Then why call him God?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? 
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?


Acts 17:31

When they all call him God

31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed.

That passage simply states that people will be pursuaded to call someone God and the reasoning behind it. Ie because it will be claimed that the entity appointed a time when a judgemnt will be cast and will do the judging.  The underlying assumption is that many people will do or say anything in order to aquire a positive outcome, even worship a false God if personal benefit will result from it.  It also implies the role of the religious institution is to pursuade those people that there is a God who will cast ultimate judgement. How well they are able to pursuade people of this is how well they will be doing thier job.  A sort of pyramid scheme you see.       

Anwer your interpretation of the passage attributed to Epicurus is ridiculous.

It says nothing about calling 'someone' God, it addresses the false morality that pervades religious dogma and tries to enforce its artificiality on those who fear the unknown.

It simply looks at 'evil' as opposed to 'good' and asks why, if the omnipotent Creator is the essence of all that is good, does that omnipotent Creator allow evil to exist? Logically the answer would be that good cannot exist unless it is balanced by evil. This indicates that evil is an inherent part of such a 'God' because all things flow from the Creator. The Creator then deceives us by stating that evil does not come from it but from the things it creates - Mankind. How can it create something which it knows will create evil and still refuse to accept responsibility? Instead it tortures and damns its own creation for being what it made us to be.

The whole thing is a nonsense no matter how you explain it. Religions have no mandate on 'truth' or 'goodness' by there very nature they are flawed because the ideas they hold as truths are flawed and without foundation. 

defaithed's picture

Religions have no mandate on 'truth'

So true. 

One claim often made by believers is: "Religion asks the important questions." It's a claim that is... well, essentially true. Questions about meaning and purpose and origin.. People have always asked those questions. Religion does too – not uniquely so, but that's fine. 

But... Religion's problem is that it also claims to have the answers. It doesn't.

The funny thing is: not having answers to The Big Questions is no mark against religion! It may not have the answers, but who does? No one, as far as I know. So let's all keep looking! 

Hey, religion! It's fine to not have the answers. So stop claiming that you do.

Here you make the claim (from your perspective) that 'religion' does not know the 'truth' and I concur. The issue is not solved by making that statement, when obviously 'religion' claims consistently that it (whichever one) is the 'truth'. Now ordinarily we expect such important claims to be verifiable beyond a reasonable doubt and while we apply that logic to every other field of Human experience, we somehow excuse religions as if we shouldn't question their voracity?

It's time that the 'faithful' woke up and realised these unsubstantiated claims no longer hold sway in an increasingly secular and informed world. Ghost stories and fairytales are confined to the 'fiction' section and these supernatural claims have no more claim to truth than anything else housed there.


31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed.


defaithed's picture

Well that certainly didn't answer Epicurus' quiz. Then again, to be honest, he did ask a whole bunch of questions at once, which isn't good interviewer technique.

So, if you're interested in answering, we could reduce Epicurus' words into a single, simple question:

Assuming some God creature exists, is he/she/it: (a) willing to prevent evil, but not able; (b) able to prevent evil, but not willing; or (c) both able and willing to prevent evil?

Or if a (d) choice is needed, speak up – though I think (a) to (c) really cover the possibilities. What do you say?


The answer is C.


Despite His being all-powerful and hating evil, He allows evil to happen, according to His good purpose. He uses certain evil events to allow His purposes to unfold, such as when the greatest evil of all occurred—the killing of the perfect, holy, innocent Lamb of God for the redemption of mankind.

defaithed's picture

Despite His being all-powerful and hating evil

A being that murders children en masse is a being that hates evil?

No. That being is evil.

He allows evil to happen, according to His good purpose.

Murdering children on multiple occasions, and every day watching over the deaths of children while refusing to help... is a "good purpose"?

No. Doing these things is evil.

He uses certain evil events to allow His purposes to unfold

Like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and serial killers. Using evil events for some sick purpose. Got it. 

the greatest evil of all occurred—the killing of the perfect, holy, innocent Lamb of God for the redemption of mankind.

God intentionally sent this "lamb" (Ovis aries?) for the express purpose of being killed... so that was an intentionally evil act by God?

If you say so.

Using a solely pathos-driven argument, and perpetuating YOUR standard–as agreeable as it may be–does not make for a debunking argument. Just because you don't like the ends doesn't mean there isn't a reason for them. 

