#STRask - Why Did God Go Ahead with Creation If He Knew About All the Suffering That Was Going to Happen?

Episode Date: October 12, 2026

Questions about why God went ahead with creation if he knew about all the suffering that was going to happen, why Christians say God is responsible for all the good that happens but not the bad, and whether there’s a more satisfying answer to the problem of evil.   How should I respond to a Buddhist who asks why God went ahead with creation if he knew about all the suffering that was going to happen? Why do Christians say everything good that happens is from God but he’s not responsible for the bad things? According to the Bible, didn’t God create all things? Why is the problem of evil the biggest issue non-believers seem to have, and is there a more satisfying answer to be had?

Thanks for joining us on hashtag STR Ask. I'm Amy Hall, and I'm here with Greg Kokel. Hi, Amy. And we're going to start today with a question from Scott. I had a Buddhist ask, if God knows everything, did he know about all this suffering that was going to happen? Then why did he go ahead with creation? Well, that's one of the most difficult questions to answer. It's curious coming from a Buddhist, because Buddhism, a lot of people don't realize.

It is a non-theistic religion. There is no God in Buddhism. It's more of a pragmatic thing, and the issue, the central issue of Buddhism is suffering. And then how to avoid suffering. Suffering is based on desire, and if you are able to nullify desire, you will nullify the suffering that results from desire not being fulfilled, something along that line. So I'm not surprised at the question. But because we can't answer a question like this to someone's satisfaction, this does not, in my view, at least, does not in the slightest way undermine the reality of God's existence. It just shows that there is a peculiarity or an unusual element of reality that, or an unusual element of reality, that,

we can't answer. And now, the presumption here, just to make this clear, because when a year ago when I was on the diary of a CEO, Stephen Bartlett's podcast with Alex O'Connor, the atheist, Alex totally denied the existence of morality. He's an atheist, and therefore a moral non-realist. A morality is not real. It's just when we make moral statements, they don't even make any sense on his view. It's called emotivism, and they're just emotional expressions of emotion. That's when we say, like, rape is wrong. All we're going is, oh, rape, well, there's no content there. Okay, but the same guy very aggressively raised the issue of God and suffering in the world. Well, suffering is not a problem unless there's a moral quality to. it. Just like any other human experience, it's not a problem. Just because we don't like it doesn't mean that it's bad in a moral sense, unless, and certainly it can't be bad in a moral sense if there is no morality. So the observation or the complaint or the concern that

is raised about God's existence and suffering is an implicit acknowledgement of moral realism. There is a genuine good and bad, and there can't be a genuine good and bad unless there is a God. Now, this is the moral argument for the existence of God, but I'm going to put it this way, maybe a different term, so people get it. Can you be a law-abiding citizen on an island that nobody owns? There's no country. It's just an island because there are no laws that apply. So you can't be a law-abiding citizen. You can't be a good citizen.

if you can't be a citizen and there is no good in that area because there's no government. In the same way, you can't have bad people and good people in a world that is not governed by laws that make sense of the terms good and evil, and there can't be laws that make sense of the terms good and evil without a lawmaker. And if there's no lawmaker, there's no moral God, then you don't have morality. By the way, even if there is a God whose power of God, who's power of, enough to create everything, and he's not moral, then you still have the same problem. There has to be a God that is the moral standard of the universe for moral statements to make any

sense. So when the Buddhist raises the question, he's raising a question about suffering, and suffering is not good, it's bad morally. It's not just a statement that we don't like it. But there's hidden in there is the presumption that that kind of thing that we don't like shouldn't happen. There's a moral element smuggled in there. And so it is a legitimate question of why God allowed a world in which there is sin and evil and suffering. It is not a legitimate way to disqualify God. Because suffering and evil are not Christian problems. They are human problems. And that means every worldview has got to address that question. So it could be asked of the Buddhist himself.

What do you make of it? In your worldview, how do you account for the suffering that's in the world? What is the purpose of it or what is the reason for it? And what makes suffering bad? Evil, I should put it that way, so there's no confusion with a subject to bad. I don't like it kind of thing. So once again, the Christian does have an obligation to speak to it, but it makes sense within his worldview. It doesn't turn out to be a lethal challenge to his worldview.

