I would say he allows evil. Maybe you have heard of the book of Job.
1 Like
That brings us to Epicurus (since Greek philosophers were mentioned earlier):
If there is no providence and things happen by chance we would expect people to get really lucky at times, and also have some really bad luck, wouldnât we?
This part of we believes in Godâs providence and luck is not in his working vocabulary, so it is a nonsense question.
You criticized atheists for not even considering that good luck is some sort of providence, but in reality you wonât even consider that it is just luck. Interesting.
It was not so much a criticism as a statement of fact about reality. I would suggest doing a little reading about George MĂźller (variable spelling 
). His whole purpose in life was to demonstrate Godâs providence for his child (i.e., MĂźller himself), and he did it by providing for children, among other things.
That I got kidney cancer was bad luck? I donât think so.
I have posted this on PS before, I believe:
The underlying issue would seem to be that oneâs âluckâ (ie Epicurean chance) has to explain not just the favourably fortuitous, but the existence of everything, including people sufficiently discerning to appreciate providence as luck, or vice versa.
Incidentally, one set of replies to the Epicurean syllogisms here. Implicit in the replies is the realisation that everything one uses to validate Epicurus - logic, definitions, moral absolutes, etc, have themselves also to be accounted for by chance:
The problems with Epicurusâ statements are as follows.
Evil is not defined. Therefore, the assessment of the statements cannot be validated.
If evil were defined, what would justify the definition as being the right one?
Epicurus presupposes a moral absolute that if God can prevent evil, then he should. But how is such a moral absolute justified as being true?
4.The problem of how much evil (all, most, some) ought to be prevented is not addressed.
5.The problem of preventing evil thoughts and intentions with its implication of denying free will is also not addressed.
2 Likes
Then what would you classify as bad luck?
Was the significant bleed and kidney cancer also Godâs providence?
There are also natural laws.
Chance and natural laws.
You neglect to recall that that is not in my vocabulary. There is no such thing.
Absolutely.
So you wonât even consider it?
So you believe that God makes people sick?
Why should I consider nonsense?
What he allows for his children is always ultimately good, even if it is sometimes hard. That is why I am boasting (my Father wants me to be proud of him, and I am):
Blessings - Laura Story)No - you donât get away with assuming creation for free. You have also to explain the orderliness of the laws by Epicurean chance.
3 Likes
Steve Saint even says âGod killed my fatherâ. Iâve heard him say it in person, and I donât recall if he said it in his book about it, The Tip of the Spear, but he apparently says it here, as reported by John Piper here, but thereâs a paywall.
None of the people involved would accuse God of wrongdoing, especially in light of the end result, nor did Job, even early in his suffering (cf. the last verse).
It is interesting that you will chide atheists for not even considering providence, yet proudly refuse to consider any other position but your own.
Children dying of painful diseases is good? What would you consider to be not good?
1 Like
I am not assuming creation for free. I am observing the existence of natural laws.
And you have to explain how Epicurean chance provides them.
All I have to do is show that they exist.
Your ontology is lacking.
A narcissistic humanism that declares that man is the measure of all things.