Aw, yes. The 'ends justify the means' argument. Doesn't that support the homily: the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Gee, I guess, the human species that invented god can't quite use their 'god given' intellect to resolve that dilemma.

Where did you originate such an appalling sense of logic?

You deem to excuse evil by suggesting it serves a godly purpose? At least you admit if your fictional Creator did exist the it would be the source of evil, which in itself is a start. Perhaps you can develop that logic until you realise, 'hang on why would an all powerful being need to be evil at all?' answer - it wouldn't.

The kind of morality you apply is wholly artificial, illogical and in fact evil is easily explained as anything which is detrimental to an individual organism and is the result of a deliberate act which is designed to be detrimental.

Oh, but only AFTER the suffering and torture has been done to the innocence. I see, makes perfect sense...not. But that's right, its all part of a plan of which we no nothing about. And all of that information is relayed to man in a BOOK...a BOOK of ALL things. A book written by mankind who has only proven to be untrustworthy and evil. So GOD expects me to believe that this book is the truth? Seriously? How ridiculous does that sound?

defaithed's picture

And all of that information is relayed to man in a BOOK...a BOOK of ALL things. 

Better yet: this genius of a "god" delivers the magic how-to book thousands of years latemillenia after humans started needing it.

Oh, and then this rocket scientist of a deity figures that the enlightenment of mankind is best achieved by delivering the book... to one tiny tribe in a nowhere desert. Where 99.x% of humanity hears nothing of it. 

Considering how evil this "god" is known to be, it's probably for the best that he's none too bright!

haha i actually thought they might mke an honest attempt a answering. instead you just get biblical threats. how stereotypical.

defaithed's picture

And what's more, it's some nonsense about "God will set a judge". Big deal; humans have been appointing judges for millennia. God is slow!

God gave us an ability to govern our own destiny. People chose evil instead of good. Evil is the absence of God. We have chosen to try and live without God, work without God and go to school without God. He isn't allowed in any public cooperation. So, He allows us to have our way. He is a gentleman. He is not going to force good choices on anyone. As far as suffering and death, that came because of the curse Adam brought on himself when he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

defaithed's picture


He is a gentleman. 

A slavery-loving, woman-hating, baby-slaughtering psychopath is "a gentleman"? Please read the link below, and then kindly explain what "gentleman" means to you.

(I would have thought that not sentencing rape victims to execution is "gentlemanly". I guess I have that backward?)

He is not going to force good choices on anyone.

He won't control us like puppets? How very considerate of Him!

As far as suffering and death, that came because of the curse Adam brought on himself when he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Earthquakes kill babies because Adam ate fruit? And how did you come by this gem of wisdom?

Absolute brainwashed! God does not 'allow' us to choose our 'destiny'. Life circumstances, our strengths/weakness, determination, support or lack of it,... God does not 'allow', he just isn't invovled/don't care/ waiting for the end of this game to see how many players/tokens are left. Religion is THE BEST mind control ever! It doesn't explain, contradicts its self, causes countless harm/death, yet servives through the centuries.Lies+violence+enslavement (at least briefly)= RELIGION


show me one person with terminal cancer that "chose" that evil.  i've seen a 2 month old baby die from some horrible birth going to justify that by saying adam ate an apple and so therefore a baby had to die in horrible excruciating pain?  if so you are both a sociopath and a fool.

