God created evil

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Ok I have asked around at a lot of christian websites and to date I either get the same argument over free will which I must express upfornt this is not what this is about or I get no reply, sorry if I am repeating an already drawn out discussion if you have any input I would love to hear it.

The variation of the christian theme about evil is roughly this: God has an ultimate purpose and that purpose is ultimately good. The purpose of God is to have an environment where there are only these beings who truly love and really want fellowship with God. The only way to do that is create beings who have free will who can choose to rebel against God or not rebel. It then follows logic that those that rebel need to be rejected in order to fulfill the purpose. The first of these beings with free will to rebel is responsible for evil.

I dispute the idea that beings with free will are responsible for evil, given this scenario, and submit that God created evil.

Three basic principles:
1.You cannot by choosing create the thing you choose. You cannot choose to go left if there is no left or right. If I told you to go asdf and not fdsa you can’t do it you have no idea what asdf means.

2.Good and evil are not universal facts they are concepts that are the result of a judgment. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Beauty didn’t have an existence before a judgment was made on what was beautiful and what was not. In exactly the same way evil didn’t have an existence until a judgment was made on what was evil and what was not. Evil was created by a judgment.

As an addition if they were universal facts it then poses the question what cause was there outside of God, that can result in something that God is not, cause outside of God breaks the idea of God as first cause.

3.The opposites in duality create each other you cannot have one without the other. On immediately implies an Off even if you don’t label it as Off the only way to know an On is if there is a contrast by what it is not. You cannot have any writing on the board unless you have a contrast of board and ink. A mountain has both the light side and the dark side. In the same way good cannot exist without evil. How do you know that there is a good unless you can contrast it with something that it is not?

Abortion of nature, unnatural, what ought not to be, absence of a good that ought to be there, rebellion against God, choice contrary to their own nature, evil all these are labels of a fundamental concept the concept of negative principle(also a label but the best one I can find). Ultimate purpose, the ultimate act of love, good all these are labels of a fundamental concept the concept of positive principle (again a label but the best one I can find). There is a difference between evil(negative principle) as the idea (The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness) and evil(negative principle) as an instance of the idea (a morally bad or wrong; wicked thing or action). The idea of evil(negative principle) results in an instance of evil(negative principle). The instance of evil(negative principle) is created only as a result of the idea of evil(negative principle). As an addition the idea of good(positive principle) immediately creates the idea of evil(negative principle) and vice versa.

To prove my point I will use an analogy. This analogy has nothing outside of itself affecting this and has no other outside influences other than what is mentioned. To start of with we have a programmer who creates programs a computer which executes programs, a screen that shows numbers and a computer programme. Now the time comes and the programmer decides to create a computer programme the function of which is to display at random numbers from 1-10 on the screen. Ok now he does so and he executes the application. The application works exactly as planned and displays the numbers 1,9,7,2,4,6,10 as it was anticipated. Right now is the time for a snapshot this is important, at this point in time are there any bad numbers on the screen? Well no, there aren’t any good numbers either there are simply numbers no bad or good. The screen is cleared and now comes the most important part the programmer now decides that numbers 1-5 are bad. Now he executes the application again. The application works exactly as planned and displays the numbers 1,9,7,2,4,6,10 as it was anticipated. Take a snapshot are there bad numbers? Now for the first time ever there are bad numbers 1,2,4. The only thing that has changed is the judgment on what numbers are bad. So you create the idea of evil and the result is the instance of evil. You have created evil the instance by creating evil the idea. Evil the instance had no existence before evil the idea was created. It is the idea of “The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness” that creates a “morally bad or wrong; wicked thing or action”

Essentially you have a bunch of stuff, no judgment and there is no negative. You have the same bunch of stuff, a judgment and now you have a negative. The concept of negativity is created by a judgment which leads to the occurrence of negative.

If there is an ultimate purpose it’s like an ultimate point in space either there is movement towards that point or there is movement away from that point. Either there is work done towards the ultimate purpose or there is work done opposing that ultimate purpose. But the instant you place a point down there is in that instant an away from that point and a towards that point. The creation of the away from the point is created only because the point is created. Evil is the inescapable result of there being a good.

