100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Did God create evil? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
"If God is real, and God created everything, why did He create evil?" "Why did a personal, loving God create a world in which evil exists?" "Why did God give man freedom to commit evil acts?" Atheists reason, "Surely, an all-knowing God of love would not allow evil to exist in His world." The response to the foregoing is summed up in God's nature and His desire for mankind. Look at the logic: How could God allow for love without the potential for evil? God could have created robots that do nothing more than forever say, "I love you, I love you, I love you." But such creatures would be incapable of a real love relationship. Love is a choice, and the Bible says God desires a real love relationship with His creation. Love is not real unless was have the ability to not love. One of God's attributes is omniscience. God knew that in a world with choice, there would be much evil -- to choose not to love is evil by definition. However, there would also be the capacity for real love. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga writes, "An all loving, all powerful, all knowing Being could permit as much evil as He pleased without forfeiting His claim to being all loving, so long as for every evil state of affairs He permits there is an accompanying greater good". The potential for love out weighs the existence of evil, especially if evil can only exist for a time. Evil is a side effect of love. Suffering and death are a side effect of evil (Romans 5:12). God says in His Bible that this side effect is only for a time. Evil serves the limited purpose of establishing real love relationships between creation and the Creator, and evil will be done away with after that purpose is achieved. "And the world passes away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God abides forever" (I John 2:17). Speaking of love... 
Gotta love a lady who knows her theology. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If God is real, and God created everything, why did He create evil?" "Why did a personal, loving God create a world in which evil exists?" "Why did God give man freedom to commit evil acts?" Atheists reason, "Surely, an all-knowing God of love would not allow evil to exist in His world." The response to the foregoing is summed up in God's nature and His desire for mankind. Look at the logic: How could God allow for love without the potential for evil? God could have created robots that do nothing more than forever say, "I love you, I love you, I love you." But such creatures would be incapable of a real love relationship. Love is a choice, and the Bible says God desires a real love relationship with His creation. Love is not real unless was have the ability to not love. One of God's attributes is omniscience. God knew that in a world with choice, there would be much evil -- to choose not to love is evil by definition. However, there would also be the capacity for real love. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga writes, "An all loving, all powerful, all knowing Being could permit as much evil as He pleased without forfeiting His claim to being all loving, so long as for every evil state of affairs He permits there is an accompanying greater good". The potential for love out weighs the existence of evil, especially if evil can only exist for a time. Evil is a side effect of love. Suffering and death are a side effect of evil (Romans 5:12). God says in His Bible that this side effect is only for a time. Evil serves the limited purpose of establishing real love relationships between creation and the Creator, and evil will be done away with after that purpose is achieved. "And the world passes away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God abides forever" (I John 2:17). Speaking of love...
Gotta love a lady who knows her theology. Aaw!  That is why some hate me as well...
Proverbs 28:5 Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1John 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK Two recent threads by CreativeSoul skirt around this, and raise the topic in many ways, but let's ask this specific question straight out. Did God create evil, and if not, who did? God is good there fore evil is the absence of God. God gave us free will. When free will is practiced in the absence of God then we get evil. God mad free will so God must allow evil to exist. So yes, God created evil. Wrong and right.......God is good therefore evil is not of God......And as God is always around you cannot therefore practice evil without him knowing....God didn't make freewill he gave all people free will and God doesn't allow evil our freewill lets evil in.......All that is nasty and evil of this world is of satan as God did give satan the earth to run amok in.....But their will come a time when that is taken away from satan and he will banished for 1000 years...... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Tue 02/26/08 06:31 PM
|
|
Jeannie:
This would depend upon what it means to "exist."
Existance exists purely by it's own definition, necessarily so even... To be... Hiya Di: 
Your chainsaw is just fine... 
Creative, if you utilize a philosophical theory to support your point of view, it might be a good idea to provide the philosophical (definition) of the words you use within the context of your idea (in the beginning).
You know me Di... I just enjoy hearing all sides, and absorbing that which fits...
Concerning the 'nothing' notion... As you well know, I do not beleive that 'nothing' exists. The line between something and nothing does not exist, therefore... If that theory is accepted, the big BIG question is “can/does energy have thought, reasoning, purpose?”
Yes, and perhaps the consideration of what constitutes enough manifestation to be considered as a conceivable 'entity'. That is where I believe Spinoza 'failed' in describing the 'God' he attempted to describe... 
spider: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
If one follows the premise of light and darkness(opposites), then one is able to safely say that the author just may or may not have considered peace and evil with the same measure. One just does not know for sure exactly what the author truly meant. Either way, the verse clearly has been translated(in this case) as the term evil, not something else. Georgiagirl: Philosopher Alvin Plantinga writes, "An all loving, all powerful, all knowing Being could permit as much evil as He pleased without forfeiting His claim to being all loving, so long as for every evil state of affairs He permits there is an accompanying greater good". The potential for love out weighs the existence of evil, especially if evil can only exist for a time. Evil is a side effect of love.