Yeah, this person who answered you answered well. Plus, defects are usually because of a reason. Whether it's because the human gene pool is losing information, or because of something that happened during pregnancy, it can all be traced back to a reason, not an evil God. Even cancer. Anyone who gets cancer and then blames God or blames anyone for that matter, is a selfish fool. Cancer is caused because you are lacking the vitamin B17 (mostly found in seeds, especially those of the apricot) in your diet, which regulates the creation of new cells in your body to heal internal problems. For example, cells building up in your lungs to heal them from tobacco smoke, but then they don't stop and your body doesn't fight them because they are just cells and your body doesn't think of them as an intruder. Doctors and scientists and charity holders don't tell you the truth because medicine is a billion dollar enterprise. But God does. "And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food." -Genesis 1:29. Any pain and suffering on this planet is because of us. Whether it's natural: Not giving our bodies what they need or giving  them an abundance of what they DON'T need... Or whether it's murderous: Hitler thinking the jews were an inferior race because evolution promotes survival of the fittest. Our rulers RIGHT NOW think the world is overpopulated and want to reduce the population. The world is not overpopulated. If you live in an overpopulated city... THEN MOVE! Have you seen all the empty land across America or anywhere else? Go take a flight and check it out sometime. It's all just part of the government's agenda, to devalue human life. "Global warming", (which has no proof, plants love pollution anyway), etc. All new "scientific discoveries", or any other nonsense they blast in our media is to promote the idea that humans are less important than nature. Even though anything we're doing isn't effecting nature. And no, we're not cutting down all the trees. Go fly across the world and count all the trees. I dare you. They outnumber us 1000 to 1. And of course, as this site proves, on top of devaluing humanity, they will make it seem like religious people are the cause of division and grief and all the war in the world. It's pretty hilarious how the bible's predictions are coming true, yet there are still so many who scoff at it. As conspiracy "theororisty" as it sounds, this new world order thing is shaping up pretty nicely. The world is connected like never before. Technology is to the point where it only makes sense that the next step will be a chip that is injected into your arm or forehead that holds all your information. God is completely gone from society, and anytime he's mentioned for whatever purpose, that person is labeled "intolerant" of change. But anyway, back to the point.... Naturally, it's easy for a selfish person to sit back and whine about how if God existed their life would be better. But that's not how it works. We live in a world of free will. It would have been malevolent if he created us to all be mind-numbed robots. But instead, we have the choice to choose him. A baby dying from a disease, (one which could have been brought on by man-introduced vaccines - no joke, you should see all the stuff they're injecting us with), is not evidence of no God. It's evidence of a defective humanity. Don't blame God for the ignorance of mankind.

defaithed's picture

Anyone who gets cancer and then blames God or blames anyone for that matter, is a selfish fool. 

Putting aside the later oddity about vitamin-related oncological pathology, I cartainly agree with the above. There's no reason to blame cancer (or anything) on gods. 

Or whether it's murderous: Hitler thinking the jews were an inferior race because evolution promotes survival of the fittest. 

I don't know what you mean here. "Evolution promotes survival of the fittest" makes no sense; are you suggesting that Hitler held this non-sensical statement as some sort of conviction, which in turn informed his lunatic actions?

And then there's... Hoo boy. Government conspiracies and "new world order" and (I paraphrase with tongue only partly in cheek) the fear that trees are gonna take over if we don't watch out? It's all nonsense to me, and I'm just going to pass on engaging; these things aren't the topic of this site. I cordially invite you to move those topics to web sites that'll give you a good, healthy debate. : )

But getting back to the topic of the page: 

A baby dying from a disease... is not evidence of no God.

I agree completely. Such a tragedy isn't evidence for or against the existence of gods. There could be, for example, a god who watches that baby dying, and who could do something to help, but chooses not to. Or a god who wants to do something to help, but can't. Or a god who neither wants to, nor can, do anything to help. The baby's tragic death is perfectly consistent with the claimed existence of any of these gods!

...Which is precisely Epicurus' point, of course. The tragedy is perfectly consistent with the existence of a weak god who can't help the baby, or an evil god who won't help the baby, or a weak and evil god who can't and won't help the baby.

What the tragedy is not consistent with is the existence of a strong and good god who can and will help a dying baby. The evidence against that god is powerful indeed!

Whoever you are, you need psychiatric help.

Let's for one moment substitute the word 'God' in your comment with 'Peter-Pan' a similarly mythical creation. If you read it in that context, that's how your billious rant sounds to any 'thinking' individual. How dare you suggest that some cosmic gangster called 'God' would be beyond recrimination for the absurdities it creates.

Your lack of logic demonstrates the depth of conditioning that has influenced your cognition. It's such as you that would be a willing member of the Inquisition or even its modern equivalent, Islamic State. I won't say more I'm too disgusted to continue. Shame on you and yours you psychopath.


