Proof God created evil

[YouAreAwesome]

I said imperfect beings do not get free will - that means sinners

So God didn't create humans perfect, rather He created them as imperfect sinners?

 

[thesunisout]

Isn't this contradictory?
1. God removes "period of choosing"
2. God does not take away free will

No, because God could perfect them, just like He is perfecting us. I gave the example of my ability to repeat my past sins, but my choice not to because He has changed my heart. If He hadn't changed my heart I would still do those sins. Yet, I still have the choice to do them if I want to.

I think though that I have disproved the validity of your argument because they are based on unsubstantiated conclusions. You were trying to prove that God is the author of evil, but I brought up the fact that evil is not inevitable after an infinite amount of time given the example in Revelation, and that Adam and Eve wouldn't necessarily have remained in the same state of having a potential for evil for an infinite amount of time instead of a finite amount of time. For that I give the example of how He is perfecting us so that we don't want to sin any longer.

I would rather not derail this thread. The point is, this post is not born out of sin, but out of a desire to know Who God is.

That's my point. You already know who God is (since you identify as Christian), yet you are here trying to prove He is the author of sin. It shows something is really wrong with the way you think about God. A person who loves God justifies Him, they don't infringe on His character. It's not okay to question Gods character or motives.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I believe the problem lies in trying to apply formal logic, created by fallen and imperfect humans, to a God that is infinite in knowledge and unimaginable in power. To attempt to apply our feeble ways of making sense of the world to God is kind of silly and borderline heretical. Adam and Eve created evil by their disobedience. Why God created us anyway, knowing that it would happen, is His first demonstration of his love for us.

So I shouldn't try and learn about Who He is? I should go out and play some sport instead?

 

[thesunisout]

Please show me here where Jesus and the apostles discouraged others to follow GOD and His goodness and that they will always be in sin?


....

Show me where I said that they did.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Leaving an equation as you left it is meaningless without definitions, or explanation.

Maybe you missed it:
Probability of evil = 1 - the probability of the potential to not do evil to the power of time
That is , P(e)=1-p'^t

 

[Aryeh]

So God didn't create humans perfect, rather He created them as imperfect sinners?

God created everything whole and complete - the word is "tamim" in Hebrew. Tamim is "blameless, whole, sound" entities. English translates this as "perfect," but there are about 5+ Hebrew words that translate into English as perfect.

God created beings tamim, including humans. Being made tamim does not mean you cannot become corrupted. But, nothing was made corrupt.

Corruption is an invention of imperfect beings.

 

[DingDing]

So I shouldn't try and learn about Who He is? I should go out and play some sport instead?

I recommend ultimate frisbee.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

bease infinity itself isn't a number

You have never studied calculus I presume. The use of infinity is especially helpful determining limits. We use the concept of infinity to solve real world problems, it's not just an abstract useless idea.

 

[Aryeh]

Maybe you missed it:
Probability of evil = 1 - the probability of the potential to not do evil to the power of time
That is , P(e)=1-p'^t

You still need to add some constants, and make the exponent negative so that as t goes to infinity, we don't get 1 - p^(infinity), we get 1 - 1/[p^(infinity)].

Unless p itself is less than 1, then p^t is fine.

And, we need to define p - the potential NOT to sin. Thank you for the clarification because I didn't know where you were going. But, since we know p is a function of "not sinning," then naturally functions representing repentance, sin, etc. must be contained in p.

At the very least, you need to define p further.

 

[CrossworX]

My issue at he root of this debate has always been "If God created a perfect world for us, what the #%~* was the snake doing in the garden". And if A & E were created perfect, why where they dumb enough to be led astray? I guess we will never know while still on this earth but need to trust God as the mind of man cannot understand the mind of God.

 

[DingDing]

You have never studied calculus I presume. The use of infinity is especially helpful determining limits. We use the concept of infinity to solve real world problems, it's not just an abstract useless idea.

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.

