Does Evil Exist?

[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, wh

o 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.

 

God did choose to actualize the world we live in and this world contains evil. He did not create this evil nor does He force those who participate in evil to act our their lives. The only question left to ask is why did God create a world in which people act out evil given that He knew it would happen. We don't know the answer for sure but it is entirely plausible that God foreknew the correct set of circumstances (which included the existence of evil and suffering) that would maximize the number of people who would freely choose Him.

 

Heat is energy. Heat is therefore something. Cold is the lack of energy and therefore is not something. Evil is the lack of something, that is God's goodness.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

 

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?"

We don't know why He created the universe. Why does it matter? If you knew why He created the universe would you submit and worship Him?

[Adrianime]

Haha, I hope you guys are enjoying this .

[OrdinaryClay]

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.

I made no generalization.

 

God cannot force a free willed agent to make a choice of their own free will. That is a logical impossibility.

 

God actualized a world in which He knew with certainty many would choose evil. This is not the same as forcing them to make those choices. They freely choose to make the choices they make. Culpability lies with the evil person. They cannot shift the blame and no such attempt will be accepted at judgement day.

 

A proper interpretation of Isa 45:7 is calamity. See Amos 3:6.

 

The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.

(Isa 45:7)

 

If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?

(Amo 3:6)

 

 

Free will is a binary state. You either have free will or you don't. It is part of being human so all humans have free will.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

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.

Exactly, and more importantly even if every person were brain washed to think rape was right it would be still be wrong. It is wrong because it is objectively wrong. Evil is not a relative judgment.

[Galien]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Exactly, and more importantly even if every person were brain washed to think rape was right it would be still be wrong. It is wrong because it is objectively wrong. Evil is not a relative judgment.

He created us with the nature we have, with the possibility of choosing evil. If he did exist he would be a loser for doing such a thing. Why create a life form with the ability to choose something, then punish it for a nature you gave it? That seems pretty evil to me.

[OrdinaryClay]

He created us with the nature we have, with the possibility of choosing evil. If he did exist he would be a loser for doing such a thing. Why create a life form with the ability to choose something, then punish it for a nature you gave it? That seems pretty evil to me.

We are not punished for our nature. On the contrary, God is no respecter of persons. We are punished for our choices we freely make.

 

Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.

(Act 10:34-35)

 

[boftx]

OrdinaryClay,

 

Consider the following verse:

 

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7

 

"God" is saying he created both light and darkness. If one grants that darkness is nothing more than the absence of light, then the same should apply to "heat" and "cold" using your logic, and by extension, to "good" and "evil."

 

In other words, "God" created the absolute principle that is being referred to in relative terms. Again, "God" created the conditions being described by the terms, otherwise how could Man know what they are? And in the case of evil, "God" specifically created a means for Man to have knowledge of it. Both logic, and "God's" own words agree: "God" created evil.

[Galien]

 

 

He created us with the nature we have, with the possibility of choosing evil. If he did exist he would be a loser for doing such a thing. Why create a life form with the ability to choose something, then punish it for a nature you gave it? That seems pretty evil to me.

We are not punished for our nature. On the contrary, God is no respecter of persons. We are punished for our choices we freely make.

 

Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.

(Act 10:34-35)

 

 

What crap of course we are punished for a nature. Shsme we don't get a choice about living by a stupid set of rules that generally turn people into judgemental assholes if we don't want to be thrown into hell. I dont care what you say i should not have to pay for the bad choices of some bitch who couldnt keep her hands off gods fruit.

[centauri]

centauri:

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.

 

OC:

I made no generalization.

 

God cannot force a free willed agent to make a choice of their own free will. That is a logical impossibility.

Yes, you did make a generalization.

You assert free will as a given, with constant application.

You haven't established that free will is a universal condition.

In fact, you blatantly ignore the scripture that clearly states God predestines some people to certain roles, conditions, and choices according to his will, not their will.

You also ignore cases where God engages in manipulation of a human in order to ensure they make a particular decision.

God actualized a world in which He knew with certainty many would choose evil. This is not the same as forcing them to make those choices. They freely choose to make the choices they make.

You don't know the degree of freedom that anyone has and your sweeping generalization contradicts scripture.

 

Deut 2:30(ESV)

But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day.

 

Deut 2:30(NLT)

“But King Sihon of Heshbon refused to allow us to pass through, because the Lord your God made Sihon stubborn and defiant so he could help you defeat him, as he has now done.

 

This is direct manipulation of so called "free-will" to ensure the outcome that God wanted.

Predestination also ruins your universal "free-will" claim.