So because of our ability that was given to us, people and other living beings get to suffer because of other's choices? So what makes those that make the bad choices better than the ones who suffer the consequences from those choices of others? So because of the choice of some man that nobody knows and who GOD "created" (named Adam), suffering is brought upon those who haven't made that mistake? So we have "free will" as indivduals but are treated as a whole when it comes to the consequences basically. That makes perfect sense. So we have the ability to govern our own destiny but yet that same destiny is part of a "plan"? What about other creatures who seem to just follow nature and try to survive within their own destiny? Such as animals that us humans torture? That's right, they have life, they breath, have roles in the ecological system and bleed red blood, feel emotion, communicate and many of the things us humans do, but they are not the same since we are humans and the superior being. I see. What a fantastic, loving being God must be. It seems to me that Evil is not the absence of GOD but the presence of human beings.

God created all things seen and unseen - it says so in the Creed - "Factorum caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium."


If "Evil is the absence of God", then he is not omnipresent. If God is everywhere, in everything, there cannot be an "absence of God". If God created everything, then he created evil. If he did not create evil, then he did not create everything.


What if god, or I like LORD, was neither good nor evil? What if he was both and satan is no more than an angel that disagreed with his actions and all of the things he created including the evil you claim. So the LORD is two things and its up to you on which one you feed. He is evil, but did not create it. He is good, but also did not create it. He is everywhere it just depends on which one you let in. If you dont like it then maybe work on bringing what makes you feel good. Feed the right LORD or wolf so to speak.


defaithed's picture

Indeed, what if? Your line "Feed the right LORD or wolf so to speak" sounds to me like "don't worry about god this and god that; just do what's right". That's a sentiment I can agree with.

Then again, maybe your musings are less philosophical and more literal: "No, really, what if God is neither good nor evil?" To which I can only ask in return: "What if leprechauns prefer bangers & mash on weekdays, and neeps & tatties on weekends?"

They're equally valid questions. : )

If this supposed god gave man the ability to chose our own destiny, then whichever we choose is still going to be 'god's will' and he cannot punish us for those decisions.


As for "Evil is the absence of God",  one might be well advised to read Isaiah 45:7, in which it is clearly shown that god is both good and evil (a true psychopath). The passage reads (KJV):  "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things".


As for the rest of your post, one can only see it as verbal faeces, devoid of rational thought or critical thinking (i.e. the results of blind faith).

This claim that God is all things good and that evil comes fron sinful manknid is laughable.

On one hand it's claimed that this Creator is omnipotent and that all of Reality flows from him in a grand design.   This must mean that evil is also part of that creation and design and so it is not sinful Man who creates evil we are simply carrying out the role for which we were designed. The more you try to rationalise this type of myth the more ludicrous it becomes. If anything, by any measure this God they worship is a sick, twisted psychpath who gets his jollies by tormenting the little pets he keeps to alleviate the eternal boredom. Bullshit in any form is bullshit.

Adam in the Biblical context is a scapegoat manufactured to divert blame onto the creation from the creator. If your omnipotent God is the source of all things then that includes evil. You state your God is all-knowing, omnipresent and then invent excuses to exempt that God from ultimate responsibility.

If anything the Biblical version of 'original sin' condones and justifies slavery. Yes you can be free just do what I say not what I do you insects. You religious fools are pathetic.

We have free will. He was loving enough to not create robots. Any pain that's caused is man-made. Diseases are usually vitamin deficiencies, even cancer (the lack of B17). God told us to eat the seeds in genesis. B17 is found in fruit seeds, especially apricot seeds. Murder, genocide, are all because of man. The latter being man thinking that the evolution theory's idea of "survival of the fittest" is a good basis of action. Anyone who sits back and whines that God doesn't exist because their life isn't peaches and cream, is just.. well immature. Sorry.

defaithed's picture

Any pain that's caused is man-made.

Earthquakes are man-made? Volcanoes? Parasites? Polio? Snakebites? 


God told us to eat the seeds

Seeds, schmeeds. He should have told us to wash our hands; that'd have lessened thousands of years of human misery!

Sadly, this god didn't seem to have any more knowledge of the natural world than did the ancient desert goat-herders he allegedly spoke to... : (

Murder, genocide, are all because of man.

While natural disasters, disease, and parasites are not.

(Any excuse for that, "God"? Any word on how you justify tidal waves killing babies? Hello? Anyone out there? [...dead silence...])

The latter being man thinking that the evolution theory's idea of "survival of the fittest" is a good basis of action.

Who thinks this? What does that even mean?

Anyone who sits back and whines that God doesn't exist because their life isn't peaches and cream, is just.. well immature.

