Satan was an angel.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Evil means a Christian God cannot exist?
- Thread starter jc104
- Start date
Just to be the devil's advocate, It could have been preordained which angels would fall, and which would not. IIRC, in the Bible, more than just Lucifer fell.
I don't know. Maybe God's an ass?
Very well then. I suppose that I'll go with the default answer of, God is enigmatic. After all, if you were all powerful, would you do what God is supposed to have done?
I have no idea since I cannot begin to comprehend what it would be like to be all powerful. However I would like to think that I would avoid creating demons, hell, and a world where thousands of innocent children starve to death every day.
God put some of the angels on a conditional footing (1st Timothy 5:21), and they fell.
I've already explained why I disagree with the idea that evil is merely a lack of good. Also,
"The existence of evil is one of the most vexing challenges a Christian--or any person, for that matter-- must grapple with."
Any religious person. From an atheistic perspective, evil is hardly surprising. If the inclination to do evil is at least partly inherited either genetically or culturally, and evil actions increase reproductive success, then thence comes evil. It's actually rather harder to explain good - though evil is kept in check by the fact that a society whose people act evilly towards each other can be expected to selfdestruct.
The later parts of that page expand on the 'best of all possible worlds' hypothesis, which I did already accept as answering the original question.
"The existence of evil is one of the most vexing challenges a Christian--or any person, for that matter-- must grapple with."
Any religious person. From an atheistic perspective, evil is hardly surprising. If the inclination to do evil is at least partly inherited either genetically or culturally, and evil actions increase reproductive success, then thence comes evil. It's actually rather harder to explain good - though evil is kept in check by the fact that a society whose people act evilly towards each other can be expected to selfdestruct.
The later parts of that page expand on the 'best of all possible worlds' hypothesis, which I did already accept as answering the original question.
I knew that was the point, I was just making an amendment to the argument, saying that maybe God decided that some angels were preordained not to sin, and some were ordained to sin.
Cantlab, this is a surprisingly ignorant statement. Sure, the existence of evil throws a loop in any of the Abrahamic religions, however, most other religions aren't predicated on the existence of a perfect God, and have no trouble with the existence of evil.
To continue on the lines of being euro-centric, the Norse, Celtic, Greek, and Roman gods were all imperfect beings, and their religious systems have no trouble with the existence of evil. Trouble with the existence of science, yes, but not with evil.
Outside of european history (with the exception of ancient greco-buddhism), Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Shinto, Shikhism, and probably others that I don't have the details on, make ample allowance for evil.
To cover the one I find the most interesting, Jainism. Jainism believes that the universe is a cold uncaring system of physical laws, which bind all things, including gods. Their hope is to escape the system by a system of meditation and pacifism. However, they don't believe in worship of anything or anyone, outside of it's therapeutic effects.
Indeed, you are correct that it's not even "any religious person". The religions I know most about are Christianity and Islam - the former from my own upbringing, the latter from having known a lot of Muslims as well as taking an interest in the religion on account of its obvious importance in today's politics. And I know a fair bit about the old Norse, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman religions (who doesn't), but of course very few (if any) people follow them today.
But I am indeed woefully ignorant about many of the 'eastern' religions. (Probably nothing I can't rectify by some time on Wikipedia).
Regardless, it seems we both agree that the website's claim that the existence of evil is "one of the most vexing challenges...any person...must grapple with" is dubious, and as blind to the religions you mentioned as my own post.
And it may have been a typo, but if not - there is no 'l' in 'Cantab'.
I would be significantly surprised if there were many people following those religions, I was just making the point, which I believe you agree, that the idea of an omnipotent god, is a relatively recent one, in comparison to the origins of other religions.
I think I have an advantage here, in that I've taken some classes on some of the more common eastern religions. In fact, the list I gave in the earlier post, was just me typing up the religions from philosophy of eastern religion.
True.
Yeah, that was just me making a typo.
And most of the Eastern and Western Religions are different from each other. In fact, there are someways that they are more different. Given that Mahayana Buddhism has ties to Greek thought (see Greco-Buddhism) it has more similarities with the Socratic method, then say Shinto, or non-Vedanta schools of Hinduism. Only when you classify only Abrahamic religions as the Western religions (excluding Shaman-ism, or any number of smaller ethnic religions), and Eastern religion as modern Hinduism, and Buddhism, do you have two somewhat separate groups that have internal similarities.
Furthermore, the whole idea of the east west split is roundly critiqued as a post-colonial mindset. Namely, go read Orientalism by Edward Said.
TL;DR Yes, Eastern religions are different from Western religions, but most religions are as different from each other in the east/west divide as they are from the other side.
