Sermon Tone Analysis

(1) the question facetiously supposes that God is ultimate therefore is responsible for both bad things that happen to good people.

in view of this supposition, would God also be credited for good things happening to good people?

With relation to God, this question is also posited to disprove the existence of God.

This is hardly a good litmus test since no real attempt has been made to prove the existence of God.

(2) the question supposes that there is some standard for bad and good.

The problem here is that in order for this question to continue to have meaning and for this question to stand, there must be an absolute standard for good and an absolute standard for bad.

For example, the reason absolutes are needed is because if every individual asks this question with their own definitions “good” and “bad” then there actually may be cases where the bad that happens to someone good may actually be thought “good” happening to someone “bad” in the mind’s eye of another individual.

C.S. Lewis said, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”

[When Skeptics Ask by Geisler]

(3) this question also supposes that all men, determined to be good by whatever standard, deserve to receive good rather than bad.

Who determines that good men deserve good, and by what standard?

Why don’t good men deserve bad done to them?

(4) this question reveals the natural perception that man has for injustice.

this question shows some level of morality or moral compass within him that is innate.

This then leads to the question of where this moral compass came from.

(5) this question also seems to suppose that evil/bad will NEVER be vindicated since it is not immediately vindicated.

this assumption may not often be considered by the questioner, but it is nonetheless important.

There are two forms that the argument against God from evil can take.

They have been called the logical argument (which seeks to prove that there certainly is no such God) and the evidential argument (which reasons there probably is no such God.) [Keller, T. (2013).

Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (p.

88).

New York: Dutton.]

There are two forms that the argument against God from evil can take.

They have been called the logical argument (which seeks to prove that there certainly is no such God) and the evidential argument (which reasons there probably is no such God.)

SLIDE#1

Keller, T. (2013).

Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (p.

88).

New York: Dutton.

Why Can’t Evil Be Stopped?

The classic form of this argument has been rattling through the halls of college campuses for hundreds of years.

1.

If God is all-good, He would destroy evil.

2. If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil.

3.

But evil is not destroyed.

4. Hence, there is no such God.

Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990).

When skeptics ask (p.

63).

Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

The typical response to this question is that “true love is not possible without choice, and choice means allowing for evil.”

SLIDE#2:

What is the Purpose of Evil?

We can deal with this problem in two ways.

First, we need to make a distinction.

There is a difference between our knowing the purpose for evil and God having a purpose for it.

Even if we don’t know God’s purpose, He may still have a good reason for allowing evil in our lives.

So we can’t assume that there is no good purpose for something just because we don’t know what it could be.

[Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990).

When skeptics ask (p.

65).

Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.]

Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990).

When skeptics ask (p.

65).

Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Two possible forms of the argument against God:

There are two forms that the argument against God from evil can take.

They have been called the logical argument (which seeks to prove that there certainly is no such God) and the evidential argument (which reasons there probably is no such God.) [Keller, T. (2013).

Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (p.

88).

New York: Dutton.]

Evidential & Visceral Forms of Argument:

Most people who have grown up around church will probably lean more towards the evidential argument:

Most people who have grown up around church will probably lean more towards the evidential argument:

A skeptic might say, “Of course we can’t prove that there couldn’t be a God, or that there couldn’t be any sufficient reason for allowing evil.

But have you watched a little child die by degrees—eaten out from the inside by cancer?

While evil may not technically disprove the existence of a good and powerful God, it still makes his existence highly unlikely.”

Keller, T. (2013).

Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (p.

99).

New York: Dutton.

SLIDE#3

Another likely argument that people who have grown up around church would have is considered the “visceral argument from evil.”

It is an argument that flows from emotion.

Probably the classic example of the visceral argument in our times comes in Elie Wiesel’s Night.

He vividly describes how the very first night in the Nazi death camp devastated him.

That first night, he wrote, “turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed.”

He looked at the furnaces turning human beings, including little children, into “wreaths of smoke.”

The fires of those furnaces utterly destroyed his faith in God.

Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever.…

Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust.

Keller, T. (2013).

Walking with God through Pain and Suffering (p.

102).

New York: Dutton.

C.S. Lewis said, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”

[When Skeptics Ask by Geisler]

This leads to our questions: “Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?”

(1) the question facetiously supposes that God is ultimate therefore is responsible for both bad things that happen to good people.

in view of this supposition, would God also be credited for good things happening to good people?

With relation to God, this question is also posited to disprove the existence of God.

This is hardly a good litmus test since no real attempt has been made to prove the existence of God.

(2) the question supposes that there is some standard for bad and good.

The problem here is that in order for this question to continue to have meaning and for this question to stand, there must be an absolute standard for good and an absolute standard for bad.

For example, the reason absolutes are needed is because if every individual asks this question with their own definitions “good” and “bad” then there actually may be cases where the bad that happens to someone good may actually be thought “good” happening to someone “bad” in the mind’s eye of another individual.

This question supposes:

(3) this question also supposes that all men, determined to be good by whatever standard, deserve to receive good rather than bad.

Who determines that good men deserve good, and by what standard?

Why don’t good men deserve bad done to them?

the question facetiously supposes that God is ultimate therefore is responsible for both bad things that happen to good people.

in view of this supposition, would God also be credited for good things happening to good people?

With relation to God, this question is also posited to disprove the existence of God.

This is hardly a good litmus test since no real attempt has been made to prove the existence of God.

(1) the question facetiously supposes that God is ultimate therefore is responsible for both bad things that happen to good people.

in view of this supposition, would God also be credited for good things happening to good people?

With relation to God, this question is also posited to disprove the existence of God.

This is hardly a good litmus test since no real attempt has been made to prove the existence of God.

the question supposes that there is some standard for bad and good.