Proof God created evil

[DingDing]

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

Yes, God created evil.

And you see no problem with your apparent understanding of this verse, and say, where John says "God is love"?

No, the problem I see is you ignoring the prophets.

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

NT does not trump OT.

I didn't say it did. I simply asked how do you reconcile two apparently contradictory passages like this, given how you evidently interpret the first. It really is a simple question.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

That is your problem, YouAreAwesome, you just think too much. As for myself, I only had 3 years of calculus - plus all the other math and physics and engineering. It is a wonder I can think anymore.

Awesome! I have a maths degree Nothing further. You would school me I'm sure.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I don’t think I can answer your question unless you are able to define it

What definitions are missing? Evil is disobedience to God.

I reject your premise that God created evil and therefore is evil

Do you believe God is 100% responsible for evil? (p.s. I did not assert that God is evil)

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Evil is not a primary quality. Evil is a resultant quality: that which results when good is shoved out of the way. It's analogous to cold being the absence of heat. Cold, like evil is a resultant (or secondary) quality.

Also, if every being with free will will, at some point in eternity, do something evil, why isn't God lumped in with everyone else? To say a being (or every being, which includes God) with free will will, when given enough time, do evil negates the only Being who exists in eternity that could be evaluated. God has free will, but He doesn't sin, never has sinned, nor ever will sin.

Unless He did create evil, and it is the most loving thing possible.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

#2 is false because the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition teaches that God did not create moral evil

In this case, Evil = Disobey God. Do creatures with free will have the capacity to do evil?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

That's your theory, but in the New Heaven and the New Earth there will be no sin, so scripture is contradicting that.

Unless there is no more potential to do evil, which seems the only way there can be "no more pain".

 

[Aryeh]

No, p' is the probability of not doing evil.
p is the probability of doing evil.


Real.


I'm assuming the probability, p, of choosing evil varies in time in the interval (0,1), thus creating a polynomial function on the Cartesian plane where the x-axis is time and the y-axis is the potential to do evil.


So Adam and Eve never did this?
Also, do you believe we give up our TOTAL free will, or just our MORAL free will in choosing to follow God?

I think Adam and Eve did give 100% of their free will to God in the beginning. But, there was work put into making them tend toward sin - the deception of the serpent.

It was still their choice to indulge it, and choose to act; their sin act wouldn't have been sin if they didn't have knowledge of God's commandment He gave. They developed into corruption.

I think holy entities give up 100% of their free will (all facets and dimensions) to God willingly. On a basic level, this would have to be if you want unity with Him - like how Christ has the audacity to say He and the Father are one. (He can say that because of who He is, and what He accomplished in and out of time.) When the angel was speaking to John about prophecy, and he was about to get on his knees and worship the angel (he thought it was the Son of Man, possibly) The angel had to tell him not to worship him because he was a fellowservent of God. But he as a holy entity was in Union with God so that he sounded like God Himself was speaking. Most of the angels show this characteristic.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm sorry, but your post is not in conflict with Premise #5. Nor did you specifically find fault in #6, #7 or #8.

No, I do not believe this. And I would like to find the OP false. I just don't know how to. If God is the indirect cause of evil then I need to figure out how to fit this in to my current belief system. Before I noticed this anomaly, I've believed there is the possibility that Adam and Eve could have never sinned. There is the loophole within probability that says the impossible can happen (i.e. If I say random numbers for an infinite time, the probability of me stating those exact numbers is 0). I've used this idea to believe sin was NOT inevitable. And, I still think it's true, but I just don't know how to get there.

My apologies. I was led to believe this by your OP. Perhaps some bolded words saying what you are saying to me here in your OP would help others to not misunderstand your post. I would suggest in adding to your list that man can be good by accepting Jesus and following Him (Instead of concluding that all men's final fate is Romans 3:23). For our end destiny is not determined by our past because Jesus can redeem us back to GOD.

Anyways, thank you for clarifying.

I am just not sure how you can still be confused on this after reading my posts. For me it is clear 100%.

1. Evil exists in order for true love to exist
(of which GOD desires to have true love with us).

2. GOD not preventing evil does not mean GOD is not righteous in that situation. GOD allows evil to exist so as to give man space or time to repent because GOD is long suffering towards all men and desires all to be saved. GOD also can test His people by evil situations so as to draw them closer to Him, as well. So GOD can use bad things as a means of leading man to Him.