That would indeed be a silly thing to say, but... who says that?

If you poll large numbers of non-believers about why they don't believe in gods, you won't get a majority answer of "I don't believe because my life has troubles." You'll get an overwhelmingly majority answer of "I don't believe because there's no good reason to do so."

wait wait, God doesn't want robots and all that stuff, but, explain, once the whole rapture and the whole new jerusalem in the book of revelations is done with all evil perishing in some hot pot, and all the good ones that are with God will be in the new jerusalem, excuse me, isn't that making the robots that you all are saying God doesn't want? eliminating the evil and making everyone good, that sounds robotic, since all will follow the same rules, without anyone messing something up, THAT'S being a robot. correct me if i'm wrong, but that whole free will crap is just a dead end. why? ok, you get free will, to do as you wish, but if you dont choose me, you'll burn eternally. um, where's the free will? either you join me, or die. i dont see any free will there, you are stuck. aren't you? at least that whole free will should come with the chance of letting you live a life you want, and letting the others live the life they want, without being cheated in the end (eternal burning).

defaithed's picture

ok, you get free will, to do as you wish, but if you dont choose me, you'll burn eternally. um, where's the free will? 

Yep, that's how it goes in the Abrahamic religions: You get "free will" in the same sense that you get "free will" when a mob enforcer puts a gun to your head and issues a command. Sure, you're "free" to say, "No, go ahead and shoot me..."  

With every question posed is a set of underlying assumptions. For Epicurus the underlying assumption is that there is good and evil as actual constructs that exist outside human definition. I would like to stress that Athiests need to be bothered by such human-defined constructs of god and not get sucked into this trilemma at all. In fact, this trilemma is actually a strong argument FOR the the existences of God. Why? Because if good and evil exist outside of human defined constructs, where then did it come from? For Epicurus, the problem wasn't necessarily the existece of a god, but rather one of alliegience to such a god. If there was only one god, and such a god was indeed malevolent and evil, then to ally with such a god would also be malevolent and evil. Therefor it is better to be punished for doing what is right than ally with such a malevolent god.

Much depends on how one views "evil" and "good" which are not universally defined. Is rain good or evil? Good -- but bad if it floods your city because of too much. Is sex good or evil? Good in the right context, bad in the wrong context (rape, etc.). Are natural disasters good or evil? Neither. They are just natural. The starting point for the argument of good and evil is our expection as human beings, We have an inherent expection for things to turn out "good" and we are uncomfortable when they do not turn out how we expect them to turn out. When people behave in a way that makes us angry or feel hurt, we say their actions are "evil" or "bad". But this also all has to do with context. A thief feels angry when he/she is arrested. Arresting a thief is a good thing (according to the majority of society) but to the thief who is being chased by the cops, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed, it is a "bad" thing.

The Epicurus Trilemma opens the door for Christians to show how God can both allow suffering and still be good through the introduction of free will as the agent/cause of suffering/sin. Once it is established that bringing free will into the picture (even along with the resulting suffering) is a good thing (despite the problems that come with it) God can be cleared of any wrongdoing on His part. Natural disasters can be blamed by the Fall of Mankind because God cursed the earth after the Fall and it deviated from His original creation for a good purpose. If Atheists are willing to entertain the idea that morality comes from "elsewhere" (as in outside of human-defined constructs) then they also must be willing to address where such "good" and "evil" then comes from. The obvious answer, then, is that good and evil points to someone "superhuman" or outside of human-defined constructs. If that can be established -- that good and evil come from "somewhere else", it then makes sense that "somewhere else" is more like a "someone else", since good and evil are moral/ethical in nature, and only sentient beings are involved in moral/ethical things.

This is in fact the path taken by CS Lewis in "Mere Christianity" to explain the existence of God through reasoning out that if good and evil are actually "beyond human construct or definition" then there must be a God who is the author of such concepts that dwell inherently in every human being. Furthermore, since it is universal that small children in every nation on earth believe in God, an afterlife, and in good and bad -- then the Atheist must come to terms with the fact that they are in the minority and had to work very hard and do a lot of mental gymnastics to "unlearn" those universal beliefs. That the most common topics Atheists discuss have to do with "God" is very telling, since Christians forums rarely discuss the existence (and surrounding problems) of unicorns or bunyips.