However, it does turn out to be a lethal challenge to atheism. If evil is real, therefore morality is real, and therefore there's got to be a God that makes sense of that, grounding that. thing. And if there's no God, there's no grounding, there are no laws, there are no breaking of laws, therefore there's no evil. And this is why people like Alex O'Connor, who are atheists, and consistent and intellectually honest, reject morality. Now, I think he cheated. Then when he started getting into the suffering issue. And I should have pushed back a lot more aggressively on that that I did. I know you deny morality than what's your complaint about suffering? That you don't like it? So what? that other people don't like it. So what? If that's not bad because there's no morality,

then what's the complaint? That's what I should have pushed back on more aggressively than I did. But I just want to put this into perspective. There are some questions we can't answer thoroughly. Theodicy is, or theodices are attempts to kind of make sense of the God's morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering. But those questions are raised within the context of a theistic worldview, and they belong there. They fit there. They're not lethal challenges to a theistic worldview.

But they are lethal challenge to worldviews that don't have objective morality at their core. Atheism is an example. I think any kind of Eastern mysticism, Hinduism, et cetera,

is an example. I'm not sure about Buddhism. I don't know enough about it. But I don't know how they ground the problem of evil that makes suffering bad. So he's got to face the same question.

question that the Christian does? I think it's not surprising that a Buddhist would ask this question because I don't have a lot of knowledge about Buddhism, but just from my very simple knowledge of it, a lot of their practices are focused on ending suffering. That's their goal is to end the suffering. Or avoid it, maybe. Or avoid it, yeah, but yes. So I don't know what they're, I don't, I can't think of all their practices right now,

But so that is not surprising that he would be concerned about this. And if now imagine this. If that is your highest goal, you want to be, you want to reach nirvana, you want to have no suffering, you want to separate yourself from all of the results of suffering or things that will cause you suffering. If that's your greatest goal, then it is kind of confusing. Why would a God who knows everything create a. world where he knows this is going to be created if this is the highest goal is to avoid this. So the greatest good, I guess. Yes, that's the, yeah.

So ultimately, the very simple answer is because there is something greater than avoiding suffering. There is a goal greater than that. And this is just another way of saying God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing the suffering. Now, all Christians believe that God has a morally sufficient reason, although we might disagree on what that morally sufficient reason is. But at root, that is the answer to this question. So I think where I would take a Buddhist at that point is to say, look, what we know, you know, I can give you my thoughts on why I think.

Christians disagree on that. But here's something to show you God's character. Because once we know God's character, then at least we can look at this a little more carefully. We have more confidence that he has a good reason, even though we don't know. Exactly. And so we go to the cross. Of course. Because on the cross, we see everything we need to know to at least know there is an answer,

even if we disagree about what the answer might be. And what we see on the cross, we see a few different things. we see that God is sovereign and wise and knows everything. He brought all of history to this moment that he promised ahead of time, that he predicted and foreshadowed in all these things. And now he's brought the time. Well, actually, with the text as predested in the book of Acts. Yes, yes. But I mean, it wasn't just random.

Sure, that's right. It was God's eternal plan, Ephesians says. So this is his eternal plan. He brought it about. So we know God knows everything. We know God raised Jesus from the dead. So he's all powerful, which means God could have stopped anything. We know that God is loving because he gave his only son to die for the sins of his enemies. We know that he loved. That kind of love is something beyond anything we've ever had for someone. And so we know that God, would stop something if it was better for him to stop it in terms of love. So we see that he's all powerful, all knowing, all loving. We also see he's a God of justice because if he didn't care about justice, he would not have had Jesus die in the cross. He would have just swept all the evil under the rug and said, you're all fine.

