« The Doctrine of God | Main | New Blog Design »
Does God Exist and the Problem of Evil
Evil is evidence that God exists.
There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory: most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin' the rewarder of them that diligently seek him' and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. Westminster Confession of Faith - Chapter 2 :1
The problem of evil has long been a question among Christians. But in light of studying the doctrine of God - I'd like to address how evil proves God's existence. in other words, because of the existence of evil we know that there is "one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection." Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds addresses evil as evidence for God:
It was William Lane Craig, I believe, whom I first saw formulate the syllogism in this way:
1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists.
2. Objective moral values exists (i.e., evil is real, not illusory).
3. Therefore, God exists.
The fact that atheists must presuppose the very thing they intend to deny fits well with the colorful illustrations that Cornelius Van Til used to use in order to demonstrate the fundamental inconsistencies of all non-Christian worldviews. Van Til argued that non-Christians were operating on "borrowed capital"--using the Christian worldview in order to destroy it. They couldn't help themselves. They need to use fundamentally theistic categories--like laws of science, morality, and logic--as tools to defeat theism, and yet they cannot account for them on their worldview.
Van Til compared this to a little girl sitting in her father's lap, slapping him in the face. She must be supported by him in order to rebel against him. Another time he spoke of the futility of non-Christian thought as being like a man made out of water using a ladder made out of water in order to climb up out of water!
Everything testifies that God is. (Psalm 19). Some have said 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and mass genocide prove that God does not exist - a loving God would never ordain such evil. Just the opposite!
Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason has an excellent post on this. I'll quote a couple of paragraphs - but read the whole thing.
To say something is evil is to make a moral judgment, and moral judgments make no sense outside of the context of a moral standard. Evil as a value judgment marks a departure from that standard of morality. If there is no standard, there is no departure.
Only one answer remains as a possible source of morality. If morality is not an illusion and not the product of chance, then morals must be the result of an intelligent designer. Universal moral laws that have genuine incumbency require an author whose proper domain is the universe, who has the moral authority to enforce his laws, and the power to ultimately mete out perfect justice.
What is the best explanation for the existence of morality? A personal God whose character provides an absolute standard of goodness is the best answer. An impersonal force won't do because a moral rule is both a proposition and a command, and these are features of minds.
Lastly, C. S. Lewis gives us a memorable quote. Thanks to Jeremy at With All your Mind for bringing it to my attention.
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent raction against it?…Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies…Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
Posted by Christine at November 16, 2005 11:00 AM
