In the series The Problem (?) with Evil I have focused on God's disconnect from the cause of evil - us actually. It really isn't part of the question of whether the existence of evil proves the non-existence of an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God - but the question of what God does to promote good and discourage evil amongst the creatures that were "made in his image" is an important one.

Obviously, as Santiago put it in the Street Prophet's comment threads, it would be "less than satisfying" if God just sat back and watched while we used our freedom to do evil to each other. Not only that, there has to be mechanisms by which God uses us to accomplish his aims even in, and using, people who do not believe in him. So the question here is:

I am starting the fifth post in a series on the apologetic surrounding whether or not God's existence, or at least His existence as a good God, can be disproved because of the existence of evil. I have been following Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks treatment of the issue in When Skeptics Ask

This has not been a series about:

• what is, or isn't, evil;
• what we as humans in general (or Christians in particular) should, or shouldn't, do about evil; or even
• what God plans to do about evil

even though I have grazed some of those issues. It has just been about whether God is proven not to be all-knowing, all-loving, and/or all-powerful because evil exists.

The question de jour is:

Part I examined what evil is; Part II what causes evil; and part III why God has not yet destroyed evil. However, for most folks the "why" is more about . . .

Part II looked at Where Evil Came From - with the conclusion that we, as moral creatures, are the cause of evil through the actions taken by our free will. We are therefore responsible - as moral creatures - for our actions and the good, and bad, results of those actions.

The next question Geisler and Brooks approach in Chapter 4 of When Skeptics Ask is . . .

I am following Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks discussion in When Skeptics Ask on the problem of evil.

The comment that started me thinking on this was:

To me, the "problem of theodicy" is one that offers a devastating and unrebuttable logical argument against the notion that a god could be omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omni-benevolent (all-loving) all at the same time, and yet evil in the world could still exist. Few Christians (in my experience), be they Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or any other variation, would stipulate that their idea of God excludes any of those attributes. Yet when I have presented the theodicy problem to them, I must confess the cognitive dissonance they experience when confronted with the logical inconsistency therein has been painful to watch.

While this issue has never caused my any discernable dissonance - I think he is right that the existence of evil is a difficult theological problem

Is the existence of evil an insurmountable "defeater" for belief in God - or more particularly a

logical argument against the notion that a god could be omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omni-benevolent (all-loving) all at the same time

It is not that the "problem of evil" is a new thing - theologians have been discussing it for thousands of years. Indeed, just about as long as folks have believed that God was

omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omni-benevolent (all-loving) all at the same time

Somehow Christians have continued to believe that God is "all that and a bag of chips" even with the evil in the world. Are we fools just waiting for this fate:

Yet when I have presented the theodicy problem to them, I must confess the cognitive dissonance they experience when confronted with the logical inconsistency therein has been painful to watch.

Some of my brothers and sisters here have emailed me asking me if I am ok. Some might think, like others, I have slipped off into the night - perhaps over some percieved "issue"

Actually, I am just working 60 hours a week and have ceased to be a blogger (temporarily I hope, but am not sure) either here or on my own blog.

I wish I could say I even look in from time to time - but I really haven't even had time for that.

I miss you folk.

[Number twenty-three in a series]

I am continuing to look at Chapter 9 ("The Guided Life: Receiving Guidance from the Holy Spirit") of John Ortberg's The Life You've Always Wanted. The study questions are from the back of the book, and were written by Kevin G. Harney.

The book is about spiritual disciplines. The most important thing I have gotten from the book about spiritual disciplines in general is that we should not do them just so we can check them off a list. They are not a barometer of spirituality or a way to earn favor with God. They are a way to enable the transformation God wants to make in your life.

[Number twenty-two in a series]

I am beginning to look at Chapter  ("The Guided Life: Receiving Guidance from the Holy Spirit") of John Ortberg's The Life You've Always Wanted. The study questions are from the back of the book, and were written by Kevin G. Harney.

The book is about spiritual disciplines. The most important thing I have gotten from the book about spiritual disciplines in general is that we should not do them just so we can check them off a list. They are not a barometer of spirituality or a way to earn favor with God. They are a way to enable the transformation God wants to make in your life

[Inspired by the comments to this post; and modified from this comment]

Certainly one of those most difficult Christian doctrines is the idea of total depravity

[Continued from Part I]

I left the Left (or at least activism) in the late 70's for one conscious reason: I came to believe the radical Left would NEVER reach the working class that they wished to organize. EVER. Barack Obama's San Francisco speech about workers in Pennsylvania clearly shows why: we just didn't get the "culture" - and our philosophical, sociological, and political explanations about why "they" [key word that] just couldn't see why we were right were just not right. We were indeed, as Spiro Agnew called us, "nattering nabobs of negativity" and "effete intellectual snobs".

I left the Left for some unconscious reasons as well:

I wrote after the "Race in America" speech that if I voted eventually for Barack Obama that speech would be the major positive - and that is still true. Nothing in all the discussions I have read since has altered my opinions expressed in that post.

His San Francisco fundraiser speech has now assumed the lead for the major reason I wouldn't vote for him. Neither of these are actually what I consider to be "issue oriented" - there is nothing I want the Federal government to "do" about either racism or hopelessness in the United States. Well, except . . .