# Reasons for belief and disbelief in God **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 28, 2006, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964 "2006-01-28T07:02:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/261 "2006-02-03T14:36:41Z")
Dio, > [@Trust](#): > > Also tell me exactly where you disagree with Sentients response: > > “One can hold all kinds of strange premises but still combine them in a logical way. I’ll accept that Christian, Hindu or Norse theology might be logically valid, but since I dispute the truth of the initial premises I don’t accept that they’re logically sound.” > > Noone ever said that Christianity had all the answers. > Noone ever said that you couldnt disagree with the premises. > But for you to come on here and make such a bold statement as saying “It is logically impossible” for Christianity to be true just shows your ignorance. The entire point of this message board is to fight ignorance. You are only contributing to the ignorance. If you would accept the fact that you cannot prove any of the premises true or false, it would have been common sense to you from the beginning that you cannot find anything wrong with the logic. For you to claim otherwise means that you need to provide cold, hard proof. All you have given are possible ways that you cannot come up with a way that it works. Until you admit the fact that you cannot claim that it is logically impossible for Christianity to be true, you are doing everyone in here a diservice by lying. Please, give all your reasons for not believing in God. They are perfectly valid and actual allow us to get somewhere logically. What is not valid to claim that something is impossible when you can never prove that it is impossible. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/262 "2006-02-03T15:08:10Z")
**Trust** , if I may (since you referenced me in your question): The premises in question are 1) God is omnipotent 2) God is omnibenevolent. _Of course_ **Dio** (and I) reject these premises since we don’t believe God exists, let alone has those characteristics. But the Problem of Evil is one of combination, not truth (_ie._ validity, not soundness). What **Dio** is telling you is that those premises cannot logically be combined using an AND without yielding an absurdity. _Either_: An omnipotent God _allows_ evil to exist when he could simply get rid of it (or, better still, not allow the _possibility_ of it arising in the first place). “Allowing evil” and “omnibenevolent” are logically mutually exclusive. _or_: God simply _cannot_ get rid of evil (or had no say in the possibility of it arising in the first place). “Can’t stop evil” and “omnipotent” are logically mutually exclusive. So God could be omnipotent OR omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent AND omnibenevolent. That is the Problem of Evil, and it is a problem _regardless_ of whether you hold or reject the premises. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/263 "2006-02-03T15:23:33Z")
> [@](#): > > originally posted by **Trust** > Ahh. You are close to realizing a key point. In scientific discussions, we come up with premises. After we have verified that these premises are true, we attempt to find a conclusion. Once we find a conclusion, we verify that the conclusion is true. One thing that we do almost unconciously, is that we compare the evidence to universal laws. For instance, we take gravity on earth for granted. If evidence goes against this, we can, for the most part, assume that the logic is invalid. > > In regards to faith, we come up with premises that we have almost no way of knowing are true or false. We then, assume that these premises are true, and determine whether the conclusion is true or false based on every premise we know. Also, since all the premises that we know are not as well known, the common sense premises are not known to those who are questioning me. For example, in my scientific discussion, we would all consider it to be common sense that if someone said a premise that went against gravity, that the premise was false. You do not have this luxury in regards to religion. You can only conclude whether the conclusions are true or false based on all of the premises. Therefore, it is possible to come up with the various possible attributes that God has. For example, we can come up with the premises that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent if you assume that there is evil in the world (which implies that God needed to not be omnibenevolent to create us the way He did). After a ton of deductive reasoning, you can figure out what God could be, and what he could not be. > > If you get this, you will realize that there is not going to be anything wrong with my logic. All we are simply doing is breaking further down what God is and is not. I get this. I even agree with it, and yet there is plenty wrong with your logic including a misunderstanding of what logic actually is. There are several Christian doctrines which contradict each other. Nonsense rationalizations or the “we just don’t understand God’s ways” arguement doesn’t change them into non contradictions. If the foundational belief is that in God there is perfect love, mercy and justice, then having doctrines which contradict those qualities is a false and illogical doctrine. Claiming that faith makes the doctrine justifiable is feeble. The fact that many people accept it is also no kind of logical support. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/264 "2006-02-03T16:55:37Z")
