God created evil

[oldcelt]

Why do good parents not give their children everything they desire and free them from all chores and responsibilities in life? To teach them how to become responsible and mature adults who can learn to meet the many challenges of life by making rational choices, helping themselves and comforting others. G-d expects no less from us.

Then he slaughters millions every year through war, disease, etc. I’m going to drop out now, because it is all too obvious that I have some rather negative feelings toward that God and I a, becoming less and less sure that even my non-interventionist model will give me any peace of mind.
What a long, strange trip it’s been.

 

[meltzerboy]

Then he slaughters millions every year through war, disease, etc. I’m going to drop out now, because it is all too obvious that I have some rather negative feelings toward that God and I a, becoming less and less sure that even my non-interventionist model will give me any peace of mind.
What a long, strange trip it’s been.

Of course G-d cannot be non-interventionist or neutral if He slaughters millions. Which do you believe? The third course, I suppose, is that He allows these bad things to happen and we’re back to the enigma of evil and suffering.

 

[Oreoracle]

G-d instilled in us the capacity for good and the capacity for evil. Does this mean G-d created evil? In a sense, perhaps indirectly, since He created us with that capacity; but it is our job to overcome this tendency and, by so doing, draw closer to G-d.

But what you’re forgetting is God’s omniscience. He would have created us not merely with the capacity for evil actions, but with the full knowledge of the evil actions we would commit. God would know whether or not we would overcome our evil tendencies the moment he created us.

The problem of evil stems from the combination of God’s omnipotence and omniscience, and ignoring either of those qualities results in a strawman argument. Some Christians ignore God’s omnipotence by arguing that God allows evil for some greater good. But since he’s omnipotent, he could simply snap his fingers and bring about a greater good without the prerequisite evil actions taking place.

So to summarize, you either appeal to free will and ignore God’s omniscience, or appeal to a greater good and ignore his omnipotence.

 

[meltzerboy]

But what you’re forgetting is God’s omniscience. He would have created us not merely with the capacity for evil actions, but with the full knowledge of the evil actions we would commit. God would know whether or not we would overcome our evil tendencies the moment he created us.

The problem of evil stems from the combination of God’s omnipotence and omniscience, and ignoring either of those qualities results in a strawman argument. Some Christians ignore God’s omnipotence by arguing that God allows evil for some greater good. But since he’s omnipotent, he could simply snap his fingers and bring about a greater good without the prerequisite evil actions taking place.

So to summarize, you either appeal to free will and ignore God’s omniscience, or appeal to a greater good and ignore his omnipotence.

According to Judaism, G-d knows that good will triumph over evil in the long run, the very long run. However, it is still up to us to make it happen, and the sooner the better. We share in G-d’s “incomplete” creation in this way. G-d called His creation “very good” instead of merely “good” only after He created mankind with the free will to repair the holes in the world. Insofar as omnipotence is concerned, G-d is wise enough to know when to exercise that omnipotence and when not to. By giving us a choice in our own destiny, G-d shows restraint in using His omnipotence for our own benefit, just as a parent or mother-in-law may be able to solve a problem but instead allows their child or family to find the solution for themselves.

 

[Amandil]

But what you’re forgetting is God’s omniscience. He would have created us not merely with the capacity for evil actions, but with the full knowledge of the evil actions we would commit. God would know whether or not we would overcome our evil tendencies the moment he created us.

Which begs the question, are you assuming “omniscience” based on a human temporal perspective of cause and effect or on the perspective of eternity?

“Evil tendencies” are not a result of God’s creative action, but are directly a result of humanity’s abuse of free will.

This fact is still irrefutable: to KNOW someone is going to do a thing is NOT to make them do it. And God grants everyone sufficient knowledge to everyone to KNOW the good that they ought to do and the evil that they ought to avoid.

The problem of evil stems from the combination of God’s omnipotence and omniscience, and ignoring either of those qualities results in a strawman argument. Some Christians ignore God’s omnipotence by arguing that God allows evil for some greater good. But since he’s omnipotent, he could simply snap his fingers and bring about a greater good without the prerequisite evil actions taking place.

Not without violating our nature as humans created will free will. Its either He creates creatures with free will(thus creating them with the possibility to chose against Him), or he creates moral robots with no free will.

It seems like your problem is not so much with God as it is your difficulties dealing with your own nature.

So to summarize, you either appeal to free will and ignore God’s omniscience, or appeal to a greater good and ignore his omnipotence.

But what’s not being considered is the circumstance where God allows the thwarting of His will, as is the free choice of His creatures to act contrary to His will.

THAT circumstance requires omnipotence, and therefore is not an argument against it.

