Always was interested in this type of question, but for now I'll take the theist side.
It could be argued that as long as there is a god, evil has to reside in some form. Ying Yang, balance between good and evil, whatever fits your fancy. For god to claim something is good, he has to have a comparision. And since initially there was nothing, and you cannot compare something with nothing, he would of had to incorporate the evil into his creation for it to have any ability to distingusih good. Even an omnipotent being cannot judge something if there is nothing to judge it against. Then it's opinion. And said God should, in theory, have no opinion.
Or maybe the balance in the world between good and evil is what makes it 'good'. No domination of one side over another, just an overall neutral world which promotes the free will which God supports. That could be what makes the world 'good'.
Or maybe God himself is the evil one in the equation, who creates a parallel to himself to fuel his evil, maintain his evil. A person cannot be a hero without a villain to contrast him and viceversa. Or God could be the good one in the equation, and the world is what balances the equation out.
It could be argued that as long as there is a god, evil has to reside in some form. Ying Yang, balance between good and evil, whatever fits your fancy. For god to claim something is good, he has to have a comparision. And since initially there was nothing, and you cannot compare something with nothing, he would of had to incorporate the evil into his creation for it to have any ability to distingusih good. Even an omnipotent being cannot judge something if there is nothing to judge it against. Then it's opinion. And said God should, in theory, have no opinion.
Or maybe the balance in the world between good and evil is what makes it 'good'. No domination of one side over another, just an overall neutral world which promotes the free will which God supports. That could be what makes the world 'good'.
Or maybe God himself is the evil one in the equation, who creates a parallel to himself to fuel his evil, maintain his evil. A person cannot be a hero without a villain to contrast him and viceversa. Or God could be the good one in the equation, and the world is what balances the equation out.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by Thanatos12
The old adage of Epicurus:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
So does the existence of Evil negate the existence of a God? Does it make him a malevolent God?
When God was finished creating the world he remarked that "It was good" but can evil be classified in this? The yang to good's ying? Balancing the equation out? Yet why does their appear to be more evil than good in the world? Why does so much evil go unpunished and so much good unappreciated?
As Einstain said, God is not evil, evil is the lack of good. get what i mean?
So I dont think he is evil, just makes good things in different "levels".
( Is the same as cold, cold is the lack of hot.)
My opinion
Originally Posted by BlakNWyte
I want to preface this by saying that I think this issue is probably my own greatest obstacle in believing in God, and has personally caused me a lot of doubt. When I think of all the suffering in the world... aye, maybe we should all become atheists. But that's a pretty big step.
You sure like William Craig don't you?
Originally Posted by BlakNWyte
1. God and evil cannot exist together
2. Evil exists
thus:
3. God does not exist
I very much agree with the second premise, but the first one I do not. There is no reason that God and evil should be logically incompatible. There is no explicit contradiction. If you want to think there is any implicit contradiction, you have to assume another premise from what I stated above (which no philosopher has ever been able to do).
Furthermore, I can actually PROVE that God and evil are logically consistent. For, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil... but this isn't true. Because, so long as it is even remotely possible that God might have morally sufficient reasons to permit evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And of course, it does seem at least possible. Therefore, the co-existence of God and evil is logically possible.
I don't think there can be a 'sufficient' (or morally good) reason for someone who is omnipotent to permit evil. God could reach any desired conclusion in any way he wants. Why choose the path involving evil acts if he is inherently good? He could do without them, being all-powerful.
And by the way, necessary "goodness" seems to me like yet another stipulation to omnipotence, is it not? So say, if i have a set of rigid moral boundaries which I made for myself (and others) and consider any act which goes outside those boundaries bad....I can't really cross them if I want to still fancy myself morally flawless?
As you know I'm a moral relativist myself, but I'm assuming existence of godly objective morals here.
Last edited by Odlov; Oct 22, 2009 at 01:59 AM.
Evil does not exist because it is subjective, and subjectivity negates the possibility of moral absolutes. Each society has had it's own definition of evil, and there will always be a few individuals in each society who revolutionize the concept with some act considered terrible by said society. Although society may classify evil as murder, torture, rape, and other violent crimes, some other society will classify it as polygamy, pornography or some other sort of sexual deviation.
TL/DR: Evil is a human, unquantifiable concept, and therefore is not objective, and therefore does not truly exist, nor do moral absolutes.
EDIT: Wasn't paying attention to the fact that this is about moral objectivism in Judeo-Christian religious systems- my bad. Here's my two cents on it from that angle-
In addition to the morality paradox presented here, one can relate also to the omnipotence paradox (if a God cannot create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, he is not omnipotent, but if he can create a stone that he cannot lift, he is still not omnipotent). However, when taking both arguments down the path of quantitative and relativistic impossibility and realizing that the answer cannot possibly lie there due to the fundamental flaws in theology, one eventually ends up at the theological/metaphysical realization that the entire purpose of a Judeo-Christian god is to NOT be understood by mere mortals (in the case of the moral argument), and the fact that the Judeo-Christian god is not corporeal, which negates the whole omnipotence paradox concept from a physical standpoint. TL/DR: The Judeo-Christian God is not meant to be understood- he is obviously wrathful and vengeful (Odlov has a bevy of delightful biblical quotes to back that statement up), and yet is portrayed in the bible as omniscient. However, if man is created in his image, one must assume that we have inherited his own flaws, which in turn became the fundamentals of morality for the Christian church. Therefore, the Christian god does acknowledge the existence of evil and chooses to let his created people deal with it themselves- is that not what we do most of the time when we see someone in need? If someone on the street is getting mugged, do we immediately run over and help them? No. We turn away and try not to think about it. Perhaps, if a god exists, he has done the same.
TL/DR: Evil is a human, unquantifiable concept, and therefore is not objective, and therefore does not truly exist, nor do moral absolutes.
EDIT: Wasn't paying attention to the fact that this is about moral objectivism in Judeo-Christian religious systems- my bad. Here's my two cents on it from that angle-
In addition to the morality paradox presented here, one can relate also to the omnipotence paradox (if a God cannot create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, he is not omnipotent, but if he can create a stone that he cannot lift, he is still not omnipotent). However, when taking both arguments down the path of quantitative and relativistic impossibility and realizing that the answer cannot possibly lie there due to the fundamental flaws in theology, one eventually ends up at the theological/metaphysical realization that the entire purpose of a Judeo-Christian god is to NOT be understood by mere mortals (in the case of the moral argument), and the fact that the Judeo-Christian god is not corporeal, which negates the whole omnipotence paradox concept from a physical standpoint. TL/DR: The Judeo-Christian God is not meant to be understood- he is obviously wrathful and vengeful (Odlov has a bevy of delightful biblical quotes to back that statement up), and yet is portrayed in the bible as omniscient. However, if man is created in his image, one must assume that we have inherited his own flaws, which in turn became the fundamentals of morality for the Christian church. Therefore, the Christian god does acknowledge the existence of evil and chooses to let his created people deal with it themselves- is that not what we do most of the time when we see someone in need? If someone on the street is getting mugged, do we immediately run over and help them? No. We turn away and try not to think about it. Perhaps, if a god exists, he has done the same.
Last edited by hydrotoxin; Oct 22, 2009 at 02:15 AM.
[Piratez]
I am neither Oyster nor lsl.
I am neither Oyster nor lsl.
