How Did God Create The World?

[Antlerman]

You're correct, I am assuming the most basic observable laws of nature (e.g. cause and effect). What other choice do I have? Our sensory observations are the only thing we can use as basis for further deduction.

And this is my point. You’re speculating about things that go outside this universe, using observations and laws about this universe as your basis. How can that be considered a valid tool? And more importantly, how can any thoughts be considered possibly valid in any way? Since we don’t have any basis for further discussion, then to say that the Big Bang had to have a first cause is an argument based in a universe that didn’t yet exist and therefore made totally moot.

 

 

First cause is not something assumed, it is a necessary deduction from the fact that there are later causes.

Again it breaks down once you're outside our universe. The first cause for this universe would seem to be the inflation event itself. This universe came into existence as a result of the expansion. Everything we understand as "reality" began at that point. Anything we understand as reality didn’t exist prior to the event. To argue of events prior to this universe is to argue about something that we have absolutely no frame of reference to talk about. You therefore cannot use speculation into that realm as a logical deduction for there being a First Cause.

 

You have no way of deducing that rule of cause and effect to have any meaning outside this universe. To underscore that you actually don’t have a problem understanding this, you have no problem making the leap to say that God is “uncaused”. God would be some agent, if you will, that exists outside this universe, and you have no problem with that thing being uncaused. Since the 'singularity' existed outside this universe, how is it that you deduce it’s necessary to have that a cause and not God?

 

The integer analogy fails because integers are all in our imagination; causes are real (at least some are). Any real cause must have a prior cause, and therefore there must be a first cause...otherwise there would not have been a second, or a third, etc, down to the ones we observe around us. If the ones we observe are real, then the one at the beginning of the chain must also have been real.

My integer analogy was to point out that you are creating an artificial place holder like zero, by saying that the first cause itself has no cause. Zero is like saying “uncaused” in a universe of cause and effect. One or two have applied values to real things, like cause and effect do.

 

Infinite regression. No doubt you’ve heard the story reported to have supposedly been said in a lecture of Bertrand Russell,

 

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject."

 

All I’m saying is that for you to ask what caused the inflation event of the “Big Bang” is no different that asking what caused the First Cause. I’m suggesting that to ask a question like that is ultimately meaningless and does nothing to further a discussion about God, since it’s really a false analogy. Everything breaks down at that point and you’ve run out of any frame of reference to talk about things like causes. All physics break down, as well as logic arguments that reference this universe.

 

You have no problem with God being uncaused. Is it because you see that as mental versus physical? Just curious why you feel uncaused with God is fine, but uncaused with the singularity is not?

[Antlerman]

Infinite regression of turtles:

 

 

 

From Stephen Hawkins about the story of Russell,

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

[Stephen_Richard_Webb]

Due to Marty's latest thread and his dealings with the fundy on MySpace I've had some thoughts.

 

Xians always complain about the Big Bang being impossible since explosions don't "create" things.

 

Well, we know that if the Big Bang was indeed a fact it wouldn't have been the end-all-be-all of creation, just the initial event that started it. Things didn't go *BOOM* and suddenly end up as we see them today.

 

However, this is what Xians expect us to believe regarding the Bable's version of the creation myth.

 

God "spoke" and *POOF* everything was there.

 

Since when does speaking create anything but hot air???

 

And is God just some lazy fat bastard who gets tired and needs to rest after talking for six days? Then again, there are execs that get tired after talking for four days...

 

Why can't we speak things into existence? Because we don't have the "power" of God? What is this "power" then?

 

Also, tied to this is the issue of original sin and death. Xians say that everything was perfect before man sinned.

 

So, nothing died before man ate the fruit? This entire universe centers around the cycle of life and death! Taking a shit involves life and death! Adam and Eve didn't produce bodily waste before they ate the fruit?

 

They ate the fruit and God "spoke" a curse at the universe and changed everything he had just created?