 

[Amandil]

Not wanting to turn this into a bloodbath, if neither Satan nor God created evil, since man was not around? WHO DID? It’s there, it’s even incarnate…who did it?

Evil is not “incarnate,” it is not a being, substance, or entity. All being is good metaphysically, or ontologically, or in its being. For all being is either creature or Creator. God is good, and He declared everything He created good(Gen 1).

If evil were a being, the problem would be unsolvable, for then either God made it-and thus He is not all good-or else God did make it-and thus He is not the all-powerful creator of things. But evil is not a thing. Things are not evil in themselves.

Where is the evil? It is in the will, the choice, the intent, the movement of the soul, which puts a wrong order into the physical world of things and acts.

Even Satan had not had the greatest ontological goodness of a powerful mind and will ,he could never have become so morally corrupt as he is. Corruptio opitmi pessima, “the corruption of the best things are the worst.” To be morally bad, you must first be ontologically good.

Even physical evil is not a thing. The lack of power in a paralyzed limb is physical evil, but not a thing, like another limb. Blindness is a physical evil, but it is not a thing, like an eye. The cataract that causes the evil is not the evil itself.

Is evil them merely subjective? No, for if it were a mere subjective illusion, then the fact that we fear this mere illusion would be really evil. As Augustine says: “thus either the evil we fear is real, or the fact that we fear it is evil.”

Evil is real, but it is not a real* thing.* Its is not subjective, but it is not a substance. Augustine defined evil as disordered love, disordered will. It is a wrong relationship, a nonconformity between our will and God’s will.

God did not make it;** we did**. That is the obvious point of Genesis 1 & 3.

 

[oldcelt]

Evil is not “incarnate,” it is not a being, substance, or entity. All being is good metaphysically, or ontologically, or in its being. For all being is either creature or Creator. God is good, and He declared everything He created good(Gen 1).

If evil were a being, the problem would be unsolvable, for then either God made it-and thus He is not all good-or else God did make it-and thus He is not the all-powerful creator of things. But evil is not a thing. Things are not evil in themselves.

Where is the evil? It is in the will, the choice, the intent, the movement of the soul, which puts a wrong order into the physical world of things and acts.

Even Satan had not had the greatest ontological goodness of a powerful mind and will ,he could never have become so morally corrupt as he is. Corruptio opitmi pessima, “the corruption of the best things are the worst.” To be morally bad, you must first be ontologically good.

Even physical evil is not a thing. The lack of power in a paralyzed limb is physical evil, but not a thing, like another limb. Blindness is a physical evil, but it is not a thing, like an eye. The cataract that causes the evil is not the evil itself.

Is evil them merely subjective? No, for if it were a mere subjective illusion, then the fact that we fear this mere illusion would be really evil. As Augustine says: “thus either the evil we fear is real, or the fact that we fear it is evil.”

Evil is real, but it is not a real* thing.* Its is not subjective, but it is not a substance. Augustine defined evil as disordered love, disordered will. It is a wrong relationship, a nonconformity between our will and God’s will.

God did not make it;** we did**. That is the obvious point of Genesis 1 & 3.

Satan in the garden is not incarnate (in the flesh)?
You almost had it, then you took one bible passage over another (Isiah). It really doesn’t matter to me, because it is obvious to me that we are very much on our own in this. Deists tend to be that way

 

[Oreoracle]

According to Judaism, G-d knows that good will triumph over evil in the long run, the very long run. However, it is still up to us to make it happen, and the sooner the better.

So just to be clear, you are conceding that God doesn’t know everything, e.g., he doesn’t know how I will exercise my free will?

Which begs the question, are you assuming “omniscience” based on a human temporal perspective of cause and effect or on the perspective of eternity?

Let’s toss out the metaphysical jargon and give a concrete example. Does God know with absolute certainty what I will eat for breakfast tomorrow? That should be a simple yes or no.

This fact is still irrefutable: to KNOW someone is going to do a thing is NOT to make them do it.

Let’s say I’ll have a son, and I’ll have complete knowledge about the sort of actions he’ll commit. He will become a tyrant who slaughters millions. Of course, there are some incidental good things that might come about from his birth. Now suppose further that by choosing to mate, say, a year later, I could cause those exact same good things without any of the evil (and assume that I know this too). Would I not be morally culpable for mating sooner rather than later? Again, it’s a simple yes or no.

I suspect that you will give God special treatment, but you wouldn’t let a human get away with it.

And God grants everyone sufficient knowledge to everyone to KNOW the good that they ought to do and the evil that they ought to avoid.

