Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Death of the unborn and infants

Expand Messages
  • Arcee A
    I was wondering how anyone here would answer this question: If God really exists, then why does he allow the unborn and infants to die so early? God bless!
    Message 1 of 9 , May 15, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I was wondering how anyone here would answer this question:

      If God really exists, then why does he allow the unborn and infants to die so early?

      God bless!

      Arcee


      "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
    • Tesfaye Robele
      Dear Arcee A, This is the criticism allege that there is an inconsistency between certain theistic claims about God and evil. On the one hand, theism affirms
      Message 2 of 9 , May 16, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Arcee A,
        This is the criticism allege that there is an inconsistency between certain theistic claims about God and evil. On the one hand, theism affirms that: (1) an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God exists, and, on the other hand, theism affirms that (2) evil exists in the world. The critic insists that these two statements are logically inconsistent with each other, that they both cannot be true. If the two statements are indeed inconsistent, then it is irrational to believe both. If this is correct, then the theist has made a serious logical mistake and must abandon at least one of the statements in the inconsistent pair.
                    Alvin Plantinga is well known for his attempt to rebut the charge of inconsistency. His Free Will Defense offers a way of proving the consistency of the relevant theistic claims. Since the critic alleges that it is logically impossible that both God and evil exist, as the theistic defender I must show that it is logically possible. In other words, I must show that both claims can be true.
        Of course, it is not immediately obvious that a statement asserting the existence of God is inconsistent with a statement asserting the existence of evil. If there is a contradiction between them, it must be implicit rather than explicit; I would like to put the burden of proof on the shoulder of the critic to show exactly how the contradiction arises. (Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974), 165.)
        Some additional statement or “quasi-logical rules,”[ Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977; reprint of 1974 Harper and Row), 23-24. Cited from J. L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind 64 (1955): 200.] are needed to make the contradiction explicit. Some additional statements that have been suggested include the following:
         “That an omniscient being knows how to eliminate evil, that an omnipotent being has the power to eliminate evil, that a perfectly good being will want to or will have an obligation to eliminate evil, that evil is not logically necessary, and so forth.” (Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977; reprint of 1974 Harper and Row), 23-24. Cited from J. L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind 64 (1955): 200)
        The critic reasons that if God has the knowledge, power, and desire to eliminate evil, and if evil is not necessary, then there should exist no evil whatsoever. For the critic, these supplementary statements complete the logic, showing the inconsistency in the theist’s claim that both God exists and evil exists.
        As Plantinga indicates, the general strategy for providing consistency between any two statements whatsoever involves finding a third statement that is possibly true, consistent with the first statement, and in conjunction with the first implies the second statement. The third statement, of course, need not be true or known to be true; it need not even be plausible. The statement only needs to be possible because the matter of determining consistency between or among proposition has to do with whether they can all be true together, not with whether any one or all of them are in fact true. What the free will defender must do therefore is to find a statement that meets these conditions.[ Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity, 165.]  
        Plantinga suggests that the ideas of possible worlds provide a method for discovering the needed statement.[A possible world is simply a total possible state of affairs, a total possible way things could have been] So it is possible that God would create a world of free creatures who choose to do evil. In other words, for any world God might create, populated by whatever free creatures, it is not within God’s power to bring it about that those significantly free creatures never go wrong.[ Plantinga’s detailed argument delves into such concepts as “Liebniz’s Lapse” and “transworld depravity.” It can be read in more detail in his God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977; reprint of 1974 Harper and Row) or in very analytical detail in his The Nature of Necessity, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), pt. 9. ] This new statement, together with one asserting the existence of God, implies that evil exists. It can now be seen to possible for God to exist and for evil to exist. Thus, the critic’s charge—that it is not possible for God and evil to exist—is refuted.

        In Him,
        tes
         
      • jshrh1468@yahoo.com
        Sin will cause many to suffer. Sin is running its course. Because of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, many have been suffering and dying. Man chose to
        Message 3 of 9 , May 16, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Sin will cause many to suffer. Sin is running its course. Because of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, many have been suffering and dying. Man chose to sin. Its not Gods fault. Its called consequences for bad actions. Sin has brought evil, disease, sickness, and death to mankind.
          Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

          From: Arcee A <truthseeker41471@...>
          Sender: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 23:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
          To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com<biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com>
          ReplyTo: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Death of the unborn and infants

           

          I was wondering how anyone here would answer this question:

          If God really exists, then why does he allow the unborn and infants to die so early?

          God bless!

          Arcee


          "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
        • Paul Leonard
          When should he let them die?  Should he interfere in all such deaths, even when a bomb goes off, a disease kills a whole village, a fire kills the entire
          Message 4 of 9 , May 16, 2012
          • 0 Attachment

            When should he let them die?  Should he interfere in all such deaths, even when a bomb goes off, a disease kills a whole village, a fire kills the entire family?

            Paul

             

            I was wondering how anyone here would answer this question:

            If God really exists, then why does he allow the unborn and infants to die so early?

            God bless!

