Is God capable of evil?

[Soldier_Of_God]

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

Are you suggesting that punishment is not to be meted out? That the defense of the His chosen people isn’t valid?

 

[tonyrey]

God is all good. There is no evil in Him.

Greetings, Odhiambo. I lived just outside Nairobi for seven years!

“In God we live, move and have our being”. So a sceptic could argue that everything, including evil, must be in God! He would be wrong because evil isn’t a thing…

 

[Sair]

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

And the question still remains as to why God would create natural laws that result in evil and suffering befalling so many of his creations. Are these the only laws God could have built into the universe? If so, then what constraint was he under, precisely?

 

[Sair]

Sair;7929749:

That is true. So what?

That being the case, how would you accurately determine whether or not acceptance of God’s existence was necessary for salvation?

They limit

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

I didn’t say they compelled us to believe in God’s existence, but in their own existence. If the need to accept gravity as a fact about the way the world operates does not violate our free will, but only limits it insofar as we cannot, for example, simply choose to walk off a high cliff without appropriate equipment if we don’t want to die from the fall, how would compelling evidence for God’s actual existence violate our free will? On the other hand, if it’s true that belief in God is not necessary for salvation, why does it matter whether a person believes in God or not?

 

[Warrior1979]

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.

The distinction I’m making is that many people are assuming that Christ succumbing to temptation is utterly impossible. That is entirely different from choosing not to succumb to temptation. I have always believed the latter, since the former would greatly diminish Christ’s role on earth.

I think the better analogy can be found in marriage. A couple can have a Josephite marriage, but the couple must have the capability to complete the marital act, regardless of whether or not they do so. A couple that cannot complete the act cannot have such a marriage.

I believe the same exists with Christ. The ability to commit evil existed, but He simply chose not to.

 

[djeter]

It beggars belief how theists can sit there and claim their god is both loving and omnipotent, when a quick look in the newspapers demonstrates the falsity of such a claim.

.

Well I guess that shows us God doesn’t read his press clippings…

"But why, or to what extent, is the actually existing created world good? It cannot be good in the sense of useful, by which I mean advantageous for someone or usable for some goal.

For in this respect, there are two alternatives. Either a best of all possible worlds could exist — that is, with a view to some limited objective. There is no greatest number, but there is certainly the best — the right — number for a particular endeavor, whether we are talking about a checkers match or a sailing party or a production of Beethoven’s Ninth.

And yet if such a partial goal were not just one among many, but actually were the basis and point of our existence, then we would by that very fact be degraded to the level of slaves, of a mere means to an end. This is the case, for example, in Oriental “creation” myths, which represent human beings as being produced in order to serve the gods’ needs by means of their sacrifices. But if that were true, then what would be left of the value of human life?

Or — and this is the second alternative — we continue to understand creation as having some unrestricted and comprehensive goal (however we might imagine that goal in the concrete). In this case, there would indeed be no best of all possible worlds, but then even the best possible world would now not even be good. I am perfectly serious about this. Because, looking at it as a whole, we do not call something that is serviceable, even when it could be, in fact, in principle, infinitely more serviceable, “good.”

Its modest value is far outweighed by everything that it is not, and does not accomplish. This is, to return to an earlier point, the source of the negative judgments about life pronounced by both East and West.

We thus have just one recourse: if creation is to be good in spite of all this, then this can be only insofar as creation is willed — freely and without instrumental ordination to some objective — by God. Not good for something, but simply good: the world and we in it, its existence and ours, are good “prior to any merit,” and therefore also good “despite all sin.”
Jörg Splett, [Reading Selections from “The Gift Of Life — Why There Is No Right To Die” (Parts One and Two) ](Reading Selections from “The Gift Of Life — Why There Is No Right To Die” (Parts One and Two) by)

dj

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I believe the same exists with Christ. The ability to commit evil existed, but He simply chose not to.

How would turning stone into bread to feed your hunger be construed as evil? The story is about spiritual struggle and not necessarily about choosing evil. This is made evident by the account of fasting by Jesus, as fasting is often historically used in prelude to metaphysical conflict.

 

[tonyrey]

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

Because all natural laws will result in some negative effects on sentient beings, e.g. failure and frustration.

Are these the only laws God could have built into the universe? If so, then what constraint was he under, precisely?

God could have built different laws into the universe but the greater its complexity and population the greater the amount of conflict, interference and number of unfortunate coincidences. The constraints are the purposes for which He created the universe. Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage. It is impossible to have something for nothing. There is no such thing as a free life!

