Does Evil Exist?

[TheBeast]

OrdinaryClay,

 

Although I am an agnostic, I usually speak from a Deist perspective since it tends to avoid logical contradictions that arise from assigning personal attributes to "God," but for this discussion I will adopt Theistic terms.

 

Let us suppose that the premise that God allowed (or created) evil in order to demonstrate good is correct. The existence of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil would not be in conflict with this thought and would even support it. However, it also means that Eve or Adam must eat of that fruit or the knowledge is never disseminated, and hence Man would never know of God's perfect goodness.

 

Add in the teaching that God had a plan for Man's salvation through Christ from before Creation and one must conclude that God knew that Eve would eat the fruit of that tree. It follows that God wanted Eve to eat the fruit so he could demonstrate his perfect goodness (and mercy) by bringing his plan for salvation to fruition. One could say that Eve was predestined (or created) to eat the fruit.

 

Given the entire Bible story, one can reasonably think that there could be no God without evil in the world to contrast God against. It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine if evil is in fact an attribute of God if one considers the proposition that God could not create anything that was not part of his thoughts.

 

(It should be noted that this entire argument is impossible from a Deist standpoint, it is only possible if one is a theist who conceives of God as a independent, supreme "being" who is apart from the Universe.)

Every act of an omniscient god could only be deliberate, knowing all the consequences that would follow. God planting the serpent and tree of good/evil in the garden would be a deliberate act in full knowledge that Adam and Eve would eat of the fruit. In fact, the whole idea of testing mankind throughout the bible is complete bs. If I place chocolate in front of my son, I know he'll eat it, and I'm far from omniscient. If I choose to punish him for acting according to his natural instincts which I allowed him to be tempted with, then blame him for giving into temptation, would anyone here consider my actions righteous? It's even worse coming from biblegod since he knowingly created Adam and Eve with susceptibility to that particular temptation, then created an environment to exploit that weakness HE created in them.

 

If Christians didn't give god a get out of jail card every single time he f*#%s up, they'd pretty soon come to recognize some hard truths about their deity.

[Adrianime]

I don't particularly like these useless bible debates...but...

 

God has perfect and total knowledge, and we have free will. He cannot force a free willed being to do something of their own free will. So God knew Eve would make the choice she made, but He did not force her to. She did it of her own free will..

 

I have to point out the obvious, and say that (perfect and total knowledge + expectations) and (free will to not meet expectations) is a contradiction.

 

If you have perfect and total knowledge then you could not possibly have any false expectations.  So if this "god" being had perfect and total knowledge then he knew that Eve would eat the fruit. 

If you claim he didn't know she would do it because she has free will, then you are saying his knowledge is not perfect and total. 

If you claim she was created by god, and god gave her free will, but god knew she would eat the fruit, but expected her not to....well that's just silly.  Basically you are saying god chose to break his own rules.  Or that her free will is meaningless in the eyes of god because he knows what she will do regardless of her will. 

 

Either way, a being with perfect and total knowledge could not possibly have false expectations.  So either this god does not have perfect and total knowledge, or this god intentionally was a dick and intended to screw humans over since it created them, or...........this god is not real (does not exist). 

 

Although, I'm sure all of the ex-christian's figured this one out some time ago .

[TheBeast]

Although, I'm sure all of the ex-christian's figured this one out some time ago .

That's what separates the ex's from the Christians. We're just that little bit more intelligent. 

[OrdinaryClay]

OrdinaryClay,

 

I think you missed the initial premise, that "God" created evil to achieve a greater purpose, namely, to provide a contrast to demonstrate his perfect goodness (and arguably perfect mercy.)

I understand your point, but God did not create evil. He did create free will. Evil is the the result of free willed beings disobeying the will of God.

 

But beyond that, why did "God" create the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil if Adam and Eve could know his goodness without it? The fact that the tree was in the garden implies that such knowledge was impossible for them unless they ate the fruit.

We don't know why beyond what it says in the text, and the text does not say or imply that Adam and Eve needed to eat from the tree to know God's goodness.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Evil is the willful intent to act contrary to God's will.

So killing babies would be ok since its not contrary to gods will.

No, abortion is evil, for example.

 

"You shall not murder.

(Exo 20:13)

 

[OrdinaryClay]

 

Evil is the willful intent to act contrary to God's will.

Apologies in advance if you're a liberal believer, but is "God" the genocidal, filicidal bully described in the old testament? (as Richard Dawkins aptly described him).