To quote something I said in another thread: As for me, it’s not the idea of “God”, the creator of the universe, that I don’t believe, but the story of Christianity is pretty hard to swallow: God sent his son down here so we can feel guilty about killing him and therefore have eternal life by accepting your share of the guilt in what happened 2,000 years ago. You then have to concede that, yes, Western Civilization was rewarded for killing its God so it, eventually, gets the scientific method that allows it to conquer the globe for 500 years. I mean, last time I looked, the guy who made the decision to off God was Italian… and they get the Renaissance. Wtf? How the hell does that work? I can see it as in those commercials… “I’ve got an idea!” “What?” “If I send Jesus down to Earth… they’ll kill him. And then I’ll let them know that, ta-da!, you actually killed my boy! And if they admit that they killed Jesus, and feel guilty about it, and then believe that he’s actually my son, I’ll grant them modern civilization so they can conquer and pollute all those people who didn’t kill my only son!” “Brilliant!” “And get this… I’ll be very vague about it. It’s not like I want to do anything to settle the issue once and for all, like appear out of thin air to every man, woman, and child in the Universe… no, that wouldn’t work. The indirect approach is all they need to know the One True God! It will convince everybody!” “Brilliant!” _clink_ :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/265 "2006-02-03T17:15:37Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Dio already did claim that Christianity is impossible to be true. He accused Christianity of being logically impossible. Yes, but you mistated my reasons. I didn’t say that Christianity couldn’t be true because there isn’t any evidence for it, but because it’s premises are logically incompatible. > [@](#): > > Since the premises we are discussing in regards to faith cannot currently be proven true or false, he is claiming that is it impossible for Christianity to be true. It doesn’t matter if the premises can be proven true or false. They are logically incompatible. It is logically impossible for all of your premises to be true simultaneously. You keep trying to counter this as though it’s an evidentiary argument and it isn’t. > [@](#): > > Most of his entire argument has been that if you cannot prove something is true, it is impossible. This is complete ignorance. I’ve argued absolutely nothing of the sort. Maybe you need to re-read my posts. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/266 "2006-02-03T17:18:54Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Also tell me exactly where you disagree with Sentients response: > > “One can hold all kinds of strange premises but still combine them in a logical way. I’ll accept that Christian, Hindu or Norse theology might be logically valid, but since I dispute the truth of the initial premises I don’t accept that they’re logically sound.” I disagree that the premises of Christian doctrine can logically coexist. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/267 "2006-02-03T17:31:04Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Dio already did claim that Christianity is impossible to be true. He accused Christianity of being logically impossible. Since the premises we are discussing in regards to faith cannot currently be proven true or false, he is claiming that is it impossible for Christianity to be true. Most of his entire argument has been that if you cannot prove something is true, it is impossible. This is complete ignorance. > > If you want to take everything I say in your own context why bother to make a post about it? Please show where he said Christianity is impossible. He did say that omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience (which I left out of my argument, but which should be there) cannot all be true. He said that there is no reason that an omnipotent god must require a human sacrifice. He might have said there is no evidence that Christianity is true. BTW, his postings over the years are ample evidence he knows a lot more about Christian doctrine than you seem to. You should look some of them up. This thread is about reasons for belief, which I would assume involves the quality of the reasons. If the reasons are that someone said one should believe, of crap reasons people make up (like those of the 6.000 year old earth believers in your example) they are not as good as carefully thought out logical arguments for either side. There are bad arguments for atheism also. Some are - I had a bad experience in church, or religious people are evil, or the Inquisition. I’d hope we’d be discussing good reasons, few of which you seem to be able to offer. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/268 "2006-02-03T17:37:45Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Yes, but you mistated my reasons. I didn’t say that Christianity couldn’t be true because there isn’t any evidence for it, but because it’s premises are logically incompatible. Only that version of Christianity that requires a tri-omni god, right? I for one don’t see how the concept of salvation only through Christ is compatible with omnibenevolence at all. **Trust** claims that omnibenevolence is not a requirement of Christianity (though he implied it when he said God was good.) Could you point me to a statement of this as a requirement? Is it the Gospels, or in a later discussion? Omnibenevolence did not come up much in my religious education, but that might be expected 20 years after the Holocaust. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/269 "2006-02-03T17:48:04Z")
I for one have never heard of a version of Christianity in which God is a _little bit evil_. In my understanding “perfectly good” is supposed to mean exactly what it says on the tin (Matt. 5:48 - “heavenly Father is perfect”, I Jn. 4:18 - “perfect love”, Deut. 32:4 - “His work is perfect…” _etc. etc._) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/270 "2006-02-03T17:48:37Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > Strictly speaking, we have only established that God cannot be omnibenevolent AND omnipotent AND omniscient. As long as evil exists, God must lack at least one of these attributes. We have not actually established which one(s) that would be, > > > > This is absolutely not anything I’ve stated. What I’ve tried to say is that an omnipotent God cannot be required to cause or allow EVIL. Therefore, if an omnipotent God chooses to allow evil to exist anyway, then that God cannot be omnibenevolent. > > > > The free will problem (to which you are no doubt referring) is not a problem of explaining a mechanism but something which is conceptually incoherent. > > Maybe I’m dense or just stubborn but I still fail to see how the first statement is established. My questions are; > If everything in this world is fleeting including the percieved evil, how does