DO SUFFERING CHILDREN PROVE THAT THERE IS NO GOD?

Probably the most common objection, by far, against believing in God amongst atheists, skeptics, naturalists, and non-Christians is, “If there really is a God, then why is there so much suffering in the world?”

 

But the purpose of this article is not to specifically answer the question of why evil exists.  There are many great articles that address this topic elsewhere.  Here are links to a couple of them, one by author (and former atheist) Lee Strobel:

http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/162215-lee-strobel-why-does-god-allow-tragedy-and-suffering.html

And one by pastor, author, and apologist Charlie H. Campbell:

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php/evil-and-suffering/181

But today, our focus is mainly on the argument that says:

Since evil is present in this world (especially the suffering of innocent little children) then God must not exist.

To elaborate, many atheists and skeptics will use this type of argument as an excuse for not believing in God, as stated earlier.  They’ll say, “Why is there senseless suffering, especially of innocent children, in this world?  It is inconsistent for a God who is both all-powerful and compassionate to allow such tragedy.  If He is able to stop it, why wouldn’t He?  Apparently, He really must not care.  If He really has the power to do it, then He is obligated; He MUST stop children from suffering to be consistent with what the Bible claims about Him (that He is compassionate), otherwise, He just cannot exist.”

 

But this is a false dilemma.  You can’t erase God’s existence or override His wisdom and timing with these emotional arguments.  And you can’t say that there is no God just because He does not act like you feel He should act. 

 

First, God is able to turn all bad things into something good (Romans 8:28).  Second, God never promised that anyone (even the innocent) would be immune from suffering in this life.  Third, simply having the ability to do something does not logically obligate Him to do that particular thing.  If He wanted, God could make every person on the planet very, very rich.  But just because He can doesn’t mean that it would be wise to do so.

Look, if there is indeed a biblical God (and there is), then by definition:

·      He created us.

·      He is sovereign and in authority.

·      He is far stronger and wiser than we are.

·      The right to establish the rules belongs to Him, and Him alone.

·      We don’t have the right to tell Him what to do or how to run this world.

·      Since we are finite / limited, we should expect that He would do some things that we don’t understand.

These are simply things that define who the Christian God is, but atheists are trying to re-define Him by saying that, if He would exist, He should be subject to man’s demands. 

Real Concern for the Children?

It seems that the only time that atheists become vocal about suffering children is when someone mentions God.  Are they really as concerned as they say they are, or are they just using the children to attack the concept of God?  But if there is no biblical God to blame, then who will the atheist blame for the suffering children?  Would he be so quick to condemn his own “god” of evolution?  Would he DEMAND that science immediately fix the problem of suffering, as he would demand of the Christian God?  Or would he just say, “Oh, well, suffering is just part of life”?

And, instead of blaming God, why not blame the corrupt politicians who often cause the famine and devastation of countries and people, primarily because of mismanagement and / or stealing of funds that were sent to relieve the hunger and sickness?

Sawing off the Branch You’re Sitting on…

 

Atheists will also say that if God is compassionate, then why does He not remove evil completely?  Actually, He WILL do it.  But it’ll be in His timing and on His terms.  And again, He is under no obligation to erase suffering and evil when we want it done.  Man is often impatient and we don’t see the things that are being done “behind the scenes” by God.  But, like any good parent, God just wants us to trust Him. (Genesis 18:25)

But do we really want God to put an end to all suffering?  If so, then He must put an end to its cause, as well.  But remember, every one of us has, to some extent, contributed to the cause of someone’s suffering!  So, God would have to destroy us all if we insist on getting rid of suffering (and whatever causes it).  So, be careful what you ask for.

In the Beginning

Atheists may ask, “But if God exists, why didn’t He merely create a world where suffering and tragedy don’t exist in the first place?”  Actually, the fact is that He did just that in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1:31)! 

 

God didn’t create evil.  What He created was perfect.  But in order for love to be genuine and freely given (He didn’t want robots), He gave man and the angels free will.  They had the ability to freely choose either good or evil.  And this free will was abused by both angels and men, twisting goodness into evil, through their sin and disobedience.  In a nutshell, this is why there is suffering in our world, even today. 

An Argument that Backfires

We all agree that evil exists in this world, but you know, the very fact that we designate something as “evil” is strong evidence FOR the existence of God!  Though many may not realize it, calling something good or evil is an appeal to an objective (or absolute) standard of morality.  It points to a standard that is transcendent (above and beyond the limits of man and this world).  In atheism, “good” and “evil” can only be relative terms.   What is “right” for one atheist may be wrong for another atheist.  One atheist might consider a certain act wicked, while another thinks it is totally acceptable.  For the atheist, there are no moral absolutes, and without that absolute standard (God), the atheist cannot say with confidence that anything is actually “good” or “bad.” 