So as not to be deceptive or confusing, I am a Christian (by the way).


Christians believe that god exists, yet chooses not (rarely) interfere.  He leaves us to our own devices and allows us free will.  For our choices we will be judged.

I'm not a christian but that answers the question.  He's not malevolent.  He just chooses not to interfere because death isn't really the end and he sees the bigger picture.

defaithed's picture

Millions of Christians would disagree with you: the ones who fervently believe that God actively intervenes in lives... that he "answers" prayers... that he works "miracles" for survivors of accidents while "taking" the victims... even that he smites people with hurricanes and earthquakes because somebody was acting all gay or otherwise "immoral".

You'll have to work out the clash between your claim vs the claims of those millions of Christians who say you're wrong. That sounds like an incredibly difficult job, and I sympathize – honest, no sarcasm! – with you on the hugeness of that challenge. For every religious claim you make, there are millions of believers who say you're wrong or lying, or using the wrong scripture or wrong interpretation, or believing in the wrong god, and/or are blaspheming and heading for divine punishment. What methods does religion offer for you all to determine which of you is right? I have no idea, and am genuinely curious as to what means you'll use to resolve your disagreement with each other. 

In any case, even if Christians can't agree on whether or not God interferes today, they should have no disagreement regarding the past. The Bible offers a stunning record of God destroying armies, slaying firstborn babies, sending animals to butcher children, and even drowning nearly every man, woman, child, baby, and fetus on Earth in one incident of divine mass-slaughter. That's interference on a global scale, with God allowing utterly no choice or free will for the children, babies, and fetuses he murdered.

It would seem even the Bible doesn't agree with your claim about non-interference and allowing free will to make choices. I'm curious: On what basis do you make the claim that the Bible is wrong and you're right on this point?

You are wondering by what means will be used to resolve this disagreement? Try reading the book of revelation.

defaithed's picture

Try reading the book of Revelations, you say? Which translation, and through the lens of what interpretation? Or shouldn't I be getting my answer from the Koran instead? The Torah? Buddhist sutras? Hindu texts? L Ron Hubbard?

How to resolve this disagreement? The question stands.

No, he did not say that.  Read more carefully next time.

defaithed's picture

No, he did not say that.

Who did not say what?

First off, we get right and wrong from the Bible. If God doesn't exist, and we're all just chemicals that perfectly fell into place somehow, then where do YOU get your right and wrong? From yourself. Hitler, an evolution-believing man, would say the same. So could Stalin and just about any other dictator from our past who believes in survival of the fittest. Secondly, I've written on here before answering the poster's attacks on those scriptures regarding God taking fatal action in the past. All I have to say, is that before Jesus came, He did have to take action. It was the only way. When Jesus came, it covered all sin, so God was not obligated to punish it anymore. Any injustices that take place from Jesus death, to the last day of this age, He is waiting to punish on the day of judgement. He will then let out his fury on those who did not choose his son. Because He died for us, how angry do you think He feels at those who curse his name, or mock him? If your child died for someone else and that person was ungrateful, wouldn't you be a little mad? He will let out his fury on that day. As for interfering in these present times, sure He does. But when a human prays, it's to align themselves with God's will. It's never to bend God's will. That's why we don't always see what we want to see happening. There is a bigger picture. Either you'll see that mainstream science has decieved you since you were a child, to make you think the earth is billions of years old and you evolved from nothing (which has absolutely no proof), or you'll decide to check out this bible thing for yourself and find out that not only does the Bible align up with true science perfectly (there is a ridiculous amount of evidence for a young earth), but also morally and logically makes perfect sense as to why we're here, and why things in the world are happening the way they are. I know you hate God, and christians. It's what society is telling you to do. It's probably what your parents have influenced as well. Any pain in your life has made you think God doesn't exist. It's natural. But honestly, if you ever want to progress in life, stop bashing God on websites, and check out the bible for yourself. Anyone online can take a single scripture and say God is evil. But they took it out of context. You can't ever read one line from a book and know what the chapter was about.

defaithed's picture

I don't know whether you're offering your own take on a god that you believe in, or just stating how many Christians would likely address the matter. But to any person who would make the following claims, I have to ask in return:

Christians believe that god exists, yet chooses not (rarely) interfere.  He leaves us to our own devices and allows us free will.  For our choices we will be judged.