 

Can somebody please give me a baseball bat to fucking beat myself with if I ever believe this shit again???????!!!!!!

 

 

actually most christians will tell you that god isnt the author of evil, so all that cursing is a bunch of shit - not too mention that this idea would imply that adam and eve alone are responsible for the damnation of the universe...which begs the question of how the hell is their evil deed more powerful than gods perfectly good creation...seems to be that evil won the day, impliying that god is really impotent which contradicts the nature of perfect goodness anyhow.

[Ouroboros]

actually most christians will tell you that god isnt the author of evil, so all that cursing is a bunch of shit - not too mention that this idea would imply that adam and eve alone are responsible for the damnation of the universe...which begs the question of how the hell is their evil deed more powerful than gods perfectly good creation...seems to be that evil won the day, impliying that god is really impotent which contradicts the nature of perfect goodness anyhow.

Exactly.

 

Besides, what is evil? Can any Christian give an example of evil? Or is it just a metaphysical, abstract, and empirical "nothing"? Then, who can ever be evil?

[Guest end3]

Evil is defined, does that make it real?

[Ouroboros]

Evil is defined, does that make it real?

Give an example of evil.

[Stephen_Richard_Webb]

Evil is defined, does that make it real?

Give an example of evil.

 

well um...uh...um - I know! The devil is evil! Bwahahahahahaha ack ack ack [and maybe my laughter is too 8)]

I asked my fundamental baptist father, and he said that lieing is evil, my reply was "and if that lie saved someones life?" he didnt have a reply...

[Ouroboros]

well um...uh...um - I know! The devil is evil! Bwahahahahahaha ack ack ack [and maybe my laughter is too 8)]

I asked my fundamental baptist father, and he said that lieing is evil, my reply was "and if that lie saved someones life?" he didnt have a reply...

Exactly.

 

The traditional example in moral philosophy is the one where a murderer it chasing a person to kill him. You take in the one that's hunted and hide him in your house, the murderer comes to you and ask if the other guy is in the house. Do you lie to save his life, or do you tell the truth and let him get killed?

 

An example of evil is to kill an innocent or a child.

 

Here's an example when it's not evil: two kids are playing on the railroad station. One of them push the other one, and the second one trips over and in turn push a child or an innocent old lady in front of the coming train. It was an accident, right? So we can see it's not clear cut. We have to look at intent. What is inside a person when he do something, not the actual act.

 

So how do we know if someone intentionally do good or evil? Is there any mind-probe to show that a person that did something we think is evil, that he really intended to do so? What about someone who hallucinates? He see a demon, and kills the demon, but it wasn't any spiritual being but their child, or husband or dog or something else. Like what happens almost once a year now, that a Christian mom kills her children to save them from demons. Is she evil? She did mean to kill them, but in her twisted mind, in her own view - not ours - but her view, she did something she thought was good. So is she intentionally evil?

 

Or just take the Bible. God kills babies and kids in the thousands. The flood is a perfect example. The babies deserved it, because they were so evil, so the babies evil was greater than God's evil to kill babies. ??? Only twisted minds can come up with stories like that and still defend them as some proof of "God's goodness."

[Guest end3]

Sounds like ya'll have been down this trail before.....I have not, so I will participate.

 

My point being, if everthing is based on "real" and "science" in the non-belief world, how can something be defined by humanity that is not real? How can we give a characteristic to something that is not real?

 

Child abuse is evil.

[The-Captain]

I'd say evil lies in the intention rather than the action.

 

Not sure if some philosopher has already followed that rabbit trail all the way before.

[Ouroboros]

Sounds like ya'll have been down this trail before.....I have not, so I will participate.

 

My point being, if everthing is based on "real" and "science" in the non-belief world, how can something be defined by humanity that is not real? How can we give a characteristic to something that is not real?