Conclusion

We believe that even if God decided to heal every single suffering child in the world, many atheists would be quick to attribute that miracle to something else, something other than God.  They would simply find another reason to continue to disbelieve in God’s existence.  Those same atheists may want to end the suffering of children, but what they want even more is to have reasons NOT to believe in God and be accountable to Him.

It is an unfortunate fact that we have suffering children in our world.  Sometimes the suffering may seem absolutely pointless, but rest assured that there is a God, and that He has morally sufficient reasons to allow this suffering, for the children’s sake, and for the sake of those directly affected.  Man’s ultimate purpose in this life is not mere “happiness,” but it is to know God intimately.  Only when we come to realize this does the “senseless suffering” make sense.  Eternal bliss awaits those innocent children, and anyone else who puts their trust in the person and work of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.  That even includes the atheist.

In summary, the fact that children suffer on earth certainly does not prove that there is no God.

THE ULTIMATE FUTILITY OF LIFE IN ATHEISM

Imagine a child whose parents tell him that he is absolutely useless and that no one wants him.  That would certainly be devastating for any child.  Many would call that the worst form of verbal abuse.  But why?  What is it about this scenario that we find so disturbing?  The reason is because we all crave meaning in our lives.  Every person (child or adult) wants to know that he has a purpose in life, that he has value as a human being. No one can deny the need for a sense of meaning and purpose in each person’s life, because without it, tragically, some are even willing to take their own lives.  And our awareness of that meaning and purpose is inherent.  It’s just built into our nature.  It is just as real and just as ingrained in us as the instinct to survive and the need to reproduce.  And if it’s built into our nature, then we have to wonder how it got there.

So, where did we get this sense of purpose, value and meaning in life?  Christians (and even many non-Christians) believe that this comes from God.  Naturally, atheists would disagree.  As far as we are aware, atheists and materialists don’t deny the existence of these concepts, but they will say that these traits came to us through evolution.  Supposedly, our sense of purpose has evolved in us over millions of years through an accident of chance, through random natural processes and mindless, chaotic matter somehow coming together and forming the incredibly complex creatures that we are.  No order, no design.  So, are we to assume that that which is purposeless has caused a sense of purpose in us?  Interesting.

According to scientists, the universe is ever expanding, and the final result is that it grows colder and colder until its energy is used up.  Eventually, all living things will die and even the universe itself will come to naught.  There will be no heat, no light, and no life of any kind.  If that’s all there is, then there will be nothing left to hope for, nothing to look forward to.  If atheism is true, all our lives will have been in vain, with no one left to remember any of it.  Nothing has made a difference, since we all end up the same way.  In the end, it doesn’t matter whether we ever existed or not.  Think about that.  Ultimately, all life will have been rendered insignificant. 

 

According to author, philosopher, theologian and scholar William Lane Craig, in an article titled, “The Absurdity of Life without God,” he says of humans [if atheism is true]:

“The same blind cosmic process that coughed them up in the first place will eventually swallow them all again.”

And a little farther on, he states:

“If God does not exist, then you are just a miscarriage of nature, thrust into a purposeless universe to live a purposeless life.”

Consider the doctor who helps to heal and save the lives of thousands… the scientist who studies the laws of nature, the soldiers and law enforcement heroes who protect our land… the heroic firemen who daily save lives and property… if atheism is true, then ultimately none of these people matter.  And since we are merely a by-product of random matter and blind chance, then, in the end, all of us are nothing more than a blip on the radar screen of time.  The life of a gnat would have been just as important as that of a human, since we are all random accidents anyway, and we all end in death.  If there is no final punishment for evil, nor any final reward for good, then man has no ultimate meaning.

 

Yes, atheism paints an awfully bleak picture.  But the atheist might object and say, “But we DO have purpose and meaning in our lives!  We have family, friends, work, etc.  It’s just that our purpose is in this life, not in some illusion of an afterlife.”  But if there is no afterlife, and if all meaning and purpose is confined to this life alone, then where is life’s meaning for the aborted baby, the stillborn, or the severely handicapped?  Where is their purpose?  If life does not have lasting or continual meaning after death, then whatever “meaning” it was thought to have is insignificant and will be swallowed up in the darkness of an empty eternity.

 

The point here is that we are all innately aware that our lives are designed to have meaning, but atheism does not give us ultimate meaning.  So, it therefore goes against our very nature.  On the other hand, Christianity confirms that the meaning and purpose that each person senses is indeed correct.  And the God of the Bible, the God of Christianity, offers everyone (including the atheist) the gift of eternal life.  In Him we have ultimate meaning and significance.  We just need to trust and accept Him.

