A EuclidEan SCAFFOLDING For the Goodness of God
By Marc Vidito
“The problem of evil is one of the most powerful and widely used arguments against God”
-The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
“I couldn’t reconcile how there can be an all-powerful God and evil”
-brandonflanery.com
We are in an era of moral and spiritual crisis. Recent sociologists and theologians have, for the past 2 decades or more, stated that we, in America and most of the Western hemisphere, are in a post-Christian society. I would push that farther and state that we are, in fact, in an anti-Christian society and era.
While Pew Research reports that only 5% of Americans today profess to be atheists, 29% of this population are between ages 18-29 years old. Furthermore, 44% of the Gen Z population in the US have no religious affiliation at all.
A simple Google search on the term “post-Christian” finds the following:
· Rising Post-Christian Population: The percentage of post-Christian Americans rose from 37% in 2013 to 44% in 2015.
· Generational Decline: Among adults under 30, only 23% are considered "born again," compared to 31% of those in their 30s and 40s.
· Low Belief in Hell: Only 5% of people in a post-Christian culture believe they are going to hell.
“Atheism Doubles Among Generation Z”
-barna.com
We’re not only living in a post-Christian society, but we are also living in a post-truth society." — Alisa Childers
This startling set of statistics and quotes foresees a bleak future in regards to those that embrace faith. What Influence Magazine calls the “Oprah-fication of American spirituality” has yielded a Christian culture that is individualistic, centered on self, hedonistic, and reliant on programs and entertainment.
The ideas of God’s sovereignty, Yeshua’s unique and exclusive path to eternal life, and repentant transformation are not only seen, among young adult believers, as archaic, but as “wrong” and even unethical.
Good is called evil, and evil good. (Isaiah 5:20)
And the problem of evil is the Achilles Heel of the modern thinking person. Many, like atheist YouTuber Alex O’Connor, cite the problem of evil as the primary barrier for a belief in God. Others like former Campus Crusade for Christ staffer, Rhett McLaughlin and former Moody Bible College Theologian Bart Ehrman are using logic to deconstruct their faith.
But can logic have the opposite effect?
Can logic prove the existence of God? Furthermore, can a logical scaffolding get one to a benevolent and good Creator?
How can we, as Messianic leaders, respond to the problem of evil? How can we reconcile a “good” God with wars, disease, sexual crimes, racially motivated slavery, and, unimaginably, the Holocaust and current global rise in antisemitism?
This paper will explore the Euclidean method of if/then syllogisms to, not only support the conclusion of God’s existence, but, also of His goodness. A series of logical deductions based on certain agreed upon axioms reveal that there is a Creator, and against all odds, He cares for you.
Seeking answers to this question (of evil and suffering) should turn us toward Jesus in a fresh way.
-Randy Alcorn
Is our problem with God allowing evil or is it our response to the evil? Is it our stewardship of free will?
What would “Tante Rose” (Rose Price) say? She endured unthinkable torture at the hands of Nazis and quite literally forgave her tormentor when meeting him face to face in later life. She loved Yeshua and knew Him as a good and merciful God.
Can the modern Messianic believer in an anti-Christian society use logic to support the existence, sovereignty, and even goodness of God? How can we minister to the hurting? How can we reflect the love and goodness of our Creator in the shadow of personal pain?
“We can ignore even pleasure. But pain insists upon being attended to. 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.”
C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
Let us begin with a simple thesis.
Because the universe is expanding, there is a God, and He cares for you.
Reality is that which can be experienced, observed, or inferred through consistent and repeatable interaction with existence.
The First Exploration:
Building a Theological Cosmology
Question 1: What is Reality?
We will begin our exploration, literally, from the atomic level. Before we can get into scientific evidences and explorations, we must begin with a shared reality. Philosophy teaches us to question reality, and, certainly, on a quantum level we can get lost in the weeds of much circular thinking.
But this paper seeks to steer clear of getting nowhere. In fact, the “story” we are about to uncover is very linear. The mathematician, Euclid, gave us a wonderful framework for reaching probable truths in the form of “if/then” reasoning. Much of the logical exploration, herein, will follow this Euclidean model.
As such, we begin our line of logic with a simple statement.
If we are to define what is in reality, then we must first agree on what we believe is real.
Philosophers have posited roots that have grown mythologies like “The Matrix”, “Dark City” and a wealth of other sci-fi offerings that theorize a rabbit hole of abstract realities.
