Is God capable of evil?

[danserr]

The definition of “objective” is open to interpretation. For instance, in the bible, God clearly prompts or condones behaviours that we would consider utterly, horribly immoral in today’s society - behaviours that he then condemns in the ten commandments.

Given this, where could we possibly get “objective” morals from? It can’t be from God, because he doesn’t practice what he preaches.

What does “objective” mean? Does it mean “immutable?” Then how come God was able to breach this “objective” moral code at will?

How do we know what this “objective” moral code states? The Bible’s “be nice to each other” is not only vague, but obvious, and is a cornerstone of societal interaction that was being practiced by human societies thousands of years before the bible was penned. It’s infinitely more likely that this fundamental social imperative was written to reflect normal human morality, than that it was mandated by some supernatural entity thousands of years after the human race would have died out were it not already practicing good citizenship.

So I think you have two options: admit that “objective” morality does not exist, at least in the sense of “immutable” and “prescribed;” or admit that it equates to “whatever God says, regardless of what God does.”

So to analyse your argument:

1 - is a false premise. There may, or may not, be “objective” morality… but if there is, there’s zero reason to ascribe its existence to God.
2 - cannot be shown to be true. In fact, all the evidence suggests that it’s false, as (a) moral standards have demonstrably changed according to era and geography, (b) nobody can describe what this “objective” moral code should be (have we reached it yet? Do you think the slave owners of the 18th century thought they were moral people?) and (c) no reasonable source for this “objective” morality has ever been suggested.

Given the inherent weakness of (1) and (2), then 3 is quite clearly unreliable.

No, the word “objective” is not open to interpretation. To say that objective moral values and duties exist is to say that they are true independent of what people think.

So the argument is

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore God exists.

Now you try to attack premise one by claiming that God is just so darn mean in the Old Testament. Now this objection is common in pop. thought and on the internet, but is misguided.
a). It is a red herring. Michael Ruse, the agnostic philosopher of science, for instance, claims that objective morality does not exist because what we believe to be that morality is simply the result of socio-biological conditioning. The first premise accepts this idea and makes it into a counterfactual, “if God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.” Now what you are essentially trying to do, is to refute Michael Ruse by appealing to stories in the Bible. Good luck with that!
b). If you are claiming that God is behaving in a fashion that is really evil, then you are really just affirmed premise 2 of the argument, that objective moral values and duties do exist.
c). The theist could escape your objection simply by holding that the Bible writers were mistaken in attributing such commands to God. This alone, avoids your objection to the first premise, and actually, shows that you are not really objecting to the first premise, but to the doctrine of literal biblical inerrancy. Very well, do so, but it would not phase even many orthodox Christians and does not refute the first premise.

As for premise 2, you essentially claim that moral beliefs have changed over time and people don’t know perfectly this objective morality (which seems to contradict your earlier statement that “do unto others” is obvious and known by all cultures, but let that pass). here you confuse moral ontology (the existence of objective moral values) with moral epistemology (the knowledge of objective moral values), but that fact that many societies do not “know” this objective morality perfectly is hardly proof that it does not exist.

The basis for this objective morality, of course, is God’s nature. God is a greatest conceivable being, and as such is the paradigm of moral goodness. Moral duties comes from his commands. These commands flow necessarily from his just, loving, etc. nature. So to ask “what if God commanded child abuse” is a meaningless question, rather like asking “if a square circle existed, would its area be pie time r-squared”?

Given the probability of premise 1 and 2, therefore, Premise 3, God exists, logically follows.

 

[wanstronian]

On what do you base the existence of good and evil?

Why is that relevant? The point is that you are defining them in terms of the conclusion you wish to reach. That is a logically invalid approach, and it’s the primary reason for the failure of your argument. I would have thought that my “Venezuela” analogy would highlight the problem - but apparently not?