 

[Warrior1979]

The story is about spiritual struggle and not necessarily about choosing evil.

IMHO,

“No ability to do something contrary to God” = “No struggle”

 

[odhiambo]

Greetings, Odhiambo. I lived just outside Nairobi for seven years!

“In God we live, move and have our being”. So a sceptic could argue that everything, including evil, must be in God! He would be wrong because evil isn’t a thing…

Hi tonyrey! habari yako.
Evil is aquired. It is not in God’s nature.

 

[tonyrey]

Hi tonyrey!
Evil is acquired. It is not in God’s nature.

You’re right, Odhiambo. It is the result of choice and chance (in the sense of coincidence).
The tragedies of natural evils like disease, disasters and deformities occur to those who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time…

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

IMHO,

“No ability to do something contrary to God” = “No struggle”

You are equating not giving in or responding to something as an inability to to respond. As a for instance, if someone insults you publically, you can either respond in kind or elect to ignore them and not. If you elect to ignore them, that doesn’t mean that you are unable to respond. It’s not a stretch to assume that God does not struggle against his own will. However, Christ had human nature as well and human nature does permit such a struggle. Christ, as a man, had the ability to succumb to temptation as he was fully human.

 

[Warrior1979]

However, Christ had human nature as well and human nature does permit such a struggle. Christ, as a man, had the ability to succumb to temptation as he was fully human.

You stated:

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.

This is for my own education. Hypothetical speaking, how can Christ succumb with this hypostatic union in place? Or is the question one that can’t be answered because we simply can’t fully comprehend such a union?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

This is for my own education. Hypothetical speaking, how can Christ succumb with this hypostatic union in place? Or is the question one that can’t be answered because we simply can’t fully comprehend such a union?

This is an excellent question for it gets to the heart of the issue you (and many others) have which is… how can the nature of God and the nature of man coexist without contradicting their own natures? It appears to be a paradoxical union. Given that nature of God is that of good and evil cannot exist within but man nature permits him to act in an evil manner, how can he exercise his nature? Like most, I cannot claim to have a definitive answer that is certain because I have intellectual limits, as does any other human being.

What I conceive is that Christ acts with the nature of man when necessary and in the nature of God when necessary. God cannot be slain, be resurrected or suffer hunger but Jesus was crucified, rose from the dead and felt hunger. Christ was acting within the nature of man when death came to him through the crucifixion. Christ did not call upon his divinity to save himself and allowed what would naturally happen if he were simply a man. The same metaphysical principle applies during his period of temptation.

The trial of temptation was Christ’s approach to show us that the nature of man does not mean always succumbing to temptation or to our other vices, that we are not always condemned to failure by our nature. It demonstrates we are able to rise above our inclinations, to use the gift of reason and sapience and to show we are not a slave to our immoral desires. As imperfect beings, we will suffer moral failure. We are not, however, always doomed to moral failure.

 

[wanstronian]

You have still only posted emotional objections. Post a logical objection or admit that this is simply your opinion. I debated with you on the problem of evil before and you called my emotional objection to the problem “illogical”. I’m reversing it on you. Give me a logical deductible argument or all this is is the opinion of an angry atheist.

No, I’ve posted a logical, common-sense refutation of God as both benevolent and omnipotent. No emotion involved - your ad hominem regarding what YOU consider to be my state of mind is not only baseless, but more importantly, irrelevant. If God is both good and all-powerful he should prevent evil, as you or I would. If he doesn’t, then one or more of the following statements must be true:
1 God is not good.
2 God is not omnipotent.
3 God has a reason for allowing evil to happen.

In respect of (3), we have no possible way of knowing if this is the case. So to assert that both (1) and (2) are false by virtue of (3) being true, is to resort to the fallacy of special pleading.

If you can provide a rebuttal, then please do so. But if you continue to try and evade the issue by pretending I haven’t given a rationale, or that I’m just an “angry atheist” (angry at what, do you think?), then I shall consider my point made.

Ball’s in your court, mate. Explain why God’s inaction should not be considered in the same way as that of the average guy, or you lose.

 

[wanstronian]

Because He is benevolent He does not stop this. His omnipotence could end evil in the sense of disordered wills, He simply would have to do away with free will in creatures.

This is such a weak argument. Firstly, it amounts to special pleading. Secondly, the existence of free will has not even been demonstrated, so should not be used as a defence. And thirdly, would you place the free will of a rapist-murderer above the human rights of another? Really, it’s excuse-mongering of the most pathetic kind. And anyway, the “free will” argument does nothing to explain the millions of people killed or put to sufferance by natural events, which he could presumably prevent if he’s omnipotent.

