In recent years I have become increasingly interested in Christian apologetics, primarily in the area of arguments both for and against the existence of God, of which there are some well thought out, very precise arguments offered. In looking at the various arguments, most of the arguments that are pro-God are based in observations of the natural world: its regularity, stability, and level of organization. These are sound arguments that often leave atheist arguments on the same issues very weakened or outright dead in the water. What makes the arguments so powerful is that the arguments don’t assume that the God to which they conclude is the God of the Bible. That is an entirely separate argument for them to make, arguments that sometimes fall flat simply because they just don’t have the power and appeal that many arguments against that God which have great emotional appeal because they are based in the immediate happenings of life.
Most of these arguments against God, appear to go thusly:
A. If there is a God and this God is all knowing and all powerful.
B. This God, possessing such qualities, would be able to bring about a world where pain and suffering would not exist.
C. The world is replete with pain and suffering.
D. Therefore such a God does not exist.
It’s a straightforward argument that deals with every day issues that people are forced to deal with daily: the problem of evil. This is not a fully formulated argument, it is representative of the basis of many of the arguments that one can and will encounter in the growing onslaught of radical atheism and anti-theism.
The problem with the argument about the issue is two-fold: it seems to deny that pain has a purpose and that “evil” is left undefined. One might ask, are such clarifications necessary? The answer is a resounding, YES. Think about it and we’ll see about considering them in the next few posts.