 |
| |
|
|
Lorizael
|
 |
The Cult Wins
Sep 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
So a long time ago a number of Christian philosophers sat down to answer the age old question "Why does a good god let bad things happen?" In philosophical and logical terms, this question can be stated as "How can a god that is creator of all things and good by its very nature not be evil if evil exists in the universe?"
The answer they came up with is that there really is no such thing as evil, and that evil is merely the absence of good. Now because good can come only from God (he being good by nature and creator of all things), the absence of good is the absence of God.
There are only two ways that there could be an absence of God, however. The first is for God not to be omnipresent and omnipotent, which goes against most Christian writings, so this is probably not right. The other possibility is that God allows for the absence of himself. This, we know, is quite in tune with the ideas of Christianity. God created free will, whereby individuals have the right to reject God, in essence creating a lacking of God, a lacking of good, and the presence of evil.
A will is the ability to act. Free will is the ability to act towards an end other than God. The only difference between regular action and free will is that free will can be without good - it can be evil. Free will is the only thing in the universe with the potential to create evil. Free will is defined by the fact that it can be evil. The one distinguishing feature of free will is the presence of evil within it.
Now the only creatures in possession of free will are humans. God had grown bored with the rest of creation and so he decided to create free willed beings - humans. What makes humans unique is their ability to choose, their potential for the rejection of god. Human's remarkable quality is that they can be evil.
When creating humans, God had to have known that he was creating beings that could be evil. If he did not know this, then he is not omniscient, which is not a very Christian idea. So, assuming God knows all, he created human beings because they had free will. But he did not create them so that they could do good, for if he had wished good, he already had that in the rest of creation. Humans only unique utility is their potential for evil. Thus God must have intended to bring evil into the universe when he made human beings. God willingly pursued an evil end.
Therefore, God is evil.
I'd like to hear what the religious posters on Poly think of this line of logic. If you can see a flaw in my reasoning, please point it out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rex Little
|
|
The flaw I see is that evil isn't the only thing that's unique to humans. The ability to choose evil is just one consequence of the human race's most important uniqueness: the ability to make conscious choices (for good, evil or anything else).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lorizael
|
|
The Cult Wins
Sep 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Little
The flaw I see is that evil isn't the only thing that's unique to humans. The ability to choose evil is just one consequence of the human race's most important uniqueness: the ability to make conscious choices (for good, evil or anything else). |
But their are only two possible outcomes of any action with moral implications. It can be good or it can be evil. Now all other creations of God are not allowed the choice of evil, so they all act in good ways. Therefore the only difference between humans and everything else is that humans can do good and evil, and the only thing that makes them unique is that they can do evil.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Well, I'm definitely not a religious poster, but I think your argument is self-defeating. The initial premise is that God, by it's nature, cannot be evil. The conclusion is that God is evil. A valid argument, or even a good argument, cannot end by defeating one of it's central premises.
|
Hey, I'm just following their own argument to its logical conclusion. It's their fault it's flawed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
 |
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:31
|
|
Actually, Human are unique in the ability to define something as evil. No other animal we know of can create that sort of meaning.
Maybe so. It's irrelevant. Humans are unique in lots of other manners. Maybe God made humans because humans use complex tools, or something. Lorizael needs to show that the ONLY thing that makes humans unique is their evil capacitors.
But their are only two possible outcomes of any action with moral implications. It can be good or it can be evil. Now all other creations of God are not allowed the choice of evil, so they all act in good ways. Therefore the only difference between humans and everything else is that humans can do good and evil, and the only thing that makes them unique is that they can do evil.
Lots of shaky assumptions here. Let me just throw this at you: what if something "Good" must be something chosen of free will? A lightning bolt hitting a tree isn't "good," it's neutral. In this case, by creating free will, God increased the capacity for goodness in the world as well.
Even if you don't buy that and say all natural occurrences are good, then there are still issues. Why can't human activities be neutral? Is me picking up a pencil good or evil? It's useless and therefore sloth and evil! But wait, it's exercise and staving off gluttony- good!
