Proof God created evil

[YouAreAwesome]

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.

Do you agree with the OP? Have you "thought deeply" and have an alternative answer?

 

[DingDing]

Since my brain has gone fuzzy, I only do fuzzy math. My logic is also fuzzy. And when I don't shave, my face becomes fuzzy.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

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"?



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"



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?

Ok, we could continue, but the point is clear, you disagree with premise #1, fair enough. However you agree with the conclusion. So do you think we are justified in causing evil ourselves because God causes evil?

 

[Aryeh]

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.

I just laid out the problem in detail. It is deceptively simple because either you don't realize, or you choose not to define several parameters necessary to accept your math. You said yourself p is the propensity to not do evil, which implies a function needed to measure the many parameters that make up the "NOT SIN" output. You haven't even quantatatively defined p.

It isn't mathematical jargon; it is painfully necessary in order for your math to make any sense.

You need to define p; you never did. Is it a real or complex function? That will affect your entire premise.

Is it periodic, linear, hyperbolic, or a n-potent function? Is it composite? You don't say.

Is it actually a function itself? What space does it occupy? Is it holomorphic? Is p a matrix? If so, it is invertible?

So, as I said before, you are missing a tremendous amount of math (and explanation) to make your premises make any sense.


For your other question, your premise still fails because you have overlooked the paradox of freedom:

A created being that is imperfect has no free will. They have limited will.

A created being that maintains its perfection willing chooses to give up its free will to follow the will of God 100%.
The idea of "freedom" is grossly exaggersted, and misunderstood.

 

[marineimaging]

Which premise is false?

The potential of evil must exist for there to be goodness but don't confuse free will with evil. Until man is disobedient evil does not exist in the perfect Garden. The result of free will becomes the evil created by men because until man creates it through his disobedience, it does not exist..., only the potential exists. So, the premise that God created evil does not need to be true in order for evil to exist.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

We've all heard this question before - "Can God Ceate a square circle?". There's many other questions like this asking if God can do anything logically impossible and of course the answer is no. It is logically impossible to create a free willed individual with out at least the possibility and most probably the inevitability of that individual sinning (going against God's will) given enough time there by bringing evil into the creation.

Now with what the Bible tells us about God and how loving he is - 1Jn 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE . - I submit that it would be logically impossible for God to have created an individual for him to fellowship with, to love and that would love him in return not to have free will. Love is something that can be freely given or with held. If love was something that was not freely given but "built in" could that possibly be defined as love. There would be no satisfaction is such a "love".

So God ALLOWED that evil would come in as a "necessary evil" in his creation but didn't create it.

Yes this is the Platinga argument (Free Will Defense) but it's your final sentence that I struggle with. You say evil was necessary but that God didn't create it. I find this contradictory.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Evil began in the mind and then the heart/desires of Lucifer.
Once fallen, the devil's "evil desires" became the "Adamic Nature" in the human race.
All "evil", is simply the manifestation of the devil's nature playing out within the heart and minds of people.
This is why Jesus described the unsaved as "you are of your FATHER the DEVIL and the LUSTS of your Father you will do".
These "lusts" are simply the nature of the Devil, and he is the "Father" of all who are not born again.

Which premise do you disagree with?

 

[Applnokr]

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?

You ask a non sequitur given the parameters you establish. I don’t think I can answer your question unless you are able to define it and I doubt that you can. I think that some things are beyond our capacity to understand. I cannot say that I understand evil as an independent creation. I can't describe it as an act. I'm not sure I can describe it as a consequence or even an emotion. I don't even think it is a motivation. I think we are motivated by various passions that aren’t evil but can cause us to do evil. I can intend evil but what is it? Causing harm to another? Well, not without more since it is not evil to harm someone who intends harm to you! Maybe we just aren’t “god enough” to comprehend good and evil and have to go on faith in God’s teaching to get us through this video game we call life. The Holy Bible is a very good set of rules for that. Given the parameters as you have set them up, my best speculation is that we were created to be companions with him and to do that we need to have free will, but having free will necessarily involves the ability to destroy. Now, I defy your parameter that the choice of evil was a fate accompli but even if it was, shouldn’t he still create us? It’s like having children despite knowing they will cost you and hurt you and do bad things from time to time. Why have them? The answer, I think, is that the miracle and joy of life is worth the price. Being in love makes us totally vulnerable but we still take the chance - over and over - even after getting burned. And I don’t blame God for the evil that we choose to perpetrate upon each other. Its like blaming someone for the intentional intervening act of another. We each must bear the blame for our choices - not someone else. This is a VERY deep question but I guess my short answer to your question as you pose it is that God created us and WE created evil. Just because we can choose evil doesn’t mean we will. And when we do choose evil (whatever that is) we’re still worth the price to Him. So in the end, I reject your premise that God created evil and therefore is evil. We are the evil ones, when we choose to be, but we don’t have to so choose. And if we don’t choose evil, then we aren’t evil and God didn’t create evil.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Show me where I said that they did.