            Arcee


            "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
          • Gary Saunders
            Sin Gary Sent from my iPhone ... Sin Gary Sent from my iPhone On May 15, 2012, at 11:50 PM, Arcee A wrote: I was wondering how
            Message 5 of 9 , May 16, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Sin

              Gary Sent from my iPhone

              On May 15, 2012, at 11:50 PM, Arcee A <truthseeker41471@...> wrote:

              I was wondering how anyone here would answer this question:

              If God really exists, then why does he allow the unborn and infants to die so early?

              God bless!

              Arcee


              "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
              =
            • William
              It sounds as if you are asking a variation on the age old question of why does God allow evil or the other version that is why does God allow sufffering. In
              Message 6 of 9 , May 17, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                It sounds as if you are asking a variation on the age old question of why does God allow evil or the other version that is why does God allow sufffering. In all these questions the asker is assuming certain things must be true, including our human perspective.

                However, we need to remember that even our human perspective changes over time, or at least should change. Those things that seemed like a major tragedy to me as a child now seem as if they are simply a minor bump in the road, if even that much. Given that we grant God a life that extends beyond the age of the universe, how much different will His perspective be on what is evil and what is suffering? Are we to proclaim that our far more limited perspective is more proper than His?

                --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Arcee A <truthseeker41471@...> wrote:
                >
                > I was wondering how anyone here would answer this question:
                >
                > If God really exists, then why does he allow the unborn and infants to die so early?
                >
                > God bless!
                >
                >
                > Arcee
                >
                >
                > "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
                >
              • jshrh1468@yahoo.com
                Sin will cause many to suffer. Sin is running its course. Because of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, many have been suffering and dying. Man chose to
                Message 7 of 9 , May 19, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Sin will cause many to suffer. Sin is running its course. Because of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, many have been suffering and dying. Man chose to sin. Its not Gods fault. Its called consequences for bad actions. Sin has brought evil, disease, sickness, and death to mankind.
                  Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

                  From: Tesfaye Robele <tesfa_apologetics@...>
                  Sender: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
                  To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com<biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com>
                  ReplyTo: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Death of the unborn and infants

                   

                  Dear Arcee A,
                  This is the criticism allege that there is an inconsistency between certain theistic claims about God and evil. On the one hand, theism affirms that: (1) an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God exists, and, on the other hand, theism affirms that (2) evil exists in the world. The critic insists that these two statements are logically inconsistent with each other, that they both cannot be true. If the two statements are indeed inconsistent, then it is irrational to believe both. If this is correct, then the theist has made a serious logical mistake and must abandon at least one of the statements in the inconsistent pair.
                              Alvin Plantinga is well known for his attempt to rebut the charge of inconsistency. His Free Will Defense offers a way of proving the consistency of the relevant theistic claims. Since the critic alleges that it is logically impossible that both God and evil exist, as the theistic defender I must show that it is logically possible. In other words, I must show that both claims can be true.
                  Of course, it is not immediately obvious that a statement asserting the existence of God is inconsistent with a statement asserting the existence of evil. If there is a contradiction between them, it must be implicit rather than explicit; I would like to put the burden of proof on the shoulder of the critic to show exactly how the contradiction arises. (Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974), 165.)
                  Some additional statement or “quasi-logical rules,”[ Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977; reprint of 1974 Harper and Row), 23-24. Cited from J. L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind 64 (1955): 200.] are needed to make the contradiction explicit. Some additional statements that have been suggested include the following:
                   “That an omniscient being knows how to eliminate evil, that an omnipotent being has the power to eliminate evil, that a perfectly good being will want to or will have an obligation to eliminate evil, that evil is not logically necessary, and so forth.” (Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977; reprint of 1974 Harper and Row), 23-24. Cited from J. L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind 64 (1955): 200)
                  The critic reasons that if God has the knowledge, power, and desire to eliminate evil, and if evil is not necessary, then there should exist no evil whatsoever. For the critic, these supplementary statements complete the logic, showing the inconsistency in the theist’s claim that both God exists and evil exists.
                  As Plantinga indicates, the general strategy for providing consistency between any two statements whatsoever involves finding a third statement that is possibly true, consistent with the first statement, and in conjunction with the first implies the second statement. The third statement, of course, need not be true or known to be true; it need not even be plausible. The statement only needs to be possible because the matter of determining consistency between or among proposition has to do with whether they can all be true together, not with whether any one or all of them are in fact true. What the free will defender must do therefore is to find a statement that meets these conditions.[ Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity, 165.]  
                  Plantinga suggests that the ideas of possible worlds provide a method for discovering the needed statement.[A possible world is simply a total possible state of affairs, a total possible way things could have been] So it is possible that God would create a world of free creatures who choose to do evil. In other words, for any world God might create, populated by whatever free creatures, it is not within God’s power to bring it about that those significantly free creatures never go wrong.[ Plantinga’s detailed argument delves into such concepts as “Liebniz’s Lapse” and “transworld depravity.” It can be read in more detail in his God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977; reprint of 1974 Harper and Row) or in very analytical detail in his The Nature of Necessity, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), pt. 9. ] This new statement, together with one asserting the existence of God, implies that evil exists. It can now be seen to possible for God to exist and for evil to exist. Thus, the critic’s charge—that it is not possible for God and evil to exist—is refuted.