Exactly. How can you? Christians claim the world outside our senses and ability to test is the "real" world, and anything scientists find and can prove in this world they discard as false. So for Christians it's not a matter of proving, but to believe first, and proof are unnecessary.

 

So basically, anything that we can fantasize about is real, but anything we can prove in reality is not real. Doesn't that sound like a contradiction to you?

 

When it comes to good and evil, how can you know if it exists, if you can't define it? It's like saying "xyzrs" and "blarghsy" exists, but we can't tell you what it is, but it exists anyway. And you should never do xyzrs, because then you become asdrfxalblab, and that's not good.

 

 

Child abuse is evil.

The Bible say that you should correct your child with the rod. The Old Testament have commands in the laws (from God - supposedly) that you should kill your son if his disobedient.

 

What is child abuse? Define it. Where does the line go between corrective spanking and abuse? If you talk about sexual abuse, remember the story about Lot, how he offered his daughters to the city to rape instead of the angels, and in 2 Pet 2, Lot was called righteous.

 

So does the Bible say that child abuse is evil? Give me a Bible verse to support that claim.

 

What about if the child is unruly, and some spanking will get the child to correct and become a good person? Isn't the end justified here through a little pain for the child?

 

Many questions, and you'll notice, good vs evil isn't that easy to define. It isn't black and white, but a gray scale.

[Ouroboros]

I'd say evil lies in the intention rather than the action.

Agree. If anything can be called "evil" or "good" it has to start with the intention of the act, rather than the outcome of it.

 

Not sure if some philosopher has already followed that rabbit trail all the way before.

I haven't seen it clearly specified by anyone or anywhere... yet...

 

But I'm still studying... I let you know in a few years.

 

But the justice use the "intent" as part of the level/severity of the crime. For instance it's a major difference between Man 1 and Man 2. Man 1, a total accidental manslaughter, and no intention to harm. Man 2, not intended to kill someone, but intention to do harm which resulted in death.

[GraphicsGuy]

Seems to me that our attempts to define 'evil' are similar to our attempts to define 'love' (or 'good' as Hans pointed out above...which would be more of an opposite to 'evil').

 

Neither is a tangible thing with an absolute definition...

[Guest end3]

I'm with you Hans, I don't wish to participate as the average Christian...all I am saying is within the realm of humanity, some things are defined as real that do not fit the definition too well, yet they are still defined. What is it that has lead humanity to define things that are not real. And if some of these "unreal" definitions are valid, even from a non-believers standpoint, why then is belief in Christianity an impossibility.

 

I don't disallow what science has to offer, and can accept it as truth in the physical. But where do you put science in explaining the mechanisms for some of the "unreal" we have defined.

 

I was talking to our minister last night as we just talked about Jesus healing the leper by touching him. And in the OT, there was another methodology for leprosy. If it was the same God, and we see Jesus healing by his actions and intent, then is it the priests or the people of the OT that fail if God never changes.

[Ouroboros]

Seems to me that our attempts to define 'evil' are similar to our attempts to define 'love'.

 

Neither is a tangible thing with an absolute definition...

yup. So that makes it hard to say that "evil" is the absence of "good". It's like asking "what is the opposite temperature to 68.7 degrees?" or "what temperature do you get if you remove 68.7 degrees?" You can't. Right?

 

Hot and cold are not opposites like 1 and 0.

 

Cold isn't absence of hot, because there is always a hotter temperature than the hottest we can think of. The temperature of the super-dense and super-hot singularity before big-bang was probably infinitely hot. What is the opposite to infinite?

 

The whole "evil" and "sin" as the non-good etc are just very stupid ideas, and the Christians just keep on repeating the same mantra, over and over again, without one single moment of thought.

[Ouroboros]

I'm with you Hans, I don't wish to participate as the average Christian...all I am saying is within the realm of humanity, some things are defined as real that do not fit the definition too well, yet they are still defined. What is it that has lead humanity to define things that are not real. And if some of these "unreal" definitions are valid, even from a non-believers standpoint, why then is belief in Christianity an impossibility.