It’s easy to find moral gray areas, unless your morality is sufficiently simple. For instance, let’s say I know my friend’s wife is cheating on him. Should I tell him? Telling will cause suffering and might destabilize a relationship that may have fixed itself, but not telling might result in my friend wasting years with someone who is unfaithful. Sometimes we can only choose between bad and worse, and it’s hard to know what worse is.

Not without violating our nature as humans created will free will. Its either He creates creatures with free will(thus creating them with the possibility to chose against Him), or he creates moral robots with no free will.

But the former option contradicts God’s omniscience (he doesn’t know how I’ll exercise my will), which was my point. Determinism is depressing, I know. But it has the advantage of not being logically contradictory.

It seems like your problem is not so much with God as it is your difficulties dealing with your own nature.

Oh snap, you got me!

But what’s not being considered is the circumstance where God allows the thwarting of His will, as is the free choice of His creatures to act contrary to His will.

THAT circumstance requires omnipotence, and therefore is not an argument against it.

Right, but if he cannot predict when his plans will be thwarted, he is not omniscient.

 

[oldcelt]

I have to look into Judaism a good deal more. So much that I do not know and several points where we at least somewhat agree.

 

[oldcelt]

So just to be clear, you are conceding that God doesn’t know everything, e.g., he doesn’t know how I will exercise my free will?

Let’s toss out the metaphysical jargon and give a concrete example. Does God know with absolute certainty what I will eat for breakfast tomorrow? That should be a simple yes or no.

Let’s say I’ll have a son, and I’ll have complete knowledge about the sort of actions he’ll commit. He will become a tyrant who slaughters millions. Of course, there are some incidental good things that might come about from his birth. Now suppose further that by choosing to mate, say, a year later, I could cause those exact same good things without any of the evil (and assume that I know this too). Would I not be morally culpable for mating sooner rather than later? Again, it’s a simple yes or no.

I suspect that you will give God special treatment, but you wouldn’t let a human get away with it.

It’s easy to find moral gray areas, unless your morality is sufficiently simple. For instance, let’s say I know my friend’s wife is cheating on him. Should I tell him? Telling will cause suffering and might destabilize a relationship that may have fixed itself, but not telling might result in my friend wasting years with someone who is unfaithful. Sometimes we can only choose between bad and worse, and it’s hard to know what worse is.

But the former option contradicts God’s omniscience (he doesn’t know how I’ll exercise my will), which was my point. Determinism is depressing, I know. But it has the advantage of not being logically contradictory.

Oh snap, you got me!

Right, but if he cannot predict when his plans will be thwarted, he is not omniscient.

I am very glad you are here. I have made many of the same points over and over, even on different threads. Omniscience, for one, seems to be a term of convenience for some, when it is really a very simple concept.

 

[Bahman]

Let me start out by saying I’m not an expert in philosophy or theology and I believe if your truly searching for an answer to this you should ask an apologist. For my own understanding, I want to analyze this. I will separate things you said for my sake in understanding it. The definitions below come from google.

This is basically what you are saying:

1. God is omniscient (all-knowing). Yup
2. God is cognitively (knowingly) open to free will. Yup
3. God knows the decision we perform in a situation. Yup
   a) God is cognitively open to free will. Yup
   b) God is cognitively open to the situation. Yup
   c) God is cognitively open to creation. Yup
4. a) Creation was performed by first cause (a supposed ultimate cause of all events, which does not itself have a cause (i.e. God)) Yup
   b) God was cognitively open to first cause (God). Obviously

*You are basically repeating that God is all-knowing it seems.

1. a) Evil exist… (does it?)
   Evil is not a being, its an action. So if you mean people commit evil actions, then yup.
   b) …God was aware of the source of evil in first cause…
   In other words, you are saying God was aware of the source of evil in God. This is not a true statement because God is Moral Goodness. I assume you are trying to say: God is aware of the source(s) that would trigger evil actions in creation (humans and angels, creation that is able to commit evil actions).
   c) …since it was cognitively open to it.

*I’m not talking about physical evil here, like natural disasters or anything because I don’t assume you are referring to that.

*I’m going to reword this 5th claim so that it can make sense to me:
Evil actions exist and God was aware of the sources that would cause evil in creation. Therefore, God was cognitively open to such sources.

1. God created evil.
   More like permitted triggers of evil actions in creation.

So I assume your overall statement would be:
God is all knowing. He gave man and angels (creation) free will. Free will gives creation the option of committing evil actions and turning away from God or committing good actions and becoming more like God (Moral goodness). God knew that man and angels could commit evil actions, but permitted the sources of evil actions anyway. This is nothing knew.

