Week 11 Review

1. Week 11 Review

2. From Last Week… • Proponents of moral relativism sometimes point to John 8:1-11 as an example of Jesus practicing moral relativism. How would you respond to this?

3. From Last Week… • Support for situational ethics is claimed in the story of Rahab in Joshua 2 (a similar example is used of sheltering Jews in Nazi Germany). What would you say to this?

4. From Last Week… • When trying to establish objective morality, one might object that “God did many evil acts” in the Old Testament. How do you handle this situation?

5. A Groaning World Evil, Pain, and Suffering

6. Understanding the Issue • This topic requires patience and empathy • Often backed by personal experience • Often emotionally charged • Sometimes arguments aren’t the answer • Intellectual vs. Emotional • Logical vs. Evidential • Know your audience!

7. Two Arguments in One • Evil • The evidence of evil in the world shows that there can’t possibly be a good, loving God • Suffering • The reality of everyday pain and suffering of innocent people shows there can’t be a good, loving God • Both try to attack the existence of God

8. The Intellectual Problem • Arguments against God from suffering/evil • Remember burden of proof • They make the claim, they must back it up with arguments or evidence • We provide answers • Ask—impossible or improbable? • Logical or evidential

9. Logical Version • “God and suffering cannot coexist”’ • An all-loving, all-powerful God cannot exist in a world where suffering exists—No obvious, explicit contradiction • Two implicit premises • If God is all-powerful, He can make any world he wants • If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering

10. Premise 1 • “If God is all-powerful, He can create any world that He wants” • One problem—free will (logically impossible) • Must only be possible to disprove Premise 1 • There are many worlds that God cannot create • Any world that violates the free will he has given us

11. Premise 2 • “If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering” • Is suffering sometimes necessary for a greater good? (Ex. Dentist) • Must only be possible to disprove Premise 2 • This requires insight into God’s mind • Premise 1 and Premise 2 are too great a burden

12. Evidential Version • “It’s improbable that God could have good reasons for permitting suffering” • No longer absolute—inductive instead of deductive (lighter burden of proof) • Three responses • The human position • The full scope of evidence • Suffering makes sense under Christianity

13. Human Limitations • We are in no position to say whether God has no good reason for permitting suffering in the world • Often we can’t see the point of suffering • We don’t have the scope to make this bold claim • Two illustrations • Chaos theory (butterfly effect) • Complexity of our decisions and consequences

14. The Full Scope of Evidence • God’s existence is likely when all the evidence is considered together • “Improbable” relative to what? • Remember cosmological, design, moral arguments • The existence of evil can be used to prove God • Evil exists moral argument God exists • Without God, suffering and evil aren’t a problem

15. Suffering—The Christian Perspective • Christianity actually expects the coexistence of God and suffering • The purpose of life is not happiness or comfort • Suffering is a natural consequence of sin • God’s purpose extends beyond the physical life • Knowledge of God outweighs all suffering • Suffering makes sense under the Christian God

16. Question 1 • When dealing with the problem of evil, pain, and suffering in the world, do you believe that the objections from most people are emotional or intellectual? Why?

17. Question 2 • When talking about the objection against the existence of God due to evil, pain, and suffering, why is it important to remember who bears the burden of proof?

18. Question 3 • If you began discussing the problem of evil, pain, and suffering with someone and you determined that their problem with God was emotional, not intellectual, what would you do?