So those are all very, that's just an objective thing to look at to see God's character. So if we know all those things and we know God's capable of stopping anything, he knows everything that's going to happen, he loves us enough to stop it if that's what's better for us, then we know God has a purpose. We know God has a purpose for any suffering that we go through. So now we come to the question, well, then why go ahead with creation? What might that purpose be? and people have different ways of answering this. And my understanding from the text is that God's greatest goal is not end our suffering. God's greatest goal is for us to know him fully and enjoy him forever to the glory,

to the praise of the glory of his grace. That's what Ephesians says. So if everything is to the praise of the glory of God's grace, then, of course, the cross is the best way to reveal that. And we also know that, like I said, in Ephesians, it says that the cross was God's eternal purpose. So if that's his eternal purpose, then of course he's going to allow suffering into the world because he wants to reveal himself. He wants us to know him.

He doesn't just want us to know that God makes us feel good. He wants us to know he's gracious. He wants us to know that we depend on him. He wants us to know his righteousness and his wrath against injustice. and all these different ways that we've watched him interact with people throughout history, we would never have known in a world without sin and suffering. Now, even in the case of suffering that doesn't come from human evil, we see this in the Bible. For example, think of the man who's born blind in John 9.

That man, the disciples asked Jesus, well, who sinned this man or his parents? That he was born blind, and Jesus says it was neither this man or his parents. but it's so that the works of God might be displayed in him. So he wanted them to see his glory. He wanted them to see his character and his love and all these different things. And even this suffering that had nothing to do with human evil was working towards that end. We see that also with Lazarus, right? We see that Lazarus, Jesus let him die.

so that he could bring him back to life. And he says, you know, if you believe, you will see the glory of God. So those are two examples of suffering that had nothing to do with human evil that were revealing God's glory. And that is the highest goal. So then the question, I mean, this is hard for people to accept if they don't think God is worth suffering. But that's the whole point. And I think if we can make that clear and say, knowing God is worth the suffering. And there are people throughout history who have said that very thing.

And you can go back and read their stories and see what they went through. And they all said that knowing God was worth that suffering. Now, isn't that interesting? Would you like to know more about this God that would be worth the suffering that you want to so desperately escape? The Buddhist, right? Yeah. So I think that's how I would go about that. Yeah.

That's great. Okay, following on that question, we have a question from Carissa. How do you respond to the question, why do Christians say everything good that happens is from God, but the bad things he is not responsible for? God created all things according to the Bible. Well, it's the last line that it throws me for a loop because I don't see the connection between the last line and the first two things. God created all things, yeah. and then how are all those things that God created put into play or put into use? That's the issue of the first two questions.

Everything that God made, now this is a question that has to be answered from within the story, the story of reality, within our worldview. And just to make this point, because I think it's sometimes missed, when we have a challenge to an internal element of our world, worldview, then it's appropriate to add more information to show how this doesn't, in our system, it doesn't create a problem. And this is kind of what you were doing in answering the last question. When you see it from our perspective, Mr. Buddhist, and you understand how this all works together, then suffering can be used for a great good and knowing God is better kind of thing.

So in this case, in our system, our understanding of reality, God made everything, and he made it good. It was just fine when he all made it. One of the good things he made, what were creatures that had a moral ability to not only know right for wrong, but to choose right from wrong, because they had the ability to grow in virtue, potentially, as they chose the good. and their characters would become more rich and therefore more satisfying as their own goodness grew, so to speak. I developed this in the story of reality, this particular point. So it also means, though, that some people can use this poorly, you know, or use this for bad. So could you read the last line of that question again?

I don't want to get a drift from the point. Why do Christians say everything good that happens is from God? but the bad thinks he's not responsible. Okay, because it's true. That's why we say that. It's not somehow inconsistent with our view or even odd. You know, why? It's like, let's just say have perfect parents, all right?

And they work really hard to raise their children with certain virtues. And so when the children grow up with those virtues, you could say, and we do say this, man, you raised. a great kid. You did this. Good for you. Then the kid does something bad. Well, he does the thing bad on his own. Contrary to the way he was raised,

way he was raised. So it's appropriate to say, good for the parents, for the good, and for the bad, he chose the bad. Now, you could also, at some point, say good for the kid

when he chooses the good. You know, I'm not trying to diminish that. But I'm saying that these things are kind of related. The parents can do a good job, that results in something good, and they can be applauded for the good that results from their good training of a child. But then when the child does bad and he wasn't taught that by the parents and kids can do that, then he gets the blame. Okay, so now the family parent-child illustration is not perfect because sometimes parents are good.