Although all of the above is of his opinion, Platinga makes a strong case in his best of all possible worlds type of ontological argument(adjusted from previous ones). His personal notions concerning 'love' seem like empirically sound and pleasing notions... However, concerning his ontological argument, one must accept the premise that there does exist a being with 'maximal greatness' to follow Platinga's logic through to the conclusion that a 'God'(as described in the Bible) necessarily exists... Omniscience is still problematic, also... And thus, the empirical notion(definition) of maximal greatness, provides the weakest link... The weakest link is the premise... 
Platinga himself admits that his ontological argument is not a proof of this 'Gods' existence.
The issue(s) that I can see with Anselm, Descartes, and Platinga are the actual terms that must be defined in order to provide the substance of the argument. Perhaps the even bigger one is the dependancy on the material existance for such a definition. One could just as easily say that no such a being(maximally greater) materially exists. Finally, it does indeed go against Quantum Physics' modern observations, although it is pleasing to the believer and those who want to believe in 'love', just because... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If one follows the premise of light and darkness(opposites), then one is able to safely say that the author just may or may not have considered peace and evil with the same measure. One just does not know for sure exactly what the author truly meant. Either way, the verse clearly has been translated(in this case) as the term evil, not something else. I disagree with you completely. Surprised?
As so many are fond of pointing out, the Bible contrasts "good" and "evil" many times. ra' as a noun means evil, but natural evil. "Evil" isn't the correct translation, because we don't have a word that means "the evil that comes from natural catastrophes". Evil was used, because it's "close enough". Other translators used "distress", but that again isn't a true translation of what the word means, but I think it's more clear. To be clear: When ra' is used as a noun, it NEVER means moral evil, it means disasters that are caused by nature. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aw spider, we are actually much more in agreement that you may realize...
It very well may be as you claim... The contingiencies are endless, though, and one could be on a long road to recovery should one travel such an empirical path... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgiagirl: Philosopher Alvin Plantinga writes, "An all loving, all powerful, all knowing Being could permit as much evil as He pleased without forfeiting His claim to being all loving, so long as for every evil state of affairs He permits there is an accompanying greater good". The potential for love out weighs the existence of evil, especially if evil can only exist for a time. Evil is a side effect of love.
Although all of the above is of his opinion, Platinga makes a strong case in his best of all possible worlds type of ontological argument(adjusted from previous ones). His personal notions concerning 'love' seem like empirically sound and pleasing notions... Yes they do However, concerning his ontological argument, one must accept the premise that there does exist a being with 'maximal greatness' to follow Platinga's logic through to the conclusion that a 'God'(as described in the Bible) necessarily exists... Yes this is true Omniscience is still problematic, also... And thus, the empirical notion(definition) of maximal greatness, provides the weakest link... The weakest link is the premise...
Platinga himself admits that his ontological argument is not a proof of this 'Gods' existence.
True again The issue(s) that I can see with Anselm, Descartes, and Platinga are the actual terms that must be defined in order to provide the substance of the argument. Perhaps the even bigger one is the dependancy on the material existance for such a definition. One could just as easily say that no such a being(maximally greater) materially exists. One could… Finally, it does indeed go against Quantum Physics' modern observations, although it is pleasing to the believer and those who want to believe in 'love', just because... 
Ok I would ask why but then I’d have to start paying you to tutor me. *grins* *scratches head* err ok my brain doesn’t hurt too bad…so in short you are trying to say? It’s possible but not probable? Err…umm…hmm. I guess all I can say is uh…ok. Thanks 4 your time and thoughts Creative.
Peace & Love or Yin, Yang & Chi  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
georgiagirl:
*scratches head* err ok my brain doesn’t hurt too bad…so in short you are trying to say? It’s possible but not probable? Err…umm…hmm. I guess all I can say is uh…ok. Thanks 4 your time and thoughts Creative.
Peace & Love or Yin, Yang & Chi I do not claim, and will not claim that I know the answers to any ontological argument. Who would I be should I make such a claim? The same person I am now, albeit adding a little too much overconfidence... I simply enjoy keeping the notion alive and well...
I am not a non-believer, at least not in the truest of senses... Material existance fleets in and out of the human capability of it's visual perception. I love what believing has done for me within...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
georgiagirl: *scratches head* err ok my brain doesn’t hurt too bad…so in short you are trying to say? It’s possible but not probable? Err…umm…hmm. I guess all I can say is uh…ok. Thanks 4 your time and thoughts Creative.
Peace & Love or Yin, Yang & Chi I do not claim, and will not claim that I know the answers to any ontological argument. Who would I be should I make such a claim? The same person I am now, albeit adding a little too much overconfidence... I simply enjoy keeping the notion alive and well...
