Why Is There Pain?

04/07/2023
Main Page

If There Is A God, Why Are Humans Susceptible To Disease And Injury?

Something I have been contemplating fairly recently is: If there is a God, why is it that the human body is hurt or sickened by disease? Wouldn’t an all-powerful, and all-good God want to create the human body as being indestructible or impervious to disease and injury? The question is interesting to me because it deals so closely to the human condition. It is true that humans deal with sickness and injury often.

 

There are a number of ways To respond to this objection, but I am going to offer just one that I think is a strong defense. To set up the objection, I will offer a charitable case of the argument as follows:

 

Premise

  1. 1. If God is all good, and all powerful, then He would want to create creatures that are impervious to disease or injury, and would have the power to do so.
  2. 2. According to the Christian faith, God is all good, and all-powerful.
  3.  

Argument

  1. 3. Thus, God would want to create a creature that is impervious to disease or injury, and has the power to do so.
  2. 4. So from 1-3, If an all-good, and all-powerful God exists, then the humans He created should be impervious to disease or injury.
  3. 5. But, humans are not impervious to disease or injury.

 

Conclusion

  1. 6. Thus, God (who is all-good, and all-powerful) does not exist.
  2.  

This argument is logically valid, that is, the conclusion follows logically from the premises. So then how could a Christian apologist show that this argument fails? To falsify a sound argument, you would need to show that one or more of the premises are false. Thus making the argument unsound. So, do we have reason to object to any of these premises? Take the first premise: is it necessarily true that given God’s all-powerful, and all-good nature He would and could create humans to be impervious to disease and injury?

But Is That True?

I don’t think this is true.

 

Here's why: If God is an all-good God, He would want what is best for humanity. If what is best for humanity, according to an all good God, is for humans to enjoy a peaceful everlasting life, filled with love and meaning, then God would want that for humanity, even if that comes with imperfect health. This suggests that God logically must provide a way for humans to engage freely into a loving relationship with Himself, or he would not be all-good. However, God is all-good and morally perfect by definition.

 

Okay, so now suppose that God created human beings impervious to disease or injury. We as humans would not need any saving at that point. In essence we would be our own providers, rulers, and maybe even gods ourselves. Humans would feel no need to enter freely into a relationship with God; after all, they are basically gods and don’t need any help from anyone else. If this were to be the case, then humans would not have a way to enter into a relationship with God because they would be blinded by their own perfection, thus, they would not be able to reach what is best for humanity according to God.

 

God, logically, can’t NOT provide a way to give humanity an opportunity to attain what is best for humanity because he is all-good, and that is exactly what would happen if humans were impervious to disease or injury, therefore, God can’t, logically, create humans impervious to disease or injury. It is impossible.

 

Since the first premise in the original argument is false, it makes the whole argument reliant on a faulty premise which makes the argument unsound.

Want More Like This? Check out our Podcast!