3. GOD is not responsible for evil because He did not directly create evil beings out of thin air. GOD created beings who can choose good or evil equally and who will reap what they sow. People that GOD knows who will do evil and GOD does not stop it does not mean GOD is responsible for allowing it to happen because GOD has a master plan for good in using even evil for His good purposes. For example: The death of God's Son (which is really horrible and evil was for the salvation of mankind). In other words, GOD has the power to turn all bad or evil situations into good ones. So the idea that GOD is not being righteous for allowing evil to exist is flawed.

...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Unless there is no more potential to do evil, which seems the only way there can be "no more pain".

Yes, in the Final New Heavens and New Earth there will be no more death, sorrow, pain, disease, or suffering anymore. The tests upon all men who will be God's saints will have passed. How GOD keeps His saints from living perfectly in eternal perfection and without considering in choosing evil is up to GOD. But it will be the choice the saints have made for all eternity. Perhaps all knowledge of sin will be wiped from their minds or perhaps they just would not have the capacity to be able to sin. It could also be that there will be nothing in this new world to tempt them, as well. We don't know. But what we do know is that GOD is good and He is not responsible for evil. That would make Him bad if that was the case. For 1 John 1:5 says there is no darkness in GOD.


...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Please either find the mistake in this logic, or find the false premise:

1. God created free agents
2. Free agents have the potential to do evil, e
3. Potential has a non-zero probability, p, where 0<p<1
4. Therefore, over infinite time, the probability of a free agent to perform evil approaches 1 [Let t represent time, then P(e)=1-(p')^t, ∴ P(e)=1 as t→∞]
5. Therefore God created free agents knowing they would create evil
6. It was impossible for free agents to remain sinless
7. Therefore God is 100% responsible for evil
8. Therefore God created evil

If this is true, is "the end justifies the means" the only response available? In other words, was the value of free agents to God greater than the evil they would create? In times of suffering, is there comfort found in recognizing the overall reason for evil is because we are more valuable to God when we have a moral free will?

YAA,

Personally, I only have to look at the first premise to find a fault.

To say that God created "free agents" is to make a "speech act" which imputes the quality "free" to aspects of our being, in both body and mind, one that supposedly reflects our having been created in "God's Image." However, the fault in the first premise seems to be two fold: 1) the mere assertion that we are "free agents" is too vague of an application of this term, considering especially, 2) the concept of being created in "God's Image" is not theologically clear and comprehensive enough for us to know all of the faculties that have been supplied to the human psychology by God--and therefore, it does not provide us with specific, baseline meaning by which we can impute either the presence of total freedom or total predetermination within any given human life.

It seems, then, the first premise is vague not only in its denotation as to human freedom, but also in its relation to other theological concepts, making it susceptible to Construal Level Theory in the midst of a prolonged, deductive assessment. Thus, the first premise is equivocal in its usage of the term "free" and is incoherent with other notions we hold about both God and His creation.

Moreover, if premise one is vague, then we may need to posit in premise two that while human beings may have the potential to do evil, they also have the potential to obey God, especially if we hold that the semantics involved in our being made in the "Image of God" seem to indicate a meaning more appropriate to a positive and/or constructive outcome than a negative and/or destructive one.

In considering what I've stated above, we would need to be consistent and assert, at the very least, that if God is 100% responsible for evil, then He is also 100% responsible for good... and if this is the case, what good is there left for humanity to claim as it's very own?

If this paradox seems untenable, even as a provision for a minimum required consistency in argument, then where should we then place the onus of responsibility for the presence of evil?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The growth that we are called to is to abide in Jesus Christ, where we grow in virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. The fruits of the Spirit. That is what it means to be a Christian, to be more and more like Jesus Christ every day.

Am I not abiding in Christ when I ask a question?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I notice you never talk about Jesus Christ.

Have you been stalking me?

I know God personally, and the scripture says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. You've talked yourself out of fearing Him and that is an extremely dangerous place for you to be. You think your brain is going to solve this problem but the real trouble is with your heart, because this is about faith and not what you can figure out. Satan rules these thought realms and intellectually in our flesh we are pip squeaks compared to him. When you start to go this way it is because the devil is wrapping you around his finger and tearing you away from God. When you get out of it you'll think you're right but you won't have Jesus Christ any longer, you'll have some counterfeit facsimile of Him which cannot save you.