 

[marineimaging]

Consider this. Adam and Eve and all their descendents still walk with God in the Garden of Eden. The tree still sits, untouched, in the midst of the Garden. The act of disobedience still remains undone, therefore evil does not exist. When man disobeys, man creates evil.

 

[Aryeh]

You have never studied calculus I presume. The use of infinity is especially helpful determining limits. We use the concept of infinity to solve real world problems, it's not just an abstract useless idea.

I have studied calculus. But, infinity is NOT a number, that is why you have to take limits of IMPROPER INTEGRALS. If you were trying to find the probability density, the integral would still be improper.

Infinity is a generator, not a number. And, physically, infinite time is absurd. You will eventually enter a situation in which initial and boundary conditions need to be taken into account - for which you have not laid out. You just give an equation, and comment on it as it approaches infinity.

We don't know anything about the continuity of p.

We don't know anything about the existence of p at or near infinity.

We don't know anything about poles, holes or complex phases p has approaching infinity.

We do not know the uniqueness of p.

We do not know if p is a periodic, linear, quadratic, hyperbolic, or n-potent function.

We do not know the space, rings, and/or fields for which p operates.

We do not know if p depends on boundary or initial conditions.

We do not know if p is real, or complex.

Your equation is deceptively simplistic. In reality, you would need to do a lot of axiomatic positing, postulating and explicit defining of p.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I think though that I have disproved the validity of your argument because they are based on unsubstantiated conclusions. You were trying to prove that God is the author of evil, but I brought up the fact that evil is not inevitable after an infinite amount of time given the example in Revelation, and that Adam and Eve wouldn't necessarily have remained in the same state of having a potential for evil for an infinite amount of time instead of a finite amount of time.

But it is contradictory, you are saying He would/will change a heart in such a way that they will never sin again, even though they still have the potential to. This is the contradiction in the OP, having the potential to sin will always lead to sin.

A person who loves God justifies Him, they don't infringe on His character. It's not okay to question Gods character or motives.

What if I believe He is something He isn't? Must I believe He is the God I first believed in without any growth in getting to know Him?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

God created everything whole and complete - the word is "tamim" in Hebrew. Tamim is "blameless, whole, sound" entities. English translates this as "perfect," but there are about 5+ Hebrew words that translate into English as perfect.

God created beings tamim, including humans. Being made tamim does not mean you cannot become corrupted. But, nothing was made corrupt.

Corruption is an invention of imperfect beings.

What does this have to do with Premise #1? I think you got off on a tangent by disagreeing God created free agents. Do you still disagree?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Consider this. Adam and Eve and all their descendents still walk with God in the Garden of Eden. The tree still sits, untouched, in the midst of the Garden. The act of disobedience still remains undone, therefore evil does not exist. When man disobeys, man creates evil.

Which premise is false?

 

[Huckfinn151]

Do you believe "the end justifies the means"?

Good one. Means to an end? Ive always felt like I've needed to earn forgiveness through a long trial that has little or maybe much fruit in the middle of it. People say the adversary is the one who brings up our faults again which is a strange and diverse doctrine.

 

[Huckfinn151]

Which premise is false?

Disobedience is there but just not opened. Where to did evil come from for the adversary if God is the one who created choices and everything else? "Free will" as an answer is lame and has been used too much. Please think deeper.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I have studied calculus. But, infinity is NOT a number, that is why you have to take limits of IMPROPER INTEGRALS. If you were trying to find the probability density, the integral would still be improper.

Infinity is a generator, not a number. And, physically, infinite time is absurd. You will eventually enter a situation in which initial and boundary conditions need to be taken into account - for which you have not laid out. You just give an equation, and comment on it as it approaches infinity.

We don't know anything about the continuity of p.

We don't know anything about the existence of p at or near infinity.

We don't know anything about poles, holes or complex phases p has approaching infinity.

We do not know the uniqueness of p.

We do not know if p is a periodic, linear, quadratic, hyperbolic, or n-potent function.

We do not know the space, rings, and/or fields for which p operates.

We do not know if p depends on boundary or initial conditions.

We do not know if p is real, or complex.