But why would God permit sources of evil actions? For more information on that, take a look at the CCC. catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/index.cfm?recnum=1764

For a better understanding of free will, take a look at the CCC. vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm

Bahman, make sure you know the definitions of the terms you are using. It would help you immensely wherever your religious views may go And more than that, remember, you are not dealing with a God that was made up over night, you are dealing with a God whose very nature had been contemplated for many centuries by scholars of all fields! There is a reason so many believe in the God of Abraham. His nature makes sense of the reality of world we live in.

If what you stated is different than my interpretation of what you stated, please enlighten me on what you meant.

Thank you for all the new knowledge you helped me acquire through this process! May God bless you in this new year and in your faithful journey, wherever it may go!

Thank you very much for your long reply. Unfortunately my interpretation is slightly different from yours. Lets rewrite the argument slightly different and see what we conclude:

1. God has omniscience
2. God is cognitively open to free will (since otherwise couldn’t create a being with free will)
3. God knows the decision we perform in a situation as a result being cognitively open to free will and situation, in another word God is cognitively open to creation
4. Creation was performed by first cause and God was cognitively open to first cause
5. We act and God was aware the source of each act in first cause since it was cognitively open to it
6. Free will is an illusion

This means if (6) is right (2) is wrong namely free will can not be real if omniscience is real since God cannot cognitively be open to illusion. In another word omniscience leads to pure fatalism since the source of each action was already known in first cause.

 

[JamesATyler]

Doesn’t God create evil when he declares that something is good? By his declaration he makes things both good or evil.

 

[meltzerboy]

Doesn’t God create evil when he declares that something is good? By his declaration he makes things both good or evil.

Not necessarily since there may be degrees of goodness, as I stated in my previous post: when G-d declared His creation “good” before creating mankind and then “very good” after He created mankind with free will. Another example, according to Judaism, consists of levels of charity from the least good to the most good in which even the least good is not considered evil.

 

[Aloysium]

Doesn’t God create evil when he declares that something is good? By his declaration he makes things both good or evil.

That’s how a Taoist might see it, good and evil as equal opposing forces.

As Christians, going by what is in scripture,

Gen: 1-4 In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters. God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. God saw that light was good, and God divided light from darkness.

Nothing here about God creating evil.
Also note that darkness is an absence of light, which He created.

Gen 6:5-11 Yahweh saw that human wickedness was great on earth and that human hearts contrived nothing but wicked schemes all day long. Yahweh regretted having made human beings on earth and was grieved at heart. And Yahweh said, ‘I shall rid the surface of the earth of the human beings whom I created – human and animal, the creeping things and the birds of heaven – for I regret having made them.’ But Noah won Yahweh’s favour. This is the story of Noah: Noah was a good man, an upright man among his contemporaries, and he walked with God. Noah fathered three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. God saw that the earth was corrupt and full of lawlessness.

It seems that we participate in the creative process and that it is we who create evil.
That He made us creatures with the potential to sin, to appropriate for ourselves goods to which we are not entitled and are in fact damaging to us, does not make Him responsible for the evil we do.
In fact, He made it possible to still come to Him, in spite of our sinfulness, through His sacrifice as Christ on the cross.

 

[fhansen]

Doesn’t God create evil when he declares that something is good? By his declaration he makes things both good or evil.

Scripture says that when God created the universe everything was good.

 

[tonyrey]

Talk about an easy job, “Theologist.” You analyze old texts, give an opinion and no one can prove you wrong because you can’t interview the subject.

Theology consists of far more than analysing texts because it has to be consistent and correspond to our experience of life.

You can make up terms like passive and active will

Don’t you ever allow things to happen rather than cause them?

…you can declare a God to be all good when you have not one parcel of evidence to prove it and proceed to place all the blame on your fellow men.

There is not a parcel of evidence to prove existence is worthless. It is sheer fantasy to believed all evil could be prevented.

 

[tonyrey]

Scripture says that when God created the universe everything was good.

Irrefutable!

 

[Amandil]

So just to be clear, you are conceding that God doesn’t know everything, e.g., he doesn’t know how I will exercise my free will?

Not at all. I’m saying that His knowledge doesn’t CAUSE you to freely choose what you choose.

Let’s toss out the metaphysical jargon and give a concrete example.

So, in other words, the only premises that we can begin from are yours?

That seems rather circular…

Does God know with absolute certainty what I will eat for breakfast tomorrow? That should be a simple yes or no.

Yes, but His knowledge isn’t based on human modes of knowing.

Let’s say I’ll have a son, and I’ll have complete knowledge about the sort of actions he’ll commit. He will become a tyrant who slaughters millions. Of course, there are some incidental good things that might come about from his birth. Now suppose further that by choosing to mate, say, a year later, I could cause those exact same good things without any of the evil (and assume that I know this too). Would I not be morally culpable for mating sooner rather than later? Again, it’s a simple yes or no.