that affect your premise? If we as spiritual beings, chose to experience percieved duality, which exists as a temporay perception only, how does that affect your premise? Is your premise dependent on accepting that free will is an illusion? [/QUOTE] I’m not sure I understand your questions. I have not stated a premise so I don’t know how respond to queries about how “my premise is effected.” I also don’t know what you mean with terms like “fleeting,” “perceived evil,” “spiritual beings” and “perceived duality.” I think I sort of know what you’re asking but I’m not sure. It sounds like your asking if evil is really evil if it’s only temporary (“fleeting”)? My answer would be that of course it is. When we talk about evil, what we’re really talking about is suffering. Suffering is, by defintion, both “perceived” and temporal. Even if it’s some sort of illusion (and when it come sto suffering, that’s a distinction without a difference. An illusory experience of suffering is still authentic suffering), that doesn’t make the suffering and less horrible on a perceptual, temporal level and, more importantly from my perspective, it’s not an experience (illusory or otherwise) which an omnipotent God has any obligation to cause or allow. Forgive me if I fail to understand why suffering is made less unpleasant (or more necessary) because if it is not eternal. > [@](#): > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > There isn’t a 90% way either, or a 10% way. There is NO way. As long as God refuses to give people any way to know what the truth is, then he has no moral right to expect them to guess it. > > Does this giving have to be instantaneous or can it be a process that we percieve as linear time? I think all perception has to occur in linear time, doesn’t it? I would say that however God gives the information, it has to be easily accessible and unambiguous. Humans have no obligation to expend a moment’s energy searching for it, thinking about it or working on it in any way. The responsibility for making the truth known to humans is 100% on God and 0% on humans. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/271 "2006-02-03T18:20:19Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Only that version of Christianity that requires a tri-omni god, right? I for one don’t see how the concept of salvation only through Christ is compatible with omnibenevolence at all. > **Trust** claims that omnibenevolence is not a requirement of Christianity (though he implied it when he said God was good.) Could you point me to a statement of this as a requirement? Is it the Gospels, or in a later discussion? > > Omnibenevolence did not come up much in my religious education, but that might be expected 20 years after the Holocaust. It’s not something that’s formally or systematically stated in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament but it’s a part of both Christian and Jewish doctrine that od is perefctly good, perefctly “righteous,” all-loving, etc. There are a number of verses from both the Tanakh and the NT which refer to God’s “perfection” as well as to his “goodness,” his “righteousness,” etc. The NT also contains formulations of God as love and the Epistle of James says that “God cannot be tempted by evil.” ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/272 "2006-02-03T18:39:49Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I for one have never heard of a version of Christianity in which God is a _little bit evil_. In my understanding “perfectly good” is supposed to mean exactly what it says on the tin (Matt. 5:48 - “heavenly Father is perfect”, I Jn. 4:18 - “perfect love”, Deut. 32:4 - “His work is perfect…” _etc. etc._) Well first we have to agree on the definition of perfect. Is it possible to allow people to do evil in order to not go against free will and still be perfect? The problem with this argument is that it comes down to a definition. If I ground my kids so that they learn a lesson, does that make me imperfect? If you consider that as your definition, then how do you know that that is the same definition that is intended in the bible? Another possibility. Is it not possible for God to be perfect AFTER he chose to make us and allow us to learn with free will? That would still not contradict these verses of being perfect since it could be referring to God being perfect during our lifetime. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/273 "2006-02-03T18:46:07Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > **Trust** , if I may (since you referenced me in your question): > > The premises in question are 1) God is omnipotent 2) God is omnibenevolent. > > _Of course_ **Dio** (and I) reject these premises since we don’t believe God exists, let alone has those characteristics. But the Problem of Evil is one of combination, not truth (_ie._ validity, not soundness). What **Dio** is telling you is that those premises cannot logically be combined using an AND without yielding an absurdity. > > _Either_: > An omnipotent God _allows_ evil to exist when he could simply get rid of it (or, better still, not allow the _possibility_ of it arising in the first place). “Allowing evil” and “omnibenevolent” are logically mutually exclusive. > > _or_: > God simply _cannot_ get rid of evil (or had no say in the possibility of it arising in the first place). “Can’t stop evil” and “omnipotent” are logically mutually exclusive. > > So God could be omnipotent OR omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent AND omnibenevolent. That is the Problem of Evil, and it is a problem _regardless_ of whether you hold or reject the premises. Yes this logic is correct. I do not see any logical contradiction because I have never heard of anyone saying that God is omnibenevolent. It was a necessary evil for God to create us without making us robots so that we could learn. Noone is denying this. Also, please look at my comments above that explain possible ways that God could still be considered perfect. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/274 "2006-02-03T18:55:22Z")