But, let us take the Cartesian approach to define reality.
1) I think, therefore I am
2) You think in ways that I could neither predict nor fully imagine. Therefore, you are beyond my mental construct. Simply put, you think. Therefore, you are.
While we see and experience life from different perspectives and interpret reality with different understandings, we can agree on sharing some sensory input. In other words, our shared perceptions of what “is” based on sensory input agrees upon a quantifiable reality.
3) What “is” is universally scientifically observable or can be inferred based on what can be observed.
If I am, you are, and it is, then we can agree that reality is that which can be experienced, observed, or inferred through consistent and repeatable interaction with existence. That can be what we observe and experience now, or how those experiences and observations point to a past that is most likely to have occurred.
Answering the first question, “What is real,” leads us to the second question.
Question 2: “What exists?”
For that we look to what is observable at the moment. We can agree on certain aspects of reality.
1) We exist
2) Our world exists
3) The observable universe exists
4) The passage of time is observable and ongoing
If we are able to define the “what” of existence, then our next task is to posit the “how”.
Question 3: How did what exists come into reality?
This question opens up a very nuanced door of logic. In my mind, the “what” is intrinsically tied to the “why”.
The truth is, we and our universe are, as we understand it, unnecessary. We have no intrinsic cosmic value by simply existing without a key essential element that we will uncover soon. Certainly there are symbiotic relationships. If one part of nature did not exist, contingent parts of nature would consequently not exist.
The cycle of life and the complex interplay between one life form and others is readily evident.
However this still begs the question, “Why is our reality something instead of nothing?”
We are not essential. Our reality does not need to be here in any currently observable way.
According to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, things that exist must have an explanation for their existence.
There is always a combined explanation resultant from the “what” and the “why” of a thing because, as we can observe, reality and everything we can observe in this reality are neither randomly generated nor are they arbitrary. The fact that things are ordered and show evidence of design will come into play in a bit.
Looking at things like the cycle of life, the food chain, the Fibonacci sequence, and other patterns of order in nature, it becomes an unavoidable probability that our reality is the result of an intelligently designed event that began our spacetime.
Therefore, our existence was either the choice of an outside agent or is, though an unlikely scenario, a completely random evolutionary result of an arbitrary primordial action.
Either option implies a foundational logical conclusion:
Our reality began.
Now, in order to move forward with this foundational assumption, we must test this claim from a scientifically observable perspective.
Did our Spacetime begin? Or has it always simply been?
In other words, is our reality infinite, or finite?
Is there support for infinite regression?
I will not pretend to be a scientist. However, I am fascinated by cosmology and the workings of the universe.
Let’s take a break to remember King David’s perspective. In fact, take a moment to sit with Marty Goetz’ song based on Psalm 8.
Read the Psalm and let me share a personal experience.
In 2003, my wife and I joined the Young Messianic Jewish Alliance on their first ministry trip to Israel.
It was a life changing time! Three weeks traveling the land with a small group of young adults taking in the sights, serving the people, and experiencing encounters with God in rich and unique ways.
One night, we spent the night in a Bedouin tent compound in the dark of the Negev desert. We went out that night with Messianic Pastor Ofer Amitai away from the camp and into the cool air of the desert devoid of light pollution.
At a certain point, we gathered as Ofer read to us from Genesis 12. As he read that God told Abraham to look up and attempt to count the stars, we turned off our flashlights and stared up into the clear night sky. I had never seen so many stars. I had never seen the cloudy band of the Milky Way.
Wonder.
Pure wonder.
I felt simultaneously so small, and strangely significant. The God Who created and established the heavens knew the number of hairs on my head. Had spoken specific words to me that had dramatically changed the direction of my life.
“What is man that You are mindful of him? The son of man that You visit Him?”
Psalm 8:5
The cosmos is so immeasurably vast and complex. And yet, this God that I believe exists cares about you and me.
Let’s look at a line of logic that not only necessitates His existence, but that He is sovereign, personal, and good.
Question 4:
Did Spacetime begin?
Here we begin to dig into some evidence. The trick is, get the evidence you need to form a cosmic worldview without falling down rabbit holes.
Theology should be concrete but manageable. Basic truth should be attainable in a few sentences.
The evidence would say that spacetime has a beginning.
My belief in an intelligent, loving, and good Creator who exists outside of our spacetime can be derived from that point alone through a very simple line of logic.
