Did God make everything?

[Linux]

Well, are you going to continue this? Seems pointless,

In a philosophical discussion, rational judgement is the point. But of course I agree that its pointless to continue discussing this with somebody who does not value rational judgement. I will ignore you from now on.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Isaiah 45:7 - “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” (Douay-Rheims)

The evil of punishment and chastisement, not sin.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The evil of punishment and chastisement, not sin.

Not sin, I agree, but God did create the evil impulse and Satan. Sin is simply an outcome of freewill, whereas the evil impulse provides an easy means for Satan to tempt us. Since the passage of scripture is from the Old Testament, it may be worth noting the Jewish interpretation of evil, which I provide in the following quote:

NATURAL IMPULSE
THE good impulse (yetser tov) and the evil impulse (yetser ra) are pictured in Jewish literature as wrestling in perpetual conflict within the heart of man. Satan is usually identified with the yetser ha-ra, the evil impulse. In the book of Job, Satan’s function is described as that of testing the sincerity of men’s characters. In Talmudic literature, Satan’s function is to strengthen man’s moral sense by leading him into temptation. It has been said that every man living shall assuredly meet with an hour of temptation, a certain critical hour, which shall more especially try his mettle.

According to a midrashic statement (Genesis Rabbah 9:9), the existence of the yetser ha-ra in the heart of man and the struggle to overcome it lends high value to the good that emerges from the inner battle. The two conflicting impulses, the good and bad tendencies, are said to be implanted in man as a consequence of his having been formed from the dust and endowed with a soul (Genesis 2:7).

According to rabbinic thinking, the evil impulse is to be found in man at birth; the good impulse begins to develop when he is thirteen years old. The teachings of the Torah are referred to as the antidote to the yetser ha-ra. Similarly, Ben Sira (21:11) states: “The man who keeps the Law controls his natural tendency.”

In commenting on the two yods in the word " ", (Genesis 2:7), the rabbis declare that God created both the yetser tov and the yetser ra (Berakhoth 61a). The command to love God “with all your heart” they interpret to mean “with both your impulses” (Berakhoth Ma), since both human elements can be employed in the service of God. “Were it not for the yetser ha-ra, no man would build a home or get married or follow an occupation” (Genesis Rabbah 9:9). The phrase “very good” (Genesis 1:31) is therefore explained, as alluding to the yetser ha-ra, frequently used in the sense of the productive urge.

Taken from the Encyclopedia of Jewish Concepts

Genesis 1:31
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

You can think of the evil impulse as evil desires, which Freud called the ID. The good impulse Freud called the superego (the conscience).

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Not sin, I agree, but God did create the evil impulse and Satan. Sin is simply an outcome of freewill, whereas the evil impulse provides an easy means for Satan to tempt us. Since the passage of scripture is from the Old Testament, it may be worth noting the Jewish interpretation of evil, which I provide in the following quote:
You can think of the evil impulse as evil desires, which Freud called the ID. The good impulse Freud called the superego (the conscience).

Concupiscence?

 

[devoutchristian]

Concupiscence?

For context it should be stated that Robert bases his beliefs largely off of Hassidic Judaism, and therefore does not always agree with the Church’s teachings.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Concupiscence?

For context it should be stated that Robert bases his beliefs largely off of Hassidic Judaism, and therefore does not always agree with the Church’s teachings.

The quote I made actually came from a Jewish encyclopedia, and not the Tanya which is a part of Chabad, a form of Hasidim. But yes, it would especially include concupiscence according to the Jewish encyclopedia article I cited.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In a philosophical discussion, rational judgement is the point. But of course I agree that its pointless to continue discussing this with somebody who does not value rational judgement. I will ignore you from now on.

 

[josh987654321]

He certainly couldn’t have made evil, right? If God is all-good, He couldn’t have. But if God is also all-powerful and creator of the universe, how could evil possibly exist and how could something have come into being if God didn’t make it so? I imagine I am assuming that good and evil are equally existent.

Yes, God did make everything.

Please read this story -

The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. “Did God create everything that exists?” A student answered bravely, “Yes, he did”.

The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn’t respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had “proved” that “belief in God” was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " “Of course” answered the professor.

The young student stood up and asked : “Professor does Cold exists?”

The professor answered, “What kind of question is that? …Of course the cold exists… haven’t you ever been cold?”

The young student answered, “In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don’t have body heat or we are not hot.”

“And, does Dark exist?”, he continued. The professor answered “Of course”. This time the student responded, “Again you’re wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there’s lack of light.”

Finally, the student asked the professor, “Sir, does evil exist?” The professor replied, “Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil.”

The student responded, “Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God’s presence in the hearts of man.”

After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn’t answer back.

The young man’s name was Albert Einstein.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Ismael]

He certainly couldn’t have made evil, right? If God is all-good, He couldn’t have. But if God is also all-powerful and creator of the universe, how could evil possibly exist and how could something have come into being if God didn’t make it so? I imagine I am assuming that good and evil are equally existent.

Evil is ‘lacking’ rather than a being. Like a hole in the ground you can fall into. It’s real, but it’s not ‘something in itself’ but rather a ‘lacking’ in something that exists.

Of course there are several ‘evil’ people classify:

“Metaphysical evil” which is the limitation by one another of various component parts of the natural world… , like earthquakes or tornados. If we fall into the water and drown it is a consequence of our limitation.

Those, however, are not really ‘evil’, they are just ‘occurrences’ and how the world exists.