Now for these reasons I submit that God created evil. God by creating a purpose (positive principle) is by doing that creating at the same time the opposing of that purpose (negative principle). In the same way as defining the point creates the idea of an away from the point. The idea of the away from the point, only exists because the point is defined, principle 3. You now have the idea of evil (something which would oppose the fullfulment of the ultimate purpose). When you have an idea of evil it imediately leads to the occurrence of evil, principle 2. In the same way the programmer creates occurrences of bad numbers by deciding what numbers are bad. God by judging that this act of a being with free will is good(positive principle)/(in accordance to the ultimate purpose) and this act of a being with free will is evil(negative principle)/(against the fullfulment of the ultimate purpose) is in the act of judging creating the occurrences of that evil(negative priniciple)/(instances of things or actions against the fullfulment of that ultimate purpose). Up until that point of judgment there was no evil that these beings with freewill could do, principle 1. God created evil by creating a purpose. God is therefore the God of evil.

This breaks the idea that God is benevolent. On another point there is this insistance that in order to truly love you need to have free will, or the love would be mechanistic and not true. But in the same light there is an insistance that God is not evil, and can not do evil. Doesn’t this imply then that God doesn’t have free will and therefore can’t truly love?

2

For sure God create evil, for if evil is not created than it existed as an independent entity apart from God and that means that Evil is another god, and that is far more intolerable than to say God created evil.

Also that God created evil does not contradict the fact of his benevolence.

And evil is not an artefact of man’s judgement. Evil existed before man knew what was evil.

The real question is: WHY did God created evil? That I think will endure as a mystery till Judgement Day when you can ask God that question face to face.

3

I think all God created was Beings with free-will, and ‘evil’ is a particular way in which that free will can be expressed. It would be more proper to say that God created the potential for evil to occur, not that He created any particular evil act.

4

Hi w_enslin,

I have a problem with your ‘principles’ since they all state what you believe to be impossible instead of making a proposal of how you see the facts.

You seem to say that when creating life, God didn’t dictate which direction it should take, that evil is a result of bad judgement and not a ‘creation’, and that there must be something ‘bad’ if there is something ‘good’.

Generally, I would agree. The statement of any scripture doesn’t claim to know what intentions God had, but that a will has been perceived over a course of time. The mystical description of the beginning of life tells us more about man’s observations than it tells us something about God. In fact, scripture tells us altogether more about mankind than it tells us about God - he remains the great Mystery.

The principles of Life, which are transported in many different literary styles in scripture, reveal to me that our existence and our well-being is wanted. The fact that there are principles, that there are laws, that there is a ‘right’ way to build communities, that there is a ‘right’ behaviour to which most of us subscribe, that there is a healthy way to live and that mankind can aspire to understand this world, show me that the prime-mover that set this all in movement intended that something good in our sense to come out it.

The fact that there are also examples of the opposite reveal that our existence also has contrasts, something which is important if you want to discern clearly. We see a spot of white because of black, we see candle-light in the darkness, we can be happy because we know sadness, we can discern the many facetts of life because of its contrasting opposite. If you want, we know what is good because we also know what is bad (or evil).

If we want to transport this insight to our community - and to every child that grows up in it - we need to find means to do that. Scripture shows us how ingenious and creative humankind is, by finding many ways to playfully and even casually pass on knowledge and wisdom. The most important thing thereby however, is to understand that many such insights can only be passed on by figurative speech, mythology and parable. That is where fundamentalism of any kind falls into the trap of confusing “eternal truth with a temporal expression of the truth. … the theological truth of yesterday is defended as an unchangeable message against the theological truth of today and tomorrow. … It elevates something finite and transitory to infinite and eternal valkidity. In this respect fundamentalism has demonic traits. It destroys the humble honesty of the search for truth, it splits the conscience of its thoughtful adherents, and it makes them fanatical, because they are forced to suppress elements of truth of which they are dimly aware” (Tillich quoted in Peter Cameron’s “Fundamentalism and Freedom,” Doubleday, Sydney: 1995, p. 81)

That is why the discussion of this subject is often very silly.