But I'm just stipulating here good parents because God is a good God, and so there's a parallel there. So in the same way, God made a great place, and we messed it up. And so the good things that we have are a result of what God did and provided. We read this in James, Chapter 1. Every good and perfect gift comes down from heaven from the Father of Lights in whom there's no variation or shifting shadow. In other words, he has consistently who he is and who he is as good. and everything that's good finds its origin ultimately in him. Now, one of the things that's good that he gave us is moral freedom,

and different people take that particular fact in different directions with this broader problem. But minimally, we can say because we have moral freedom, we can choose to do bad, and then we're responsible for it. We chose that thing. It's our choice. So the good things we give credit to God for, we thank him for, and the bad things we're responsible for because he is responsible for the good things, and we are responsible for the bad things. Yeah, so we might have slightly different answers on this, and I think that's helpful to people, because you can realize there are different ways to answer that you could think through this.

But first, I think one thing you have to do is you have to make some distinctions here on what you mean by created and what you mean by responsible. because there are different ways you can take that. In other words, what do you mean by that? What do you mean by that? Because evil is not a thing in itself. So it's not like God created a substance called evil or anything like that. But if you just mean it in the sense that God brought about things that are brought about suffering or even moral evil in some way, way. Now your question is, in what sense is God responsible for that? And I totally agree with you, Greg,

that when people do evil things, they are responsible for them. I mean, that's clear in the Bible for sure. So what we come to now is, is in what sense is God responsible? And again, I have to point to the cross because I think this can help us see what's going on in terms of responsibility. even if we don't understand exactly how God is doing certain things, we can at least see it happening. So there is a sense in which God was responsible for the cross, right? Obviously, he said that's what he wanted to. For ordained since the foundations of the world. Yes, it's eternal purpose.

Now listen to what Acts 4, 27, 28 says, for truly in this city, they were gathered together against her holy servant, Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilots. along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel to do whatever your hand and your purpose predestined to occur. Acts 2 says 22 and 23 says that this man delivered over by the predetermined plan and for knowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death. So we see here that the cross was God's plan. I mean, we all, everyone agrees on that. the cross was God's plan. So is God responsible for the cross? Yes, there is a sense in which God is responsible of the cross. At the same time, the men who did it are also responsible for the cross.

And we know this because right after Peter says this to them, he tells them to repent. We know that Judas was punished. Jesus said it would have been better if he had never been born. So here you have people who are bringing about through their own evil intentions, God's predetermined plan, and yet they're being punished. So there's a sense in which they are morally responsible for the bad, and there's a sense in which God is responsible for the good that he's doing through that thing. Right, right. So we praise God for the cross. We don't condemn God for the cross, even though it's the worst evil that ever happened in history. So that's just an example of something that we all agree on that God caused in some sense, but he's not morally responsible for the evil.

And then we see this plenty of other places. We see it in Genesis 50 when God says to Joseph's brothers, what you meant for evil, or Joseph says to his brother, what you meant for evil, God meant for good. So the brothers are responsible for the evil. God is responsible for the good that he is doing through that evil. That he intended to take place. It isn't just like, we've got a bad situation. So how can we fix this? He intended it from the beginning. And we see it again in Isaiah 10. We see that God called the Assyrians to use as a club to punish Israel, but then he turns around and he punishes the Assyrians saying that they didn't intend to fulfill his justice or do anything like that. They were doing it out of evil.

So they are both responsible. God is responsible for the good he's doing, and we praise them for that. They are responsible for the evil they're doing and they're punished for that. So this is great. And not everyone agrees on this, by the way. No, I understand. Well, I don't, though there's mystery involved, I'm going to speak to that just a minute. It's hard to be, it's hard to deny the straightforward common sense meaning of the texts that you cited.