Then there is moral evil, which is caused by abuse of free will, i.e. chosing NOT to do good or acting against goodnes and God.

Then there is “physical evil”, which is whay brings physicsl harm and it’s just a consequence of the two above.

But Physical and MEtaphysical evil, I’d say, cannot be truly spoken as ‘evil’, since they are jusy accidental or consequential occurrences in the natural world…

The true evilis moral evil, which is the lacking of something and can lead to physical and metaphysical evil as well.

For example if Adam would have not fallen, we could speculate, he might have been immune to physical and metaphysical evils as well (but Adam did fall so we are not immune)

So God did not create evil. He created nature. We do evil by free will. We sin.

An example is also ‘sexual desire’: it is NOT evil or sinful (maybe puritans think it is, but they are incorrect). Since it is a natural part of man it is GOOD.

However disordered sexual behavior (ie sinful) is evil, because it is a corruption of what sexuality is, detracting from it (ie. sinful sexual behavior is something ‘lacking’ in the end).

I want to note I was very brief here: just giving the basic idea. I thing you ought to do a search on newadvent.org and on catholic.com for more complete articles

I also recoment Brian Davis ‘The reality of God and the problem of Evil’. It’s a bit tough, but worth it. It deals both with the criticism of atheists, on how NOT to do theodicy (and avoid lame cop-out excuses) and gives serious and interesting answers.

Also, Brian Davis again with “Thomas Aquinas on God and Evil” (it give more the thomistic prospective, very interesting, but might be a bit tough)

Peter van Inwagen *‘The Problem of Evil’ * is also interesting. Inwagen explains why the philosophical ‘argument from evil against theism’ is basically a ‘philosophical failure’.

CS Lewis: “The problem of pain” is more accessible (less formal phylosophically) yet very, very interesting as well.

I tihnk many philosopher have more than adequately respondend at the philosophical level, makinf the argument of evil against God more or less futile… YET it reamains very strong emotinally.

Pain touches us deeply… and often a rational explaination will not do. I mean you can explain why someone is suffering (maybe even justly because he or she did bad things and is now being punished, even if it is a stomach ache after eating too much candy)… yet when we suffer or see other people suffer, I fear, we shut our ‘rational thinking’ off and deal with it emotionally and empathically

That is why relationships, especially break-ups are so hard and messy: we hardly deal with them rationally…

==========

The young man’s name was Albert Einstein.

Careful: The story is very nice, and illustrates the point very well but it was not Einstein. It is wrongly attributed to him (probably to put an important name under it).

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Evil is ‘lacking’ rather than a being. Like a hole in the ground you can fall into. It’s real, but it’s not ‘something in itself’ but rather a ‘lacking’ in something that exists.

Of course there are several ‘evil’ people classify:

“Metaphysical evil” which is the limitation by one another of various component parts of the natural world… , like earthquakes or tornados. If we fall into the water and drown it is a consequence of our limitation.

Those, however, are not really ‘evil’, they are just ‘occurrences’ and how the world exists.

Then there is moral evil, which is caused by abuse of free will, i.e. chosing NOT to do good or acting against goodnes and God.

Then there is “physical evil”, which is whay brings physicsl harm and it’s just a consequence of the two above.

But Physical and MEtaphysical evil, I’d say, cannot be truly spoken as ‘evil’, since they are jusy accidental or consequential occurrences in the natural world…

The true evilis moral evil, which is the lacking of something and can lead to physical and metaphysical evil as well.

For example if Adam would have not fallen, we could speculate, he might have been immune to physical and metaphysical evils as well (but Adam did fall so we are not immune)

So God did not create evil. He created nature. We do evil by free will. We sin.

An example is also ‘sexual desire’: it is NOT evil or sinful (maybe puritans think it is, but they are incorrect). Since it is a natural part of man it is GOOD.

However disordered sexual behavior (ie sinful) is evil, because it is a corruption of what sexuality is, detracting from it (ie. sinful sexual behavior is something ‘lacking’ in the end).

I want to note I was very brief here: just giving the basic idea. I thing you ought to do a search on newadvent.org and on catholic.com for more complete articles

I also recoment Brian Davis ‘The reality of God and the problem of Evil’. It’s a bit tough, but worth it. It deals both with the criticism of atheists, on how NOT to do theodicy (and avoid lame cop-out excuses) and gives serious and interesting answers.

Also, Brian Davis again with “Thomas Aquinas on God and Evil” (it give more the thomistic prospective, very interesting, but might be a bit tough)

Peter van Inwagen *‘The Problem of Evil’ * is also interesting. Inwagen explains why the philosophical ‘argument from evil against theism’ is basically a ‘philosophical failure’.

CS Lewis: “The problem of pain” is more accessible (less formal phylosophically) yet very, very interesting as well.

I tihnk many philosopher have more than adequately respondend at the philosophical level, makinf the argument of evil against God more or less futile… YET it reamains very strong emotinally.

Pain touches us deeply… and often a rational explaination will not do. I mean you can explain why someone is suffering (maybe even justly because he or she did bad things and is now being punished, even if it is a stomach ache after eating too much candy)… yet when we suffer or see other people suffer, I fear, we shut our ‘rational thinking’ off and deal with it emotionally and empathically

That is why relationships, especially break-ups are so hard and messy: we hardly deal with them rationally…

==========

Careful: The story is very nice, and illustrates the point very well but it was not Einstein. It is wrongly attributed to him (probably to put an important name under it).

I benefited from your post. Thanks!