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

My dear friends,

I would say God is capable of evil and does evil when necessary, but his must be qualified. God can only do evil in non – reality such as the delusion we’re in which is the opposite of reality. In reality God cannot do evil. But with God all things are possible, even the necessity to do evil. God cannot allow evil to exist because any imperfection in God’s creation is a reflection on the creator and evil is imperfection and if any imperfection at all exists this means the creator God is imperfect and He would cease to exist. So immediately when we fell God moved us into the delusion which is non – reality or the opposite of reality ( which explains why all is wrong here and we have such a miserable lot in this world ) so that evil although it seems to exist , actually does not exist. God does everything for infinite reasons and God cannot become a man and suffer and die for us in reality , as this would be imperfection , so God put us and Himself in non – reality , as said , so He can become one of us and redeem us. Even God is the opposite of reality in this delusion which means whilst He does not always, He can do evil , such as evil to Himself in Jesus as we know. There’s a lot more to this than written here.

God bless and Love you all:thumbsup:

John

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Benevolence in itself does not need action, I don’t think. One can be benevolent without having an opportunity to exert some effort. That’s why benevolence is only part of the equation.

I understand the common theist objection to God’s being able to, for example, create a square circle. I think it’s generally used as a distractionary technique, but I’m not going to die in a ditch about it. Let’s limit it to non-paradoxical events. I think the common definition of omnipotence is in reference to an ability to act, as far as I’m aware it’s a fairly unequivocal meaning.

Well, I’m not sure how important that is actually. Various people could be considered guilty of various different deeds. So to take an example, let’s take the Haitian earthquake. Many of the people who were left dead or suffering were doubtless guilty of some heinous crimes - crimes for which a court of law would probably sentence them to years in jail (but of course, if this were to happen, there would be evidence of the crime, and fair trial). But also, there must have been thousands who were guilty of no more than speeding offences, or spraying graffiti or, in the case of newborns, guilty of nothing at all. Did they deserve their fate?

So how does one reconcile an allegedly benevolent God, who presumably could use his omnipotence to prevent this wholesale slaughter,with the fact that he does nothing to intervene? Why has he allowed billions of innocent people to suffer and die, when he could act to prevent it? When he should act to prevent it?

As you have stated benevolence requires no action, so to argue that it is required to manifest as action is not consistent with the supplied definition. Benevolence need not be actively demonstrated for it to be present. So, the lack of demonstrated benevolence does not indicate an unbenevolent being. Furthermore, if omnipotence is the ability do all that is possible, then one of the possible options is to choose not to intervene in a scenario. An omnipotent being is not essentially bound to a specific course of action.

As for innocence, to definitively label people as “innocent”, without providing some form of substantiation, is not appropriate. If such substantiation cannot be supplied, it is then being used merely as an appeal to emotion. However, you indicated of a notion “deserve”, in your message, which it requires the context of entitlement. The question is, are people entitled absolutely to live without suffering or death? Can this be objectively supplied?

I see no reason to grant entitlement without an objective justification. If an ultimate arbitrator (e.g. God) is taken as granted, then this entity would intrinsically set the framework of entitlement, arbitrating at its will alone. Does simply being alive innately grant an entitlement of being absolutely free of all forms of suffering or death? Does a lack a moral fault grant entitlement? I see no rationale to arbitrarily grant this prerogative.

So, we have first the question which is as follows:

Why has he [God] allowed billions of innocent people to suffer and die, when he [God] could act to prevent it?

The answer is that a benevolent, omnipotent being is not inherently required to demonstrate benevolence and not compelled to act to demonstrate omnipotence in any given scenario. Death and what are termed “physical evils” are merely properties of a finite universe, in which entropy is an innate characteristic.

The second question:

When he [God] should act to prevent it?

It hasn’t been established, to my mind, that there is any real personal entitlement that a benevolent, omnipotent being must intervene in a scenario. There is no established entitlement that people must at all times must be free from suffering and death. Why should a benevolent, omnipotent being necessarily intervene? An omnipotent being is not compelled to action.

So, I guess the question I have is why is there a “should” in your second question? I think you need to supply the answer to in order for us to continue the discourse.

 

[tonyrey]

On what do you base the existence of good and evil?

Because unless you give them a foundation they may well be illusions. It is like building castles in the air and extracting them from nowhere.

The point is that you are defining them in terms of the conclusion you wish to reach.

On the contrary my starting point is **the reality of good and evil **- which have no rational foundation in a Godless universe.