But we need to understand, for one, when the word predestined is used, that means destined to happen before it happens. happens, it's intentional. It isn't just known in advance. A predetermined plan, it says. Yes, okay. And it says the foreknowledge of God, and this is where lots of people get tripped up. The word foreknowledge prognosco, lots depend on the context, but in many cases, it's not a synonym for omniscience. It isn't just that God knew. When he talks about those whom he foreknew, He's not talking about those actions of those people, I foreknew. He know the people. He foreknew.

In other words, foreknowledge here is actually a synonym for election or predestination or God's determinate plan, all right? And this, I don't want people to get mixed up. That's why they're side by side, the foreknowledge and the predetermined plan. And they're together because foreknowledge is part of that process of God, making a determination, okay? It's not a synonym for omniscience. Secondly, is that however this works itself out in terms of predestination, and however the word is used in different categories, it doesn't mean machine-like behavior. People are not just robots. There's some kind of

middle ground there where God predetermined certain ends, even though there are people making choices for those ends, either good or bad. And what's up with that? I don't know. That's the mystery of the whole process. But here's the key. The Bible is really clear on this particular point. And you cannot just be dismissive of that or else you're going to lose the, not only you're going to lose the sovereignty of God, but you're going to lose the integrity of Scripture. I know you have a list of these things, I'm a whole list of verses that make this particular point, how God is predetermining in one sense or another an outcome and events that lead to the outcome and other people are participating in an evil way and are held responsible. And that's from the top to the bottom of

scripture, from the beginning to the end. Now, it might be that someone out there is saying, well, then why does God find fault for who resists his will? And of course, that is exactly – That question came up. It's exactly the question that Paul anticipates. So Paul anticipates that this will be hard for us to understand. So he addresses this in Romans if people want to go look there. Yeah, and people are not always satisfied with what he has to say.

But nevertheless, that's the place to go. But even if you don't understand what he says, the point is he anticipated that very objection because that's what he was teaching. Now, it's important to understand, though, that it doesn't. doesn't mean God loves those things in themselves. God doesn't love it when people put innocent human beings to death, right? That's not God's goal. But God does honor and glorify what Jesus did on the cross. And he did intend for that to happen. So people can get confused and think, well, if God is responsible for the cross, then he is morally responsible for the evil. But the truth

is, or he wanted them to do evil. It's not that God loves that action in itself. It's that what God was intending to do was through that action. Now, and this is where it gets amazing to me, because when you think about God accomplishing his goals through the very people who are fighting against him, it helps you to understand that evil can never, ever, ever win. Because what they are doing to fight against God, and this is what his point in Acts 4. Perfectly. But they gathered there to fight against you, and it's useless because God is using their actions to accomplish his purpose.

That means no matter what happens to you, God is using that for another purpose. Like, you can count on that because, again, he proved his character on the cross. Right, right. And I don't know how anyone can deal with evil without believing and understanding that there is a purpose that we can count on because God has proved who he is to us. Otherwise, you're just saying these people gathered against your son. They put him to death, and that was a horrible thing. Bummer. Bummer, yeah.

But the cross is so helpful because it's something that we all Christians, we all agree. that God did intend. So we can look at that and look at the different actions people took and how God responded to those and the moral responsibility. And that can help us to at least see what's going on. Then we get to the point where we have to understand how can this be going on. And that's when you have to get into more philosophical questions. It gets more difficult.

But we don't have to understand how to see that it is happening. And I want to throw one more question in here, Gray, because I think it follows right along on this. And this is a follow up from Carissa. Why is the problem of evil the biggest dilemma that non-believers seem to have? Is there a more satisfying answer to be had? Well, I think it's only a dilemma because they don't understand the preconditions that make the problem of evil intelligible. Okay, that's called the preconditions of intelligibility. And it's the idea that you can only have a problem of evil if you have a good God. You can only have a problem of evil if you have a good God.