You misunderstand the Old Testament.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

OrdinaryClay,

 

Although I am an agnostic, I usually speak from a Deist perspective since it tends to avoid logical contradictions that arise from assigning personal attributes to "God," but for this discussion I will adopt Theistic terms.

 

Let us suppose that the premise that God allowed (or created) evil in order to demonstrate good is correct. The existence of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil would not be in conflict with this thought and would even support it. However, it also means that Eve or Adam must eat of that fruit or the knowledge is never disseminated, and hence Man would never know of God's perfect goodness.

 

Add in the teaching that God had a plan for Man's salvation through Christ from before Creation and one must conclude that God knew that Eve would eat the fruit of that tree. It follows that God wanted Eve to eat the fruit so he could demonstrate his perfect goodness (and mercy) by bringing his plan for salvation to fruition. One could say that Eve was predestined (or created) to eat the fruit.

 

Given the entire Bible story, one can reasonably think that there could be no God without evil in the world to contrast God against. It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine if evil is in fact an attribute of God if one considers the proposition that God could not create anything that was not part of his thoughts.

 

(It should be noted that this entire argument is impossible from a Deist standpoint, it is only possible if one is a theist who conceives of God as a independent, supreme "being" who is apart from the Universe.)

Every act of an omniscient god could only be deliberate, knowing all the consequences that would follow. God planting the serpent and tree of good/evil in the garden would be a deliberate act in full knowledge that Adam and Eve would eat of the fruit. In fact, the whole idea of testing mankind throughout the bible is complete bs. If I place chocolate in front of my son, I know he'll eat it, and I'm far from omniscient. If I choose to punish him for acting according to his natural instincts which I allowed him to be tempted with, then blame him for giving into temptation, would anyone here consider my actions righteous? It's even worse coming from biblegod since he knowingly created Adam and Eve with susceptibility to that particular temptation, then created an environment to exploit that weakness HE created in them.

 

If Christians didn't give god a get out of jail card every single time he f*#%s up, they'd pretty soon come to recognize some hard truths about their deity.

The analogy you use based on your son is pretty silly. Every human that becomes functional in society develops the ability to resist temptation. If it were not the case we would not have a society. So we do have the ability to say no.

 

That said, God does know how every person will choose, but these people still have free will. God knowing is not the same as God forcing them.

 

[boftx]

OrdinaryClay,

 

"God" created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, right? That says that "God" knows what "evil" is. And "God" must know what it is since "God" is omni-everything. Nothing can exist without his knowledge. Nothing can exist except that "God" conceived of it first. Even if as you say, "God" did not create "evil" but created free will, then "God" created the ability to do evil. And since there could be no knowledge of what evil was except that Eve or Adam ate the fruit of the tree that "God" created then it must follow that "God" created evil.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

 

 

Evil is the willful intent to act contrary to God's will.

Apologies in advance if you're a liberal believer, but is "God" the genocidal, filicidal bully described in the old testament? (as Richard Dawkins aptly described him).

You misunderstand the Old Testament.

I would say the fault lies with the author not the reader.

[OrdinaryClay]

If you claim she was created by god, and god gave her free will, but god knew she would eat the fruit, but expected her not to....well that's just silly.  Basically you are saying god chose to break his own rules.  Or that her free will is meaningless in the eyes of god because he knows what she will do regardless of her will. 

God did know. God chose to create Adam and Eve with free will. That choice did not break His own rules. Which "rule" do you think it broke?

 

There is no contradiction. Your conclusions do not follow from your premises.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

Although, I'm sure all of the ex-christian's figured this one out some time ago .

That's what separates the ex's from the Christians. We're just that little bit more intelligent. 

There are many very intelligent people who believe in Christ and the Bible.

[Adrianime]

 

 

Although, I'm sure all of the ex-christian's figured this one out some time ago .

That's what separates the ex's from the Christians. We're just that little bit more intelligent. 

There are many very intelligent people who believe in Christ and the Bible.

OrdinaryClay actually speaks the truth here.

[Adrianime]

 

If you claim she was created by god, and god gave her free will, but god knew she would eat the fruit, but expected her not to....well that's just silly.  Basically you are saying god chose to break his own rules.  Or that her free will is meaningless in the eyes of god because he knows what she will do regardless of her will. 

God did know. God chose to create Adam and Eve with free will. That choice did not break His own rules. Which "rule" do you think it broke?

