pay less rent. Fix that. All he can do is throw everyone out. Now God does extra. Jesus comes, we have to become like Him, overcome sin and the devil and then His enemies will be defeated and the uncountable multitude gets saved, Israel gets saved and then finally Jesus can reign on earth and there will be peace. Satan is now the god of this world. Adam gave the authority to him. Jesus took it back, but not everyone wanted Jesus to reign here, so it takes a while. We can only stop suffering a bit in His Name.

Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. 8 You also be patient.

 

[Josiah]

The term omnibenevolence means unlimited or infinite benevolence, or perfect goodness. It is often used to describe one of the attributes of God in the Christian faith, along with omnipotence (all-powerful) and omniscience (all-knowing). However, many people have challenged the idea that God is omnibenevolent, given the presence of evil and suffering in the world.

Evil and suffering can be classified into two types: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil refers to the actions and choices of human beings that cause harm or injustice to others, such as murder, rape, theft, war, etc. Natural evil refers to the events and conditions of nature that cause harm or distress to living beings, such as earthquakes, floods, diseases, famine, etc.

The problem of evil is the apparent contradiction between the existence of an omnibenevolent God and the existence of evil and suffering in the world. If God is all-good, then He would want to prevent or eliminate evil and suffering. If God is all-powerful, then He would be able to prevent or eliminate evil and suffering. If God is all-knowing, then He would know how to prevent or eliminate evil and suffering. Therefore, if God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then there should not be any evil or suffering in the world. But there is evil and suffering in the world. Therefore, either God does not exist, or He is not omnibenevolent, omnipotent, or omniscient.

Some possible responses to the problem of evil are:

• The free will defense: God gave human beings free will, which means they can choose to do good or evil. God respects human freedom and does not interfere with their choices. Therefore, moral evil is not caused by God, but by human beings. However, this does not explain natural evil, nor does it justify why God allows so much evil and suffering to result from human choices.
• The soul-making defense: God allows evil and suffering in the world as a way of testing and developing human souls. Evil and suffering provide opportunities for human beings to grow in virtues such as courage, compassion, faith, etc. Therefore, evil and suffering have a positive purpose and value in God’s plan. However, this does not explain why some people suffer more than others, nor does it account for the amount and intensity of evil and suffering that seem excessive or unnecessary for soul-making.
• The greater good defense: God allows evil and suffering in the world as a part of a larger scheme that ultimately leads to a greater good that outweighs the evil and suffering. Evil and suffering are necessary for some greater good that we may not understand or appreciate from our limited perspective. Therefore, evil and suffering are compatible with God’s goodness and wisdom. However, this does not specify what the greater good is, nor does it show how it logically requires or justifies the evil and suffering that occur in the world.

These are some of the main arguments that attempt to reconcile God’s omnibenevolence with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. However, none of them seem to be fully satisfactory or convincing. They either raise more questions than they answer, or they imply that God’s goodness is different from or inferior to human standards of goodness. Therefore, one may conclude that the vast amount of suffering existing in this world points towards a God who is not omnibenevolent.

The "Problem of evil" isn't specifically addressed in Scripture or Christianity. The ONLY point made is that evil is contrary to the nature and desire of God and that God is not the cause of such. How - exactly - that "fits" with God being omnipotent is a point that Scripture and Christianity does not address.

It is simply wrong to assume that the Bible answers everything or that the Bible is some kind of spiritual encyclopedia nor is the Bible a philosopy primer. It is a collection of sermons and materials that exist to show us the will of God (Law) and the salvation from God (Gospel): the Bible is Law and Gospel, not a philosophy book or encyclopedia for all questions and issues. The result is that there will be unanswered questions, not everything will "fit" in some logical or philosophical sense. Take your philosophy questions to the Philosophy Department, not the Religion Department.

The better question is: What do I do about evil? What do I do with the hardship/suffering/injustice in my life? THOSE are questions that the Bible addresses at length. KNOWING the best philosophy about my suffering is nice but entirely unhelpful; if I'm on fire I could be hold all about the chemical reactions which I'm experiencing (knowledge) but I think my bigger concern would be how to deal with this situation. The Bible is far more concerned with life than with philosophy.


- Josiah



.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

It is simply wrong to assume that the Bible answers everything or that the Bible is some kind of spiritual encyclopedia

Well, it should be. After all, it demands us to deny ourselves and put our lives in the service of God. It is only reasonable to want to know as much as possible about a Being Who demands so much from us.

 

[Messy]

It is not even possible for God to not be good. If He was bad and the devil is bad too, how does a rabbit even exist? How can a monster create a rabbit or a friendly person? That's impossible. If satan could create someone, it would be a monster, cause he's evil. Your other thread is about Al. There will be the image of the beast, that gets a mind. That's what satan creates.

 

[tango]

One problem you have here is this idea that God's benevolence is inferior to human benevolence.

The fact something is different doesn't inherently require it to be inferior. We have a tendency to think we've got everything worked out but it's entirely plauslble that there is some bigger picture that we're not seeing.

