Christians, how do you explain 'natural' evil?

[Rational Atheist]

I am fairly sure that most Christians on here are aware of the infamous 'Problem of Evil.' This common objection to the existence of God is typically answered by Christians claiming that evil must exist in the world in order for humans to have free will to choose between good and evil, and that while God does not want evil to exist, his desire for humans to have free will is stronger than his desire for evil not to exist. Fair enough (though I don't think free will exists, but that's another discussion). But how do you explain 'natural' evil i.e. evil that has nothing to do with human actions? Some examples of natural evil are: the billions of sentient animals that have suffered incredible pain and agony over the course of hundreds of millions of years, the horrendous and crippling diseases that both humans and animals have suffered from throughout all of history, and the violent weather that kills many thousands of humans and non-humans every year. How are these types of evils compatible with the existence of an all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful god who is supposedly not sadistic at all? It seems to me that these types of evils refute the existence of an all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful god. If a god exists, he either doesn't know that all these things occur, does not have the ability to stop them, or he has a sadistic streak and for some reason wants the majority of his creations to suffer immensely. Or (and this is the simplest and most reasonable explanation IMO), a god simply doesn't exist.

So, my debate question is, how do you, if you believe in an all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful God, resolve the problem of natural evils?

[Rational Atheist]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #2]

If God did not intend animals to harm each other, then why do they harm each other? If God exists and loves his creations, why did he create an environment with limited resources requiring animals to compete with each other for survival, letting the weak die in agony?

[Rational Atheist]

[Replying to Miles in post #3]

To play devil's advocate, if free will existed, and the only options that existed to choose were good options, then how could we give anyone credit for doing good? They literally had no choice to do otherwise. I think that some theologians think that an action is not truly 'good' unless a person has an alternative 'bad' option that they actually could have done.

[Miles]

If god made us correctly---in his image as it were---free will would not need evil to exist...

"Free Will" does not need evil to exist.

I agree. All free will needs is evidence of its existence.

Biblically free will is simply the capacity to make moral choices, even if those choices are between good and better (or even good and different).

Considering that free will is commonly cited as necessary in making all choices, not just moral ones, your brief definition here is rather limiting. I'm sure there are actions in the Bible not of a moral nature that do involve making a so-called "free will" choices, such as Noah's "choice" to send out a raven and a dove to see if there was dry land.


.

[Overcomer]

It's a result of the fall. When sin entered the earth, it affected all of creation, not just humankind. Paul writes of it in his letter to the Romans:

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. (Rom. 8:18-25).

[Rational Atheist]

[Replying to Miles in post #10]

Interesting to see the absence of Christian responses here. Seems like it is indeed quite a difficult problem for the religion.

[JehovahsWitness]

If god made us correctly---in his image as it were---free will would not need evil to exist...

"Free Will" does not need evil to exist.

I agree. All free will needs is evidence of its existence.

You don't believe people are capable of making a moral choice ? If you where faced with the choice between helping a baby or raping it, are you personally incapable of understanding those two things are morally different?

Biblically free will is simply the capacity to make moral choices, even if those choices are between good and better (or even good and different).

Considering that free will is commonly cited as necessary in making all choices, not just moral ones, your brief definition here is rather limiting.

Yes because I was speaking about the kind of choices that have significance from a biblical point of view. Only a free moral agent can make the kind of choices that reflect morality. A dog can make choices as it has a measure of intelligence but a human can make choices that reflect an understanding of what is right or wrong.





JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #2]

If God did not intend animals to harm each other, then why do they harm each other?

Evidently because harmony was lost. Animals are as much subject to their environnement as humans and when man began to mistreat animals (and each other) the ecosystem eventually was destabalised and violence ensued.

If God exists and loves his creations, why did he create an environment with limited resources requiring animals to compete with each other for survival, letting the weak die in agony?

He did not.

In the garden of Eden there is no report of animals competing with man or each other for resources or any indication they acted violently. Adam and Eve seemed to have eaten a plant based diet and the there is no indication animals, even so called "wild" animals were dangerous.



What we are experiencing now is far from the original model.








JEHOVAHS WITNESS



RELATED POSTS

What can happen if one walks unprotected through bear country?
viewtopic.php?p=1065110#p1065110

Did Elisha's bears kill little children?
viewtopic.php?p=830572#p830572

Why was the prophets companion killed by a lion?
viewtopic.php?p=1089076#p1089076

Did God purpose for animals to be dangerous?
viewtopic.php?p=1029607#p1029607

Why did some animals become "wild"?
viewtopic.php?p=1029636#p1029636

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

ANIMALS , HEAVEN and ...THE EARTHLY PARSDISE

[John Bauer]

How do you, if you believe in an all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful God, resolve the problem of natural evils?

I deny there is such a thing. I accept that there are natural disasters and mass extinctions—quite obviously—but I deny that these are evils. So, for me, there is no problem needing to be resolved.

If someone wants to raise a Problem of Natural Evil argument with me, I would indicate the disputed term and require them to support it. I would make that the question so it could not be begged.

[brunumb]

It's a result of the fall. When sin entered the earth, it affected all of creation, not just humankind. Paul writes of it in his letter to the Romans:

Here we go again. Let's blame it all on the fall and sin entering the world. Something magical happened and changed everything even though sin is not an entity and cannot enter anywhere. It is a mantra. Pure rhetoric that might cause the indoctrinated to nod their heads knowingly and in agreement but it is a Claytons answer. That is, the answer you give when you don't have an answer. As for Paul, well he is entitled to his opinions, but opinions are not facts.

[Miles]

If god made us correctly---in his image as it were---free will would not need evil to exist...

"Free Will" does not need evil to exist.

I agree. All free will needs is evidence of its existence.

You don't believe people are capable of making a moral choice ? If you where faced with the choice between helping a baby or raping it, are you personally incapable of understanding those two things are morally different?

As a hard determinist * I don't believe there's anything such as real choice.

Biblically free will is simply the capacity to make moral choices, even if those choices are between good and better (or even good and different).

Considering that free will is commonly cited as necessary in making all choices, not just moral ones, your brief definition here is rather limiting.

Yes because I was speaking about the kind of choices that have significance from a biblical point of view.

I can only guess what you mean by "biblical point of view," and suspect it gets rather slippery depending on context.

Only a free moral agent can make the kind of choices that reflect morality. A dog can make choices as it has a measure of intelligence but a human can make choices that reflect an understanding of what is right or wrong.

As I said, there is no such thing as real choice, moral or otherwise. We only do as we're caused to do.


* "Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, that it is incompatible with free will, and therefore that free will does not exist."
Source: Wikipedia


.