Why God Did Not Create A World Without Coronavirus (Evil or Natural Disasters)?

            We live in an unprecedented situation. This worldwide disaster resulting in curfews and lockdowns across the world with an impending [worldwide] economic catastrophe looming large is happening for the very first time in my 50 plus years of existence.

            Tsunamis, earthquakes, and typhoons result in localized disasters. But the Covid-19 disaster resonates worldwide.

            ‘Why did God create a world such as this?’ is a common yet honest question of a person in pain and misery. Agony & despair prompts this question.

            The question 'Could God not have created a better world than this wherein we need not suffer so much?’ need not include the innocence of the questioner of the previous question.

            The question ‘Why did God not create a world without Coronavirus?’ presupposes that God had the power to create a better world but chose not to create one. The question ‘Could God not create a world without Coronavirus?’ presupposes a notion that God may be powerless to create a world without evil i.e. Coronavirus.

            Whatever the case may be, these questions are legitimate because it is the sinking man who always extends his hands out for help. This sinking man has the right to ask such questions.

            Today we seem to be sinking. So we ask!

            What do we even hope to achieve by asking such a question?

            If this is the best world that God could have created then we could take comfort from the fact that God did HIS very best. It reflects upon God’s perfect goodness, knowledge, power, and justice.

            On the other hand, if God could have created a better world, but chose not to create, then it reflects poorly on God’s justice. It also portrays God as a weak or an evil being. Since we are in the midst of suffering, we could feel betrayed by God.

            So is this the best possible world that God could come up with?

            Gottfried Leibniz, the 18^th century German philosopher, argued that the universe (as it is) is the best world God could have created. He argued that God, being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, created this world since HE knew that this world was the best of all possible worlds. This is commonly referred to as the Leibnizian Optimism.

            But J.L Mackie, an Australian philosopher, argued that the presence of an all-loving and an all-powerful God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. In other words, if there is an all-loving and an all-powerful God, then there cannot be evil (because a good and powerful God should either overcome evil or should have created a world without evil). This is the Logical Problem of Evil.

            This is Mackie’s argument:

A. If God exists, God is an omnipotent and wholly good being.

B. A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can.

C. There are no limits on what an omnipotent being can do.

D. Evil exists.

E. Therefore, God does not exist.

            Alvin Plantiga, one of the most acclaimed Christian philosophers in existence, rejected Mackie’s claim and responded with the Free Will Defence.

            The Free Will Defender aims to show that there is a possible world in which God is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good, yet there is evil. So a world containing creatures who are sometimes significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.

            When God creates humans, HE creates them with free will - an ability to perform moral evil and moral good. If God had to eliminate evil, then HE should do that only at the cost of eliminating the possibility of doing moral good. Therefore, it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this one contains) without creating one containing moral evil.

            An objection to the free will defense is that it is logically possible for God to create a world containing significantly free creatures who always do what is right.

            But to cause free creatures to always do the right is to determine that they perform the moral good always. However, this condition can be actualized by eliminating or excising their free will. If so, free creatures are not free in reality.

            Therefore, one can conclude that evil can coexist in God’s presence. Alternatively, God can permit evil despite HIS presence (as an all-loving and an all-powerful God).

            Could there be a best of all possible worlds? Is our world the best of all possible worlds?

            In one of my earlier blogs, I wrote, “Alvin Plantinga differed from Leibniz by positing that there cannot be a best world, for one more palm tree or one more morally righteous person can make any world better. So Plantinga concluded that there is no such thing as the best world. [Even if God does not create anything, HE alone will exist as the greatest good (Summum bonum)]. Therefore, God is merely obligated to create a good world and not a best world.”¹

            Yes, this is the best world or the good world that God could have created.

            But what about the natural evils such as the Coronavirus we are suffering from now?

            St. Augustine attributed natural evil to Satan and his cohorts. Since his rebellion against God, Satan has been wreaking havoc in the world. The result is natural evil. So the natural evil we find is due to the free actions of non-human spirits.

            Even in the instance of natural evils, we observe that the presence of natural evil (e.g. Coronavirus) is logically compatible with the existence of a wholly good, all-powerful and an all-knowing God. The free will of the non-human spirits (i.e. Satan and his cohorts) causes natural evil (e.g. Coronavirus) because God created both the humans and the non-humans with free will.

            A world with free will is any day better than a world without free will. 

            So God has done HIS best.

            Therefore, since we have been blessed with free will, we also need to endure the consequences of free will – which is evil.

            When we reel under the devastation caused by Coronavirus, let us understand that God has not abandoned us.

            God is with us. The Lord Jesus is Immanuel, which means God with us.

            If we seek Jesus, HE will carry us through. Even if we are to die, we will be in a much better situation, for those who believe in Christ will be with God forever and ever.

Endnote:

¹http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-did-god-create-satan-knowing-that.html, last accessed on 30^th March 2020.

Material for Free Will Defense of Alvin Plantinga has been sourced from: Adams & Adams, The Problem of Evil, Edited by Marilyn McCord Adams & Robert Merrihew Adams, p 83-109. 