However, it is good to have support for such a claim.
Without getting into the calculated age of the universe, we can surmise that the universe has a finite age.
Because this is an exercise in logic, based on science, but not a science textbook, we will not explore the details of said science.
Scientists base the age of what can be measured by a consistent unit of measure. Earth, moon rocks, and meteorites are all measured using radiometric dating. Now, most scientists would say that the measured decay of radioactive isotopes in terrestrial and extraterrestrial objects point to a creation that occurred about 4.5 billion years ago. I will not argue the accuracy of these readings. What I will say is that they all point to a common age.
Simply put, based on radiometric dating, the “stuff” that we can measure in the observable universe had a “birthday”.
Another piece of evidence for a finite universe is the observations that the universe is expanding.
With a similar posture, I will simply point out that Edwin Hubble observed what many scientists have confirmed. The objects in observable space are moving away from us and are doing so at an accelerated rate.
Spacetime is expanding in all directions.
If the universe is expanding, then infinite regression is mathematically impossible.
The second law of thermodynamics says that things move from order to disorder and that energy runs out.
If spacetime allowed for infinite regression, energy would already be spent and order would no longer be observable.
Simply put, spacetime grew out of or expanded from a condition much like a singularity. At some point in the cosmic past, the universe was not. Space and time were not.
Then they were.
Now, we can explore another line of evidence for a finite universe in the abundance of light elements.
But the evidence for the expansion of the universe is enough to build a logical framework in favor of the existence of a creator.
Let us follow that line of logic.
We have already established that the universe does, in fact, exist. Now, we have laid out evidence for an expanding spacetime.
If the universe is expanding, then, logically and mathematically, it had a point of origin. In fact, we can infer that the universe itself was brought into being by a cataclysmic event. Scientists call this event the Big Bang.
Therefore, since the universe had a beginning, we can also infer, based on Newton’s first law and the Principle of Sufficient Reason, that it was caused.
If spacetime was caused, then one of two things must be true. Either it simply sprang into existence from nothing, which goes against all mathematical calculations and scientific patterns, or a catalyst exists outside of the four dimensions in which we operate.
Based on the second law of thermodynamics, we can deduce that, not only was there a state of origin, but that it was both compact and ordered. Therefore, we can rule out the possibility that an ordered spacetime went against the laws and patterns of nature springing into existence from nothing.
Left, then with the most likely option of an extra-dimensional cause, we ask our next question on this trail of logic.
The Second Exploration: A Creator
Question 5:
What Created our Spacetime?
Let us look at the necessary attributes of this external force that brought our spacetime into existence.
The attributes must be as follows:
1) The creator is extra-dimensional.
2) The creator is a sentient agent.
3) The creator is intelligent.
4) The creator has desire.
5) The creator is in order and therefore “good”.
These are bold claims that require support. Let’s unpack them enough to give them credence.
1) The creator is extra-dimensional.
A catalyst that created our spacetime is necessarily not bound by either space or time. Therefore, such a creator must exist outside of space and time. It operates outside the boundaries of our four operable dimensions.
2) The creator is sentient
The following points are predicated by the simple fact that the catalyst behind our spacetime cannot be a mechanical cause. Personhood is inherent because of the following points.
3) The creator is intelligent.
Order simply cannot come from chaos. Whether you use the watchmaker analogy or the quantifiable laws of entropy, it is clear that the universe began in a state of absolute order. The teleological argument points to the fine-tuning of creation and measures the incalculable probability against an ordered creation coming together by sheer happenstance.
The function of the eye, the design of a flower or butterfly’s wings are all evidence of intelligent design. The universe was clearly planned. Plans do not arise from disorder.
4) The creator must have desire.
As stated before, our universe is unnecessary inasmuch as we can ascertain. The only reason that something exists instead of nothing is that a being chose to create our spacetime. And choice implies desire. The being that created us did so because it wanted us to exist, and, as evidenced by the previous truth, wanted that existing reality to have specific elements and characteristics.
The Third Exploration: Goodness
5) The creator is in order/good.
This one seems subjective at first, but is actually quite logical.
A corrupt actor will perpetuate corruption. That is in line with Newton’s law of inertia. Things will keep doing what they are doing unless acted upon by an external force. Corruption breeds corruption. A flawed creator breeds a flawed system.
The universe was dense and ordered at its creation. If we go with the biblical narrative, it was “good”.
Philosophers have argued goodness for millennia.