I am not a non-believer, at least not in the truest of senses... Material existance fleets in and out of the human capability of it's visual perception. I love what believing has done for me within...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No georgiagirl......in that answer lies the truth and nothing but....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK Two recent threads by CreativeSoul skirt around this, and raise the topic in many ways, but let's ask this specific question straight out. Did God create evil, and if not, who did? God is good there fore evil is the absence of God. God gave us free will. When free will is practiced in the absence of God then we get evil. God mad free will so God must allow evil to exist. So yes, God created evil. You lost me. God is good there fore evil is the absence of God. God gave us free will. When free will is practiced in the absence of God then we get evil. God mad free will Up to this point, we are pretty much in agreement. so God must allow evil to exist. This is where you lose me. If you mean "God allows evil to exist, because God allows us to have free will", then we are in complete agreement. Can you clarify this statement, so that I understand? So yes, God created evil. I disagree with this conclusion. God does not actively create evil. God allows evil to be created, but God has no hand in it. Each individual is personally responsible for any evil created. All of this rehash about whether or not "GOD" created "EVIL" is senseless and futile if you can't agree on what God is or what evil is. Evil is an act. It is not a THING. Because of WILL (which is naturally free) all acts must be allowed. What is called an "evil" act is also an opinion. I love to dance in the nude under the moon. 
Some people would call that and "evil" act. Jeannie |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No georgiagirl......in that answer lies the truth and nothing but....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
georgia:
Thank you, I am humbled...
I am of the belief that we are all teachers... We are all students... Regarding different perspectives... What is perceived as real is real in it's affects. Jeannie: Regarding evil... Evil is not always just an action... Where does it begin? It's definition is always subjective. Furthermore, it is when unneccesary evil is factored into one's thought that creates an issue when considering the notion of an omni-god... Consider this... An evil idea which is acted upon, knowingly and with good intent, must first be formed in the the mind. Yet, to the one performing such an act, the act in question may seem good. Therefore, according to some definitions of this term evil, even such an act would not be evil. If part of the definition which constitutes an evil act includes the perpetrator of the act to knowingly commit the evil act. There are, and will always be, those who perform such an act, but do not know(consider) them to be evil. It is a thing, just as much as good is a thing... In the context often used in the Bible, where I believe the term originated, evil is used quite often as a noun(notion)... Nouns... A person, place, or a thing... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I stand corrected.
I do agree that a thought is a thing. A self-destructive or destructive thought could be considered and evil act. Jeannie |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I stand corrected. I do agree that a thought is a thing. A self-destructive or destructive thought could be considered and evil act. Jeannie Sorry, A self-destructive thought maybe a bad thing. But I never believed that any thought however evil is bad in the same way a deed is. "I have committed adultery in my mind." said one of your presidents. Who hasn't? If a thought is as bad as a deed, as I was told as a child, we are ALL going to hell. I have padded cellars in my mind, but I don't act out the occasional trips down there. A person can have all the evil thoughts they want, it is his or her actions which count. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I stand corrected. I do agree that a thought is a thing. A self-destructive or destructive thought could be considered and evil act. Jeannie Sorry, A self-destructive thought maybe a bad thing. But I never believed that any thought however evil is bad in the same way a deed is. "I have committed adultery in my mind." said one of your presidents. Who hasn't? If a thought is as bad as a deed, as I was told as a child, we are ALL going to hell. I have padded cellars in my mind, but I don't act out the occasional trips down there. A person can have all the evil thoughts they want, it is his or her actions which count. I do agree with that. Let me explain please We all engage in destructive thoughts from time to time. 1. If I believed in the concept of "evil" (~which I don't) 2. AND IF I agreed that "thoughtS" are "things" (which I do) 3. AND if, (for the sake of argument) I defined "evil" as a "thing" (which I don't) 4.Then I WOULD AGREE that a destructive thought (one which leads a person down a road towards destruction of himself or others... ~~ and that would be a persistent reoccurring thought).. is evil. In other words, persistent negative thinking WILL lead you to a path of self destruction. Self destruction is not a good thing IMO. If "evil" is the opposite of "good" then self destruction is an evil thing and thoughts that lead to self destruction are evil things. I am not talking about "sin" here. I personally don't find any meaning in that word and I don't find any meaning in the word "evil" either, and I use the term loosely. Jeannie |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I stand corrected. I do agree that a thought is a thing. A self-destructive or destructive thought could be considered and evil act. Jeannie Sorry, A self-destructive thought maybe a bad thing. But I never believed that any thought however evil is bad in the same way a deed is. "I have committed adultery in my mind." said one of your presidents. Who hasn't? If a thought is as bad as a deed, as I was told as a child, we are ALL going to hell. I have padded cellars in my mind, but I don't act out the occasional trips down there. A person can have all the evil thoughts they want, it is his or her actions which count. If you commit sins or not, that has nothing to do with if you go to Heaven or not. We are saved through grace, not works. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
without good there can be no evil. the way i see it is Man created God out of neccessity to find out the meaning of it all.
God is good, so there for in creating good we also created evil. there is both in everything, us, plants, animals, weather...EVERYTHING so no God didnt creat evil....MAN did |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE WHICH MEANS WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL. IT ITS THOSE CHOICES THAT LEAD TO SIN AND DEATH.
|
|
|
|
|
