Paradox: a measuring tool of the soul, allowing us to learn about ourselves in how we answer it.

What prompted me to accept the challenge of this topic? A close family member (an agnostic), mentioned a few arguments he feels casts doubt as to the plausibility of God. I summarize them here:

* The unfairness of Original Sin and Eternal Damnation. Specifically,

* How it seems that God created us to fail,

* And once failed, how it may measure unequally, because (depending on one’s age at death) some will shortly be sent to eternal damnation while others will have further opportunity to “repent” later in life.

* Which leads to concerns of the unfairness of human death as *the* definitive timestamp to determine an eternal result.

* Also, how the “Free Will” explanation might be problematic because “Couldn’t God have rigged the system to give us free will be yet still be sinless (like Mary, for example)?”

I first had to research for myself. I discovered that his argument broadly falls under what is called “The Epicurean Paradox” or “dilemma,” as seen in this graphic commonly posted by atheists on Twitter (now X) -

I discovered that the typical responses from Christian Apologists centered around what is called The Thomistic Autonomy Defense, summarized here:

The idea is that God is a gentleman and would only “marry you” for eternity of you freely accept it. If you decline, it is reasonable for God to separate you from Him eternally.

This argument comes from Thomas Aquinas, who lived between 1225 and 1274. Obviously, the answer has been around for a while, and yet somehow it has not convinced everyone, so it might have gaps and need more ammunition to back it up, or be put inside a larger context to make it cogent. I intend to do that.

But first, to answer the easy one, “Why does judgment happen at the moment of human death?” It seems an unequal measure, given that all of us die at different times in life. Some before birth, some soon after, some during childhood, some during teenage years, some during adulthood and many during old age. Most Christian scholars agree that once the soul has been separated from the body, the state that the soul is in will either be one that accepts God or one that does not. There is no further change possible to the soul (even in the Catholic concept of Purgatory, one has already been judged as being merited eternal salvation).

As Edward Feser puts it,

“human beings are different [from angels whose orientation is fixed upon creation], because they are corporeal. Or, to be more precise, they are different while they are corporeal.”

See also “Is Hell Unfair?” on Catholic Answers.

There is not much to argue over. This is a truth that philosophers and theologians have vigorously defined. The question then becomes about how God adjusts His judgment based on these conditions, and whether or not that is “fair” and “just” and in accordance with His great mercy.

Which brings us back to the main topic. Let us establish some background points that have been established by theologians whose entire argument I will not repeat here (see footnote links for that):

* These arguments to address the fairness of God punishing an imperfect being is referred to as the "theodicy of divine justice."

* Thomas Aquinas established that “mortal sin deserves eternal punishment.”

* What is mortal sin? “Treating some other creature as if it were our life's goal, which is contrary to how we were made.”

* Shouldn’t God have known we would fail? No. God cannot know you will fail until He creates you. See “How Can a Good God Permit Eternal Damnation? Thomism and the Problem of Hell” by Mats Wahlberg.

* Could God not make us more perfect or reveal Himself in such a way that we would always obey?

Not necessarily. According to the argument of Epistemic Distance, “If God did make himself known to us, we would follow his commands out of obedience to his authority instead of following them because we had figured out that they were the right thing to do [which thus allows us to grow spiritually].” But even if God “could” do it, He obviously decided to not do so. And acknowledging that fact and abandoning ourselves to the mercy of God and His Divine Plan is part of the faith and trust one requires in order to have a right relationship with God.

Does any of this sufficiently answer this question—

“Why would God create me in such a broken, prone to fall to temptation way, knowing that I’m likely to fail and suffer eternal damnation?”

Ultimately, the Catholic response involves the reassurance that God’s overarching plan for creation includes the redemption of humanity through Christ. While God permits evil to exist as a consequence of free will, He also works through human history to bring about ultimate good, often in ways beyond human understanding.

This answer might suffice for Catholics and Christians, but it may fall short in convincing anyone who does not have that full understanding and acceptance of God’s overall plan and God’s fairness in judging each person individually.

If a person does not already trust that God would certainly give everyone a fair chance to accept God, then this argument might sound like “assuming the premise.” This sounds unsatisfactory, yet consider that the Epicurean Paradox itself assumes a lot of premises in that flowchart, as our understanding of God’s reasoning is limited (see the Book of Job).

How else can we answer this in a more potable answer that an atheist would at least agree that makes the argument intellectually honest and logically consistent within our belief system?

Given how much that Christian theology is founded on divinely revealed truths, John Michael Wiley explains,

It would be truly convenient for the Christian apologist to have every single “problem” of evil answered by direct revelation from God, but the simple fact is that God has not chosen to reveal all that is questioned.

As Al Mohler reflects on theodicy, “We cannot explain why God has allowed sin, but we understand that God’s glory is more perfectly demonstrated through the victory of Christ over sin. We cannot understand why God would allow sickness and suffering, but we must affirm that even these realities are rooted in sin and its cosmic effects.”

In our final conclusion, we acknowledge that strictly logical argument cannot conclusively answer this “logical paradox” because the arguments rely on an understanding of God’s reason and plan that we do not yet have. Yet we know we can trust His plan because of other signs and evidence of God’s goodness. As we know from the example of Adam & Eve, the fact that God restricted the eating of one fruit from one tree in the Garden of Eden, and punishing Adam & Eve for eating it, does not negate the case for trusting in the goodness of God, who lavishly gave us dominion over the entire rest of the Garden of Eden and bestowed on us all the other mercies.

Albert Mohler addresses this assurance in “The Goodness of God and the Reality of Evil,”

"As Charles Spurgeon explained, when we cannot trace God’s hand, we must simply trust His heart."

How, then, do we know we can trust the goodness of His heart?

Christians derive a lot of their faith based on many empirical observations, including these:

* personal witness testimony of lives being changed

* witness testimony of miracles, both public miracles and individual healing and removal of guilt and shame, transformation (being reborn) and medical healings that defy explanation

* personal visions of Jesus

* witness testimony on demonic possession and subsequent liberation through Christ

* the incredible stories of the saints that have no parallel in secular society

* healings and other miracles through intercession of the saints and even relics of saints

* the inner peace of those who have discovered true joy in the Gospel

* the historical accuracy of Biblical events, including the freeing from slavery in Egypt and the fulfillment of prophecies

* the scientific and medical consistency in the Gospel telling of the crucifixion of Jesus, and the powerful testimony from the fact that the Resurrection changed so many lives and altered the course of history

* Near-Death Experiences, Out of Body Experiences, and private revelations of Heaven

* the complete lack of fear of death by those who survived NDEs

* the consistency of the Catholic Church in defiance of attempts to destroy Her, from within and without

* Fine-tuning arguments for the Universe and the unlikelihood of other explanations such as the multiverse hypothesis

* Various other ontological proofs for the existence of God

* The soul’s upward yearning

* The satisfaction of that yearning through a devout mental prayer life

* and the evidence from that fact that so many who met Jesus have themselves accepted martyrdom.

We can thus say that even if we do not fully comprehend the reasoning for why God sets the rules in the manner that He does, we can firmly rely on our knowledge of His goodness and generosity in the eter...