I am of the opinion that our brains are important. Are you encouraging me to stop using it? I must say, the attitude you appear to display is what I believe drives people out of Christianity, not asking difficult questions. I don't believe God is afraid of difficult questions, I don't find Him like that, He's not insecure.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The longer the "free agents" enjoy the divine relationship, the less likely that they will do evil.

Very good! I did think of this during this discussion but haven't had a change to really think it through. So probability of doing evil is not a constant or an average, but approaches zero itself as we spend time growing in relationship with God. For example, p=e^-t as t→∞ and t>0 (e=natural log, not to be confused with e=evil).

The equation when taking the complement of p is then:

P(e)=1-(1-e^-t)^t as t→∞ and t>0

And this approaches 0, not 1.

Boom! I think? Hopefully the maths is right because this would mean premise #4 is wrong. If it is true the longer we spend with God the lower the probability we will do evil, then the problem is solved. Good stuff.

You commit the Slippery Slope Fallacy when you equate the potential to do evil with the impossibility to remain sinless. Potential does not equate to inevitable.

It would if the potential to do evil remained constant over time.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

It seems, then, the first premise is vague not only in its denotation as to human freedom, but also in its relation to other theological concepts

So rather than it being a proof for God causing evil, it would be a proof for God causing evil if there are free agents in such a way that satisfies the argument. Fair enough.

In considering what I've stated above, we would need to be consistent and assert, at the very least, that if God is 100% responsible for evil, then He is also 100% responsible for good... and if this is the case, what good is there left for humanity to claim as it's very own?

Yes, He is 100% responsible for good as all Christians agree. But the existence of good doesn't negate the potential for us to create good also, it's just that He is the primary cause of good.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

My apologies. I was led to believe this by your OP. Perhaps some bolded words saying what you are saying to me here in your OP would help others to not misunderstand your post. I would suggest in adding to your list that man can be good by accepting Jesus and following Him (Instead of concluding that all men's final fate is Romans 3:23). For our end destiny is not determined by our past because Jesus can redeem us back to GOD.

Anyways, thank you for clarifying.

I am just not sure how you can still be confused on this after reading my posts. For me it is clear 100%.

1. Evil exists in order for true love to exist
(of which GOD desires to have true love with us).

2. GOD not preventing evil does not mean GOD is not righteous in that situation. GOD allows evil to exist so as to give man space or time to repent because GOD is long suffering towards all men and desires all to be saved. GOD also can test His people by evil situations so as to draw them closer to Him, as well. So GOD can use bad things as a means of leading man to Him.

3. GOD is not responsible for evil because He did not directly create evil beings out of thin air. GOD created beings who can choose good or evil equally and who will reap what they sow. People that GOD knows who will do evil and GOD does not stop it does not mean GOD is responsible for allowing it to happen because GOD has a master plan for good in using even evil for His good purposes. For example: The death of God's Son (which is really horrible and evil was for the salvation of mankind). In other words, GOD has the power to turn all bad or evil situations into good ones. So the idea that GOD is not being righteous for allowing evil to exist is flawed.

...

Yes, but my question is not: "How do we answer the question, Did God create evil?" My question is, which premise is false and why? This you didn't answer clearly enough for me to see it.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I apologise if I didn't reply to your post, there were many questions all at once. I tried to make my way through and reply to every one. Sorry if I missed yours. Please post it again if I didn't reply.

I've come to the place where I think premise #4 is wrong as pointed out by @jimayars and intuitevly by @Aryeh . Rather than the limit approaching 1, the limit approaches zero if we posit that we are less likely to sin as we spend more time with God.

Mathematically we need to include that the probability of doing evil, p, is not necessarily a polynomial or trigonometric function, but rather should be modelled as an exponential function:

p=e^-t as t→∞ and t>0 (e=natural log, not to be confused with e=evil)

The equation when taking the complement of p, p'=1-e^-t, is then:

P(e)=1-(1-e^-t)^t as t→∞ and t>0

And this approaches 0, not 1.

