God created evil

[Derek]

Evil exists in order for us to recognize a greater good. If we were simply happy all the time or things were always perfect, then we wouldn't be aware of such perfection. Furthermore, it is what we consider evil to be that we are dealing with here. Things happen that generate a negative response from individuals; aids in Africa, war in the middle east, children with terminal illnesses, dead puppies. These things are just as much part of life as that which generates a positive response from individuals; weddings, birth of a child, helping at a retirement home, mentoring students. Many would argue that there isn't evil but evil is a state of mind the same as one can be in the state of happiness.

[Derek]

Evil is a state of mind the same as happiness. Without it, we wouldn't recognize good. Recognition is the awareness of an idea's opposition.

[Derek]

I had a really long (inebriated) conversation with my very Baptist best friend last night about where evil came from.  She tried to find it in the Bible, but no luck.

Those Baptists...

It's a state of mind.

[Derek]

By definition, it is clear because by definition all is from God. This includes evil.

[Derek]

By definition, it is clear because by definition all is from God. This includes evil.

You're assuming that this God thing exists, and you're assuming that there could only be one source for things to come from, so until you can prove both of those things you can't say that with certainty.

Ok and if there are more sources, eventually those sources had to come from something and so forth. If you don't believe in God then you don't really have a point in posting here. This thread is for people to debate if God did or did not create evil.  Evil as I see it is a state of mind and by definition yes even ideas come from God on that level. This does not make God evil but makes it so that God was the root of ideas as well. Evil is an idea.

[Derek]

Ok and if there are more sources, eventually those sources had to come from something and so forth.

No, not necessarily. Many believe in a deity who has no source - it's an existence that just has always existed and is the source of things. If you admit that one such being exists, then it's perfectly reasonable to say that other such beings could exist. There is no reason it has to be limited to one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Horse s**t. Just because I don't believe in a god does not mean I have no reason to post here. I can very well give my perspective on the origins of this idea of evil even if I don't believe in a god, the point being to get people to consider my views on it. Maybe they'll agree, maybe they won't, or maybe they might partially agree and change their views. Given that most people think their views are more likely to be valid than others, then obviously there is a point in trying to get others to consider them.

You can give your perspective but how does matter always exist? Where did it come from?

[Derek]

all things are derived from a first mover and that is what we know as God. Stop complicating this.

[Derek]

God created a perfect man. That man became evil on his own will. It was not God.

What I asked is how that evil option exists if God created everything and God is perfectly good.  Only God can create, man didn't come up with evil on its own.

Read what I posted in the creation thread of this forum. You'll find part of your answer there.

[Derek]

Ok and if there are more sources, eventually those sources had to come from something and so forth.

No, not necessarily. Many believe in a deity who has no source - it's an existence that just has always existed and is the source of things. If you admit that one such being exists, then it's perfectly reasonable to say that other such beings could exist. There is no reason it has to be limited to one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Horse s**t. Just because I don't believe in a god does not mean I have no reason to post here. I can very well give my perspective on the origins of this idea of evil even if I don't believe in a god, the point being to get people to consider my views on it. Maybe they'll agree, maybe they won't, or maybe they might partially agree and change their views. Given that most people think their views are more likely to be valid than others, then obviously there is a point in trying to get others to consider them.

You can give your perspective but how does matter always exist? Where did it come from?

Do you know how to read? I never said anything about matter, I'm talking about possibilities for original sources here, which seems to be what you define as God. It doesn't have to be matter, or it could be. Doesn't really matter in terms of my argument. As to the "how" of it that is also irrelevant. Just because I don't know the answer doesn't negate the possibility.

You keep making these arguments based on this God thing, but you can't even be sure if God as you're defining it actually exists. It's the classic logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance - because you can't think of a different possibility that suits you more, you accept it as true even though you have no evidence.

How do you know how I define God?

[Derek]

Ok and if there are more sources, eventually those sources had to come from something and so forth.

No, not necessarily. Many believe in a deity who has no source - it's an existence that just has always existed and is the source of things. If you admit that one such being exists, then it's perfectly reasonable to say that other such beings could exist. There is no reason it has to be limited to one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Horse s**t. Just because I don't believe in a god does not mean I have no reason to post here. I can very well give my perspective on the origins of this idea of evil even if I don't believe in a god, the point being to get people to consider my views on it. Maybe they'll agree, maybe they won't, or maybe they might partially agree and change their views. Given that most people think their views are more likely to be valid than others, then obviously there is a point in trying to get others to consider them.

