If there was really a God, bad things wouldn't happen.

Post Reply New Topic

Whenever I'm trying to understand God's intentions----and, because God is referred to as "God the Father----I equate Him to an "earthly father".....

They didn't have to have knowledge of good and evil, they needed only to obey the Father----IMO, it would be no different than an earthly father telling his kid not to go play wherever, and the kid disobeyed and got hurt. Should, then, the father be said to be a bad father?

I don't think they were left-alone with the serpent. When God created Man, he felt that it wasn't right for Man to be alone, and made every kind of animal, from the soil, and brought them to Adam, to name. There doesn't seem to be a passage-of-time indicator, between when God created the animals, and then Eve, and then the serpent spoke to them.

Also, alot of people think the serpent is an incarnation of the devil----I'm thinking that it's possible that that's not so, at least, at the time (one of my Bibles describes the serpent as "crafty", not "evil"), because serpents were only "made" bad AFTER that incident. God told the serpent that, for his punishment for making Eve do what God had told her NOT to do, the serpent would be singled-out from the rest of the "animals" and cursed, and henceforth crawl on his belly (snake), and Eve's offspring and the snake's offspring would, forever, be enemies.

As for them not being capable of understanding that it was wrong to disobey God, and being ashamed to be naked----again, I equate it to an earthly father..... A child KNOWS, instinctively, IMO, not to disobey their father----but, a child learns that they should be ashamed to be naked.

As for God taking responsibility for the creation of evil, we weren't talking about that----we were simply talking-about people being "flawed" (I, for instance, certainly am "flawed"----but, I ain't never shot-up a movie-house, which, to me, seems evil)----so, I'm not going to address that last paragraph (or, the rest of your post), right now, to keep my focus on what we were discussing: "flawed".

Well, let's think about that for a moment.

Suppose an ordinary dad left his kids in the playroom with a plate of cookies and said "I'll be back in a while, don't eat any of those while I'm gone" would he be a bad father?

No, not really. A foolish one, perhaps.

But what if an ordinary dad left his kids alone in the yard with an uncovered deep well in the corner and said "I'll be back in a while, don't play over there while I'm gone." Would he be a bad father?

A negligent one, definitely. A bad one? I think many would say yes.

But suppose an ordinary dad left his kids in the playroom with a loaded pistol, no safety. Would he be a bad father?

I think most people would say yes. I'm sure child protective services would say yes. The same would be true if the forbidden object was an armed claymore mine.

Is losing eternal life and ruining the moral order of creation, ensuring that many would end history in hell for eternity and there would be immense suffering all around more like the plate of cookies or the gun? It seems a lot worse than the gun, to me.

The consequence is immense.

Why not just put a fence around the tree that Adam and Eve couldn't cross?

Then again, we know that animals don't carry on conversations with humans and people evolved in Africa rather than being created in a garden somewhere, so I think it's good to remember these stories are allegorical and symbolic rather than historical.

I suspect a great many fathers will be amused by that notion!


It's not so much a question of God taking responsibility for the creation of evil as people needing to tell themselves that he is somehow the ultimate author of everything, except the things they don't like.

It seem to me that the flawed nature of people was built in from the start. They were always going to eat that fruit, because evolutionary pressures drove them to the large mind and language skills that enable knowledge of good and evil.

The knowledge of good and evil inevitably comes with consciousness, self awareness and community.

The argument applies to a loving god, especially one specifically regarding itself as good by human standards. By all meas, there could be an apathetic god which would be a lot more likely I think anyway, though simply saying "there could be an omnipotent being that cares so little that he doesn't interfere" holds about as much likelihood to be true as the claim of "there are invisible aliens in my garage and they're really quick and quiet so I never bump into them or hear them"; entirely and absolutely possible, but there's no reason to believe it's actually the truth.

I'm thinking that God didn't create evil----I'm thinking that because of "free will", Man chose to do evil things.

As I understand it, Lucifer wasn't content with not BEING God, so he rebelled----he (Lucifer) decided that he was gonna make it his life's mission to undo anything that God did, so that God would have to acknowledge that Lucifer was THEE MOST powerful.

As for why other angels rebelled: It is my understanding that God gave angels "free will", as well----and, some of them decided, I guess, that it would be more beneficial to follow Lucifer, than God, and became "the fallen angels".