Shalom
Bob

5

In Islamic Mystic philosophy of Sadra, God created everything in himself; the understanding of this is not that easy though. Not that God has a shape or something to define inside and outside, but that God is everything and that there is nothing outside his reach or influence. And those who truly realise the truth behind this will experience a special feeling called: “Death in Singularity” or they see an special horizon…
The reason is because they will go so deep in the singularity of existence that they realise they are themselves nothing, and it is all Allah most gracious. Many try to understand this but it can also be seen by those favoured ones.

The Islamic definition of evil is: “The disturbance of Natural law by an agent of free-will, everything else is obeying the unseen power.” And we strongly reject considering Good and Evil as two parallel worlds, instead we believe that “Evil” is simply the lack of Good and that unlike “Good” it is not self-sufficient. These two terms though need to be defined in a proper context.

I am in agreement with what - Uccisore – said in his post.

6

I like your argument. Pointing out duality is nice, I wonder where you got it from e.g. daoism, internally, etc, but it creates a bit of chaos. The concept of God is absolute (insert here,commonly pointed out is good), will you agree with this? Now… uh if you agree, then that which is absolute cannot be expressed in any function of this relativistic world. Since you pointed out duality I can say with confidence you understand this. The concept of good and evil are relatistic. Now if God is absolute (insert here) then this is the point of chaos. Those that say he is absolute good will relate him to their own relatistic good, or to some stable form. This is no longer absolute good. So if you use that as an argument you are using their own fallacy against them… but by accepting it. Uh… for something to be absolute it must just be as is… possess a state of being but no division of any kind, like subgroups or opposites. That would make God truly absolute. In most religions when they say some is absolute (insert here) they are usually speaking in positive terms. This has a greater appeal and may express their feelings to the pinnicle of their experience… Lets say I obtained the absolute, but i lose it and come back, and say that part of me is in the absolute and part isn’t, now… i know this example raises questions like how can something be in the absolute and not… blah blah, just assume for a second that this happened. Then the one explaining the absolute (insert here) would of course have trouble and can merely say a positive term. All of this implies that humans interpret evil and good, and that you can accept, right?

Uh then clear if god is absolute, then human being will the be the ones at fault for saying god is good. Meaning we can compare this dually… God - absolute and Humans- relatistic. If i want to go any further i have to say this then there is a desire from human beings to become one with the absolute… but i won’t so this is as far as i go… which means i don’t prove a point of my own but i do point out that God is neither evil nor good in the aspect of absolute, not neutral… cause that too would need a comparision :stuck_out_tongue:

7

imagine everything was equally good.

when you consider something “good” dont you consider the constrasting badness?

i believe that goodness does not exist at all if it were not for the potential presence of badness. i believe that this is an essential property of this universe, designed by the creator for a purpose that will neccesarily remain unobserved.

if we knew why things were bad, they would not seem as bad as they are. if things arent bad, good things dont look so good in comparison. the universe was designed so that good things may happen. accomplishing “good” is the purpose of the universe. “good” is not the same, if it exists at all without the presence of evil.

reharmonizing the OmniSoul (refer to profile link) is why we need to do good. knowing why exactly it is good will change the meaning of selfless, community-loving good as we see it today according to the golden rule.

evil is analogous the harsh polishing agents applied to rough surfaces. while nerves on the edge of this surface would feel abrasive pain, the end result is shiny beauty.