 

There is no contradiction. Your conclusions do not follow from your premises.

 

I'm sorry if you can't connect the dots, or refuse to do so. 

[OrdinaryClay]

OrdinaryClay,

 

"God" created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, right? That says that "God" knows what "evil" is. And "God" must know what it is since "God" is omni-everything. Nothing can exist without his knowledge. Nothing can exist except that "God" conceived of it first. Even if as you say, "God" did not create "evil" but created free will, then "God" created the ability to do evil.

Yes, God created free willed beings who could do evil.

 

And since there could be no knowledge of what evil was except that Eve or Adam ate the fruit of the tree that "God" created then it must follow that "God" created evil.

Evil is an act. God does not create the actions of free willed agents. God did not force Adam and Eve to sin. They chose to do so. They could have chosen otherwise. The act was theirs not Gods. So no, God did not create evil.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

If you claim she was created by god, and god gave her free will, but god knew she would eat the fruit, but expected her not to....well that's just silly.  Basically you are saying god chose to break his own rules.  Or that her free will is meaningless in the eyes of god because he knows what she will do regardless of her will. 

God did know. God chose to create Adam and Eve with free will. That choice did not break His own rules. Which "rule" do you think it broke?

 

There is no contradiction. Your conclusions do not follow from your premises.

 

I'm sorry if you can't connect the dots, or refuse to do so. 

Which rule did it break? God knew beforehand. True. Eve made a free will choice. True. The best you can do is ask the question, "why did God make free willed beings?" That does not break any of Gods "rules". We don't know for sure why, but it certainly did not break any rules. There is no logical contradiction, I'm sorry.

[boftx]

To give someone the ability to do something implies that the "something" exists to be done.

 

Setting that aside, how could "God" create knowledge of something that did not exist? And if God did not create it, who did?

[boftx]

OrdinaryClay,

 

Let me ask you the same question I asked Thumbelina on a different topic: What benefit does "God" derive from Creation?

[OrdinaryClay]

To give someone the ability to do something implies that the "something" exists to be done.

Evil is a choice to do an action. Choices are not created by God.

 

Setting that aside, how could "God" create knowledge of something that did not exist? And if God did not create it, who did?

Do you understand what the definition of cold is? God did not create cold, yet cold exists.

[OrdinaryClay]

OrdinaryClay,

 

Let me ask you the same question I asked Thumbelina on a different topic: What benefit does "God" derive from Creation?

I think the question is incoherent. God is omnipotent so the idea of such a being deriving benefit is meaningless. Why does it matter?

[Adrianime]

 

 

 

If you claim she was created by god, and god gave her free will, but god knew she would eat the fruit, but expected her not to....well that's just silly.  Basically you are saying god chose to break his own rules.  Or that her free will is meaningless in the eyes of god because he knows what she will do regardless of her will. 

God did know. God chose to create Adam and Eve with free will. That choice did not break His own rules. Which "rule" do you think it broke?

 

There is no contradiction. Your conclusions do not follow from your premises.

 

I'm sorry if you can't connect the dots, or refuse to do so. 

Which rule did it break? God knew beforehand. True. Eve made a free will choice. True. The best you can do is ask the question, "why did God make free willed beings?" That does not break any of Gods "rules". We don't know for sure why, but it certainly did not break any rules. There is no logical contradiction, I'm sorry.

 

I'm no bible expert, but wasn't there a rule to not eat off the tree?  God created Eve knowing she would eat off the tree.   Unless you are saying his intent was to make humans that would not eat off the tree.  In which case he failed, yet again pointing out imperfection.  I'm sorry man.  I know you really want this to be true.  All I can do is feel badly for you for now.  If you were a reasonable person I'd consider trying to have a meaningful dialogue with you, but that has proven pointless in the past.  The newcomers in this thread who are encountering you for the first time will soon realize how closed minded you are as well.  *sigh*.  See the world for what it is.  I hope you wake up one day.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

If you claim she was created by god, and god gave her free will, but god knew she would eat the fruit, but expected her not to....well that's just silly.  Basically you are saying god chose to break his own rules.  Or that her free will is meaningless in the eyes of god because he knows what she will do regardless of her will. 

God did know. God chose to create Adam and Eve with free will. That choice did not break His own rules. Which "rule" do you think it broke?

 

There is no contradiction. Your conclusions do not follow from your premises.