                  In Him,
                  tes
                   
                • jshrh1468@yahoo.com
                  Sin will cause many to suffer. Sin is running its course. Because of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, many have been suffering and dying. Man chose to
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 19, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Sin will cause many to suffer. Sin is running its course. Because of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, many have been suffering and dying. Man chose to sin. Its not Gods fault. Its called consequences for bad actions. Sin has brought evil, disease, sickness, and death to mankind.
                    Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

                    From: "William" <eliadefollower@...>
                    Sender: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 16:32:23 -0000
                    To: <biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com>
                    ReplyTo: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Death of the unborn and infants

                     

                    It sounds as if you are asking a variation on the age old question of why does God allow evil or the other version that is why does God allow sufffering. In all these questions the asker is assuming certain things must be true, including our human perspective.

                    However, we need to remember that even our human perspective changes over time, or at least should change. Those things that seemed like a major tragedy to me as a child now seem as if they are simply a minor bump in the road, if even that much. Given that we grant God a life that extends beyond the age of the universe, how much different will His perspective be on what is evil and what is suffering? Are we to proclaim that our far more limited perspective is more proper than His?

                    --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Arcee A <truthseeker41471@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I was wondering how anyone here would answer this question:
                    >
                    > If God really exists, then why does he allow the unborn and infants to die so early?
                    >
                    > God bless!
                    >
                    >
                    > Arcee
                    >
                    >
                    > "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
                    >

                  • Arcee A
                    This is most helpful!  Thanks!   God bless! Arcee I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by
                    Message 9 of 9 , May 21, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      This is most helpful!  Thanks!
                       
                      God bless!

                      Arcee


                      "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis

                      From: Tesfaye Robele <tesfa_apologetics@...>
                      To: "biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com" <biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:59 PM
                      Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Death of the unborn and infants

                       
                      Dear Arcee A,
                      This is the criticism allege that there is an inconsistency between certain theistic claims about God and evil. On the one hand, theism affirms that: (1) an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God exists, and, on the other hand, theism affirms that (2) evil exists in the world. The critic insists that these two statements are logically inconsistent with each other, that they both cannot be true. If the two statements are indeed inconsistent, then it is irrational to believe both. If this is correct, then the theist has made a serious logical mistake and must abandon at least one of the statements in the inconsistent pair.
                                  Alvin Plantinga is well known for his attempt to rebut the charge of inconsistency. His Free Will Defense offers a way of proving the consistency of the relevant theistic claims. Since the critic alleges that it is logically impossible that both God and evil exist, as the theistic defender I must show that it is logically possible. In other words, I must show that both claims can be true.
                      Of course, it is not immediately obvious that a statement asserting the existence of God is inconsistent with a statement asserting the existence of evil. If there is a contradiction between them, it must be implicit rather than explicit; I would like to put the burden of proof on the shoulder of the critic to show exactly how the contradiction arises. (Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974), 165.)
                      Some additional statement or “quasi-logical rules,”[ Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977; reprint of 1974 Harper and Row), 23-24. Cited from J. L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind 64 (1955): 200.] are needed to make the contradiction explicit. Some additional statements that have been suggested include the following:
                       “That an omniscient being knows how to eliminate evil, that an omnipotent being has the power to eliminate evil, that a perfectly good being will want to or will have an obligation to eliminate evil, that evil is not logically necessary, and so forth.” (Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977; reprint of 1974 Harper and Row), 23-24. Cited from J. L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind 64 (1955): 200)
                      The critic reasons that if God has the knowledge, power, and desire to eliminate evil, and if evil is not necessary, then there should exist no evil whatsoever. For the critic, these supplementary statements complete the logic, showing the inconsistency in the theist’s claim that both God exists and evil exists.
                      As Plantinga indicates, the general strategy for providing consistency between any two statements whatsoever involves finding a third statement that is possibly true, consistent with the first statement, and in conjunction with the first implies the second statement. The third statement, of course, need not be true or known to be true; it need not even be plausible. The statement only needs to be possible because the matter of determining consistency between or among proposition has to do with whether they can all be true together, not with whether any one or all of them are in fact true. What the free will defender must do therefore is to find a statement that meets these conditions.[ Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity, 165.]  
                      Plantinga suggests that the ideas of possible worlds provide a method for discovering the needed statement.[A possible world is simply a total possible state of affairs, a total possible way things could have been] So it is possible that God would create a world of free creatures who choose to do evil. In other words, for any world God might create, populated by whatever free creatures, it is not within God’s power to bring it about that those significantly free creatures never go wrong.[ Plantinga’s detailed argument delves into such concepts as “Liebniz’s Lapse” and “transworld depravity.” It can be read in more detail in his God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977; reprint of 1974 Harper and Row) or in very analytical detail in his The Nature of Necessity, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), pt. 9. ] This new statement, together with one asserting the existence of God, implies that evil exists. It can now be seen to possible for God to exist and for evil to exist. Thus, the critic’s charge—that it is not possible for God and evil to exist—is refuted.

                      In Him,
                      tes
                       


                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.