8

My personal belief is that the ideas of good/evil are completely human concepts. Like a young child that has to go in the back seat and sit in the todler chair because the parents are going for a ride the child squirms kicks and screams, because he doesn’t like it, and has no control over it, and basically wants it his way. This is what evil is its the idea of not getting what you think should be. You then get agreement on it by way of authority, so that everbody can agree with you that this is what it should be. It’s a nifty trick vital for the idea of morality, and morality is vital for the survival of the species (well in my opinoin this one anyway). The only problem comes when someone else has a different idea of what it should be. Then there is a search for the authority on the subject and a constant refinement what exactly it is that is good and bad. If the child just sits and stops squirming he enjoys the ride this is what the universe really is its not evil or good. If there is a God, God would be beyond all concepts of oppostites.

9

this is what planets and balls of gas do. they float around and “enjoy” the ride. no good or evil, just infinitely boring, empty equilibrium.

yours and everybody’s problem with the idea/dogmas of evil is that organized religions say they are dictated by god and then dont coincide with other people who also say that they are dictated by god.

those organized religions should stfu.

treating your neighbor like yourself is empirically verifiably the best way for humanity to proceed. no organized religion will disagree with this. no evil exists outside of this rule, and the ORs that disagree with that will have a hard time arguing with me and all of the other religions that disagree with them.

10

Personally I fully agree with you but if I left it there what fun would that be? No fun at all.

If you find an instance of someone not “treating your neighbor like yourself” you immediately turn into that child who thinks life should be something (sorry I don’t mean to offend I’m just sticking with my analogy) :wink: . You might even try to find the ultimate authority to back up your belief “empirically verifiably the best way for humanity to proceed”. Who is to say humanity should proceed? Well you do and I do, only because we have an investement in it doing so. I am using this just as an example to prove my point, evil it’s a human concept. :laughing:

11

All ideas should compete for believability and relevance. People should select the most relevant and consistent over the least relative and consistent.

In any case, theodicy does bug me at times. I am a theist myself, though I believe that the best way to know God is to observe that which we take to be his most direct work - the universe.
But the free-will defense just doesn’t do it for me. For one thing, though free will makes sense when dealing with people on a human to human basis, I fail to see how an omnipotent God, having exact control over the initial state of the universe (including everything in it), and thus exact control over every subsequent state, how it is possible for our wills to contradict his? (Our wills are also functions of the state of the universe, created objects) Can an omnipotent being reasonably expect anything other than what ends up happening in his universe?

Until I understand what free will means in relation to an omnipotent being, I will be a determinist.

12 
Your assumption here is that our minds are the ultimate products of previous deterministic states which God directed.  You reason from that there can be no free will as a product of directed, deterministic prior states.  I would agree with that. 
 However, as theists, we grant the existence of God. If God Himself is a free being, then we have an example of free will existing that isn't a product of deterministic processes. If it can happen once, it can happen again- out free-will may be a devine fiat, or if you don't believe in those, God may have set up the initial conditions such that one result of them would be true free will.

Well, in creating free beings, He would be giving up some of his ability to predict future actions. But I think your question is poorly phrased- presumably an all-knowing Being wouldn’t have expectations in any situation where He knew the outcome was uncertain, would He?

13

uccisore. god can’t have free will, because he doesn’t do anything to influence earth or show his presence. When a child is starved to death does he step in to have the grandmother call to find out what’s happening before the act? No.

A god with free will is impossible in a world of suffering. UNLESS, god is not all powerful.

14

how can there be an omnipotent god and free will?

  1. this is why organized religions should stfu. people think god must be omnipotent because some jerk wrote it.

  2. maybe when our extra-universal, unobservable body parts (the soul) ‘ride along’ with this determined ride, they still get the same good effects. maybe the universe happens over and over again exactly the same, and each time, a different omnisoul straps himself in and subjects his left pinky toe to future man’s life, which is like a super pedicure, and not an adventurous journey into the unknown. it just has to seem like an an adventurous journey into the unknown to me

assumption- souls are individuals being worked on and judged individually and therefore each life is separate and requires separate consideration from god. therefore if god created the initial conditions (and our brains turn out to be deterministic) then the universe is a pointless waste of time, unable to bring about any good= wrong

next

if he did, then everybody would be addicted to praying, and they would help their neighbor for selfish, god’s-ass-kissing reasons.

assumption- god can show himself to us without ruining the mission= still wrong

next

15 
Uh, on the assumptions that all religions are based on myths, and that all claims of religious experience and devine intervention are delusional, then I guess that would be true. 
On [i]those[/i] assumptions, though, why discuss God at all?
Either way, your argument fails, for it could be that the ways God chooses to excersize his free will are impercievable to humans.

