Is God capable of evil?

[Prophesy]

It’s equally valid to say that the assumption of an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent creator is not a sound evaluation. No person of reason or science would conclude, on the basis of such evidence as we have, that the Christian God undoubtedly exists or is even likely to exist, when weighed against all other possibilities.

It may be equally valid in the grand scheme of things (which I would contest anyways), but it isn’t equally valid in this discussion since the premise is “if the Christian God exists as per the definitions held by Christians” “Can He commit evil?”.

The primary contention that I have with your statement is that it is false. There have been both people of reason and people of science who have, on the basis of evidence we have, believed that God is likely to exist (I would hope to say I am such a person based on my degree in chemistry, but it is not through chemistry that I philosophize about the existence of God.

-Prophesy

 

[tonyrey]

If belief in God is crucial for salvation, if said God were benevolent, he/she/it would take steps to ensure everyone had sufficient impetus to believe, beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Sair]

If an orderly system is extremely complex it is inevitable that its creator is heavily constrained by its laws and that some of its consequences are negative.

That would be true for a creator of limited ability or limited options. I’m not sure that’s how any believer would describe the Christian God, though. In any case, if the constraints are built in by the creator, then it stands to reason that different constraints could have been built in - particularly if the creator actually knew what he was doing. Are you actually claiming that your God is limited by natural laws?

 

[Sair]

Sair;7925563:

Belief in God is not crucial for salvation. Obeying your conscience is…

That seems to depend upon which flavour of Christian you ask.

That is irrelevant. Do we have the option of choosing whether God exist or not?

If the existence of a deity is a fact about the universe, then we obviously have no choice to determine whether it is or not. The point is, you claimed that God would violate our free will by actually demonstrating, beyond reasonable doubt, that he existed. Does the existence of things like gravity, germs, UV radiation etc. that cannot be denied (without painful consequences) constitute a negation of our free will?

 

[John_oxios]

If belief in God is crucial for salvation, if said God were benevolent, he/she/it would take steps to ensure everyone had sufficient impetus to believe, beyond reasonable doubt.

Do we have the option of believing in gravity? Do you choose this belief of your own free will? /Belief in God is not crucial for salvation. Obeying your conscience is…

Hi Sair,
To deny Him is!
If there is no God and you choose to believe in Him, you have nothing to lose;
But if you deny God exists, and HE IS… well then you lost everything…

There’s no harm in Believing there is a God, whether or not He Is,

If you are going to err, well is it not better to err on the safe side?

Believe in Gravity??? If you say there no such thing as gravity, well then that’s foolish,
it can be proven, measured, weighed.

You can deny that electricity exists also, which would also be foolish, when it come to electricity everybody has a faith in it… why? Whenever you flick the switch the light goes on… however ever flick the switch and the light didn’t come on??? What does everyone do… they flick the switch again!!! For an instant or two they can’t believe it didn’t work, then they check the bulb.
A convict has faith, because he believes when he sentence is done they will release him, or he belief to know if he doesn’t cross a boundary line the correction officer won’t fire upon him.

We all have faith of some kind, whether or not we apply to a Belief in God is our choice.

even Pantheist:

1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which man, nature, and the material universe are manifestations
2. any doctrine that regards God as identical with the material universe or the forces of nature
3. readiness to worship all or a large number of gods

pan·the·ism   
[pan-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the doctrine that god is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God’s personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2.
any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

All Christians believe God is transcendent,  and know matter how much we can come to know of Him, whatever we know will never know Him fully in this form.

as far as this goes;

Sair, "If belief in God is crucial for salvation, if said God were benevolent, he/she/it would take steps to ensure everyone had sufficient impetus to believe, beyond reasonable doubt

He does, He waits, and when our cups runneth over, from pride and self righteousness, He let’s us know who He is. Your cup may not be full yet.