Lastly, it still doesn't defeat the entire point of what Rex & myself said, merely added to fallacies. Fine, God created evil. Isn't it possible that humans have some other unique property, and creating evil was a byproduct?
Edit: Ugh, evil fingers making hideous evil eye-burning spelling mistakes. "falacies?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lorizael
|
|
The Cult Wins
Sep 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
I disagree. Many significant choices have outcomes which have several effects, some of which could be seen as "evil", and some of which could be seen as "good". |
Damnit, I knew I should have added this before, just to preempt this possible counter-argument. Yes there can be good and evil results of an action, but in the end, the balance will swing one way or the other. Or it can be balanced in the middle, and you have a morally neutral action. But in that case beings without free will can act in such a way as to produce no good at all, and thus humans are still unique in being evil.
Oh, and of course good and evil are ambiguous. But because we are assuming the existence of the Christian God, we are also assuming that Christian morality is true, because their morality is based upon their god.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lorizael
|
|
The Cult Wins
Sep 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SnowFire
what if something "Good" must be something chosen of free will? |
There is an initial assumption in Christian theology that God is good. No other thing is defined as good.
quote:
A lightning bolt hitting a tree isn't "good," it's neutral. In this case, by creating free will, God increased the capacity for goodness in the world as well.
|
Most christian philosophers are of the opinion that everything not of free will is in God's plan, and thus any action of the natural universe is intended by God. God being good, that action is then good.
quote:
Why can't human activities be neutral? Is me picking up a pencil good or evil? It's useless and therefore sloth and evil! But wait, it's exercise and staving off gluttony- good!
|
This is irrelavent. All that matters is that humans are the only beings capable of evil actions, and God had to have known that.
quote:
Fine, God created evil. Isn't it possible that humans have some other unique property, and creating evil was a byproduct?
|
Uh, unless you can offer any suggestions here, your statement doesn't really matter. Yes, as a byproduct of something else, God made himself worthy of hell...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
|
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:31
|
|
Most christian philosophers are of the opinion that everything not of free will is in God's plan, and thus any action of the natural universe is intended by God. God being good, that action is then good.
In that case, a tiger going on a killing spree in a small town or a hurricane are all "good" actions, which renders the term pretty useless. Again, neutral I can see, but if you're using "Most Christian philosophers" like this, frankly we have bigger problems. I for one would totally disagree with that. Yes, MCP believe in the existence of God's plan... as well as God's omnipotence. However, MMCP (add "Modern" in) also believe in physics, or at least that God created physics and- for the most part- lets it run its course. God doesn't turn water into wine for jollies, in other words. Therefore, the creation of a hurricane might not be something directly part of "God's plan" (even if it, too, is indirectly caused by God since he made the system that produced it).
After that, we get into more assumptions that are flaky. The creation of evil sentences God to Hell? What?! Okay, fine, let's assume God is good & stuff. Maybe God wants to be Baskin Robbins and have different flavors of Good? I don't know, maybe God wants to have reformed criminals, and not being a criminal himself, was forced to allow free will to allow other types of Good to exist? Just talking off the top of my head here, but why is the creation of evil so bad? Aren't there things that can compensate for it? (Hint: If you say No, please provide a reason.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lorizael
|
|
The Cult Wins
Sep 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SnowFire
Most christian philosophers are of the opinion that everything not of free will is in God's plan, and thus any action of the natural universe is intended by God. God being good, that action is then good.
In that case, a tiger going on a killing spree in a small town or a hurricane are all "good" actions, which renders the term pretty useless. Again, neutral I can see, but if you're using "Most Christian philosophers" like this, frankly we have bigger problems. I for one would totally disagree with that. Yes, MCP believe in the existence of God's plan... as well as God's omnipotence. However, MMCP (add "Modern" in) also believe in physics, or at least that God created physics and- for the most part- lets it run its course. God doesn't turn water into wine for jollies, in other words. Therefore, the creation of a hurricane might not be something directly part of "God's plan" (even if it, too, is indirectly caused by God since he made the system that produced it).