[i]Impossible?[/i] Are you sure you don't want to try for unlikely? 'Unlikely' is a lot easier than 'impossible', you know.  Here, let me show you why:

Suppose God is all-powerful and all good.  Suppose further, that there are certain things which are impossible to create without some suffering occuring.  Suppose still further that these special things are SO GOOD that the suffering required in their creation is out-weighed enough that a perfectly good God would permit these evils to occur for this ultimate end. 
In a case like that, it would be possible for an all-good, all powerful, free God to exist in a world that contains suffering.  

You may find the above situation ludicrously unlikely, and that's fine! For you see strictly speaking, the above scenario doesn't even have to be true, it just has to be [i]possible[/i], in order to demonstrate that God isn't [i]impossible[/i] in a world of suffering. In order to maintain your impossibility claim, you'd need to show how the above scenario is itself impossible.  Even if you do, which would be monstrously difficult, I'll simply come up with some other scenario, and send you back to square one.

See how tough ‘impossible’ is?

16

Are you saying that the means justify the end? Supposing God succeeds in whatever ultimate good. For a while things will be grand, but all that it essentially means is there is no change. You will have no death no pain no hurt nothing dies nothing grows old. There’s no challanges to overcome theres nothing to oppose you, you are surounded by the same all the time. You can’t die you can’t get strong you turn into a waste. How will you know if you have free will if everybody does the same thing all the time. If everything is the same how do you know it to be good. Life becomes bland and meaningless. I can’t possibly imagine a worse torture than that and there is nothing you can do about it. The end is a rather bleak picture.

17

So my personal opinion (and I realize this is just an opinion) is this. In order for humans to survive in a viable productive way there needs to be the idea of morality. But inorder for morality to have any success morality needs to have authority. Who has greater authority than God? So as a result God is assigned as the authority of what is good and evil. However for God to really hold as the authority of good and evil God would have to be good or no-one would adhere. Because the nature of humans are such that they are all trying to do whatever good it is that they percieve as good. But in having God as the authority of good and evil, is in doing so implying that God is then the author of good and evil. My point is this good and bad are completely arbitrary choices made by humans but attempted to be reinforced by assigning God as the authority.

18

morality that is not simply an extension of “live together in a cohesive socety” is nothing more than god damned prophets spewing bullshit that either manipulates the masses or plays into some belief that they already had for some reason.

that said, the things that make a society work more harmoniously are not arbitrary subjective human decisions, they are the same for all humans. dont steal, dont lie. these are essential properties of the universe. you cant have a society that encourages lying and stealing and expect it to work well. the only way you have a good society is if you ban those specific things, no matter what corner of this universe you are from.

that is our message. dont steal dont lie. the fact that the universe contains separate bodies who are able to affect eachother using those two evils is the messenger. the fact that it is here is the messenger. not hallucinations.

the authority of god IS the universe itself. the good that comes from doing good can be seen while you are still alive. if you choose to be good to asswipes who will not return your goodness, that means that you have made a mistake. dont be mean to those people, but dont waste too much of your time trying to make society better by making their specific lives better.

if you do that, your world will be better. empirically verifiably. no hallucinating required.

19

Something I would like to point out if I may

but deciding that to “live together in a cohesive socety” to be morality is still a completely human decision and thus arbitrary. It is made only because you and I have an investement in it doing so. I could have the opposite opinion that humans are the destroyers of nature and should therefore be anhilated (which would of course would mean me along with it) that would be the best good for nature. Just as an example. The point being that morality is a result of a human judgement.

20

Ok…God gave us the free will to do whatever we want…so basically evil is the absence of God, the same way darkness is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat