Pascal's argument and evil God

[Charlemagne_III]

We are ruled with our nature to live. Once you subtract your tendency to follow your nature then you will see that life is neither good or evil.

Why would anyone subtract his tendency to follow his nature?

Wouldn’t that be perverse?

 

[USMC_Convert]

MK 3:22-30

Today’s reading during mass actually, which I found very interesting as it pertains to this discussion. It could be argued, and is by at least several priests that the unforgivable sin is to call the Holy Spirit evil. To reject the good God has done and to harden your heart against God Himself. That truly would be an unforgivable sin not so much as God is unable to forgive but that once you start calling God evil and thinking that His designs are the devils then your heart is so turned away from Him that you will never ask for forgiveness…

 

[Reepicheep]

@ Vonsalza:

In your post #20, did you mean to say that God created Lucifer for the purpose of having Lucifer rebel and become evil?

 

[STT]

How can we even have the concept of ‘good’ if the Creator of all that exists is not good?

How could you have the concept of evil if the creator of all that exists is not evil?

And to anticipate a possible objection: no, the same argument does not apply to evil.

The same argument applies to evil too.

Evil is not equal to good.

Of course. Evil is opposite of good.

Evil is the absence of good, or a defect in good.

Only Catholic define evil as absence of good. Needless to say that that is only Catholic definition of evil in such a manner to ensure that God is good. Change the definition then you could have evil God too.

Evil can exist in the creation of a good God. Good could not exist in the creation of an evil god, if such a god were even possible.

Why not, bold part?

 

[STT]

As a created being, I enjoy many things about my life. A purely evil God would not want me to experience these joys.

You will pay back later for not worshiping evil God and putting some suffering in your life. How could you be sure?

 

[STT]

Let me see if I understand you correctly:

If we choose to worship an evil God, we will not face eternal punishment. From our perspective, worshiping Evil God is good and not worshiping Him is bad.

It is better to put it this way to avoid confusion between right or good and wrong and evil: Worshiping Evil God is right and not worshiping Him is wrong.

So, Evil God does something good for us by not subjecting us to eternal damnation if we worship Him.

No. Evil God does something right for us…

But if Evil God does something good for us, then He is not purely evil, is he?

Again, Evil God does something right for us then He can be Evil.

 

[STT]

Hey STT,

It really depends on what you mean by “evil”, doesn’t it?

How do you define evil and why do you think that things is matter of definition?

The means by which mankind could be influenced toward evil was set in place by God’s willful creation of Lucifer - the originator of all rebellion - who was created to do exactly what he did, does and will do. Lucifer fell, then tempted man and man fell.

Evil is, thus, the product of choice. If God were to eliminate evil as we know it, it could be vigorously argued that He’d have to do it by destroying your free moral agency - reducing you to an automaton.

You’d have no more “will” than the fax machine in my office.

I don’t think that God enforce any control over creation once it is created. Things move subjected to individual decisions. Therefore I don’t think that fall of Lucifer and man was part of plan.

We can then reasonably conclude that “evil” exists because “will” exists. And it goes without saying that God wants you to exercise your will to His greater glory - even though you are not FORCED to. Ergo, the problem And while we may insist that God and “evil” cannot abide together (which is true), God obviously understands “evil” because he judges and punishes it - which explains how He can create a being (Lucifer) to enact it apart from Himself.

You could reduce your question (in another post) even further to “Why did He make all this junk (the universe) anyway?” And as we can’t get inside the mind of God, but know that’s He’s all powerful, we can reasonably deduce that the answer is this - He wanted to.

As your “label” indicates you’re looking for truth, I’ll share with you why I’m working to be a member of the Pope’s team.

I am a theist because theism is the only rational basis for morality.
I am a Christian theist because I think Christianity best represents the complex interface between the Divine and Human Conditions in a redemptive context.
I am a Catholic because Christian Truth derived from “Personal Divine Revelation” (Protestantism) is chaos. Plus, I can make a way better historical and theological argument for it than I can any other Christian sect (although I respect the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Communions enormously - we were brothers once).