The question wasn't about the impossibility of belief in Christianity, but how many Christians try to explain "evil" as the absence of "good". How can it be, if you can't define either or? Good and evil are considered values and not facts. They're based on your personal opinion at the moment. So it doesn't exist like a car, rock, shoe or a cat.

 

But you're right, there are things that are hard to define, and yet they exist, but you see, where did it come from? Whenever we talk about "good", then Christian say "it must have come from somewhere, so it must be from God".

 

But then I ask, "where does evil come from, from God?" And the Christian say it doesn't.

 

We can see that the Christian is not consistent in their way of defining things. Some things, the things they want to be, comes from God. But the things they don't like, doesn't come from anywhere but is self-made from non-existence or reduction of existence of something. But how could that come to be unless God made it so? How can something come into existence by pure the act of Satan or man, by removing something from God? How can anything in God become No-God if everything comes from God?

 

It's like saying, "Number one (1) was created by God", but "Number zero (0) was not created by God, it's just the absence of one (1)."

 

But is it? Is zero the opposite to 1? Or is it -1 that is the opposite? Or maybe 2 is the opposite? And is that really true, zero (0) does not exist?

 

 

I don't disallow what science has to offer, and can accept it as truth in the physical. But where do you put science in explaining the mechanisms for some of the "unreal" we have defined.

That is a totally different question.

 

How can science be used in a religion where logic is condemned? You can see from my arguments that logic is not part of religion and Christianity, but rather the opposite. It is contradictory. It's absurd. It denies and approves things on a whim and emotions and not reason.

 

So yes, science can not explain Christianity. I totally agree. And yes, science can't explain morals very well. Scientific reductionism hasn't arrived at its target yet, but here's the big question:

 

Why do Christian use arguments they think are logical and scientific to prove their religion?

 

For instance, the first cause argument. Why do Christians use the First Cause argument to prove God, if evil is not caused and can't be explained with logic? If good and evil can't be explained with logic, then logic and reason can not be used to prove God. That's the simple fact.

 

What I'm saying is that Christians are inconsistent. They jump between logic, but when they are proven to be wrong, they jump to your argument, that things can't be proven. So make up your mind. Is it pure faith? Or is it based on evidence and reason?

 

If your decision is that you can reason about it, then you have to hold up your end and be able to reason about it in a scientific and rational way. Because if you do what you just did, stepping out of reason and logic, then you have stepped out of your proving. You're not proving anything by avoiding the hard issues and excuse yourself each time you have no answer.

 

I was talking to our minister last night as we just talked about Jesus healing the leper by touching him. And in the OT, there was another methodology for leprosy. If it was the same God, and we see Jesus healing by his actions and intent, then is it the priests or the people of the OT that fail if God never changes.

Have you ever seen a leper being healed? How do you know it's not just a story? There are other religions and other beliefs and cultures with miracle and healing stories, are the false because they're not Christian, while the Christian story is true only because it's Christian? Why do you believe these stories?

[Stephen_Richard_Webb]

There is an excellect video on morality without god on the web site, you should chect it out end3. Personally, I believe in a Creator for my own reasons - I believe in the scientific method as well. But this video is very well done and I recommend it to anyone. Reason is a gift regardless of where you believe it came from, but when one abandons reason in place of faith you effectively throw that grand gift away. And if there is in fact a Creator, and the Creator has given the gift of reason to you, then you choose to throw it away by turning to blind faith, what kind of message would that send the Creator?

[Ouroboros]

Amen to that Stephen.

[Guest end3]

Hans, I think I am understanding you as there are many "truths" out there. A lot of things make be believe in Christianity, and believe it or not, as I fall much more in the Holy Spirt category, the Bible is one. Many others, but it would just piss people off. thanks for the conversation to all.