Regardless of whether you are aware of it or not, when you question whether a person is sinless or not (when they assure you they are not currently sinning), you are striving to enforce a belief upon them that can lead them to think that they can never act righteously as Jesus and His followers taught. If you believe I am wrong, you need to convince me otherwise. For where does righteous living fit in with your belief?


...

 

[Guess Who?]

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.

 

[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"?

 

[John Hyperspace]

Ok, we could continue, but the point is clear, you disagree with premise #1, fair enough. However you agree with the conclusion. So do you think we are justified in causing evil ourselves because God causes evil?

I don't believe so*; as the cited passages show there is often a divergence in intent, even though the cause is the same; for instance of the Assyrian (who the Lord calls "My anger") it's said:

Isaiah 10:5-8 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few. For he saith...

And also of the King of Babylon, whom the Lord calls "My servant" (Jeremiah 27:6) in that he does the will of God; even if out of a different intent:

Jeremiah 25:12 And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.

Thus both of these two greatest antagonists are for the same purpose and determined end: Jeremiah 50:17-18 (note their iniquity was both found in their thoughts that they were accomplishing the work of God by their own will and power, instead of rightfully reputing themselves as "nothing" and "boasting in God")

But Paul also addresses this in light of the understanding of which many had misunderstood (much as the ones who abused grace as meaning to intentionally sin as much as possible: those of whom wrestle Paul's teachings being "hard to understand"): Romans 3:8: and in fact, the new nature will prevent this manner of action; which is why Paul is separating the proverbial sheep and goats of understanding in these things.

*though there are a lot of abstactions in the words so it's difficult to tell if we're on the same page in concepts such as "justified" and "evil" and "cause ourselves (this one falling back to proposition 1; and origin of cause by way of divergence in intent)": but I'm forgoing asking for clarification in these things since it seems to be, undesired.

 

[Experiments in Prayer]

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.

 

[DRobert]

I use it to mean all entities that are free to make morally significant choices i.e. {humans, angels, spirits and even God Himself}.


Just the dictionary definition: having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future (therefore it has a probability that is non-zero, or there is no potential).

Okay, OP. I see my next post went unanswered.
I still do not know which dictionary you used to define "potential" and which authority/source you came up with your definition of free will, whether it be from a dictionary, the Catholic Church, from your own mind, or from a protestant scholar.

 

[Guess Who?]

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.

Some people are evil.

Primary quality.

 

[Guess Who?]

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.

 

[DingDing]

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

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[Guess Who?]

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

NT does not trump OT.

 

[DRobert]

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

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?

Hi OP, let's go by your definitions provided for potential and free will:

Free Will(Unspecified source): "I use it to mean all entities that are free to make morally significant choices i.e. {humans, angels, spirits and even God Himself}.

Potential(unspecified dictionary): having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future (therefore it has a probability that is non-zero, or there is no potential).


1. God created creatures with free will.
2. #2 is false because the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition teaches that God did not create moral evil. It is not his intention for a creature to do evil. I consider your argument a logical fallacy of generalization because it hasn't looked at all the facts. Have you looked at the Catholic Church's teaching on the matter, OP?

I'm really troubled by your use of "potential" here. What is your intention? What are you trying to prove? Are you trying to prove that moral evil was part of God's creation and introduced it into existence? As you intending to demonstrate that God is the author of moral evil? What is evil? I think we all have a different idea of what evil is. And I see that as a problem in this discussion. If you want to know what evil is, I urge you to read up on what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter.

Why should God be responsible for someone else's choice to do good or evil? Is it God's fault that you sin against him or another human being? Is it God's fault that his creatures decide to turn aside from what is good to do what is not good?

What is evil?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

...