The author of the book of Ecclesiastes strongly expresses the vanity, the futility, of a purely secular or materialistic life:  Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2)  Without God, life is ultimately meaningless.

As far as the atheist, if he is honest with himself, he has to admit that life just doesn’t make sense in his worldview.  We’re not saying that atheists are always bad people or that they can’t have morals; we’re saying that they’re living a lie.  Because every person knows, deep down inside, that God exists.  No one has an excuse:

For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20 - NASV)

See also William Lane Craig’s powerful article (mentioned above) here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god

IS BAPTISM A WORK?

It is the belief of many Protestants that a person is only saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, i.e., by the work that He has done on the cross, apart from any works that the person can do.  This is indeed the biblical model (Romans 3:28; 4:4-6; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5, etc.)

But some groups, while maintaining that man is saved apart from his works, will nevertheless still hold to the idea that water baptism saves.  But this causes a problem.  You can’t say that we are not saved by works, and then turn around and say that we are saved by baptism, since baptism is a work.  The logic just doesn’t follow.  If we are not saved by works, then baptism cannot save us.  It is very simple. 

 

However, they will try to get around this by saying that baptism is NOT A WORK, thus trying to escape an obvious dilemma that they have created for themselves.  But any physical act or ritual is a work.  And water baptism certainly falls into this category.  But some will argue that baptism is not a work because it is “passive,” i.e., it is something that you let someone else do to you, so you are not working.

Well, if being passive disqualifies water baptism from being a work, then it would also disqualify circumcision from being a work, since this also is something that you let someone else do to you, as well.  And no one can argue that circumcision is not a work of the law. (Romans 2:25; 3:28-30; 4:1-10)

Furthermore, would anyone dare say that Jesus’ suffering on the cross was NOT a work?  (John 4:34)  But wasn’t His suffering also passive?  Wasn’t it something that He specifically allowed them to do to Him? (Isaiah 50:6; 53:7; Matthew 26:51-53; John 10:17-18)  Absolutely!  So, even things that are considered to be passive can be a work.  And such is baptism.  So, the “passive” argument fails.

It is our experience in discussions with those claiming that baptism is not a work, that they always seem to eventually drift toward James chapter 2 (all about Christian works), because they KNOW that baptism is a work!

All right, so some may be saying at this point, “Ok, ok, so maybe baptism is a work… but it’s a ‘work of God,’ not a work of man, therefore, it saves.”

Our response would be that it is true that God ordained baptism, but 1) it is still a ritual (work) that man performs, and 2) We must understand that God has many different kinds of works.  For example, Creation is a work of God (Psalm 19:1), but Creation does not save the soul.  Balaam’s donkey speaking was an act / work of God (Numbers 22:28-30), but it saved no one.  Many works of God are acts of violence, destruction, or punishment (e.g., Revelation 16), but they do not save.  All these things can be used by God to cause obedience, give direction, to spare lives, etc., but none of these events directly saved the soul of anyone.  So, just because something is a work of God does not necessarily mean that it saves.  The conduit that God has specifically assigned for salvation of souls is FAITH.  Faith (not baptism) is the access point of salvation (Romans 5:2). 

   

Usually the last desperate attempt to prove this “baptism is not a work, therefore it saves” argument is an appeal to John 6:28-29:

28) They said therefore to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”

29) Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” (NASV)

And they’ll say, “You see!  Jesus said that even believing is a work, therefore, works can save!”

Strangely enough, these people start off by saying that works do not save, although, they believe that baptism does.  Then they go from trying to prove baptism is not a work, to saying, “Well, it really is a work, but Jesus tells us that another work (believing) can save… therefore, works do save, after all.”

Obviously, these people have some confusion issues.  Anyway, in John 6, Jesus is not officially classifying belief or faith as an actual work, or He’d be contradicting His own Word (Romans 11:6).  He was saying this for effect.  Basically, He was telling this works-minded group, “You want to be saved by your works?  Ok, here is your so-called ‘work’ that you need for eternal life.  It’s BELIEVING in Me!  There’s your ‘work’!”

 

And this same Jesus, through the writings of the apostle Paul, emphasizes over and over that salvation is not earned, but is a gift.  It is by grace, obtained THROUGH FAITH.  Paul makes a clear distinction between the gift and the work:

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. (Romans 11:6 - NASV)

So, those who claim that works don’t save us, yet, baptism does, are simply playing word games.

To clarify one last time, the biblical pattern is:

1)   Baptism is a work

2)   Works don’t save us

3)   Therefore, baptism does not save

It can’t get any simpler than this.  

See also:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/05/on-baptism-part-1-few-basics.html