Dio, The heart of your very argument is this: “It is possible to prove that the unprovable is impossible”. This is not only incredibly stupid, it is laughable at best. If you still do not understand what is wrong with your logic, try this incredibly simple problem out. Find the mistake in the following “proof” that the sum of any two rational numbers is a rational number. “Proof” : Let rational number r=1/4 and s=1/2 be given. Then r + s = 1/4 + 1/2 = 1/4, which is a rational number. This is what was to be shown. When you find the mistake with this “proof”, you find the mistake with your argument. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/275 "2006-02-03T19:18:17Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Dio, > > The heart of your very argument is this: “It is possible to prove that the unprovable is impossible”. No it isn’t. My argument is that your logical premises cannot coexist. These contradictions exist completely without regard to whether any of those premises are true. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/276 "2006-02-03T19:30:47Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Dio, > > The heart of your very argument is this: “It is possible to prove that the unprovable is impossible”. This is not only incredibly stupid, it is laughable at best. If you still do not understand what is wrong with your logic, try this incredibly simple problem out. > > Find the mistake in the following “proof” that the sum of any two rational numbers is a rational number. > > “Proof” : Let rational number r=1/4 and s=1/2 be given. Then r + s = 1/4 + 1/2 = 1/4, which is a rational number. This is what was to be shown. > > When you find the mistake with this “proof”, you find the mistake with your argument. somehow, I doubt the error with Dio’s arguement is that 1/4 + 1/2 does not equal 1/4 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/277 "2006-02-03T19:40:02Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > No it isn’t. My argument is that your logical premises cannot coexist. These contradictions exist completely without regard to whether any of those premises are true. How do you know all of my premises? You have not asked. The point is still that even when you come up with those “contradictions”, that person still has ways of believing other premises that make these “contradictions” untrue. Anyone can put together all sorts of premises based on faith in weird ways to make the conclusion logical. Therefore, you should spend your time actually arguing about the plausability of the argument. The implications of you making hasty comments that are untrue is incredible. The moment you tell someone what they believe (when it involves faith) is illogical, they are going to come up with 20 ways that it is not illogical. Not only were you just wrong, any respect you might have had is completely lost because you rely on proving the unprovable. Please though; have a try at my problem involving the “proof”. You will see where your mistake is. ---
**Author:** ![Trust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b38774/32.png) [@Trust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trust)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/278 "2006-02-03T19:42:57Z")
> [@Taber](#): > > somehow, I doubt the error with Dio’s arguement is that 1/4 + 1/2 does not equal 1/4 😛 :smack: I copied the problem wrong people. Yes it should be = 3/4. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/279 "2006-02-03T19:52:16Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > How do you know all of my premises? You have not asked. Yes I have. I asked you what premises I was missing and You told me you’re “not a mind reader,” whatever that means. It doesn’t matter, there are no other possible premises which will make your already stated premses compatible. > [@](#): > > The point is still that even when you come up with those “contradictions”, that person still has ways of believing other premises that make these “contradictions” untrue. Actually, no they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964/280 "2006-02-03T20:28:57Z")
> [@Trust](#): > > Well first we have to agree on the definition of perfect. Perfectly _good_, that is (according to any Christian doctrine I know of - you might be sidestepping the Problem by allowing God to be a _little_ bit evil, but that’s quite a bullet to bite!). > [@](#): > > Is it possible to allow people to do evil in order to not go against free will and still be perfect? _Creating the possibility of evil_, knowing that a whole bunch of it is _bound_ to come about, seriously clashes with the words “perfectly good”, however you look at it. After all, this is why _gross negligence_ is a crime in everyday life: even without malicious _intent_, one’s actions are bound to cause genuine suffering sooner or later. > [@](#): > > If I ground my kids so that they learn a lesson, does that make me imperfect? The analogy is a little flawed: If you had the choice of having kids who wouldn’t do anything groundable, but you _chose_ to have kids who would sooner or later do something groundable, could you really say that you didn’t _engineer_ that groundable event to take place? > [@](#): > > If you consider that as your definition, then how do you know that that is the same definition that is intended in the bible? Well, **Dio** knows far more than I about translating the original words of the bible, but I suggest that “perfectly good” is pretty unambiguous in any language. > [@](#): > > Another possibility. Is it not possible for God to be perfect AFTER he chose to make us and allow us to learn with free will? That would still not contradict these verses of being perfect since it could be referring to God being perfect during our lifetime. Sure, but God therefore _could not help_ allowing evil in that initial period, and was thus not **omnipotent**. Again, the AND is where the logical validity fails, irrespective of the soundness. > [@](#): > > It was a necessary evil for God to create us without making us robots so that we could learn. Was it? Why do you say that? Anyway, again, this is just the other alternative: God _had no say_ in whether evil could arise or not (it was _necessary_ for it to be a possible outcome, for some reason), thus impugning God’s _omnipotence_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reasons-for-belief-and-disbelief-in-god/341964.md?page=15)