Unless you created him for the express purpose of slaughtering millions, no.

You’re simply not asking the right questions. The better question is what need does a Being, who is fully sufficient in Himself, and who needs nothing, have to create anything outside of Himself?

And if such a Being exist, then you must admit that there is a real possibility of nothing having ever existed, correct?

Yet we DO exist, why? Especially when there is no real “rational” explanation?

Or is it possible that the explanation is not merely “rational”(or rather based on mere human “rationale”)?

I suspect that you will give God special treatment, but you wouldn’t let a human get away with it.

What do you mean by “special treatment”? It seems rather that you’re still assuming your conclusion.

It’s easy to find moral gray areas, unless your morality is sufficiently simple. For instance, let’s say I know my friend’s wife is cheating on him. Should I tell him? Telling will cause suffering and might destabilize a relationship that may have fixed itself, but not telling might result in my friend wasting years with someone who is unfaithful. Sometimes we can only choose between bad and worse, and it’s hard to know what worse is.

Not at all. You example is basic detraction. The morality of human acts dictates that you must exercise prudence.

Your position is a false dichotomy. The third option, assuming that what you “know” about her is based on fact and not mere assumption, is to approach the wife with what you know and present her with the option of telling her husband first, or if she refuses then to inform her that you’ll tell him yourself. Her initial response will give away if she truly is committing adultery. And then once the truth is in the open the choice is hers; to save her marriage or to sin and abandon it.

Either way, the suffering was not caused by you but by her choice to commit adultery. The relationship was obviously “destabilized” way before your discovery.

BTW, the assumption that the relationship would “repair itself” after the adultery which still lies hidden with her is based on what exactly?

 

[Amandil]

cont’d:

But the former option contradicts God’s omniscience (he doesn’t know how I’ll exercise my will), which was my point. Determinism is depressing, I know. But it has the advantage of not being logically contradictory.

Not at all. You seem rather to be conflating “contradiction” with a paradox. Contradictions are by their very definition, “sense-less”: like someone walking through a wall and at the same time that same person NOT walking through that same wall at that exact same time.

Paradoxes only “appear” to be contradictions when they are really not. Omniscience and omnipotence in God is no more a contradiction than God assuming a human nature is a contradiction.

To claim that something is a “contradiction” because you can’t understand it(or refuse to understand it), is not a problem on God’s part, but yours.

From C.S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters”:
"You, being a spirit, will find it difficult to understand how he gets into this confusion. But you must remember that he(man) takes Time for an ultimate reality. He supposes that the Enemy(God), like himself, sees some things as present, remembers others as past, and anticipates others as future; or even if he(man) believes that the Enemy(God) does not see things that way, yet, in his heart of hearts, he regards this as a peculiarity of the Enemy’s mode of perception - he doesn’t really think (though he would say he did) that things as the Enemy sees them are things as they are!
If you tried to explain to him that men’s prayers today are one of the innumerable coordinates with which the Enemy harmonizes the weather of tomorrow, he would reply that then the Enemy always knew men were going to make those prayers and, if so, they did not pray freely but were predestined to do so. And he would add that the weather on a given day can be traced back through its causes to the original creation of matter itself - so that the whole thing, both on the human and on the material side, is given “from the word go”. What he ought to say, of course, is obvious to us; that the problem of adapting the particular weather to the particular prayers is merely the appearance, at two points in his temporal mode of perception, of the total problem of adapting the whole spiritual universe to the whole corporeal universe; that creation in its entirety operates at every point of space and time, or rather that their kind of consciousness forces them to encounter the whole, self-consistent creative act as a series of successive events. Why that creative act leaves room for their free will is the problem of problems, the secret behind the Enemy’s nonsense about “Love”. How it does so is no problem at all; for the Enemy does not foresee the humans making their free contributions in a future, but sees them doing so in His unbounded Now. And obviously to watch a man doing something is not to make him do it.

Oh snap, you got me!

I know.

Right, but if he cannot predict when his plans will be thwarted, he is not omniscient.

You use the word “prediction”, which is still assuming that God experiences linear time as we do.

Its a false assumption.

 

[Amandil]

Satan in the garden is not incarnate (in the flesh)?
You almost had it, then you took one bible passage over another (Isiah). It really doesn’t matter to me, because it is obvious to me that we are very much on our own in this. Deists tend to be that way

And that is apparently the only appeal of Deism, that of an “exclusive sect” or “secret society”, like that of the Gnostics. Not that it is actually “true”.