Why God is not evil

[namax91]

If I remember correctly in the first of Descartes’s * Meditations* he asks what if God was an evil demon who puts things into our minds in order to confuse us. Obviously that wasn’t the point he was trying to make but I have wondered lately is there any way to know for sure that that’s not the case? Specifically, what if apologetics only makes sense because we have been tricked by an evil demon?

 

[dmar198]

If I remember correctly in the first of Descartes’s * Meditations* he asks what if God was an evil demon who puts things into our minds in order to confuse us. Obviously that wasn’t the point he was trying to make but I have wondered lately is there any way to know for sure that that’s not the case? Specifically, what if apologetics only makes sense because we have been tricked by an evil demon?

I think the following argument may be used to prove that God is not evil:

(1) Whatever involves limitations cannot be a part of God.
(2) Evil involves limitations.
(3) Therefore, evil cannot be a part of God.

I think there are good philosophical defenses of both premises in that argument. For example, the definition of God includes that He is infinite, and an infinite being cannot be limited. But evil has to be limited. Nothing that exists can be absolutely evil because existence itself is good.

From these premises, it seems to follow that an infinite being, such as God, must not be infinitely evil, because that’s a contradiction, and He can’t be a finite good, because He is infinite, but rather must be infinitely good.

I hope that helps.

 

[Bahman]

If I remember correctly in the first of Descartes’s * Meditations* he asks what if God was an evil demon who puts things into our minds in order to confuse us. Obviously that wasn’t the point he was trying to make but I have wondered lately is there any way to know for sure that that’s not the case? Specifically, what if apologetics only makes sense because we have been tricked by an evil demon?

You need to define evil. Because there are people here with strange idea about evil, thinking that evil is absence of good instead of opposite of good. To their mind the pure evil does not exist sine everything is good and pure evil is absence of existence! I however can simply imagine something which is really very evil, opposite to good, and exist. Hence God can be good, evil or neutral.

 

[mikekle]

This reminds me of a certain belief (although Im not sure what the term for this belief is), Ive heard it discussed a few times though, its basically the belief that God is actually the evil one and Lucifer is the good one, and we have just been deceived into believing otherwise.

I do remember reading some fairly good arguments for this awhile back, but havent read anything on it for a long time.

Anyone know what the term for this belief is?

 

[Gorgias]

You need to define evil. Because there are people here with strange idea about evil, thinking that evil is absence of good instead of opposite of good.

Some people such as, for example, St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.

To their mind the pure evil does not exist sine everything is good and pure evil is absence of existence!

The logical argument is really quite simple.

Is God, by definition, the creator of all things?
Does God create evil?
Therefore, if God is creator of all, and all He created was good, then nothing can be purely evil.

I however can simply imagine something which is really very evil, opposite to good, and exist.

Ahhh… be more careful – you’ve changed the subject! No one will disagree that there can be “something which is really very evil.” You, however, were critiquing the claim that there can not be something that is purely evil. Big difference, there…

Hence God can be good, evil or neutral.

Your conclusion does not follow from your assertions.

 

[thinkandmull]

“all He created was good”. Well that really goes back to the argument on pain and whether it is possible to go to a nice place after death instead of a horrible nothingness

 

[oldcelt]

God is not evil because he did not preordain, plan or impact anything involving humanity. We are a result of the initial creation, not a planned event…and evil is a human issue.

 

[Bahman]

Some people such as, for example, St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.

Oh, well. They first should explain free will within their scheme, causality.

The logical argument is really quite simple.

It is not. We can of course do evil thing since it is a real option for us. We always think of doing good or evil rather than doing good or absence of good.

Is God, by definition, the creator of all things?
Does God create evil?
Therefore, if God is creator of all, and all He created was good, then nothing can be purely evil.

Consciousness is the essence of every being with the ability to experience and create. It is very simple and cannot be created. The stuff we experience is by product of our minds.