 

I'm sorry if you can't connect the dots, or refuse to do so. 

Which rule did it break? God knew beforehand. True. Eve made a free will choice. True. The best you can do is ask the question, "why did God make free willed beings?" That does not break any of Gods "rules". We don't know for sure why, but it certainly did not break any rules. There is no logical contradiction, I'm sorry.

 

I'm no bible expert, but wasn't there a rule to not eat off the tree?  God created Eve knowing she would eat off the tree.   Unless you are saying his intent was to make humans that would not eat off the tree.  In which case he failed, yet again pointing out imperfection.  I'm sorry man.  I know you really want this to be true.  All I can do is feel badly for you for now.  If you were a reasonable person I'd consider trying to have a meaningful dialogue with you, but that has proven pointless in the past.  The newcomers in this thread who are encountering you for the first time will soon realize how closed minded you are as well.  *sigh*.  See the world for what it is.  I hope you wake up one day.

Ah, yes I see which rule you are talking about. God's commandments are in fact rules. God did not break the rule, though. Eve broke the rule. God knowing she would do this is not the same as God breaking His own rule. In any event, there is no contradiction. I'm looking at this honestly and openly. Life would be easier for me if I lied to myself and said God did not exist, but the evidence says otherwise.

 

[boftx]

 

To give someone the ability to do something implies that the "something" exists to be done.

Evil is a choice to do an action. Choices are not created by God.

 

>Setting that aside, how could "God" create knowledge of something that did not exist? And if God did not create it, who did?

Do you understand what the definition of cold is? God did not create cold, yet cold exists.

 

 

You need to have a serious talk with a theologian.

 

Free will, by definition, is "choice." You can not have it both ways. Either "God" created free will, with the choice to do good or evil, or "God" pre-determined all of Creation, including the evil it contains. Either way, evil is part of "God's" Creation and is a necessary part of it as "God" is described in the Bible.

 

Take your choice.

 

And if "God" did not create cold, then "God" literally created nothing at all since all matter and energy vibrates and that vibration is what can be measured as "temperature." "Cold" and "hot" may be relative terms, but the property they describe is very real and is an inherent part of the Universe. Therefore, according to the Bible, the concepts of "hot" and "cold" must have been created by "God."

 

Again, take you choice.

[Skankboy]

I think the question is incoherent. God is omnipotent so the idea of such a being deriving benefit is meaningless. Why does it matter?

 

Because if god is perfect that means (by definition) he wants for nothing.  If we wants for nothing (is complete in all ways) then why would he WANT to create the universe. 

 

As Kirk put it - "Why would god need a starship?"

[centauri]

 

Yes, God created free willed beings who could do evil.

 

Evil is an act. God does not create the actions of free willed agents. God did not force Adam and Eve to sin. They chose to do so. They could have chosen otherwise. The act was theirs not Gods. So no, God did not create evil.

But the problem with your sweeping generalization is that God predestines certain decisions and roles for at least some people.

It's by his choice and his will, not theirs.

God also manipulates human decisions by stepping in and hardening their hearts, which ensures a particular outcome.

There is no way to know how much "free will" is allowed when it isn't a universal and constant condition, which the Bible clearly indicates it is not.

God declared that he creates evil in Isa 45:7, and the word "ra" includes ethical evil, not simply disaster.

[seeker001]

 

The specifics of what is good and evil may vary from society to society, but there are some universal themes that humanity seems to agree on that are malevolent to a civilized society. Indiscriminate murder and stealing from others is considered bad or at the very least counter productive. Most people find inflicting needless pain and suffering as revolting. I think most people across all cultures are in agreement with these basic principles of good and evil.

This universality speaks against the idea that evil is relative to the societal context.

 

I would also say that there are a set of acts that are evil even if some evil dictator brainwashed everyone alive into thinking it was not. Rape for example would still be evil even if every human decided for some reason it was not.

That's kind of the thing, most people have a functional working compass.  Humans can derive the difference between right and wrong on their own, because most people have a sense of moral decency and empathy. Unless they have something wrong with them (such as being brainwashed in your example) most people do not go out and cause mayhem without a good reason. Most people like to think they are good decent individuals and try to live a good decent life.

 

In your example, that dictator forcibly altered the peoples' sense of right and wrong. If those people in your example were not brainwashed they would find rape to be evil because it is a horrendous act.  For anyone to find rape to be acceptable would mean they must have something wrong with them.