As for God foreseeing that they would "turn that way", I can only guess that he COULD, as I believe that God can foresee what HUMANS will do, as well.


But, that's just it, IMO, God didn't make "these little horrors"----that's what they BECAME!! IMO, what God made were perfect human beings, and therefore, NOT a mistake. God saying He was sorry that He made Man, is not the same, IMO, as Him saying He made a mistake.


Well, maybe----but, as I said before, He gave everybody "free will"; and, again, I liken it to an earthly father, to whom a child often repeats: "Why can't you let me make my OWN decisions----it's MY life!!".


The "man went wrong" thing stands-up, well-enough, for me, because I choose to believe it.

I don't feel God intended that man should struggle----in-fact, God promised Man that Man WOULDN'T struggle, if Man would just believe-in / follow God.

Your version sounds good.
Maybe I spent to much time with my head in a computer, but I think of it this way.

From God's celestial IDE

B seems like a better choice to this ignorant being. If God knew they would screw up, could have prevented it and let it happen anyway then He made the choice to have it happen.

At the very least, he would seem to be partially responsible, like a bar owner or parent who lets a drunk drive off.

I don't ever remember hearing / reciting the "Apostle's Creed", like that----and, I was raised Southern Baptist, Baptist, and Methodist. The way I remember it, is:

"I believe in God the Father Almighty,
maker of Heaven and earth;

And in His Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord:
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
and was crucified, dead, and buried.
On the third day He arose from the dead,;
and ascended into heaven,
where He sit-eth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come, to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting; Amen."

I've never known "He arose from the dead", to mean that he had been in Hell----I've always believed it meant, simply, that He came-back, to life.

Some Protestant Taliban (or maybe it was Wesley) cleaned it up for the version you are accustomed to. I learned multiple versions of it, some with the original "harrowing" references because of a branch of the United Methodist Church that liked to pay respect to the rich and varied traditions from which the modern Church grew.

The original in Latin with the "descended to hell" part italicized:

The Greek has the same wording:

The Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662) version is:


Wesley had issues with this and omitted the "descended into hell" language (and lowercased "catholic" because it would never do to be confused with Papists!) but see the asterisked footnotes!


The Lutheran service book keeps it Old School:


So you remember it right, but it wasn't always that way and the old way is still used in other denominations or particular observances within a given denomination like the United Methodist Church.

In response to the OP of this thread, I would like to specify what most of the people who say the statement that is the title of this thread actually mean.

If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent deity existed then natural evil could not exist.

God definitely does exist. He created heaven and earth. That's what it says in the bible, anyway. I believe that the bible is true because it's God's word. I also believe that God lets bad things happen to us to test us; to see how much faith we have in Him that things will get better. Plenty of bad things have happened to me, but if they never happened, then I don't think I'd be getting Social Security benefits right now. Nothing happens in God's world by mistake. There, that's by belief.

Can you explain further?

I am afraid that your argument is logically fallacious.

Because your support for the assertion that Yahweh exists is that the bible says so and your support for the bible being correct is that Yahweh exists.

This same kind of circular reasoning can be used to "prove" Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Mormonism and any other religion with a holy text.

+Smudge and +idonthaveanickname

Also what I meant by "natural evils" are evil things that occur in nature. For example: Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent deity allow a flood to kill innocent children?

If he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolant (aka all powerful, all knowing, and all good) then he would know of natural evil, would be able to stop it, and would want to stop it.

If that deity is unable to stop it, then he is not omnipotent.
If that deity does not know that it happens, then he is not omniscient.
If that deity chooses not to stop it, then he is not omnibenevolent.

SeeksForTruth, I hope my post on the third page, here, will partly answer that. And perhaps a few of the posts before. It would be interesting to see what you think.

I am only asserting that a deity could categorically not exist in a world with natural evil IF and only IF it is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. For example, most forms of Christianity make the claim that their deity is such.

However if a deity does not have ALL three of these traits, then the existence of natural evil does not disprove it. However, due to lack of evidence I still would not believe in such a deity until proper evidence is provided, and even if I did the likelihood of me actually worshiping such a being is slim as in my opinion the only type of being worth worshiping would not want to be worshiped.

In other words, in regards to deities that are omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent I am a gnostic atheist (aka I make the assertion that those deities could not exists).