After that, we get into more assumptions that are flaky. The creation of evil sentences God to Hell? What?! Okay, fine, let's assume God is good & stuff. Maybe God wants to be Baskin Robbins and have different flavors of Good? I don't know, maybe God wants to have reformed criminals, and not being a criminal himself, was forced to allow free will to allow other types of Good to exist? Just talking off the top of my head here, but why is the creation of evil so bad? Aren't there things that can compensate for it? (Hint: If you say No, please provide a reason.) |
But if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he would have foreseen the creation of that hurricane and done something to prevent it from happening. Since the hurricane was not prevented, God must have meant it to be so, and thus it is good.
No, the creation of evil does not sentence God to hell. God being evil (which was the eventual conclusion of my argument) sentences him to hell.
The creation of evil is bad because it is evil. Evil, by definition, is bad. The only thing that can logically compenate for evil is a greater amount of good. But God, being omnipotent, could have very easily created a greater amount of good simply by willing it into existence if he so choosed. He did not choose to do this, however. Instead he chose to create evil.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
|
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:31
|
|
But if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he would have foreseen the creation of that hurricane and done something to prevent it from happening. Since the hurricane was not prevented, God must have meant it to be so, and thus it is good.
Read what I wrote again, please. Somebody who takes this view is clearly of the view that God controls EVERYTHING, and God does not "withdraw himself" from any part of the world. Ergo, because God is good, this world is always good and following God's plan no matter how bad it seems. I don't hold to that extreme determinist view, but it's consistent. However, if you pick up half the extreme determinism and not the other half, yes, you will get a weird and possibly evil God.
Lorizael- no offense- but I need to get to bed soon, and your assumptions are just very different than mine, or even ones that I can accept as consistent. I agree that bad assumptions give a bad result, mind, I just think that's not very enlightening.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:31
|
|
How is this fun?
The problem I see with the proofs is that they are self-fullfilling., You define things in the manner that gets the result sought-- I believe that the nature of God is not something universally decided by most religions, except in the most broad strokes.
After all If I define or assume that north is South, then I have no problem proving that Canada is south of Mexico. While the assumptions in the proof aren't that bad, the concepts are so capable of variable definition to stretch logic.
Lets work backwards on the initial proof
You claim God is evil ( is this completely evil or just partially-- I will assume completely
This is so as God pursued an evil end-- ( is this necessarily true??-- could an individual do something evil and NOT be evil).
God pursued an evil end in creating humans with free will which must be evil as goodness exists in the rest of creation
** Couldn't this be a proof that God is good since all that he created except for free will in humans was good ( a quastionable premise but no more questionable than anything above.
** Your answer is that evil is merely the absence of good but again thats an unproven and debateable premise-- What if your premise is that evil and good can exist in all thinks and that the knowledge of both evil and good resides in GOD
etc etc
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:31
|
|
The definitions of 'good' and 'evil' could not exist without the definitions of 'us' and 'them.' After all, for a thing to be perceived as either good or evil, it must affect some other thing in such a way that it can be determined to be one or the other.
IMHO, God is an imaginary friend for adults who need someone else to blame for their actions. "God made me do it" is a common theme among religious zealots, and their followers tend to follow this same irrational line of thinking, taking it as gospel, if you will.
God says x, y, and z are forbidden. God's priests repeat God's words. Worshippers repeat God's priests' interpretations of God's words. Therefore, even if a theoretical God existed, the interpretation of God's words have been diluted through at least one level before they reach the disciples.
Any strict definition of good and evil on the part of God has gone through one interpretation via the priest, whose definitions of good and evil may or may not be exactly the same as God's, and are again reinterpreted by the disciples who may or may not have their own definitions of good and evil.
Good, evil, us, them, and God must all be assumed to 1) exist and 2) have the same unilateral definition to all, in order for us to make any subsequent assumptions.
My free will tells me that I don't believe in one of them, so none of the others matter much. It doesn't even matter which one I don't believe in.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-10-2003 06:31
. God CAN defy logic, because he is God. I don't see how you can say God is omnipotent and then not allow for God to violate logic.
|