This is the second part of a two-part series. Please read the first part here. The point of the second part is to give an example of how the four challenges given in the first part present insurmountable obstacles when applied to a specific argument.

*****

Mr. Smith has begun with one of the most common arguments against the existence of God: the problem of evil and suffering. He has stated it in classic fashion. He has proposed that the biblical God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good. Mr. Smith believes that such a God would not be able to tolerate evil and suffering in the world. Such a God would have to prevent and end evil and suffering. Let’s see how Mr. Smith has done in response to the four challenges I gave him.

First, Mr. Smith’s argument is leveled against the wrong God. Yes, the Bible describes God as all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good. However, the Bible denies that such a God would feel obligated to prevent all evil and suffering in the world. It is not that the Bible denies the existence of evil and suffering. The Bible gives a raw and honest portrayal of the world as it is. Yet the Bible still asserts that the all-knowing, all-powerful God is good. In other words, the good God of the Bible is good in a different way than Mr. Smith assumes. The Bible has a lot to say on the subject of evil and suffering, and I am happy to explore that subject with Mr. Smith, but I just wanted to begin by pointing out that the existence of the God of the Bible is not refuted by the presence of evil and suffering in the world.

Second, by making this argument, Mr. Smith is not denying the existence of God. He is claiming to be God. After all, he is claiming that he knows best how an all-knowing, all-powerful God should use his power. Think of it, how is an all-powerful being supposed to use his limitless power? If you had the power do anything without limitation, what would be the right way to use such power? If you honestly think about it for a while, you will realize the complexities of such questions. The only way to answer such questions is with a level of understanding beyond the human. Omniscience would be helpful. The Bible teaches that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, and this God has used his power in the ways described in Scripture. He makes different choices than Mr. Smith thinks he should. Who has greater knowledge and wisdom – God or Mr. Smith? If Mr. Smith claims greater knowledge and wisdom than God (or at least knowledge and wisdom enough to decide how to best use infinite power), then Mr. Smith is claiming to be God.

Also, Mr. Smith is claiming to be the moral judge of the universe. He is saying that he has the authority to determine whether God’s actions are right or wrong, good or evil. The Bible describes God as the ultimate lawgiver and judge. He is the highest court in the universe. There is no court of appeals higher than God himself. We do not judge God. He judges us. He is the standard of right and wrong. He defines for us what is good. If Mr. Smith sees himself as being able to condemn the actions of the God of the Bible, then Mr. Smith is claiming to be God. Now Mr. Smith may claim that the God of the Bible does not act in accordance with what the Bible says about him, and we could discuss that question in greater detail. However, as has already been said, the Bible is very open about the fact that there is terrible evil and suffering in the world, and yet the good God does not prevent it all. So clearly, the God of the Bible does not violate what the Bible says about him.

Furthermore, Mr. Smith is claiming to be God’s master. He is saying that God is morally obligated to use power to help human beings. God must use his power to prevent all evil and suffering. In other words, in spite of all God’s greatness and power, God is reduced to the position of a cosmic slave. God is the all-powerful genie, and Mr. Smith is the master holding the lamp. God must do everything necessary to bring about Mr. Smith’s joy and happiness. Again, Mr. Smith has elevated himself above God. Mr. Smith’s arguments against the existence of God only work if Mr. Smith is himself God or greater than God.

Third, in order to argue against the existence of God, Mr. Smith is presupposing the existence of a pantheon of lesser deities. Mr. Smith assumes some idea of morality, but he cannot have any explanation for morality. Morality simply exists without explanation. Any explanation that Mr. Smith could give would not apply to the God described in the Bible, so such a morality would not apply. For example, Mr. Smith might claim that morality is the inevitable result of an evolutionary process, but the God described in the Bible is not subject to the evolutionary process or its resulting morals. Mr. Smith has to assume a high, objective morality, but such a morality can have no explanation apart from the existence of God.

Mr. Smith has assumed many other things. He has assumed logic and rationality, and he has constructed his argument according to standard deductive reasoning. He has assumed the existence of other human minds and the value of human life. These are all things he must take for granted without any real, solid explanation for them. He may be denying the existence of God, but he is accepting the existence of a host of unexplained realities. He has only explained God away by using many smaller things he cannot explain.

Fourth, Mr. Smith’s assumption of unexplained morality commits the fallacy of assuming what he is trying to prove. He is claiming that there can be morality without God. He claims that there is a moral standard independent of God and by which God himself can be judged. However, if the biblical God exists, there can be no such morality. The Bible teaches that God is the foundation and source of all morality. In other words, you can’t have morality without the biblical God. If Mr. Smith claims a neutral moral standard, then he has already denied the biblical God from the outset. He has assumed what he is trying to prove. The Bible, on the other hand, declares that God is perfectly good and the standard and source of all goodness. This perfectly good God has seen fit not to prevent all evil and suffering, and yet he is still perfectly good by his own standards. It is easy enough to invent your own moral standard by which you can condemn God. However, by doing so, you prove nothing. You can only prove that your moral standard assumes the non-existence of the biblical God.

So Mr. Smith’s argument fails to overcome the four challenges I laid out for him, but the Bible has a lot more to say about the problem of evil and suffering. There are three whole books in the Bible about the subject. Job discusses the intense personal suffering of one righteous man. Lamentations decries the suffering of a conquered nation. Ecclesiastes explores the unrelenting angst of the seeming meaninglessness of life. All throughout the rest of the Bible there are many, many passages confronting the reality of evil and suffering. In fact, in one sense you could say that the entire storyline of the Bible is the history of God himself resolving the problem of evil and suffering. God’s solution involved him sending his own Son to enter into our human reality of suffering and to die a cruel death on the cross and rise again. Jesus won a victory over the root causes of evil and suffering, and provided the means for you and I to be ultimately rescued from all evil and suffering.

Mr. Smith says that an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good God ought to do something about the problem of evil and suffering in the world. The Bible teaches that God didn’t have to do anything about evil and suffering. He is God. No one and nothing can obligate God to do anything. However, God in his grace, mercy, and love has indeed chosen to do something about the problem of evil and suffering. At great cost to himself, he has provided the perfect solution. So Mr. Smith has not disproved the biblical God. He has only confirmed the truth of the Bible’s depiction of God.