In regards to most other deities I am an agnostic atheist (aka I do not believe due to lack of evidence, but do not claim to KNOW whether they exist or not.).

The omnis always get people into trouble. They seem so braggadocious, perhaps insecure and unnecessary anyway.

I'm not sure they don't contain internal contradictions regardless. Omnipotence doesn't enable you to change conceptual truths, for example. An omnipotent God can't change the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference, for example.

Could an omniscient God create random events with outcomes He could not forsee?

I would say yes, if there was free will involved in the beings He created.

Or say when humans have created robots/programmes to solve problems for itself. The humans (creators) created the robot and knows what input they used, but the robot still figured out how to solve a problem a human couldn't. Of course I'm not saying the robot is alive, but that's the closest example I can think of.

Referring to the Thread-Title, the fact that there IS a God is exactly why Bad Things Happen, and it is primarily due to that God's STRICT rule...: «All that you or your servants do unto others is done unto you»

Everybody needs to stop paying taxes/fines/etc for it is no different than funding the iniquity of a terrorist-organisation.

When someone hires a hit-man to assassinate another, the employer then becomes guilty of complicity to murder, even if said employer did not kill the victim/target with his own hands personally. A murder is still the crime of murder.

What if the employer were to have the assassin wear a costume, such as a ninja-outfit, does the costume negate the assassination from being a sinful-activity? For there are costumes work by police & military called uniforms.

How about if the employer gave the assassin a shiny badge and a uniform? Does it suddenly change the assassination into a non-murder or non-killing of whomever is being targeted for assassination? Of course not!

What if the employer scribbled down words on a piece of paper in addition to the shiny badge and costume?
The paper says that it is legitimate to go ahead and carry out an activity called assassination.

One man wrote onto paper that it's okay, due to calling it legitimate, combined with giving a shiny badge & costume called uniform, when calling it an assassination. Does it change the activity into a non-murder now? No?

How about if the employer got a few of his friends together to sign their names onto that paper in agreement that they all believe that the writings on the piece of paper is legitimate for carrying out an assassination. Does it suddenly change the act of hiring an assassin to assassinate somebody into a non-murder and is no longer a killing? No?

Well how about if the piece of paper was not only signed by a bunch of the employer's friends, but the piece of paper was then also framed with a border, and a «ritual» of «voting» was performed where the employer and all of his friends decided that it's legitimate to carry out an assassination? Does assassination now become a non-murder? No?

What if we take all of the above and then add the word «Lawful» or «Legal» into these pieces of paper in addition to claiming that the «assassination» is for «security» purposes? Does it suddenly turn a killing into a non-killing?

Any «sane» people would see that a killing is a killing, regardless of whether the act of murder has been re-named to capital-punishment or otherwise, and this is the same with any and all of the other crimes that are carried out in the name of whatever false-idol that people worship (such as the «fictitious» gods known as Zeus or Athena, but in modern-day vocabulary, they are now called State of [what-ever-state-here]).

Essentially, a kidnapping is still a kidnapping, even if re-named into an arrest or detainment.
Essentially, trafficking of persons is still human-trafficking, even if re-named in taking someone to be jailed.
Essentially, hostage-taking is still the holding of hostages, even if re-named to keeping one jailed.
Essentially, extortion is still extortion, even if re-named into bail-bonds.
Essentially, embezzlement is still larceny, even if re-named into following a court's orders.
Essentially, domestic-terrorism is still domestic-terrorism, even if re-named into being a law-suit.
Essentially, criminal-activities are still criminal-activities, even if it is called doing one's job (Hello Nazi-America!).
Essentially, a cult-religion is still a cult-religion, even if it is given names like States or Governments.

Why then does the world seem to think it is any different from some employer hiring a hitman to cause terrible pain and suffering unto another when tax-payers do exactly the same thing in funding the wages of police & military & politicians & lawyers (i.e.: liars) who engage in daily acts of kidnapping, human-trafficking, hostage-taking, extortion, larceny/embezzlement, money-laundering, perjury, frauds, concealment-of-frauds, violations of human/civil/natural-rights, domestic-terrorism, international-terrorism, invasions, interference, cruel-and-unusual punishments, persecution, etc? For there is NO difference.

I will pose the exact same questions unto the Prosecutor at my next court-hearing in order to prove that he is NOT a «sane» man (and is therefore not «legally competent» to testify against my person).