You can give your perspective but how does matter always exist? Where did it come from?

Do you know how to read? I never said anything about matter, I'm talking about possibilities for original sources here, which seems to be what you define as God. It doesn't have to be matter, or it could be. Doesn't really matter in terms of my argument. As to the "how" of it that is also irrelevant. Just because I don't know the answer doesn't negate the possibility.

You keep making these arguments based on this God thing, but you can't even be sure if God as you're defining it actually exists. It's the classic logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance - because you can't think of a different possibility that suits you more, you accept it as true even though you have no evidence.

We get it, you're an agnostic and that's cool but we get it. You're talking all day about nothing and coming to no conclusions.

[Derek]

We get it, you're an agnostic and that's cool but we get it. You're talking all day about nothing and coming to no conclusions.

I've come to the conclusion that you're incapable of debating your way out of a paper bag. Does that count? Seriously, you can't refute the things I say so you just start accusing me of being unable to come to a conclusion, so you use straw men arguments as a cover. Pathetic.

Do you have any of your own ideas?

[Derek]

God created a perfect man. That man became evil on his own will. It was not God.

What I asked is how that evil option exists if God created everything and God is perfectly good.  Only God can create, man didn't come up with evil on its own.

Read what I posted in the creation thread of this forum. You'll find part of your answer there.

I didn't, and...

We get it, you're an agnostic and that's cool but we get it. You're talking all day about nothing and coming to no conclusions.

I've come to the conclusion that you're incapable of debating your way out of a paper bag. Does that count? Seriously, you can't refute the things I say so you just start accusing me of being unable to come to a conclusion, so you use straw men arguments as a cover. Pathetic.

Do you have any of your own ideas?

...what?

What are you confused about?

[Derek]

The only thing that is inherently sinful is deviation from the will of God. The free choice and human faculties given to Adam resulted in his decision to disobey God. God knew this obviously, as he is omniscient, but that doesn't make him culpable. Having created something tabula rasa, he is free from the creation of sin.

I assume what you're referring to when you said that God created Lucifer as perfect, you're referring to Ezekiel 28(a use of the king of Tyre as an allegory for Satan and probably for mankind in general). It says that he was blameless until unrighteousness was found in him. I can only assume to take this as Satan, and humanity, being perfect in creation because he(or they) had not yet rebelled against God. If sin is a lack of obedience to God, and goodness/blamelessness/perfection is the lack of pride and disobedience, then everything God created at its outset is good.

Unlike Satan, however, God has chosen to save those humans who will accept the sacrifice found in Christ's atonement.

Some hyper-Calvinists (who consider Calvin a heretic, funnily enough), will argue that God is the author of sin, but unfortunately like so many groups out there they've taken certain Bible passages and twisted them for their own ends, such as those that speak of God hardening certain people's hearts, and particularly and frustratingly 2 Cor 4: 3-4. This passage is a good argument for authentic "Calvinism", but when read the wrong way can lead you to ridiculous conclusions that are out of step with the rest of scripture.

How did God not know that was there and who put it there if he didn't?  It's God's world, is it not?  So what other possibilities could his creations see but the way he did things?

What are you confused about?

How is that not clear?

I'm not sure what is or isn't clear you lost me there. God would be all knowing and know beforehand but if things were perfect all the time then we would have no free will and not recognize the greater good or God's perfection.

[Derek]

The post I quoted:

Do you have any of your own ideas?

My asking of "what" was a pretty straight-forward request for clarification on where he demonstrated he didn't.

I was talking to John Dibble from GA.

[Derek]

The post I quoted:

Do you have any of your own ideas?

My asking of "what" was a pretty straight-forward request for clarification on where he demonstrated he didn't.

I was talking to John Dibble from GA.

YES. I KNOW. HENCE THE "HE".

Well he doesn't answer much all that he does is question everyone to the point of doubting whether or not something actually happened.

[Derek]

Well he doesn't answer much all that he does is question everyone to the point of doubting whether or not something actually happened.

I'm not seeing how that connects to him allegedly not having any thoughts of his own.

He doesn't have much of his own either but let's give him a chance I find it unprofessional to chat about other bloggers like that on here.

[Derek]

Well he doesn't answer much all that he does is question everyone to the point of doubting whether or not something actually happened.

I'm not seeing how that connects to him allegedly not having any thoughts of his own.

He doesn't have much of his own either but let's give him a chance I find it unprofessional to chat about other bloggers like that on here.