Evil of itself is nothing, it only inheres in good. So a lion being good in its way is evil to the lamb that it eats. You cannot eliminate the absence of being or destroy a privation.

So why does God let the lamb suffer and die? It doesn’t need to - God could do anything, so just stopping the lion feeling hungry should be an easy job.

Furthermore, if God does exist and He is who He says He is in Christianity, then He does right the wrong eschatalogically. We just have to wait.

Yes - IF. But this is just more special pleading. And you’re basing your defence of one baseless dogma on the foundations of another. What’s the purpose in making people suffer in this world, just to be rewarded in the next? What’s the point? And bear in mind, if you’re going to answer this question, I’ll be expecting you to tell me how you know - more philosophical piffle won’t be sufficient, I’ll just refer you back to my first post in this thread.

Given the premises of atheism, I find it hard to discover what “the right thing to do” is? Should we not just pursue our personal preferences to whatever ends they lead given that action is meaningless? So you accuse God of being wicked – or not existing – based on non-existent “right action”. Somewhat of a paradox, don’t you think?

I’m not sure whether you’re making the stupid and contra-evidential “atheists have no basis of morality” argument, or the stupid and contra-evidential “atheists are nihilists” argument. Can you clarify?

 

[wanstronian]

I think the moral of the story is that though we may struggle with G-d, plead with Him, reason with Him, it is ultimately only through faith that we can truly understand Him.

But you can’t - all you can do through faith is believe you understand him. You can even be utterly convinced that you understand him. All you can ever know for certain is that you understand your personal interpretation of the God concept.

And that’s absolutely fine, but you should recognise that your belief is just that - an opinion. Personal conviction doesn’t put anybody in a position to impose their beliefs upon anybody else, or give them the right to tell others how to live their lives.

 

[Pieman333272]

No, I’ve posted a logical, common-sense refutation of God as both benevolent and omnipotent. No emotion involved - your ad hominem regarding what YOU consider to be my state of mind is not only baseless, but more importantly, irrelevant. If God is both good and all-powerful he should prevent evil, as you or I would. If he doesn’t, then one or more of the following statements must be true:
1 God is not good.
2 God is not omnipotent.
3 God has a reason for allowing evil to happen.

In respect of (3), we have no possible way of knowing if this is the case. So to assert that both (1) and (2) are false by virtue of (3) being true, is to resort to the fallacy of special pleading.

If you can provide a rebuttal, then please do so. But if you continue to try and evade the issue by pretending I haven’t given a rationale, or that I’m just an “angry atheist” (angry at what, do you think?), then I shall consider my point made.

Ball’s in your court, mate. Explain why God’s inaction should not be considered in the same way as that of the average guy, or you lose.

Fail. Not only do you still refuse to put your argument in logically deductible form, but then you make a naked assertion and accuse me of special pleading. We don’t have a way of KNOWING 3 is the case. We don’t have a way of KNOWING that NASA landed on the moon, historically. But we can see it as the best explanation based on the facts and nature of the event. I already debated you on this. You complained that my objection to the problem was “illogical” and “mental acrobatics”. Here’s what I want from YOU:

Present a LOGICALLY DEDUCTABLE form of the problem of evil. I don’t give a hoot if I’m being “fallicious” or making “ad homenims”. If it’s such a big problem and isn’t just your opinion, it should be easy for a “rationalist” like you to put it in the deductable form.

Since you complained that my objection was illogical and mental acrobatics, by implication because it was emotional in your view, I’m reversing it. Your argument is still emotional. You’re just a complainer. Give me hard logic or admit it.

And what are you angry about? It could be many things. You could be angry at the concept of God because you think it is “stupid”. You could be angry at theists for being “stupid”. Or maybe you’re angry at theism because in spite of appearing stupid to you, it’s managed to work out every little whine you’ve ever presented to it before you were even born. Quit accusing me of ad homenim and cut to the chase. You made more personal attacks above than I did in my entire stay here on the debate.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Present a LOGICALLY DEDUCTABLE form of the problem of evil. I don’t give a hoot if I’m being “fallicious” or making “ad homenims”. If it’s such a big problem and isn’t just your opinion, it should be easy for a “rationalist” like you to put it in the deductable form.

I would be interested in such a presentation as well.

 

[tonyrey]

1 God is not good.
2 God is not omnipotent.
3 God has a reason for allowing evil to happen.

1. If God does not exist nothing is good or evil.
2. There is good and evil in the world.
3. Good and evil require explanation.
4. God is the most cogent explanation.