[Ouroboros]

Hans, I think I am understanding you as there are many "truths" out there.

I think you're starting to get it.

 

A lot of things make be believe in Christianity, and believe it or not, as I fall much more in the Holy Spirt category, the Bible is one. Many others, but it would just piss people off. thanks for the conversation to all.

And thanks, back to you, End3.

[Gaunilon]

Legion

The input of a gentleman speaking from the heart is something I value most highly. Thank you for yours.

"Do you conclude or assume? "

It's a hypothetical statement: I was saying that IF we can conclude the universe was created by a deity (so far we haven't argued to that point), or IF we can conclude that the universe was not created by a deity, either way we would have learned something very valuable. So I haven't assumed anything as yet, but I am pointing out that the inquiry is itself worthwhile.

You're absolutely right that we must not assume, but rather reason from what we know. Then the conclusions we reach will be truly valuable.

 

"Yet there are, and have been, scientists across the entire human spectrum."

And again you are absolutely correct, and I did not mean to belittle the contribution of non-Christian philosophers and scientists but rather to parry the statements from some on the board (as is all too frequent on this site, unfortunately) of unfounded prejudice regarding Christianity and free thought. Many cultures and religions have added to our understanding of the world, and Christianity is not only an example but a pre-eminent example.

 

Solo:

Well, we disagree somewhat on the role played the Catholic Church in furthering scientific inquiry, but it sounds like we agree on the larger point that Christianity itself has furthered intellectual progress rather than being (as some here have erroneously accused it) an obstructive influence. As to the Catholic Church itself, apart from the role played by monasteries in preserving knowledge during the dark ages by copying and distributing books, there are many other points one could raise. The fact that several key discoveries and even the foundation of several sciences were by monks (Copernicus, Mendel. etc.), that at least one science is still referred to as "the Jesuit science" (siesmology) and that the most common optical physics textbook in undergrad curricula today is still one authored by a priest, would indicate that you may have some things to learn in this regard. But I digress.

"Furthermore (I could be totally wrong about this) but we have to thank the Muslims for saving the ancient Greek literature. Without it Aquinas et al wouldn't have had the Plato's work or Aristotle's."

He would have had Plato, as Augustine did, but you are right about Aristotle's writings which were brought back by the Crusaders and had been left intact by the Moslems. It is true: many cultures and religions have done good. Christianity is no exception, rather it seems to me to be the standard.

 

Antlerman:

If you are saying that the laws of the universe, as we know them, may not be valid concerning the beginning of the universe then I agree. However, I would like to point out that given the only laws we know (cause and effect as one example), the notion of a primary cause prior to the Big Bang follows. Therefore in order to deny that primary cause, you need to be positing that some new physical laws (for which we have zero evidence) would apply. This is a very contorted way to avoid the notion of a first cause....in general in human inquiry we apply what we know and try to reason back to what we don't know, rather than throwing out what we know on the supposition that it just doesn't apply to anything else.

As to the issue with there being an uncaused cause (what philosophers through the ages have called "the prime mover"), this is not a contradiction provided we acknowledge certain key features of such a thing. First, it can't be changeable. Why? Because anything changeable would have already gone through all possible permutations in the infinite time in which it has existed. Time symmetry, again. If not changeable, then it can't be material. Why? Because matter is potency: it is always defined by the form it is cast into and therefore is changeable per se. I could go on, but this is beyond the scope of this thread. This at least, however, is sufficient to show that from everything we know from our surroundings, there must be a prime mover that is inherently unchanging (unlike the causes we see around us) and not composed of matter. Other conclusions also follow. Some of them are not pleasant.

 

Doctor:

"I'd say evil lies in the intention rather than the action. Not sure if some philosopher has already followed that rabbit trail all the way before. "

Some philosopher has: Aristotle, in the Ethics. I can give you my understanding of his understanding if you like. Every act is composed of the intention, the action, and the circumstances. If any of the three are bad, the whole act is bad. To determine whether an intention, action, or circumstance is wrong for a particular act, simply look to whether it involves denying reality: anything that treats falsehoods as truths is wrong, and every wrong thing involves some such denial of reality.

