God created evil

[Associate Justice PiT]

God created all things good. Evil is not its own nature, but rather, the absence of God, and thus, the absence of good.


An analogy would be that "cold" does not really exist, but is simply the absence of heat.

     What exactly is the "absence of God"? Could it be merely the absence of belief? Or rather, not living in the way that God prescribes? Or maybe something different entirely?

[Associate Justice PiT]

God created all things good. Evil is not its own nature, but rather, the absence of God, and thus, the absence of good.


An analogy would be that "cold" does not really exist, but is simply the absence of heat.

     What exactly is the "absence of God"? Could it be merely the absence of belief? Or rather, not living in the way that God prescribes? Or maybe something different entirely?

As far as humanity is concerned, it is manifested as disobedience to God out of pride. A man who puts himself in the place of God loses touch with what is good.

     That makes sense, since that is what Satan was considered to have done. In that case, would Max Stirner be considered to be advocating disobedience out of pride in the quote at the bottom of my post? Sorry if it's a rather elementary question, but I am trying to determine what exactly is considered acceptable & unacceptable behaviour in Christian doctrine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

God created all things good. Evil is not its own nature, but rather, the absence of God, and thus, the absence of good.


An analogy would be that "cold" does not really exist, but is simply the absence of heat.

     What exactly is the "absence of God"? Could it be merely the absence of belief? Or rather, not living in the way that God prescribes? Or maybe something different entirely?

As far as humanity is concerned, it is manifested as disobedience to God out of pride. A man who puts himself in the place of God loses touch with what is good.

     That makes sense, since that is what Satan was considered to have done. In that case, would Max Stirner be considered to be advocating disobedience out of pride in the quote at the bottom of my post? Sorry if it's a rather elementary question, but I am trying to determine what exactly is considered acceptable & unacceptable behaviour in Christian doctrine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Based on what you have posted, I would say that is an example of what I just described. Nothing original about it, though.

     Well it was written in 1844, so maybe it was a more revolutionary idea back then. Anyway, thanks for your time.

[Associate Justice PiT]

God created all things good. Evil is not its own nature, but rather, the absence of God, and thus, the absence of good.


An analogy would be that "cold" does not really exist, but is simply the absence of heat.

     What exactly is the "absence of God"? Could it be merely the absence of belief? Or rather, not living in the way that God prescribes? Or maybe something different entirely?

As far as humanity is concerned, it is manifested as disobedience to God out of pride. A man who puts himself in the place of God loses touch with what is good.

     That makes sense, since that is what Satan was considered to have done. In that case, would Max Stirner be considered to be advocating disobedience out of pride in the quote at the bottom of my post? Sorry if it's a rather elementary question, but I am trying to determine what exactly is considered acceptable & unacceptable behaviour in Christian doctrine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Based on what you have posted, I would say that is an example of what I just described. Nothing original about it, though.

     Well it was written in 1844, so maybe it was a more revolutionary idea back then. Anyway, thanks for your time.

Well the whole fall of mankind thing happened quite a bit earlier than 1844, just fyi.

     I mean there have always been people who have been out for themselves, but I cannot think of anyone earlier than Stirner who actually proposed a philosophy of putting one's own interests before all else.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Anyone can play devil's advocate if they have heard a few theories.

This has nothing to do with playing devil's advocate. It has to do with holding claims to a reasonable standard of evidence. I've lost track of the number of times you've advanced your claims as better than others with no basis in reality whatsoever - it's all about you and what you prefer, not real evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? That doesn't even remotely make sense - I don't even have a blog. How then can I be a blogger? I mean seriously, do you even think before you post this nonsense?

Again the evidence I put for God is the fact that anything exists.

Insufficient. Existence only proves existence at best, not anything else.

And answer the damn question about the blogger nonsense. Seriously, if you want to keep dodging questions then you're not going to earn any credibility here on this forum.

I'm not answering a question that splits hairs between bloggers and us forum community members. As far as existence, if you think that something can just appear out of nothing then you go ahead.

     But how is it any more logical to say that God appeared out of nothing?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Anyone can play devil's advocate if they have heard a few theories.

This has nothing to do with playing devil's advocate. It has to do with holding claims to a reasonable standard of evidence. I've lost track of the number of times you've advanced your claims as better than others with no basis in reality whatsoever - it's all about you and what you prefer, not real evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? That doesn't even remotely make sense - I don't even have a blog. How then can I be a blogger? I mean seriously, do you even think before you post this nonsense?

Again the evidence I put for God is the fact that anything exists.

Insufficient. Existence only proves existence at best, not anything else.

And answer the damn question about the blogger nonsense. Seriously, if you want to keep dodging questions then you're not going to earn any credibility here on this forum.

I'm not answering a question that splits hairs between bloggers and us forum community members. As far as existence, if you think that something can just appear out of nothing then you go ahead.

     But how is it any more logical to say that God appeared out of nothing?

By definition God is infinite. That which is infinite does not have a beginning or an end. That which is finite, meaning all we know in the material realm, must have a start to it. It's hard to explain and understand, but as finite beings we will never fully be able to comprehend how the infinite is truly infinite.

     But some religions have gods that die, such as Balder in Norse mythology. I would think a proper definition of God would also have to include these deities, which would preclude infinity from defining Godhood.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Well a proper anthropological definition would, PiT.  I don't think that's what he's talking about.

Anyways, I think Derek is on the right here.  The burden of proof is on the nonbelievers; they're the ones committing the hypocrisy of denying an infinite God while accepting a metaphysic in which reality itself "appeared out of nothing."

     But would that really be hypocrisy if the person in question did not specifically deny the notion of a deity that is infinite, claiming that the idea of an infinite God was absurd?

[Associate Justice PiT]

A non-infine God within the context of Western metaphysics (and make no mistake, we're all Westerners here) is absurd.

     I phrased that badly. What I meant to ask was, how would it be hypocritical to accept that the universe appeared out of nothing if one did not believe in God, but for reasons unrelated to the issue of his infinity?

[Associate Justice PiT]

A non-infine God within the context of Western metaphysics (and make no mistake, we're all Westerners here) is absurd.

     I phrased that badly. What I meant to ask was, how would it be hypocritical to accept that the universe appeared out of nothing if one did not believe in God, but for reasons unrelated to the issue of his infinity?

Stop thinking of God as the deity with white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds. God is simply the first cause, first mover. Even if that's matter! Geez

     My apologies, it is merely that people in our society usually use the term God to refer to the Abrahamic God. I would suggest using a term that is less likely to be mistaken as referring to the Abrahamic God.