This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1997 Gregory Koukl
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd Street, Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON • (562) 595-7333 •
www.str.orgThat argument, whomever has authored it, and those that support it, to you I say; you are talking in circles and contradicting the law of squares. Haven't you heard of circles having "square" members? Surely you must, as you are a member of such a circle. A globe, a perfect one, encompasses all other geometrical figures, therefore, even a square. Imagine the earth, a globe, although not entirely perfect, and for this very reason, contains squares like you.
Let us address this: "The deductive problem of evil is like that. If God were all good, the argument goes, He would want to get rid of evil. If God were all powerful, He'd be able to get rid of evil. Since we still have evil, then God either is not good or not powerful, or neither, but He can't be both." Just what kind of nonsense is this?
This kind, as Gregory tells it: "Here's how the objection is usually stated: If God were all good, as you say, He would want to deal with the problem of evil. And if God were all powerful, as you say, then He would be able to deal with the problem of evil. Obviously, evil exists, therefore He is either not all good or He is not all powerful, or maybe He is neither. In any case, the presence of evil in the world is disproof of the Christian view of God. See how that argument works? It is called a defeater. This particular observation of an apparent contradiction defeats the Christian's viewpoint of God."
Further, our dear Gregory stands to reason and ends it this way: "What's neat about the Christian point of view, is that God was capable of doing the good thing and creating morally free creatures that did go bad and still cleaning up the mess that they created in such a way that greater good results. Now that's the result of a Master mind.
Socrates already did the work for us. This Gregory Koukl is a thief and simple plagiarist. One has to only go to Plato for any "stand to reason," deduction or induction, just as St. Augustine did.
Who, what and why are any of you fighting for? First, anyone has a right to believe anything they want, as long as it does not infringe on someone's else belief. It seems futile that our circle of Atlantis online should be disputing whether God exists or not, when something much, much more provable is still left open! Does Atlantis exist? God has no heavenly nor earthly enemies. There has never been a certain Lucifer that has challenged God's omnipotence, nor omniscience. Those are only tales to frighten the "children." God has no need of any puny humans to prove His existence, nor does he seek approval from atheists. If our own existence, as "intelligent" beings, does not bring home the message, nor Socrates' reasoning, then we are all "squares" in a circle of elite thinkers.
Neither, if we mean our future guardians to regard the habit of quarrelling among themselves as
of all things the basest, should any word be said to them of the wars in heaven, and of the plots and fightings of the gods against one another, for they are not true. No, we shall never mention the battles of the giants, or let them be embroidered on garments; and we shall be silent about the innumerable other quarrels of gods and heroes with their friends and relatives. If they would only believe us we would tell them that quarrelling is unholy, and that never up to this time has there been any, quarrel between citizens; this is what old men and old women should begin by telling children; and when they grow up, the poets also should be told to compose for them in a similar spirit. But the narrative of Hephaestus binding Here his mother, or how on another occasion Zeus sent him flying for taking her part when she was being beaten, and all the battles of the gods in Homer --these tales must not be admitted into our State, whether they are supposed to have an allegorical meaning or not. For a young person cannot judge what is allegorical and what is literal; anything that he receives into his mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable; and therefore it is most important that the tales which the young first hear should be models of virtuous thoughts.
There you are right, he replied; but if anyone asks where are such models to be found and of what tales are you speaking --how shall we answer him?
I said to him, You and I, Adeimantus, at this moment are not poets, but founders of a State: now the founders of a State ought to know the general forms in which poets should cast their tales, and the limits which must be observed by them, but to make the tales is not their business.
Very true, he said; but what are these forms of theology which you mean?
Something of this kind, I replied: --God is always to be represented as he truly is, whatever be the sort of poetry, epic, lyric or tragic, in which the representation is given.
Right.
And is he not truly good? and must he not be represented as such?
Certainly.
And no good thing is hurtful?
No, indeed.
And that which is not hurtful hurts not?
Certainly not.
And that which hurts not does no evil?
No.
And can that which does no evil be a cause of evil?
Impossible.
And the good is advantageous?
Yes.
And therefore the cause of well-being?
Yes.
It follows therefore that the good is not the cause of all things, but of the good only?
Assuredly.
Then God, if he be good, is not the author of all things, as the many assert, but he is the cause of a few things only, and not of most things that occur to men. For few are the goods of human life, and many are the evils, and the good is to be attributed to God alone; of the evils the causes are to be sought elsewhere, and not in him.
Throughout Plato's work one finds this, and it is beautifully, and simply put in the form of a myth at the end of the Republic, much like a parable. The shapes of Atlantis; circles, squares, rectangles, ratios, etc.
Why would any of you be discussing abstract mathematics (God) when you haven't even learned the multiplication table (Atlantis)? Besides, the problem you have is rather reversed. It's not that science proves that God does not exist, but it is that science
can prove the existence of God. Inductive and deductive working together "in" "de" end. Prove Atlantis, and as bonus, find God.
And thus, Glaucon, the tale has been saved and has not perished, and will save us if we are obedient to the word spoken; and we shall pass safely over the river of Forgetfulness and our soul will not be defiled. Wherefore my counsel is that we hold fast ever to the heavenly way and follow after justice and virtue always, considering that
the soul is immortal and able to endure every sort of good and every sort of evil. Thus shall we live dear to one another and to the gods, both while remaining here and when, like conquerors in the games who go round to gather gifts, we receive our reward. And it shall be well with us both in this life and in the pilgrimage of a thousand years which we have been describing.