Your equation is deceptively simplistic. In reality, you would need to do a lot of axiomatic positing, postulating and explicit defining of p.

Show me why it is "deceptively simplistic"? Throwing unrelated mathematical jargon does not undo the equation. I agree that there might be a problem in assigning a static probability to potential to do evil. But what is that problem. Please be specific, if you know what the problem is.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I still disagree. Boasting doesn't need to be logical because all sin is illogical. Furthermore, boasting within predetermination could occur by God making a person boast.

As I said, we can create analogies at will; but it doesn't make a true analogue. Either one can boast in themselves; or; they cannot. In a free will understanding, boasting is not only a possibility, it becomes a fact of the matter; it is the root and foundation of all boasting. In deterministic understanding, it is impossible since nothing done or received is of one's own power to get, but must be freely given. This is not only reasonabley correct; it is the biblical precedent throughout the scripture: I cite the case of the very Assyrian and King of Babylon (the two greatest enemies of the houses of Israel; north and south) who shared this same understanding, and were punished for it:

Isaiah 10:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks. 13 For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom; for I am prudent: 15 Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood. 16 Therefore shall the Lord, the Lord of hosts, send among his fat ones leanness; and under his glory he shall kindle a burning like the burning of a fire.

Daniel 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?
31 While the word was in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee.
32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:
35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
37 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

Both of these great antagonists of the truth, thought the things they did and the things the obtained, were by the power they themselves had in themselves; and boasted because of this error in understanding. Both were punished until they learned that they were nothing and all things were being given by God, for the purpose of His will alone.

Now, this is evident throughout scripture, this determination and sovereignty of the will of God is plainly taught. But, can you cite precedent verses anywhere in the scripture that teach the idea like "God has provided the way, but you must use your own power and will to accomplish salvation" or "It is fully within your own self to finish the work began by God; He is no longer working, and now it is your own will you must rely upon" or "God has set salvation before all men; now, use your own free will to get that salvation for you, and those that do not, are respobisible for their free choice wherein with open eyes they have rejected what was before them"?

And God is responsible for offering heaven. Your original statement included that Free Will gives a person 100% credit for their place in heaven. But God is to be credited for making heaven available.

I'm talking about a sum of equality. Everyone in heaven and hell can credit God for providing the "lift" to salvation. All things are exactly equal to everyone: thus the one-and-only deciding factor in salvation is placed squarely into the hand of the "chooser": everyone's salvation is entirely in their own hands; the ball is in their proverbial court. The one-and-only difference in whether or not we are saved (in a free will scenario) is in our own power of free choice: thus our salvation/damnation is entirely due only to our own power and excellence of our own will. All things thus being equal, God is no longer a factor; He has set the stage for everyone, and retreated to being out of the picture. The spotlight of salvation is now shining soley on the "chooser" and the "chooser" is now the one entirely responsible, in and of himself, for his own salvation. Anyone who is "saved" can say with all truth "I got my salvation by my own hand"; if he cannot say this, then a person who is not saved cannot be said to have been condemned "by his own hand"

The same argument could be made against any bad choice couldn't it? Yet people make bad choices.

No, there are informed choice and uninformed choice. If a person is given an option of two doors, and plainly told "Behind the first door is a new car; behind the second door is a bomb that will detonate" who chooses the second door would be responsible for his fate, having chosen the bomb over the car. This is not the same as a person given the choice of two doors, without being informed as to what was behind both doors. If he opens the second door, he is not "choosing to perish" because his understanding is limited by lack of information.

No one "chooses" to reject salvation anymore than the man in the allegory "chooses to perish": the people who aren't Christian reject Christian theology which they are not persuaded is true. The same reason you and I reject, Islam; or, any Christian theology with which we do not agree. If the elitist churches are correct, and you and I end up in hell, will you be saying "I chose to be here because I rejected salvation"? Or, "If I would've known and understood, I would've believed differently and not ended up here"? I'm confident it would be the latter. How does your understanding of "free will" account for "choice" which lacks vital information?