I hope I have been helpful.

Go in Peace.

This part is not really related to subject of this thread. I respect your belief but we are here discussing the problem with Pascal’s argument when it comes to evil God.

 

[STT]

Why would anyone subtract his tendency to follow his nature?

No, you misread me. You need to subtract your tendency toward things to ensure that your nature does not interplay, therefore you could see good and evil in your life.

Wouldn’t that be perverse?

We don’t want to blindly follow our nature, do we? I mean we accept everything that please us as truth and reject everything which displease us as untruth. Is that a right path to follow, following our nature?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No, you misread me. You need to subtract your tendency toward things to ensure that your nature does not interplay, therefore you could see good and evil in your life.

We don’t want to blindly follow our nature, do we? I mean we accept everything that please us as truth and reject everything which displease us as untruth. Is that a right path to follow, following our nature?

I don’t understand your first point. Could you rephrase it? Thanks.

As to the second point, our nature is to seek truth. We cannot blindly follow that except by throwing obstacles in the way of truth. It would be perverse to do that because it would not follow our natural desire for truth.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Pascal argue that those who believe in good God keep more safe position compared to non-believers. But what if God is evil. Of course non-believers will be in trouble but believers in good God will be in more trouble.

What evidence do you have that God is evil?

If God is evil, we are all toast anyway.

 

[STT]

I don’t understand your first point. Could you rephrase it? Thanks.

Think of masochism. These people have different nature so suffering please them. What we call normal people are not inclined to such a nature therefore the suffering do not please them. Why things is like this? Because normally suffering is related to injury which is not good for living being. Our nature just coded us in such a way that we avoid suffering in order to sustain. Other than that there is no preference of good over evil.

As to the second point, our nature is to seek truth. We cannot blindly follow that except by throwing obstacles in the way of truth. It would be perverse to do that because it would not follow our natural desire for truth.

We are inclined to seek the truth but we are biased to prefer good over evil due to our nature therefore the same nature is blinding us.

 

[STT]

What evidence do you have that God is evil?

What evidence do you have that God is good? We just cannot know until we face God, our death.

If God is evil, we are all toast anyway.

Who said that being toasted is bad? We cannot do it in this life because it hurts our bodies. What if you have an immortal body? Suffering could be as pleasant of happiness once you practice it enough.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What evidence do you have that God is good? We just cannot know until we face God, our death.

Who said that being toasted is bad? We cannot do it in this life because it hurts our bodies. What if you have an immortal body? Suffering could be as pleasant of happiness once you practice it enough.

Your “Religion” says that you are “Seeking the truth”, but when you write like this, I suspect you are not being serious.

 

[STT]

Your “Religion” says that you are “Seeking the truth”, but when you write like this, I suspect you are not being serious.

Have you ever played chess or do serious sport?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Have you ever played chess or do serious sport?

Both. Why?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Who said that being toasted is bad? We cannot do it in this life because it hurts our bodies. What if you have an immortal body? Suffering could be as pleasant of happiness once you practice it enough.

Again, difficult to fathom. Possibly a language barrier?

 

[goout]

Have you ever played chess or do serious sport?

Sports and other pastimes lead us toward some good, like re-creation or stress relief, etc…
Obstinate and reflexive argumentation lead to no such good.
There is never growth in understanding or good faith consensus. It’s no different than a doctor whacking your knee.

 

[STT]

Both. Why?

You suffer when you play chess but that is pleasant and entertaining to you.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You suffer when you play chess but that is pleasant and entertaining to you.

Chess is problem solving.

Problem solving is a type of challenge to overcome, not a type of suffering to endure.

 

[STT]

Chess is problem solving.

Problem solving is a type of challenge to overcome, not a type of suffering to endure.

More pressure you put on your brain better you become at playing the game. Nothing is free. It is like body building.