The Bible claims that God murdered Egyptian babies to impress a Pharoah. And murdered all babies on Earth in a flood. And commanded his chosen tribe to murder all inhabitants of towns and lands, including babies, again and again.

In what way does God leave the victims of his murders "to their own devices"? In what way is he "allowing them free will" when he murders them outright, even in the crib or in the womb?

He's not malevolent.  He just chooses not to interfere because death isn't really the end and he sees the bigger picture.

Let's try that out in real life. I see a child drowning, and could effortlessly reach out a hand to save her... But, I choose not to. Why? Because the child's death isn't really the end, and I see the bigger picture. Thus, I'm not evil; I'm not even deserving of punishment.

Does that make sense to anyone? 

In order for love to be gratifying and true one must love freely. Creating beings with free will to love God, was to risk that there would be those that choose to reject him. Imagine a parent offeringa child a cookie and the child says I love you. The love feels empty, interferred with. They want the reward. But what reward comes to you, when the child freely and unprovoked rushes up and embraces their parent, to tell them how much they are loved cookie or no cookie. Which would be more gratifying as a parent. In much the same way, God the Father wants us to choose to love him. In order to create the opportunity for choice, he had to allow for us the possibility we would choose wrong.  Then again, is it not selfish of God to need to be loved, at the expense of the human experience? Why are we created to serve as an answer to his cosmic social experiment?

defaithed's picture

Your last couple of sentences provide the main answer to the preceding parts. You're right: How is it good and just that people are puppets at the mercy of some cosmic nutcase who craves fearful worship?

But there are many other ways to address the "God loves us and so He lets us all choose good or bad" nonsense. For starters, I might point out to anyone making such claims that human experience and scripture alike make clear that God doesn't let all of us make such choices.

What about the stillborn, the short-lived, those born with mental defects and unable to comprehend such high-flying discussions of morality? How is God letting them make life's choices? Where's their chance to "love freely"?

How about the game God and Satan played with Job? Yes, he was being offered choice in the way addressed by apologetics, but how about his family and slaves, whom God allowed to be murdered as part of the game? Where was their "choice" in all this? They were disposable toys to God.

Sick stuff. Fortunately, there's not a single reason to think any of it's true!

Thanks for the thoughts!

So, he has put together a system where people can apparently choose against his wishes and face damnation as a result, given a choice, and no solid evidence on what to really believe, so we're born here lost and confused... So that he can feel like he's genuinely loved? sounds a bit bipolar to me. and why if he's the alpha omega, does he care about our love anyway?


If he wanted us to love him genuinely without incentive, he could have designed human beings that way, he didn't, ergo, he doesn't exist.


It's like me inventing a toaster to cook a turkey.


Also, Christian kids don't get to play with dinosaurs D:<

defaithed's picture

Hey, I was a JW kid, and I got to play with dinosaurs! I had dinos galore. Heck, more and more Christian kids are now getting the chance to ride dinos, just like Adam and Eve did! (Well, I don't know about Eve. As Adam's inferior, subservient half, she may not have been allowed.)

But I recall that my kiddie questions about where dinosaurs fit into Bible history/genealogy were met with a foggy sort of "don't think about it too hard" and a changing of the topic. (Hmm, it'd be interesting to do a survey of what various religions and sects come up with as explanations for dinosaur fossils and the place of dinos in creation stories. Should be an entertaining hotchpotch of utterly contradictory claims!)

your god sounds incredibly insecure for an all knowing, all powerful overlord

defaithed's picture

Indeed. Keeping in mind that claims of gods and what not are never proven to be false, we have to always admit the possibility that the Abrahamic God does indeed exist – and that he's every bit as insecure, incompetent, and evil as his followers paint him to be.

It's a scary thought; I'm sure glad it seems so unlikely!

The Bible says God can do anything (omnipotence).  The Bible also says God is good.

However, the Bible also talks about people suffering in Hell for eternity. Christians have told us that the choice to turn from the road to heaven must be available so that people can have free will.


Why doesn't God make it so everyone has free will AND everyone chooses, of their own free will, the path which will lead them to heaven?

If he can’t do this, then he’s not omnipotent. If he can and doesn’t, then he must want some people to suffer in hell for eternity, meaning he’s evil.


Add new comment