Can you define where your thoughts come from?? Science can’t

God bless,
John

 

[Warrior1979]

If you read Philippians 2:6-7 (NIV), you will see the following:

“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”

This communicates to us that when Christ became man, he added the nature of man to himself. To Christ’s divinity He added humanity (i.e., made in human likeness). As such, Christ was subject to such things as hunger, thirst, pain, sadness and temptation.

The problem with this theologically is it separates Christ from God. How is this reconciled?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

The problem with this theologically is it separates Christ from God. How is this reconciled?

I’m not sure I see this theological separation as you do. Would you elaborate?

 

[Warrior1979]

I’m not sure I see this theological separation as you do. Would you elaborate?

If Christ has the nature of man, He can be tempted and can commit evil. If he does not have the potential to do evil, He would really not have the nature of man nor could He be tempted. If Christ could’ve performed evil, and God could not, there is the glaringly obvious problem calling them one and the same. How is this reconciled?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

If Christ has the nature of man, He can be tempted and can commit evil. If he does not have the potential to do evil, He would really not have the nature of man nor could He be tempted. If Christ could’ve performed evil, and God could not, there is the glaringly obvious problem calling them one and the same. How is this reconciled?

This has been traditionally defined as a hypostic union, the divine nature of the God was joined but not mixed with human nature. This doctrine has defined in the Creed of Chalcedon as the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. The natures co-exist substantively and in reality within the person of Christ. Evil, as it has been explained, is a lack (a privation) and is not a “thing” you do. Temptation is the fact of being tempted. God would not be tempted by evil but man (with his nature) could be tempted by evil. However, because one is tempted does not mean a response to sin will be produced.

 

[Warrior1979]

This has been traditionally defined as a hypostic union, the divine nature of the God was joined but not mixed with human nature. This doctrine has defined in the Creed of Chalcedon as the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. The natures co-exist substantively and in reality within the person of Christ. Evil, as it has been explained, is a lack (a privation) and is not a “thing” you do. Temptation is the fact of being tempted. God would not be tempted by evil but the man (with his nature) could be tempted by evil. However, because one is tempted does not mean a response will be produced.

I was not aware of this. I personally can’t reconcile this, because it implies a response, due to God being part of the relationship, cannot be produced.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I was not aware of this. I personally can’t reconcile this, because it implies a response, due to God being part of the relationship, cannot be produced.

Again, being tempted doesn’t necessarily mean you respond to the temptation. By way of analogy, if a person is hungry, they can respond to the hunger by eating something or elect not to respond to the hunger and not eat anything. The fact the person does not eat doesn’t negate the fact the person feels hungry.

 

[choliks]

I’ve been mulling over this the past few days.

I have no problem with the belief that “God is Love”. Indeed, when I reflect at the life I’ve lived and the lives of the people I know (and read about here in CAF), I can see God’s unconditional love.

However, when I look at the destruction of pharaoh’s army, the razing of sodom and gomorrah, and the great flood, I just can’t help but wonder at the loss of life (albeit evil and immoral), and ask about God’s capability of evil. Even though the purpose was to protect and cleanse His people, it was still destruction of (wretched) human life.

I’ve come to think that we are not doing God justice, if we say that He is only good, when His creation is capable of both good and evil. Wouldn’t it be fair to think of God as the Absolute, capable of everything found (physical, moral, and metaphysical) in His creation. That thinking of Him not capable of something makes Him less absolute, less omnipotent. I just don’t want to put God in a box.

Ultimately, I’d like to think, that even if God is capable of evil, in His new covenant, He chooses to love us unconditionally.

These are just my thoughts…

 

[JVSantos]

Is God capable of evil? answer:No

 

[JDaniel]

I’ve been mulling over this the past few days.

I have no problem with the belief that “God is Love”. Indeed, when I reflect at the life I’ve lived and the lives of the people I know (and read about here in CAF), I can see God’s unconditional love.

However, when I look at the destruction of pharaoh’s army, the razing of sodom and gomorrah, and the great flood, I just can’t help but wonder at the loss of life (albeit evil and immoral), and ask about God’s capability of evil. Even though the purpose was to protect and cleanse His people, it was still destruction of (wretched) human life.