Now, I'm not going to take the time right now to cash that out because we've done this before, and we were touching based on it here earlier in this episode, and we speak about this a lot. But the, and so consequently, I think the reason that people struggle with this is evil is real, for one. It doesn't matter where you lived or when you lived. I constantly say that. Everybody knows something is wrong with the world.

and the thing they know that's wrong is moral, and they also know that they participate in the moral brokenness of the world. So that means they're guilty. They feel guilty. They feel guilty because they are guilty, right? Okay, so this is a given. And so given the fact that this is the nature of the world,

what worldview best makes sense of that. And I think this comes up a lot because people just haven't connected the dots. They haven't been shown that the objection itself supports the idea of God. Instead, they think it's against God. So I'm an atheist because there's so much evil in the world. Okay, I get that. I'm sympathetic, but I have a question.

Where are you getting the standard by which you are judging the evil in the world that causes you to believe the original God? Now, that's something he has to answer. Now, if he says evolution, this is not going to work. And the reason is, it's because all evolution can do is give you a subject of standard, a standard inside of you that your genes have tricked you to believe in, if they're even capable of doing that. I don't think they are, but that's another issue.

And it may be that a whole bunch of other people that you're criticizing have evolved differently. I mean, look at it. They're big people, small people. There are all kinds of different eye colors and blah, blah, blah, and this and that. And according to evolution, there are all kinds of different creatures that came. This is all connected. So everybody is developing differently. How can you say that your morality that you develop is the objective morality that we govern all the human race with?

That doesn't work. It's just another relativistic answer. There's got to be a different answer that grounds objective morality. And the only answer is an objective moral law giver. So we see evil in the world. It's also very personal because we experience evil. We all experience suffering. And I've seen people turn away from God when they think, when they go into life thinking that if they do everything right, God will protect them from pain.

And so when that is destroyed, as it will be, because we will all suffer, then that just, most people don't have a theological way to deal with that suffering because they've never been taught it. And I think once you go through that experience, it becomes something you have to really struggle with. In the case of non-believers, I think this is a way to hit back at God. And it's what's interesting is that this is a way of hitting his character, right? Where it matters. And so I think it's something that people hang on to for that reason. But what I think is that, you know, is there a better answer to have? Well, I don't think my answer will necessarily be convincing to an atheist.

And here's the reason why. Atheists are in rebellion against God. They don't like him, to put it mildly. There is no God, and I hate him. So there's no sense that suffering is worth or that God is worth the suffering. In my talk on suffering, I talk about the passage in John 11 about Lazarus, and I give two examples, a Christian describing it and an atheist describing it. And, of course, the Christian is saying, well, this, you know, God allowed him to die or Jesus allowed Lazarus to die so that he could see his glory because love allows that to happen because he loved him enough to show him his glory. The other guy, the atheist guy says, well, here is a guy using people for his own self-promotion and blah, blah, blah.

Well, so he sees it as being a problem. Narcissistic. Yes, because he doesn't see Jesus as being worth it. So, of course, if Jesus were some sinful guy doing this, of course it wouldn't be worth it. But what people don't grasp is that God is worth it. So the only thing you can do is say, look, I understand that you don't think God is worth it. But isn't it interesting to you that so many people do find him worth it? What are you missing that they're seeing that you're not seeing?

And I'd love to show you this. And then you can show them the cross and say, here is the proof of God's character. But I also think that the better we know God, the more satisfying. find the answer will be to us because the more we will think he is worth it. And again, I just point you back to Christians throughout the ages who have suffered greatly, who have written about their own experience and can come out of that worshiping God and just ask the question, how did you get there and how can I get there? And how can I increase my love for God so that I can see more, so that this makes more sense to me.

So this, I think, is the longest show we've ever done. You all got a double show today. Yeah, you did. But this really is the biggest question right now that people are dealing with. So hopefully this can help you to think about it in a little bit different way and maybe communicate it to people who can at least intellectually understand where you're coming from, even if it doesn't yet make sense to them. And pray that God will give them a curiosity to find out more about him and what kind of a God would be worth going through this suffering in order to know him and to see him and to be. with him forever. So thank you, Scott and Carissa. We really appreciate hearing from you, and we hope to hear your question from you. This is Amy Hall and Greg Cookell for Stand to Reason.