When someone is predestined to a condition, God is in control and it's his will, his plan, and his choice.

Culpability lies with the evil person. They cannot shift the blame and no such attempt will be accepted at judgement day.

If a person has been subjected to either manipulation or predestinaton (which the Bible clearly shows instances of), you have no way to assign blame to them.

God's sovereign purpose and choice trumps human will as God sees fit.

The roles of Jacob and Esau were determined by God before they were born, not based on anything they had done.

A proper interpretation of Isa 45:7 is calamity. See Amos 3:6.

 

The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.

(Isa 45:7)

 

If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?

(Amo 3:6)

Proper interpretation turns out to be opinion.

From The Complete Jewish Bible:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15976

Isa 45:7

Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil; I am the Lord, Who makes all these.

 

Ra includes ethical evil, not simply calamity or disaster.

 

Ra-

adj bad, evil bad, disagreeable, malignant bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery) evil, displeasing bad (of its kind - land, water, etc) bad (of value) worse than, worst (comparison) sad, unhappy evil (hurtful) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition) bad, evil, wicked (ethically) in general, of persons, of thoughts deeds, actions n m evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity evil, distress, adversity evil, injury, wrong evil (ethical) n f evil, misery, distress, injury evil, misery, distress evil, injury, wrong evil (ethical)

 

Evil ultimately emerges from the same source that created all things.

God takes full credit for creating all these things.

Evil didn't spawn itself, nor did humans create it.

If it exists, it does so as part of God's action.

Free will is a binary state. You either have free will or you don't. It is part of being human so all humans have free will.

Wishful thinking and denial of scripture doesn't make all humans have free will.

You have no idea how much God might have predestined people nor do you have any idea to what degree he manipulates behavior.

Furthermore, your use of the word "free" is not accurate.

The Christian God will punish an improper choice with damnation or some other torture.

In order for a choice to be given under truly "free will", there is no punishment for the failure to make a particular choice.

Free means without charge.

The Christian God does not give free will regarding salvation, but instead gives an ultimatum.

This is not free choice but a conditional choice where threats of punishment are used to coerce a particular response.

This is the choice of the Mafia, where a shopkeeper is told he can either pay protection money to the mob or have his shop torched and destroyed.

[Skankboy]

OC is really trying to argue that god doesn't interfere with "free will" (a term that never appears in the bible so far as I know)?  Holy crap, good luck with that!

[stryper]

Paging BAA.....BAA please respond.

[TheBeast]

 

 

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 read the OT as is, but you want to read your pre-conceived ideas about your imaginary friend into it. It's you that doesn't understand.

[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. 

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

They may be intelligent and knowledgeable about some things, but they've lost all objectivity in relation to religion and the bible. Christ, what christ? There is no christ in the bible.

[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. 

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

OrdinaryClay actually speaks the truth here.

Maybe, but his response was a diversion. Ex-Christians are clearly more intelligent than Christians (as a whole), which is the reason we can see through the BS. I dare say any statistical analysis will prove my point.

[TheBeast]

 

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.

 

What a load of crap. Is there free will in the afterlife? If so, you'll lose your place in heaven sooner or later. One little slip up, one sinful thought, and you'll be gone. I'll save you a warm spot in the lake of fire.

[TheBeast]

 

 

 

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, wh

o 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.

God did choose to actualize the world we live in and this world contains evil. He did not create this evil nor does He force those who participate in evil to act our their lives. The only question left to ask is why did God create a world in which people act out evil given that He knew it would happen. We don't know the answer for sure but it is entirely plausible that God foreknew the correct set of circumstances (which included the existence of evil and suffering) that would maximize the number of people who would freely choose Him.

 

Heat is energy. Heat is therefore something. Cold is the lack of energy and therefore is not something. Evil is the lack of something, that is God's goodness.

 

 

Am I the only one who sees a whole lot of Stockholm sydrome whenever I read this persons posts?

[TheBeast]

Haha, I hope you guys are enjoying this .

I am, but I'm drinking some grappa at the same time. Lol. Without alcohol, I'd probably find it a touch disturbing.

[TheBeast]

 

 

 

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.

Exactly, and more importantly even if every person were brain washed to think rape was right it would be still be wrong. It is wrong because it is objectively wrong. Evil is not a relative judgment.

Good, so God saving a bunch of virgin girls for his followers while commanding the killing of male children and pregnant women would surely be objectively wrong, regardless of the time and culture. Yes?

[duderonomy]

Isaiah 45:7 says that God created evil.