Hell In The Presence Of A Loving God

            One of the most difficult questions for me to answer is, “Why God has put me in a predicament of having to see my loved ones in hell because of their unbelief in Christ?” This is an honest question of any Christian whose friends or relatives are yet to believe in Christ. A variant of this question is “why would God not reveal Himself in a way that people believe in Christ?” The ball seems to be in God’s court!

            When asked why he remained an atheist, Bertrand Russell claimed God did not give him adequate evidence to be a theist. Is this a fact? Has God not given adequate evidence to many? The Holy Bible refutes this claim by emphasizing that men suppress truth, which God has made plain to all (Romans 1:19-20; Cf John 3:16-21). The Bible unapologetically places the ball in man’s court!

            To grasp and accept the concept of hell is indeed difficult. How often do we read or view news related to brokenness and death to feel miserable and nauseated? Are we not immeasurably broken when someone close to us is ill or when our loved one dies? We so love our near and dear that we do not want to see them hurt in any way. This is possibly one of the many reasons why we find the concept of hell difficult to digest, and sometimes we even refuse to accept its reality. We so LOVE our friends and relatives that we do not want any harm upon them. 

            If we cannot bear to see our loved ones suffer now for a certain period of time, then it is legitimate for us to suffer more while imagining the possibility of them suffering in hell unto eternity. At the core of our pain is our deep love for our near and dear. Our love and concern for our loved ones’ eternal destiny seems legitimate! However, the dilemma begins now.

            Our dilemma is to comprehend the painful reality of hell under the overarching umbrella of God’s love. We believe a loving God would not send HIS children, even under the pretext of unbelief, to eternal torment. How would a loving parent gift his child with prolonged suffering? Would the parent not do all within his means to prevent this horrendous occurrence? This is our painful dilemma. In other words, we question the credibility of God’s love with respect to hell.

            True love respects and educates, but never enslaves. A parent who truly loves his child will educate him of good and evil. A parent will do “everything” within his power and will to stop the child from pursuing evil, but that “everything” excludes enslaving his child. If a child is bent on pursuing the path of evil, the parent will choose preventive actions, but will never imprison the child into solitary confinement. The circumstantially handicapped parent may opt to allow the child to have his way; this is the respect the parent shows to the disobedient child’s cognizant volition. A defeated and emotionally fatigued parent will allow the child to continue in willful disobedience. Nevertheless, the parents’ love for the child will never diminish even if the child willfully rebels to disobey.

            The father of the prodigal son not only heeds to the property share request of the son, but he goes a step further by not preventing his son from departing to a distant country with his share of wealth (Luke 15:12-13). The son willfully disobeys the loving father, and departs. The loving father expectantly longs for his son’s return and when he does return, the father rushes to welcome the son even before he repents. This is father’s love. A parent’s love will never cease and always hope for the best, but at the same time, a parent’s love will respect the child’s conscious decision. 

            Was it not C.S Lewis who opined that there are two groups of people in this world of which one group would acknowledge and believe in Christ, bend their knees to HIM and say ‘Your will be done,’ and God would have this group living with HIM unto eternity (in heaven). To the other group who refuse to acknowledge and believe in Christ and bend their knees to God, HE will say ‘your will be done’ and grant them their wish to be away from HIM (in hell). God keeps those who desire to be with HIM, but respects and allows those who reject HIM to be away from HIM. This is true love – a love that provides all, but refuses to enslave. (Please remember the Bible’s proclamation that God has given mankind enough evidence to believe in HIM.)

            Let’s travel back to the creation account in Genesis. God placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil but commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of it (Genesis 2:9, 16-17). Even though it was a command, Adam and Eve were given the freedom to accept or reject God’s command. Thus God exhibited true love, and HE desires mankind to love HIM. True love can only exist in the conscious reality of freedom. Freedom to accept or reject the lover is intrinsic in true love. Therefore, God’s love for mankind warrants the presence of heaven and hell.

            God’s justice can also be questioned with respect to hell. How can a just God eternally punish HIS children for the sin of unbelief committed during the specific period of time of their existence in this world? Isn’t the eternal punishment disproportionate to the sin committed in time? This is another painful predicament we struggle with.

            Human life was designed to be with God unto eternity through mutual love. Sin separated man and God. God, in HIS foreknowledge, designed a way out of this predicament through the one time sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. HE has also done everything for mankind to believe in HIM, so mankind will be without excuse against God. When man refuses to believe in Christ and thereby rejects God, God simply allows man to be away from HIM unto eternity. In other words, the creational intent is an eternal fellowship with God or an eternal banishment from God. Mankind makes the choice, and God honors that choice. This is Justice. Therefore, God’s justice warrants heaven and hell.

P.S: One can always argue that God in HIS perfection, omniscience and omnipotence, could have created a better world where none go to hell. But eminent philosophers have debated the concept of the “best of all possible worlds,” so if you are interested in indulging in heavy reading, then please visit these links and dig deep thereafter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga's_free_will_defense).