I just wanted to say one thing, and it is that I don't think God wanted us to be robots. This is why I believe that there is sin in the world. He wanted to let us make our own decisions. He wants to have a relationship with us, but at the same time he doesn't want to force us into a relationship with him.
I've said this about five times already in this thread alone, but people don't seem to be listening/understanding. God knows everything, therefore god knows if a person will choose right or wrong before he creates them, therefore if god truly did not like evil, he would simply create people who only desire good. Such people would be as free to choose as you and I but would never desire to do wrong.
Sending people to eternity in hell for not following you is far worse than forcing them to follow you.
I'm not Christian (I'm atheist) but I've considered this question I don't think it disproves the existence of God. The basic argument can be summarized as Epicurus put it a few thousand years ago:
The flaw as I see it comes in the second line - God can be able to prevent evil, but not willing. That's because without evil you can't have good, and knowing good is (or at least can be argued to be) one of the purposes of life. You can conceive of yourself as a loving person for example, but unless / until you do something loving, you don't actually know that you are loving.
And therefore God can be able to prevent evil, but not willing. Suppose for example that there were no hit-and-run drivers. That's great, but that also means there aren't any good Samaritans who help the victim either. If there were no Haiti earthquake, then there would be no chance for the shows of compassion the rest of the world offered. And so on and so forth.
You argued in the first post that if God were omnipotent, then he should be able to provide good without evil. That's a fair argument, but one that brushes straight up the omnipotence paradox. Can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it? Given that 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 2 = 4, can God make it so that 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 =/= 4? I have no answer to these questions, but if we assume that God is bound by logical constraints (which means he cannot do something that's logically inconsistent, such as make 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 =/= 4), and if we further assume that good cannot exist without evil, then there is no contradiction. If good cannot exist without evil, then the ability to experience good may be more than enough reason to also have evil.
You can attack either the assumptions (that God is bound by logical constraints, and that good cannot exist without evil), but I see both as reasonable assumptions - in fact the "assumption" that good cannot exist without evil may not even be an assumption - and therefore I do not see this line of reasoning as a proof that God does not exist.
Epicurus said:
The flaw as I see it comes in the second line - God can be able to prevent evil, but not willing. That's because without evil you can't have good, and knowing good is (or at least can be argued to be) one of the purposes of life. You can conceive of yourself as a loving person for example, but unless / until you do something loving, you don't actually know that you are loving.
And therefore God can be able to prevent evil, but not willing. Suppose for example that there were no hit-and-run drivers. That's great, but that also means there aren't any good Samaritans who help the victim either. If there were no Haiti earthquake, then there would be no chance for the shows of compassion the rest of the world offered. And so on and so forth.
You argued in the first post that if God were omnipotent, then he should be able to provide good without evil. That's a fair argument, but one that brushes straight up the omnipotence paradox. Can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it? Given that 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 2 = 4, can God make it so that 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 =/= 4? I have no answer to these questions, but if we assume that God is bound by logical constraints (which means he cannot do something that's logically inconsistent, such as make 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 =/= 4), and if we further assume that good cannot exist without evil, then there is no contradiction. If good cannot exist without evil, then the ability to experience good may be more than enough reason to also have evil.
You can attack either the assumptions (that God is bound by logical constraints, and that good cannot exist without evil), but I see both as reasonable assumptions - in fact the "assumption" that good cannot exist without evil may not even be an assumption - and therefore I do not see this line of reasoning as a proof that God does not exist.
You are asking how evil can exist in a world where God exists. It can't exist in a world where He doesn't.
Ultimately, should He exist, the world is founded to His demands. Should it not, it is structured to no one's. Thus, your concept of evil is just a concept. You see, for this to be a world of consequence, there must be ultimate consequence. For instance, you may want not want to die. There may be someone who does. Death, without consequence, is ultimately not a bad thing. And ultimately then, death being the fate of all living things, evil cannot befall the living.
And your argument of evil is thus that it is evil if God exists, but is not if God doesn't. You may not have argued that, but your argument can be reduced to it.
And evil can also be used to prove God, as you obviously know that there are some things that are evil. Matter moves according to how it is pushed and pulled, attracted and repelled. Animals move to such principles, and to their desires, and to their survival. Humans, too, would be expected to move to their interests. Humans are the only known living creatures, however, that condemn such things. If you are robbed, you feel yourself wronged. If you had a close friend or relative murdered, you feel grieved. (At that point also, you must note that justice and revenge are human concepts that only rule over humans.)
