No objective grounding for evil?

[JGL53]

JGL53 - "I think there's a verse in the bible admitting that god created both good and evil, so it's not like I'm saying anything new here."

....There is no such verse.

Isaiah 45:7 King James Bible
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

So, juvenissun - you FAIL.

 

[juvenissun]

JGL53 - "I think there's a verse in the bible admitting that god created both good and evil, so it's not like I'm saying anything new here."



Isaiah 45:7 King James Bible
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

So, juvenissun - you FAIL.

Check the lexicon:

calamity; רָ֑ע ra; 7451b evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity from the same as roa

I am afraid the word should be interpreted differently from the strict definition of evil. Only the KJV still use the word evil for this verse. Evil used in this verse give a meaning in contrast to Peace.

Also, the word "create" in this verse does not bear the meaning of origin, such as the one used in Genesis 1.

God can not create evil. It is logically impossible. But God do give disasters.

 

[juvenissun]

Evidence of this claim? And no, pointing to a book from where you repeated the claim will not do.

Genesis 1.

Why would it not do? Are we talking about Christianity?

Just to comfort you, if we talked about Daoism or Buddhism then it is a different story. The concept of evil in Daoism is completely different. Do you know who or what is evil is Buddhism? I probably won't talk to you much about it in this thread.

 

[juvenissun]

Why isn't it possible that A is evil and -A is good? Maybe God is actually evil, but he suspends it from time to time. Which is when we experience good. The world be eaxctly as we see it if God's nature was the opposite of what is commonly believed. Aside from having faith in God's goodness, you have no way to know what the "ground," or let's say the default state really is.

It is all about definition. God is defined as Good. So God is not evil.

The ground of everything is definition. Even God needs to be defined. Learn that.

 

[JGL53]

Check the lexicon:

calamity; רָ֑ע ra; 7451b evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity from the same as roa

I am afraid the word should be interpreted differently from the strict definition of evil. Only the KJV still use the word evil for this verse. Evil used in this verse give a meaning in contrast to Peace.

Also, the word "create" in this verse does not bear the meaning of origin, such as the one used in Genesis 1.

God can not create evil. It is logically impossible. But God do give disasters.

God can logically do anything he wants. E.g., it is logically possible for god to cause a earthquake to happen and kill 100,000 in 30 seconds. It is also logically possible for god to cause a baby to be born blind, or cause a child to die from disease. How about the ten plagues of Egypt. Those were evil and god did them.

Injury, calamity, distress, misery and disasters - they are all forms of evil IMO. And god is capable, if he wishes, to "do" any of them.

If the god of the bible is not the god you would prefer to be, then that is too bad, because that is the god you have. It is the god all christians are stuck with, for better or worse. Get used to it.

 

[JGL53]

It is all about definition. God is defined as Good. So God is not evil.

The ground of everything is definition. Even God needs to be defined. Learn that.

Some people prefer to judge god by his actions. That seems fair. If god doesn't like it he can email us a complaint.

God does not get a pass just for being god.

I don't really care if you disagree. You are WRONG.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

God defines and imputes 'evil', he didn't create it. God is a parent, who decides what is good, or bad, behavior in his children. The children don't get to decide (we all know what a disaster that would be).

 

[JGL53]

God defines and imputes 'evil', he didn't create it. God is a parent, who decides what is good, or bad, behavior in his children. The children don't get to decide (we all know what a disaster that would be).

That's YOUR naked opinion. Mind if I discount it 100 per cent?

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, I should care before I created the A. If I created A, I certainly have a way to deal with the effect of -A, which I did not create.

you would think so! But a quick look at the real world; it doesn't look like God is doing a very good job of dealing with evil does it!

Ken

 

[JGL53]

you would think so! But a quick look at the real world; it doesn't look like God is doing a very good job of dealing with evil does it!

Ken

Yeah. It's almost like god isn't there. It's more like god is a metaphor. Interesting how that obvious explanation/conclusion flies over many people's heads at the speed of light.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's YOUR naked opinion. Mind if I discount it 100 per cent?

This topic has angered you. Whyzat?

 

[variant]

> 2

Yes, evil and good define one another, in that they are a pair of opposites wherein one would not exist without the other.

To explain - if one lived in a universe wherein there was NO evil, then there would be no necessity to even invent the word or concept, so no one would. And it works the same way if we substitute the word or concept "good" in the previous sentence.

I don't think this is necessary at all. Things we value, the "good" as it were is entirely capable of existing in a range without being opposed by evil. Then you would have a range of preferred outcomes and values all the way down to feeling neutral about things.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Genesis 1.

Why would it not do? .

because repeating a claim is just repeating a claim. Now, genesis 1 needs evidence. You haven't answered my question. You merely pointed to the original claim that you simply repeated.

 

[Dave Ellis]

> 2

Yes, evil and good define one another, in that they are a pair of opposites wherein one would not exist without the other.

To explain - if one lived in a universe wherein there was NO evil, then there would be no necessity to even invent the word or concept, so no one would. And it works the same way if we substitute the word or concept "good" in the previous sentence.

That's nonsensical, if you lived in a universe where evil didn't exist, then everything would be good (or at least neutral).

While it may be true that people living in that universe may not have a use for the word (which is still debatable as neutral things, or things that are better than others would still need definition), it doesn't change the fact that everything that exists would be good.

 

[juvenissun]

God can logically do anything he wants. E.g., it is logically possible for god to cause a earthquake to happen and kill 100,000 in 30 seconds. It is also logically possible for god to cause a baby to be born blind, or cause a child to die from disease. How about the ten plagues of Egypt. Those were evil and god did them.

Injury, calamity, distress, misery and disasters - they are all forms of evil IMO. And god is capable, if he wishes, to "do" any of them.

If the god of the bible is not the god you would prefer to be, then that is too bad, because that is the god you have. It is the god all christians are stuck with, for better or worse. Get used to it.

Calamity is not evil. Evil is not a term YOU can define arbitrarily.

 

[juvenissun]

Some people prefer to judge god by his actions. That seems fair. If god doesn't like it he can email us a complaint.

God does not get a pass just for being god.

I don't really care if you disagree. You are WRONG.

One thing to prevent stubbornness is try to reason.

It becomes more important when one is getting old and thinks he knows everything.

Are you going to reason? Or you are tire of doing it?

 

[juvenissun]

you would think so! But a quick look at the real world; it doesn't look like God is doing a very good job of dealing with evil does it!

Ken

In fact, God is doing an amazing job. This is one of the reason I am convinced that God does exist.

This world is controlled by satan. What do you expect?

 

[juvenissun]

because repeating a claim is just repeating a claim. Now, genesis 1 needs evidence. You haven't answered my question. You merely pointed to the original claim that you simply repeated.

Yes. It took me more than two whole months to go over it (just Gen. 1) in my Sunday School.

You absolutely do not know what is said in Gen. 1.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes. It took me more than two whole months to go over it (just Gen. 1) in my Sunday School.

You absolutely do not know what is said in Gen. 1.

I can only repeat myself...
When you repeat a claim and are asked to support the claim with evidence, pointing to the original claim that you repeated is not a valid answer.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes. It took me more than two whole months to go over it (just Gen. 1) in my Sunday School.

You absolutely do not know what is said in Gen. 1.

How on earth would it take you two months to go over Genesis 1? There's only 31 verses, and they aren't that complicated.

On a side note, did you go over the parts in Genesis 2 which contradict Genesis 1?