The answers given to the question below are not meant to be exhaustive but are intended to teach you how to argue your point using logic. No matter what that point may be, arguing it successfully will depend on your ability to:

1: Recognize the precision of language in what is being said and in what you are saying.

EXAMPLE 1

Questions concerning Christianity may be passively or aggressively stated:

If there is a loving God, why does He permit us to suffer? – passive

A loving God would not permit us to suffer, therefore, there is no loving God. - aggressive

2: Recognize the argument.

Formalizing this issue into a proper argument allows for greater clarity of thought and would look like this:

A loving God would not permit us to suffer.
Some people suffer horribly.
Therefore, a loving God does not exist.

3: Question a faulty premise

There isn't anything wrong with the process of inference in the above argument; However, our criticism lies with the legitimacy of the first premise.

Since 'loving' is a characteristic that is applied to both humans and God, we make note of the comparison and make an analogy:

A loving parent would not permit his child to suffer.

·** In order to declare this comparison to be a false analogy, your opponent would have to give reasons as to why the analogy would not hold. Some skeptics will accuse you of making a false analogy every time you make an analogy. While every analogy, by definition, falls short of being 100% representative of the concept it attempts to simplify, it is insufficient to claim an analogy to be weak or false without justifying that claim. Analogies can be very useful and are considered to be an appropriate tool in inductive reasoning.

Or would he? A parent who would not permit his child to suffer would never deprive his offspring of any want, nor would he discipline the child. What then, do we mean by 'suffer'? If we limit the definition of suffering to physical pain, then we have to acknowledge that loving parents permit their children to suffer pain, at least to some degree, when they allow them to have immunization shots, or undergo chemotherapy or teach them how to ride a bike, knowing that the chances of them falling and getting hurt are probable. Therefore, a loving parent does permit his child to suffer physically, if he considers the suffering to be insignificant and for a greater good.

But would a loving parent permit his child to suffer significant pain for a greater good? As humans, we have a corporeal concern; no matter how strong our faith in God, this material and physical world is the only world of which we are aware. Therefore, we consider any significantly painful infliction as harmful to our bodies and our existence.

The difference between man and God is that God is fully aware of man's spiritual reality in addition to his physical reality. God knows that physical suffering cannot harm our eternal souls. God knows that our physical destruction is not an end to our existence. Of what significance is an hour of physical suffering compared to eternity? Of what significance is a lifetime of suffering compared to eternity? We can conclude that from God's perspective, our physical suffering is relatively insignificant. This is not to say that He is unsympathetic or oblivious to our pain; loving parents feel empathy when their child receives a shot, knowing full well that the pain is inconsequential.

But what greater good can be derived from our suffering? Is there a greater good involved? What would justify God sending us to live in a physical world with physical dangers? Why didn't God let us stay in the Garden of Eden?

According to the Bible, man was removed from the Garden of Eden in order to be born again so that one day, he could eat of the Tree of Life and be forever in God's company as a holy people. If men were made to live forever in their natural, sinful state, they would be eternally hellish creatures. God sees the greater good being accomplished in the transformation that will allow us to live eternally in heaven, a transformation that can only take place in the physical world. Spiritual lessons can’t take place in the garden; they have to take place in a desert.

It isn't that God wills us to experience misfortune, but that these misfortunes are merely the consequence of living in a physical world within our physical bodies. Every day, loving people make the decision to bring children into this world, knowing that it is a world filled with risk and injury. God is no less loving for having created the world in which we all live. But one may ask, "Why doesn't God do what He can to prevent these injuries, as any good parent would?

The argument quickly reduces itself into absurdity. At what point should God cease to prevent suffering? Should He suspend gravity for every trip of the foot? Should He suspend the properties of heat for every finger that touches a lit stove? In short, we would be asking God to suspend the physical laws that allow our very existence. We are saying, "Surely, God, there had to be a better way than all of this!" But until we can create a better planet that contains no risk to physical life, I shouldn't think that we would be in a position to criticize. For all we know, the existence that we are experiencing now may well be the only logical possibility of existence.

4.State your position in the affirmative.

In summary, the initial argument against God's existence was:

A loving God would not permit us to suffer.
Some people suffer horribly.
Therefore, a loving God does not exist.

We make the following rebuttal:

We make an analogy between God, the loving Father, and human parents. The attribute that we are comparing is the ability of each to love his ‘children’/’creation’.

1) We consider parents to be loving when they permit their child to suffer insignificantly for a greater good.
2) Our greater good is salvation.
3) Our earthly suffering is insignificant when examined in the scope of eternity.
4) Therefore, we can experience suffering and still believe in the existence of a loving God.

[Return to Ex-Atheist home]