 

And in response to the general question: what is an example of evil? There are few abstract examples because the circumstances need to be considered, and those are what we take away when we abstract. Therefore only acts that are intrinsically evil (i.e. evil regardless of circumstances) qualify. Rape is one such example. Deliberately killing a child is another. For a historical example, Hitler's genocide of the Jews was fundamentally evil. Pol Pot's wipeout of the educated. Bundy's murders. It's pretty easy to find examples of evil if historical cases are allowed.

[Gaunilon]

...and Solo again...

"How can science be used in a religion where logic is condemned? You can see from my arguments that logic is not part of religion and Christianity, but rather the opposite. It is contradictory. It's absurd. It denies and approves things on a whim and emotions and not reason."

I think you are taking evangelical Christianity and mistakenly tarring all of Christianity with it. Evangelicals do put emotion over reason, and in fact a lot of denominations hold reason as dangerous and untrustworthy since Luther's doctrine that faith and reason are opposed to each other. However, traditionally Christianity has always maintained (until Luther) that reason is critical, and that any belief that is shown to be illogical must also be false (see Aquinas on this point... or various popes)

 

As to the definition of evil, my (imperfect) understanding of Christian doctrine is that evil is a 'privation', which is not the same as 'nothing'. I don't see any illogicality in that position and what follows from it, and how it relates to a perfect deity, but I could be wrong. Should this be discussed in a separate thread?

[The-Captain]

Doctor:

"I'd say evil lies in the intention rather than the action. Not sure if some philosopher has already followed that rabbit trail all the way before. "

Some philosopher has: Aristotle, in the Ethics. I can give you my understanding of his understanding if you like. Every act is composed of the intention, the action, and the circumstances. If any of the three are bad, the whole act is bad. To determine whether an intention, action, or circumstance is wrong for a particular act, simply look to whether it involves denying reality: anything that treats falsehoods as truths is wrong, and every wrong thing involves some such denial of reality.

 

Ah! Thank you, looks like I have yet another thing to read

 

I wonder though if it is feasible to cut action and circumstance out of the reckoning, as that is more or less what I consider in moral discernments and so forth. I'll have to look at the entirety of what Aristotle was saying, but thanks again for the the referral.

 

And in regards to a discussion of evil etc. I think it's about time to start up a new thread, like you said. We have gone rather far from the topic, and a fresh discussion would be welcome.

[Ouroboros]

Solo:

Well, we disagree somewhat on the role played the Catholic Church in furthering scientific inquiry, but it sounds like we agree on the larger point that Christianity itself has furthered intellectual progress rather than being (as some here have erroneously accused it) an obstructive influence. As to the Catholic Church itself, apart from the role played by monasteries in preserving knowledge during the dark ages by copying and distributing books, there are many other points one could raise. The fact that several key discoveries and even the foundation of several sciences were by monks (Copernicus, Mendel. etc.), that at least one science is still referred to as "the Jesuit science" (siesmology) and that the most common optical physics textbook in undergrad curricula today is still one authored by a priest, would indicate that you may have some things to learn in this regard. But I digress.

Well, I really don't disagree with that. My issue is more with the modern Church, than the Church in the past.

 

"Furthermore (I could be totally wrong about this) but we have to thank the Muslims for saving the ancient Greek literature. Without it Aquinas et al wouldn't have had the Plato's work or Aristotle's."

He would have had Plato, as Augustine did, but you are right about Aristotle's writings which were brought back by the Crusaders and had been left intact by the Moslems. It is true: many cultures and religions have done good. Christianity is no exception, rather it seems to me to be the standard.

I think you and I have close understanding of this.