I postulate that there are two types of goodness.
The first type of goodness is intrinsic in an ordered creation. We have already established that the universe was designed. Therefore, this intrinsic goodness is simply the correct operation of that initial design. God saw the things He created in Genesis 1 and determined that they were good. Intrinsically good. He designed them and they operated correctly.
This goodness was in line with the laws of nature. Only a creator that exhibits order could express perfect order. Good breeds good.
The second type of goodness is subjective. Moral goodness is determined by the designer of morality.
God called Adam “very good”.
Was this the first instance of determined subjective goodness? We cannot know. Was God describing function and subjective goodness?
The problem most people have with “evil” is a problem of misalignment.
If creation does not function as it should, that is inherently not “good”.
Further, if something is misaligned with the Creator’s definition of goodness, (ie. Keeping a certain day holy or eating certain foods, etc.) then it is not “good”.
In either case, intrinsic or subjective, goodness is an act of alignment with the design of a Creator we have determined to exist.
Furthermore, only an agent with a moral compass could risk uncertainty in a well-ordered system. Creating something and then relinquishing control of the permutational effects of tha creation’s actions is a risky venture. However, the creator of our spacetime added the potential for that creation’s undoing by giving its creation freewill.
Why would an agent of order allow chaos? One of two things must then be true.
Either, this Creator seeks to corrupt His order, which would be a paradoxical act of a corrupt Creator, or, He seeks the perfection of His creation via that creation’s choice to accept design.
A good or “in order” Creator cannot choose corruption. Therefore, He, an agent with desire, must have instituted freewill for our betterment. Thus, supporting the idea that He is in fact good.
At the end of our cosmology, we conclude that the expanding universe was created by a sentient, intelligent being who exists outside of our spacetime and desires a reciprocal relationship with its creation.
Let me say this simply, Euclidean and Cartesian logic based on observable science postulates that it is more probable that a being that we call God exists than that He does not. Furthermore, the fact that He is “in order” and allows me to choose this or that course of action supports the most probable conclusion that He is good.
If He is this good God, and I have choice and have proven to be a subset of the creation that chooses to go against design. And, if my choice effects creation like the hypothetical butterfly flapping its wings in Peking and a resultant storm in Kansas, then the problem of evil is not God’s “problem” but a sign of the intrinsic goodness of His design and moral goodness of allowing us choice.
The problem of evil is not God’s responsibility. It is the consequence of our stewardship of freewill. We, moment by moment, go against design. Most of my actions could be said to be another brick in the Tower of Babel. This is no fault of a proven good Creator. It is the fault of creation.
“Without freedom, both the possibilities for people to love and to destroy would be eliminated. The problem of evil is the problem of freedom. God is Love incarnate (1), and despite the high amount of choice that He allows, He also is bursting to lavish His Love not merely on the perfect, which existed solely in Christ, but on the imperfect who could never deserve it by virtue of their imperfection (2). He does not completely shield the more deserving, not even the sole perfect One in all of human history, from destruction, yet He loves to redeem and restore, even through death at times as with His only begotten Son (3).”
-Adam B Garrett
“Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself.”
C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
Now, while evil is neither an action of the Creator nor is it an inaction or neglect, such a stance is not helpful in ministering to individuals dealing with the painful consequences of evil. How then can we minister to the hurting within our congregations?
Famous atheist and former theologian, Bart Ehrman, in a debate with Dr. Michael Brown said something profound when asked how he answers the problem of pain. His answer is to sit in the pain with the individual. If an atheist can “minister” in such a simply profound way, isn’t that a good place for the believer to begin?
Oft times, when confronted with questions of theology, it is best to look for the true struggle in the person asking the hard question. Instead of providing the easily derived theological answer, the true congregational shepherd will look past the theology to the actual need being expressed.
In loss, in financial difficulty, in physical ailments, the true question being posed is, “Where is God, and does He care?”
The answer to the problem of pain is to extend hope and love. Hope is found in the redemption of the loving savior of a broken world. And that hope is here and now.
Why do bad things happen? Because we live in a broken system. But, hope is here and a new Heaven and a new earth are on the horizon. Is God absent or impotent in my pain? Far be it! He is present and enabling you to walk through the consequences of a broken world until all things will be made new.
At the end of logic is ministry with hope. Because these axioms and deductions are true, I can hold out hope to the hurting. There is a God. He is good. And He cares for you.