Through the eyes of a child the world has lots of tasty things (ice cream, chocolate, candy etc) and lots of much less tasty things (broccoli, cabbage, liver etc). If our parents were benevolent they'd let us eat the ice cream and not eat the broccoli, right? If they truly loved us they wouldn't make us eat the things we hate so much. Except as adults we understand why we have to eat more than a stomachful of dietary garbage.

From a worldview that doesn't place God at the center this doesn't particularly prove anything one way or the other, except that such a worldview doesn't get to write off the existence of God or make sweeping observations about the nature of God when the reality can so easily be that we don't understand what is really going on.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

One problem you have here is this idea that God's benevolence is inferior to human benevolence.

The fact something is different doesn't inherently require it to be inferior. We have a tendency to think we've got everything worked out but it's entirely plauslble that there is some bigger picture that we're not seeing.

Through the eyes of a child the world has lots of tasty things (ice cream, chocolate, candy etc) and lots of much less tasty things (broccoli, cabbage, liver etc). If our parents were benevolent they'd let us eat the ice cream and not eat the broccoli, right? If they truly loved us they wouldn't make us eat the things we hate so much. Except as adults we understand why we have to eat more than a stomachful of dietary garbage.

From a worldview that doesn't place God at the center this doesn't particularly prove anything one way or the other, except that such a worldview doesn't get to write off the existence of God or make sweeping observations about the nature of God when the reality can so easily be that we don't understand what is really going on.

Now imagine a world in which parents had the power to endow ice-cream and candy with the nutrients of vegetables with a snap of their fingers.

See how your example fails?

Any analogy you could present from the real world fails because said state of affairs from the real world was created by an omnipotent God. Omnipotence means being able to achieve the goal in any way you want. If a human has to go through trials in order to spiritually develop, it's because God made it so. He could have made it so that humans could spiritually develop by experiencing bliss their entire lives. He didn't.

 

[Messy]

He could have made it so that humans could spiritually develop by experiencing bliss their entire lives. He didn't.

I try not to respond anymore, but how do you know that? He did by the way. If they had just not listened to a dumb lying snake, Adam was not even mislead by him, all they had to do was say nope bye, trust God and eat from the tree of Life instead and they would have known God as He is and have become like Him, because

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I try not to respond anymore, but how do you know that?

How do I know what?

He did by the way.

And He could have done so after Adam and Eve disobeyed. Or He could have eliminated them from existence without any suffering before they could have offspring.

If they had just not listened to a dumb lying snake

You mean a being who is literally called the father of lies and who had been around for a lot longer than Adam and Eve? That's like telling your child to not talk to strangers and then punishing the child because he took candy from a skilled negotiator with decades of training.

 

[tango]

Now imagine a world in which parents had the power to endow ice-cream and candy with the nutrients of vegetables with a snap of their fingers.

See how your example fails?

Not at all. You're still coming at this from the assumption that we know everything. Your original post rests entirely on the premise that because we can't see a purpose in something it therefore follows that no such purpose exists.

Any analogy you could present from the real world fails because said state of affairs from the real world was created by an omnipotent God. Omnipotence means being able to achieve the goal in any way you want. If a human has to go through trials in order to spiritually develop, it's because God made it so. He could have made it so that humans could spiritually develop by experiencing bliss their entire lives. He didn't.

In general analogies can never be a perfect explanation.

God could have made things differently. God could have made ice cream a health food and made cocoa beans contain all the nutrients we need to sustain ourselves. He could have made sitting on our backsides in front of the TV the best way to stay healthy. He could have done all sorts of things differently.

If we assume that our inability to grasp a purpose means no purpose exists, then God rapidly starts to look like some kind of incompetent putz who can barely manage to tie his own shoelaces. The trouble is that's a pretty hefty assumption to make - it's pretty bold to look at what someone else made and assume we understand it better than they do.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

If we assume that our inability to grasp a purpose means no purpose exists

I'm not assuming that no purpose exists. I'm merely stating that within the framework of omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence, the same purpose could have been achieved in ways that did not involve any suffering.

A general idea in Christianity is that the purpose is for humans to learn that they are dependent on God and that they were created to glorify Him and that they should strive to live in perfect harmony with God.

The same purpose could have been achieved if satan had been locked up after he rebelled. The same purpose could have been achieved if Adam and Eve had been forgiven immediately after they ate from the apple. The same purpose could have been achieved if lucifer hadn't been created at all.

 

[Albion]

You mean a being who is literally called the father of lies and who had been around for a lot longer than Adam and Eve?

Yeh, him.

That's like telling your child to not talk to strangers and then punishing the child because he took candy from a skilled negotiator with decades of training.

As they had been created, Adam and Eve were not like little children, however.

 

[Messy]

How do I know what?


And He could have done so after Adam and Eve disobeyed. Or He could have eliminated them from existence without any suffering before they could have offspring.


You mean a being who is literally called the father of lies and who had been around for a lot longer than Adam and Eve? That's like telling your child to not talk to strangers and then punishing the child because he took candy from a skilled negotiator with decades of training.