Some might want to call it "calamity". Isn't that great! Look at the world around you. Wherever you see calamity, God did that. Whenever you see a family homeless due to a house fire or a war, wherever you see a person in a panic because he or she has lost a limb or a loved one because of seemingly senseless violence, whenever you see a child starving of malnutrition with a huge distended belly because of the decisions of the big people around it, wherever you see bombs drop and guns shoot at airplanes that are dropping bombs and you just wish the world would settle down and behave itself but it won't, God created that. That's way better than if God created evil, isn't it?

 

I'd like to ask you, O.C; how could God expect perfect humans that knew no sin to know that disobeying God and eating from the tree was wrong?  There was, according to the Genesis story, no sin in them until after they ate, and not before. Adam and Eve were created in the likeness of God Himself, sinless and perfect. You can't presuppose that they knew what they were doing when they ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, because for them, there was no knowledge of good and evil in them until they ate from the tree. 

Adam and Eve were perfect when they were created, weren't they? How could a perfect being like Eve even be tempted by a serpent, unless she already knew of evil? Can one be tempted to do evil, if one has no concept of evil at all?

 

Also, where in the Genesis story, is the serpent wrong? Didn't the serpent tell the truth? Of course it did, all the way through the story, from start to finish.

[bornagainathiest]

Paging BAA.....BAA please respond.

 

Uhhh... whassaup, man?

[stryper]

 

Paging BAA.....BAA please respond.

 

Uhhh... whassaup, man?

 

 

Oh just OC doing his thing again.  Thought you might like to jump in the fray.   I just don't care enough to engage him anymore. 

[Ravenstar]

Oh.. Yahweh most certainly is the author of evil.

 

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

 

http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/ra_7451.htm

 

The hebrew word used here is, ra'

 

It is translated as: evil, calamity, bad, harm, adversity, ugly, ill-favored, serious (?), wicked, sore (boil), sad, trouble, mischief, and grievous, in various verses - depending on the translation... but in at least 80% it is used for the word and meaning, EVIL.

 

Now use some basic logic... if Yahweh is the source, the originator of the universe - time, space, matter, energy, etc...the laws of physics etc..., the CREATOR - then he created everything, EVERYTHING.  There is no scriptural basis for any created being (either human or angelic) creating anything. If God is the author, the source - then ALL comes from him. (even if it makes you feel icky.)

 

There is nothing that could be, or happen, in this universe without Yahweh's will for it to be, express permission for it to happen, or creative sourcing. It's not possible.

 

Though calamity isn't much better:

 

ca·lam·i·ty /kəˈlæmɪti/ Show Spelled [kuh-lam-i-tee]

noun, plural ca·lam·i·ties.

1. a great misfortune or disaster, as a flood or serious injury.

2. grievous affliction; adversity; misery: the calamity of war.

 

Origin:
1375–1425; late Middle English calamite  < Middle French  < Latin calamitāt-  (stem of calamitās ), perhaps akin to incolumitās  safety

Synonyms
1. reverse, blow, catastrophe, cataclysm; mischance, mishap.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Paging BAA.....BAA please respond.

 

Uhhh... whassaup, man?

 

 

Oh just OC doing his thing again.  Thought you might like to jump in the fray.   I just don't care enough to engage him anymore. 

 

Well thanks for the vote of confidence stryper, but...

 

...when it comes to scriptural matters, I generally defer to Centauri.  He's more than a match for our 'resident' fanatic.

 

Thanks anyway. 

 

BAA.

[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.

Exactly, and more importantly even if every person were brain washed to think rape was right it would be still be wrong. It is wrong because it is objectively wrong. Evil is not a relative judgment.

It is, there is nothing in the natural world stopping humanity from deciding that rape is ok. It is because people have a sense of common decency that makes it not so. In the physical world, we are bound by the laws of nature that prevents us from taking certain actions. We can't touch fire for example, because fire hurts. We can't fly without some form of technological assistance, because gravity takes over. Humans can't naturally breath underwater, we drown and die. These are limitations that we are all subjected that no amount of wishful thinking can change.

 

Morality on the other hand is not bound by the physical world. For example, at one time suicide in was considered to be an honorable way to resolve dishonor in Japan, but the Japanese government is trying to change that. In the west, suicide is considered to be the cowardly way out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/03/japan-honourable-suicide-rate

 

Yes, there are some acts that humans can generally agree upon because most people want to live in peace. I'm not disagreeing with you that there is a good and evil, I just don't believe it derives from the natural world. It is something that is defined by humanity itself, and this capability is what allows us to form a civilized society.