I am satisfied with this refutation and can return to my original position:
+ free agents were not caused to do evil by God in any way, neither directly nor indirectly
+ onus for evil lies 100% on the free agents
+ God created the potential to do evil, He did not create evil itself
+ evil would never have been known if free agents had not chosen to disobey God
+ God did not know whether the free agents would choose evil

Any final criticisms?

 

[bobharms]

Please either find the mistake in this logic, or find the false premise:

1. God created free agents
2. Free agents have the potential to do evil, e
3. Potential has a non-zero probability, p, where 0<p<1
4. Therefore, over infinite time, the probability of a free agent to perform evil approaches 1 [Let t represent time, then P(e)=1-(p')^t, ∴ P(e)=1 as t→∞]
5. Therefore God created free agents knowing they would create evil
6. It was impossible for free agents to remain sinless
7. Therefore God is 100% responsible for evil
8. Therefore God created evil

If this is true, is "the end justifies the means" the only response available? In other words, was the value of free agents to God greater than the evil they would create? In times of suffering, is there comfort found in recognizing the overall reason for evil is because we are more valuable to God when we have a moral free will?

Where does it say God created free agents? That is presumptive theology and a doctrinal statement that is an observation. If you want sound doctrine base it not on observations but Truth. This is the preeminent Truth God has accounted for all things with His Son Jesus. The response in our hearts is thanksgiving through our repentance, and our actions become forgiveness for one another any more than this leads to opinionated idalatry, and the arrogance and pride through the curse of the knowledge of good and evil. Speculation is deceptive because of pride. Our enemy is the fallen one Satan who himself exists in deception bound by his pride....

 

[DingDing]

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread. ...

I am satisfied with this refutation and can return to my original position:
+ free agents were not caused to do evil by God in any way, neither directly nor indirectly
+ onus for evil lies 100% on the free agents
+ God created the potential to do evil, He did not create evil itself
+ evil would never have been known if free agents had not chosen to disobey God
+ God did not know whether the free agents would choose evil

Any final criticisms?

I do not accept your final point, and that feeds into the earlier point I also underlined. The bible states that Jesus was "slain from the foundation of the world" [Revelation 13:8]. So God knew what would happen. This also implies God knew that He and He alone would have to provide a remedy - so the onus for evil is not just mankind's - God was on the hook to provide a fix.

 

[LadyCrosstalk]

Please either find the mistake in this logic, or find the false premise:

1. God created free agents
2. Free agents have the potential to do evil, e
3. Potential has a non-zero probability, p, where 0<p<1
4. Therefore, over infinite time, the probability of a free agent to perform evil approaches 1 [Let t represent time, then P(e)=1-(p')^t, ∴ P(e)=1 as t→∞]
5. Therefore God created free agents knowing they would create evil
6. It was impossible for free agents to remain sinless
7. Therefore God is 100% responsible for evil
8. Therefore God created evil

If this is true, is "the end justifies the means" the only response available? In other words, was the value of free agents to God greater than the evil they would create? In times of suffering, is there comfort found in recognizing the overall reason for evil is because we are more valuable to God when we have a moral free will?

Does light create the darkness? Or is darkness just the absence of light? God is the only source of light and life in the universe. Scripture tells us that those who are spiritually dead refuse to come into the light because their deeds are evil. God made the only way for us to become righteous, through His Son. I am not a Calvinist--therefore, I believe that we can refuse to come to Him and let Him heal us with His heavenly light. I disagree with your statement, "it is impossible for free agents to remain sinless". What of the holy angels? It is clear that the angels are free agents (otherwise, why did Satan and his angels fall?)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, but my question is not: "How do we answer the question, Did God create evil?" My question is, which premise is false and why? This you didn't answer clearly enough for me to see it.

I disagree. The title of this thread is called: "Did God create evil?" It is also made as a statement in number 8, too.

For you said,

8. Therefore God created evil.

My explanations were a way of trying to disprove that false notion. I believe explained why numbers #5-8 are wrong. As for #3-4. Well, I am not a mathematician; And I doubt many others are here, too. But I do know is that with Jesus Christ, it changes the equation for a person. For a person who has been transformed by Christ and abides in HIm would have a higher probability of obeying GOD if they are honestly seeking to follow the LORD. Especially when nothing external can separate them from the love of Christ
(See Romans 8:35-39).


...