I’ve come to think that we are not doing God justice, if we say that He is only good, when His creation is capable of both good and evil. Wouldn’t it be fair to think of God as the Absolute, capable of everything found (physical, moral, and metaphysical) in His creation. That thinking of Him not capable of something makes Him less absolute, less omnipotent. I just don’t want to put God in a box.

Ultimately, I’d like to think, that even if God is capable of evil, in His new covenant, He chooses to love us unconditionally.

These are just my thoughts…

Choliks:

How are the “destruction of pharaoh’s army, the razing of sodom and gomorrah, and the great flood” evil? (Remember, evil is the utter absence of good.)

God bless,
jd

 

[choliks]

Choliks:

How are the “destruction of pharaoh’s army, the razing of sodom and gomorrah, and the great flood” evil? (Remember, evil is the utter absence of good.)

God bless,
jd

You mean to tell me that destruction of human life (albeit immorally lived) is good?

newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm << this was the link given to me to define evil.

God bless,

choliks

 

[Warrior1979]

Again, being tempted doesn’t necessarily mean you respond to the temptation.

There is a gigantic chasm between being tempted and not being able to succumb to the temptation (which apparently Christ could not do if I am reading your interpretation correctly), and being able to succumb to the temptation. If you are part of the former, you can’t understand the latter.

By way of analogy, if a person is hungry, they can respond to the hunger by eating something or elect not to respond to the hunger and not eat anything. The fact the person does not eat doesn’t negate the fact the person feels hungry.

Not the same…In the end, both people must eat. In the prior case, only one party has the ability to commit evil.

 

[tonyrey]

That would be true for a creator of limited ability or limited options. I’m not sure that’s how any believer would describe the Christian God, though. In any case, if the constraints are built in by the creator, then it stands to reason that different constraints could have been built in - particularly if the creator actually knew what he was doing. Are you actually claiming that your God is limited by natural laws?

God is not limited by natural laws but there is no point in creating natural laws and then proceeding to ignore them!

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;7927060:

Belief in God is not crucial for salvation. Obeying your conscience is…

That seems to depend upon which flavour of Christian you ask.
That is true. So what?

If the existence of a deity is a fact about the universe, then we obviously have no choice to determine whether it is or not. The point is, you claimed that God would violate our free will by actually demonstrating, beyond reasonable doubt, that he existed. Does the existence of things like gravity, germs, UV radiation etc. that cannot be denied (without painful consequences) constitute a negation of our free will?

They limit our scope for action but do not compel us to accept or reject the existence of God.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

There is a gigantic chasm between being tempted and not being able to succumb to the temptation (which apparently Christ could not do if I am reading your interpretation correctly), and being able to succumb to the temptation. If you are part of the former, you can’t understand the latter.

Unfortunately, it seems your understanding is not the same as mine. I did not suggest Christ could not succumb to temptation, I suggested he did not (as a man) succumb to temptation. All people that succumb to temptation were tempted but not all people that are tempted succumb to temptation. However, not succumbing to temptation (e.g. responding) doesn’t preclude understanding temptation, as you seem to state.

Not the same…In the end, both people must eat. In the prior case, only one party has the ability to commit evil.

The example is being misconstrued. It’s to illustrate the difference between a response and non-response, not the inevitability to respond to natural design, like breathing. The point is that Christ is fully human in nature and is subject to human feelings (e.g. sadness, anger, etc…) and sensations (e.g. hunger, cold, etc…) just like other individuals. How a person responds to various conditions differs from one person to another.

 

[odhiambo]

Almost all of Christianity will claim that God is good. But is He capable of evil?

God is all good. There is no evil in Him.
I know it does not answer your question as to whether God is capable of evil.
To say “Yes, God is capable of evil” is actually to say that He is evil which we know is contrary to His very Nature.