Regarding the things of angels and men: angels and men are both under consequence. Such is included in the clause of free will. Angels were created conscious; they don't spawn (or, they aren't supposed to: The Sons of God are an exception by their own devices); they don't have blood. All of these things are rather important. Men are born, and born ignorant. Thus, salvation comes by birthright because salvation is in human blood. Being born ignorant makes irrelevant the folly of Adam. It is not the sin of Adam that lies upon the hearts of man, but the sin of man. Those who die in ignorance, meanwhile, get judged to different standards. There is the concept of the age of accountability, and there is the concept of those dying who've never heard the gospel. Accordingly, they get judged to their own righteousness. This is relevant because you've declared that there is evil in the world; how could you know such a thing? Regardless, those that violate their own conscience have violated the laws of God. It is not even the sin of Adam that will determine their fate.
However, your concept of God, while low to my standards, is actually quite high to God's standards. You see, your potential for knowledge is unmatched. Granted, your knowledge isn't so high, because you question how evil can exist in the world if God made it. For one, you ask a question that has been answered a million times. Your potential for finding the answer is easily there. You've been blessed with answers and knowledge. Now, to whom much is given, much is required.
Regarding evil's existence further: God doesn't associate with the wicked. No one who is supposedly righteous supposedly does. Imagine a Senator or some other Congressman giving earmarks to a Neo-Nazi group, or one running for President who sits in a church where the preacher spouts blatantly stupid, racist, wicked things. It tarnishes the name. Likewise, God's hand of blessing doesn't stretch to the wicked. (Although, humans are conceived of love: God probably did it for the sake of Adam.)
Ultimately, should He exist, the world is founded to His demands. Should it not, it is structured to no one's. Thus, your concept of evil is just a concept. You see, for this to be a world of consequence, there must be ultimate consequence. For instance, you may want not want to die. There may be someone who does. Death, without consequence, is ultimately not a bad thing. And ultimately then, death being the fate of all living things, evil cannot befall the living.
And your argument of evil is thus that it is evil if God exists, but is not if God doesn't. You may not have argued that, but your argument can be reduced to it.
And evil can also be used to prove God, as you obviously know that there are some things that are evil. Matter moves according to how it is pushed and pulled, attracted and repelled. Animals move to such principles, and to their desires, and to their survival. Humans, too, would be expected to move to their interests. Humans are the only known living creatures, however, that condemn such things. If you are robbed, you feel yourself wronged. If you had a close friend or relative murdered, you feel grieved. (At that point also, you must note that justice and revenge are human concepts that only rule over humans.)
Regarding the things of angels and men: angels and men are both under consequence. Such is included in the clause of free will. Angels were created conscious; they don't spawn (or, they aren't supposed to: The Sons of God are an exception by their own devices); they don't have blood. All of these things are rather important. Men are born, and born ignorant. Thus, salvation comes by birthright because salvation is in human blood. Being born ignorant makes irrelevant the folly of Adam. It is not the sin of Adam that lies upon the hearts of man, but the sin of man. Those who die in ignorance, meanwhile, get judged to different standards. There is the concept of the age of accountability, and there is the concept of those dying who've never heard the gospel. Accordingly, they get judged to their own righteousness. This is relevant because you've declared that there is evil in the world; how could you know such a thing? Regardless, those that violate their own conscience have violated the laws of God. It is not even the sin of Adam that will determine their fate.
However, your concept of God, while low to my standards, is actually quite high to God's standards. You see, your potential for knowledge is unmatched. Granted, your knowledge isn't so high, because you question how evil can exist in the world if God made it. For one, you ask a question that has been answered a million times. Your potential for finding the answer is easily there. You've been blessed with answers and knowledge. Now, to whom much is given, much is required.
Regarding evil's existence further: God doesn't associate with the wicked. No one who is supposedly righteous supposedly does. Imagine a Senator or some other Congressman giving earmarks to a Neo-Nazi group, or one running for President who sits in a church where the preacher spouts blatantly stupid, racist, wicked things. It tarnishes the name. Likewise, God's hand of blessing doesn't stretch to the wicked. (Although, humans are conceived of love: God probably did it for the sake of Adam.)
Yes it can. It may be the case that there is no universal and objective definition of evil. But evil nonetheless 'exists' as a collective opinion. It exists in the same sense that beauty, for example, exists.
Quantum mechanics and radioactive decay give examples of matter moving without external forces.
You're badly out of date with research on animals here. The more biologists study all sorts of animals, the more they find that they are like us. Altruism is well documented in animals. Revenge has also been reported in many species. There is increasing evidence for animals experiencing emotion. Certainly there is little reason to believe "justice and revenge are human concepts only".
I already believed animals had emotion. As far as justice and revenge are concerned, I maintain that animals never act for these reasons. They defend their domains, whatever that may be. And of course altruism is documented in animals. They act in corporate interest for their own desires and interest.