Ahhh… be more careful – you’ve changed the subject! No one will disagree that there can be “something which is really very evil.” You, however, were critiquing the claim that there can not be something that is purely evil. Big difference, there…

Why not?

Your conclusion does not follow from your assertions.

Is evil an option? It express something in what we experience which is very real.

 

[thinkandmull]

God is not evil because he did not preordain, plan or impact anything involving humanity. We are a result of the initial creation, not a planned event…and evil is a human issue.

Do you believe God is all powerful and can intervene?

 

[thinkandmull]

Oh, well. They first should explain free will within their scheme, causality.

It is not. We can of course do evil thing since it is a real option for us. We always think of doing good or evil rather than doing good or absence of good.

Consciousness is the essence of every being with the ability to experience and create. It is very simple and cannot be created. The stuff we experience is by product of our minds.

Why not?

Is evil an option? It express something in what we experience which is very real.

So you think souls are eternal?

 

[Bahman]

So you think souls are eternal?

Soul or consciousness is eternal because it is simple and cannot be decomposed.

 

[thinkandmull]

Do you think you can prove that something simple can come from something else that is simple?

 

[Bahman]

Do you think you can prove that something simple can come from something else that is simple?

I don’t think that such a thing exist. Consciousness is the edge of simplicity, the essence of any being with the ability to experience and create. Give a shot and try to find something which is simpler than consciousness and it is functional.

 

[thinkandmull]

Well God is just as simple as your soul, but he has always been. Try to imagine yourself breathing out another soul from your soul. You’ll find that *you *cannot do it, but that doesn’t mean the idea is nonsense

 

[Bahman]

Well God is just as simple as your soul, but he has always been. Try to imagine yourself breathing out another soul from your soul. You’ll find that *you *cannot do it, but that doesn’t mean the idea is nonsense

That is only possible if you could know what consciousness is. But intellect is utility of consciousness. This means that it is impossible to know what consciousness is. Hence it is impossible to create consciousness.

 

[Gorgias]

Oh, well. They first should explain free will within their scheme, causality.

Read them.

It is not. We can of course do evil thing since it is a real option for us. We always think of doing good or evil rather than doing good or absence of good.

No, it really is simple, especially in the context you’ve raised – the question of “pure evil.”

The fact that we can do things that are not good does not disprove the case. The name that we give to “the absence of good” is ‘evil’. That does not mean that, since it has a name, it has being.

Consciousness is the essence of every being with the ability to experience and create. It is very simple and cannot be created. The stuff we experience is by product of our minds.

Non sequitur.

Why not?

I’m not sure which part of my reply this addresses. ‘Why not’ what?

Is evil an option? It express something in what we experience which is very real.

It is an option to choose against what is good. What we experience is the lack of good.

 

[Bahman]

Read them.

You think that free will is allowed in a causal framework?

No, it really is simple, especially in the context you’ve raised – the question of “pure evil.”

I think pureness is something that we can just imagine. To me evil is as real as good since we experience it. Pain, suffering, injustice, etc. They actually exist as a another mode of experience.

The fact that we can do things that are not good does not disprove the case. The name that we give to “the absence of good” is ‘evil’. That does not mean that, since it has a name, it has being.

Oh well, I can claim that God is pure evil, and Good is absence of evil. How you can disprove it?

Non sequitur.

Which part?

I’m not sure which part of my reply this addresses. ‘Why not’ what?

Then read post #8.

It is an option to choose against what is good. What we experience is the lack of good.

Do you feel pain? You are not making any sense.

 

[oldcelt]

Read them.

No, it really is simple, especially in the context you’ve raised – the question of “pure evil.”

The fact that we can do things that are not good does not disprove the case. The name that we give to “the absence of good” is ‘evil’. That does not mean that, since it has a name, it has being.

Non sequitur.

I’m not sure which part of my reply this addresses. ‘Why not’ what?

It is an option to choose against what is good. What we experience is the lack of good.

Semantics…and it truly changes nothing no matter what you call it.