 

It's interesting though that it was also thanks to the Protestantic movement and the following Individualism that also brought about our more modern view on Democracy, but it also led to the society who let science progress so far. And today, I think the neo-protestants (if you can call them that) have become extremely anti-scientific. I don't think you can completely deny or ignore that this is going on. My criticism of modern religion doesn't mean that at one time it was open to new thought and willing to research new areas of knowledge, but today it really doesn't.

 

I can't say that we can thank just Christianity for our science, since we do have other religions and cultures being part of the steps that led to where we are. I'd say it's the people, regardless of faith or belief, that were open and willing to study things and not let their beliefs stand in their way, that we should thank. If they were Muslims, Greeks, Romans, Christians, Jews or atheists, they all did a good job. But today, the counter movement is not coming from any other groups than the modern Christians, and that is upsetting, and my view is that it shouldn't have to be like this. The Bible can fit into what knowledge we have about the world and nature, it doesn't have to conflict, but modern Christians in large are not willing to do so. If science discover that nature works a certain way, then adjust your belief, don't try to adjust nature.

 

I don't think even you really would like the idea, that religious dogma and theology should drive how science should think. If we had a system where a certain religious leader were elected to be the controller of what science said, and studied, would you feel comfortable with it? What if that Christian controller was of a different denomination than yours, like one that don't believe in blood transfusion or believed that you can't use modern medicine? Is that what you really want? Would every cancer patient only hear: Pray to Jesus for a miracle, take two aspirins, and the cancer will be cured! Hallelujah.

[Ouroboros]

...and Solo again...

"How can science be used in a religion where logic is condemned? You can see from my arguments that logic is not part of religion and Christianity, but rather the opposite. It is contradictory. It's absurd. It denies and approves things on a whim and emotions and not reason."

I think you are taking evangelical Christianity and mistakenly tarring all of Christianity with it. Evangelicals do put emotion over reason, and in fact a lot of denominations hold reason as dangerous and untrustworthy since Luther's doctrine that faith and reason are opposed to each other. However, traditionally Christianity has always maintained (until Luther) that reason is critical, and that any belief that is shown to be illogical must also be false (see Aquinas on this point... or various popes)

Yes. I agree. And my statement does contain some implicit references to specific groups of Christians, lets say the one that is most outspoken in our society today and causing most noise.

 

As to the definition of evil, my (imperfect) understanding of Christian doctrine is that evil is a 'privation', which is not the same as 'nothing'. I don't see any illogicality in that position and what follows from it, and how it relates to a perfect deity, but I could be wrong. Should this be discussed in a separate thread?

Since you've read many of the philosophers about morality and ethics, you know that the issue isn't as easy to deal with, and you can't use a cookie-cutter to decide what is good or evil. And I'm sure if you and I talked about the definitions we'd come to some form of an agreement eventually.

 

My point was that the argument that all must have a beginning, and the ultimate beginning is God, then the ultimate beginning of evil must also be God. Evil can't create itself. Deprivation can't create itself either. God must want it. He must will it. He must make it so. Or he's out of control, and that "thing" (whatever it is) must have equal power with God if it can separate itself from God, which would be the foundation for everything. Do you see my concern of the whole idea of God is only good, but the un-good never came from God. It just means, that someone else have the power to un-do God's nature. That being, the Devil, is then on a level of power same as, or maybe even beyond God, since God can't create or make himself evil, but the Devil can make it happen. That kind of view makes me think there's an unbalance in the "formula". Good and evil are the two polarities of the same thing, and if it all has one single source, that source must be both good and evil, or neutral. And if you think about the old testament, God was not a very nice guy, but were presented as sometimes unpredictable, regretful, creator of evil and much more. So the old theological view maybe was exactly that, God the source of good and evil. Isn't that the view Job display when he say that you should accept if God give you good things or when he destroys you? Or when Paul say that God made the pot, so just deal with it if you're made for destruction?