GPLindsey

A man reclines on a lonely stretch of beach reading a book. He notices a three year old toddler come around the corner of some rocks along the beach. He watches as the child gets closer and closer to the water, wades in, and gets caught in an undertow. The man takes no action, even though he could easily save the child. A few minutes later a frantic parent runs up the beach and finds the child floating dead in the water.

Did the man reading the book do anything wrong? If so, why is it NOT wrong when God does the same thing, since in so many tragedies like this he is the only eyewitness, and he certainly would have the power to save the child? How can something be loathsome and evil when a person does it, but acceptable when God does it?

Amen-Moses

Maybe God can't swim either?

Amen-Moses

Tom Piper

I offer the following scenario to be considered along side GPLindsey's:

Your spouse, to whom you have been married for 30 years, whom you know to be among the kindest, most caring people you have ever known, reclines on a lonely stretch of beach reading a book. She/he notices a three year old toddler come around the corner of some rocks along the beach. She/he watches as the child gets closer and closer to the water, wades in, and gets caught in an undertow. She/he takes no action to save the child. A few minutes later a frantic parent runs up the beach and finds the child floating dead in the water.

Did your spouse do anything wrong? Is his/her inaction loathsome and evil? Can you/would you draw a conclusion about his/her actions without talking to him/her first?

Tom

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]</p>

bonduca

So, God cares, he's just afraid of the water?

Jerry Smith

How about this?...
...whom you have never met...
...from whom you receive letters once a week dictated to your neighbor, Vivian, and written in her handwriting...
...whose letters promise you that every time you feel happy it is because she did something to make you happy...

...Even though you cannot talk to her until you are dead?

Bill Snedden

Certainly not, but if my spouse gave me any answer other than, "I was completely paralyzed, unable even to shout" and I had good medical reason to believe her statement true, I would leave her in a heartbeat.

In other words, my spouse would need to provide satisfactory explanation of why she took no action to prevent the child's death. Otherwise I'd be completely justified in revising my 30+ year opinion of her on the spot.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Tom Piper

Bill Snedden,

To which you responded, How about, 'Bill, our three children are being held hostage by kidnappers, and they were going to kill them unless I let the child drown?' or some other 'great-great-evil-was-avoided' explanation.

More important, however, is your acknowledgment that you wouldn't draw the negative conclusion if you couldn't talk to her.

Jerry Smith,

let the scenarios proliferate! If I understand the agenda of GPLindsey's initial post properly (and I may not), more scenarios don't help his aim. Unless one knows which circumstance/scenario is the proper one across which to 'evaluate' God, nothing can be concluded about God's goodness/existence.

Tom

Bill Snedden

Of course, my wife isn't omnipotent, so such scenarios are certainly possible. I would, of course, require proof of the "great-great-evil" that was avoided by way of the child's death. I would also require proof that this "great-great-evil" was not of my wife's devising nor was it within her power to stop it by any other means.

Actually, I assumed that I could talk to her. Assuming that I could not (she refused or disapeared), I would have no choice but to judge her on her actions. Assuredly, I would try to give her the benefit of the doubt, but there would always be a question.

"Human existence" is the only circumstance/scenario in which the evaluation can be carried out; we have acess to no other.

If God is unwilling to explain Himself, or wishes to absent Himself from the discussion, then we have no choice but to judge Him on His actions. Considering that we (not necessarily you) have no "30-year relationship" with Him through which we might give Him the benefit of the doubt, the evidence is compelling indeed.

Even assuming that God could "explain" the "greater-evil" that is to be avoided by his inaction He would still bear the blame of creating the situation in which the "greater-evil" could exist in the first place.

Most non-Christians find the Evidential Argument from Evil one of the strongest and most compelling arguments against the existence of the Christian God. I think it works best against the conception of God as a "father figure"; against less anthropomorphic conceptions of God (like Allah, for example) it works less well.

Of course, the easy way out for any Christian is to acknowledge that of course the death of the child wasn't evil at all. Only God's will is good. The death of the child was obviously part of God's plan and therefore good by definition.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

ManM

We have free will, therefore God is not omnipotent. Problem solved?

ex-preacher

Problem not solved. Both the person sitting on the beach and the drowning child have free will. The person could have interfered even though that takes away the child's "free will" to drown itself. A better solution is one of the following:

- God does not have free will
- God is impotent
- God is cruel
- there is no God