No I don't believe He could. He's not a magician who goes against any logic. Once you exist, you exist. He can't do poof and the rabbit is gone from the hat.

I told my toddlers to not take candy from strangers. The eldest was 5 and the youngest 2. Maybe my kids are exceptionally bright, but they simply listened, because they trusted me.
Adam was not a toddler. He was not mislead. He was created in the image of Jesus. He could say no. He put Eve above God though and he was proud. Anyway, even if it was very hard and you're right, then come on now, he has been doing the same dumb thing for 6000 or 7000 years. Weh weh weh God is not good. Why does anyone still listen to him? Lets learn from the mistake from Adam and Eve.

 

[tango]

I'm not assuming that no purpose exists. I'm merely stating that within the framework of omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence, the same purpose could have been achieved in ways that did not involve any suffering.

Perhaps, but does the theoretical observation that someone could have done it a certian way obligate them to do it that way? Particularly when there may be a purpose in doing it the way that did it.

A general idea in Christianity is that the purpose is for humans to learn that they are dependent on God and that they were created to glorify Him and that they should strive to live in perfect harmony with God.

The same purpose could have been achieved if satan had been locked up after he rebelled. The same purpose could have been achieved if Adam and Eve had been forgiven immediately after they ate from the apple. The same purpose could have been achieved if lucifer hadn't been created at all.

What are you trying to prove here? To be honest what I'm seeing is an acceptance that there might be some other purpose in God doing things in ways that might not make sense to us, closely followed by more things that you think might have been done better.

Which version of events do you believe? If you can accept that God might be seeing some part of the picture hidden from us then it follows that things that might not make sense as seen from here might make sense as seen through God's eyes. If you can't accept that then, pretty much by definition, you're arguing that your way is better than God's way.

 

[Messy]

The same purpose could have been achieved if Adam and Eve had been forgiven immediately after they ate from the apple.

He did immediately forgive them and cover them with animal skin, but now that they had become one with satan by sinning, the only way to get rid of that sin nature was to kill it on the cross with Jesus, so they could be born from the Spirit. That's why the tree of Life was shielded. Had they now eaten from that one, they would have been half good half evil forever and it would never have been possible to be reconciled with God.

 

[atpollard]

Benevolent: One who is benevolent genuinely wishes other people well, a meaning reflected clearly in the word's Latin roots: benevolent comes from bene, meaning "good," and velle, meaning "to wish." Other descendants of velle in English include volition, which refers to the power to make one's own choices or decisions, and voluntary, as well as the rare velleity, meaning either "the lowest degree of volition" or "a slight wish or tendency." A more familiar velle descendant stands directly opposed to benevolent: malevolent describes someone or something having or showing a desire to cause harm to another person. - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Who says God is OMNI-BENEVOLENT? That God wishes well for all people in all circumstances?
Clearly the Bible says no such nonsense. God promises destruction for his enemies. God wiped out entire cities for their evil acts … was that somehow for THEIR good?

The argument is a strawman. You create a false claim about God and then tear that false claim down. Congratulations on defeating a strawman! Defeating an imaginary god still brings you no closer to understanding the God that actually IS.

 

[Stravinsk]

Evil and suffering can be classified into two types: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil refers to the actions and choices of human beings that cause harm or injustice to others, such as murder, rape, theft, war, etc. Natural evil refers to the events and conditions of nature that cause harm or distress to living beings, such as earthquakes, floods, diseases, famine, etc.

Imagine a world in which nothing died. Adam and Eve are still around, procreating for thousands of years, and all their children and everyone that followed, also procreating for thousands of years. All the original animals too, all still around procreating and all of their generations procreating.

Your problem of evil has been solved, except the world is wall to wall flesh fighting over oxygen.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Imagine a world in which nothing died. Adam and Eve are still around, procreating for thousands of years, and all their children and everyone that followed, also procreating for thousands of years. All the original animals too, all still around procreating and all of their generations procreating.

Your problem of evil has been solved, except the world is wall to wall flesh fighting over oxygen.

Here are some possible solutions to the problem you pointed out:
- make the planet and its resources grow exponentially with the number of humans to accommodate their needs
- biologically limit the number of children any being can have
- keep death, but remove all suffering that is not related to death (illness, pain, emotional distress etc.), so that they may enjoy life and have no regrets at the end of it

 

[Albion]

Who says God is OMNI-BENEVOLENT? That God wishes well for all people in all circumstances?
Clearly the Bible says no such nonsense. God promises destruction for his enemies. God wiped out entire cities for their evil acts … was that somehow for THEIR good?

The argument is a strawman.

God is often said to be Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. Sometimes, Omnibenevolent as well. All are supported by Scripture, BUT...

Omnibenevolence does not mean "always agreeable," always and ever yielding. You understand this, but many do not. For God to be Omnibenevolent, he must want what's best. That doesn't translate as "God cannot allow any unhappiness to anyone under any conditions."

This of course is shown in the Bible with the various punishments God had to allow or even inflict upon certain figures and peoples, just as you noted.

 

[atpollard]

@Lucian Hodoboc

I was watching this and thought of your questions … especially the questions behind the questions.