I don't question everyone like I question you, just people who don't have their act together because they can't even make a coherent, logical argument. You're completely unable to back up your arguments with pretty much anything that comes close to being reasonable, so you falsely claim I have no ideas when I call you on it. The fact that I present other possibilities clearly shows I have ideas, but apparently you're too dense to realize that obvious fact. Your denseness is further demonstrated in your inability to immediately understand a simple question of "what?" - even a child would understand what was being asked there!

Also this isn't a blog. People here are not bloggers.

Anyone can play devil's advocate if they have heard a few theories. And yes you are a blogger. We are posters. You are a blogger.

[Derek]

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.

[Derek]

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.

[Derek]

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.

[Derek]

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

Yes a finite god is an oxymoron.

[Derek]

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

[Derek]

I'm not answering a question that splits hairs between bloggers and us forum community members.

You won't answer it because you know you were wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well you seem to think that this "infinite God" thing can just exist without any cause, so I don't see how the notion is any more or less absurd. Of course that isn't what I said at all, but it doesn't surprise me that as usual you can't comprehend that.

The burden of proof is on the nonbelievers;

No, the burden of proof is always on the ones making a claim. To say otherwise is to say that you would have to disprove everything you don't believe in in order to say that your beliefs are rational.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a strawman argument - not all unbelievers believe the universe "appeared out of nothing". If someone actually makes that claim then the burden of proof is on them for that claim. That hasn't been proven, so I don't believe it.

Another problem with what you're saying is that it isn't necessarily hypocritical - the two claims aren't necessarily bound to one another. You could believe that the universe came from nothing, but that it is finite and will eventually end.

Infinite God thing? Yes being infinite does not require a beginning or end. How that is is beyond our finite comprehension.

[Derek]

The burden of proof is on the nonbelievers;

No, the burden of proof is always on the ones making a claim. To say otherwise is to say that you would have to disprove everything you don't believe in in order to say that your beliefs are rational.

Occum's Razor, Dibble.  It's a lot easier to explain a watch when you have a watchmaker.

1. This is an incorrect application of Occam's Razor, which states "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". The proper use of Occam's Razor is to take the evidence, develop your ideas around the evidence, and cut off anything from the ideas that are not necessitated by the evidence. I can say a watch needs a maker because I can compare it against every other watch in existence - watches don't occur in nature, we know that humans are needed to make them. The universe on the other hand is different. We don't know where the universe came from, nor do we currently know of any universes to compare it against. We cannot therefore state that the universe was made in the sense a watch would be made - it may have been, but we lack the evidence to make it a necessary conclusion, and therefore Occam's Razor would actually make any theory of the universe's origins not include a maker until evidence for one was found.

2. Occam's Razor is a principle for developing theories and whatnot, but that does not mean a theory or idea developed using Occam's Razor is necessarily correct. New evidence might show that the previous conclusions were totally incorrect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a strawman argument - not all unbelievers believe the universe "appeared out of nothing". If someone actually makes that claim then the burden of proof is on them for that claim. That hasn't been proven, so I don't believe it.

Another problem with what you're saying is that it isn't necessarily hypocritical - the two claims aren't necessarily bound to one another. You could believe that the universe came from nothing, but that it is finite and will eventually end.

I don't care if you claim it explicitly; you claim it tacitly via your acceptance of Western science and a mainstream conception of reality.[/quote]

No, I don't. I've outright stated I don't. Stop with this ridiculous attempt at straw-manning.
[/quote]

I don't know how to copy just one quote but Occam's Razor is not always concrete. Yes it is often the case that the truth or facts are right in front of you or at least the case that what is thought to have happened is more likely than a twisted far out conspiracy theory. However, you can't always be sure. I'm always careful to apply Occam's Razor to anything. What is the simplest solution after all?

[Derek]

why all the chatter?  why not just conclude God created creatures that were initially good but who had the free will to do evil and corrupt themselves?  end of story

And besides if everything was "perfect" in the beginning then it was our destiny to fail or our fate. God would have known ahead of time by being God that Adamah and Eve would have eaten the fruit. Did you know that fruit is often equated with sex in the ancient world. So technically we can say that by having knowledge, Eve gained the knowledge of sex and that the fruit is only a symbol of sex in this story. So perhaps Genesis 2 is only trying to explain original sin (sex) in a metaphorical sense. They were tempted to do what is not pure. Now every born human since the beginning of time must be cleansed of original sin which sets up the need for baptism.