God creates the concept of evil. Yes or no?

[Monster Machine]

Please tell me I’m not out to lunch.

I was debating on a Christian forum with some of the Chosen over the whole “god creates evil”, which is mentioned numerous times in the OT. (yeah, yeah, yeah – I was out to lunch when I decided to waste my time on a Christian message board. Ha ha.)

Some agreed (surprisingly) but most didn’t (of course!). The ones who didn’t agree insisted that the Hebrew word for evil has a million different meanings and it was translated incorrectly into English (of course – keep those goalposts moving, people!) I was told that in the case of Isaiah 45:7, the word evil should read “calamity” (as if that makes it better).

In any event, I was trying to press upon the Chosen that god should get credit for creating evil. Why does he only get credit for the “good” things, but not the bad?

The most repeated comment was that evil exists as a default opposite to god’s nature of goodness.

My argument was that the concept of opposites had to have been created . Therefore, god created evil otherwise he was subject to a law he didn’t create and therefore is not all powerful.

Here’s what I wrote:

I don't agree with this response at all, by stating evil exists by default simply because it's opposite to god's nature.

God receives credit for creating everything: the universe, the world, the animals, plants, etc. Should he also not get credit for creating the laws by which nature is governed?

As it stands now, if we turn off a light, it's dark. But if god created the light, he also created the law which states it's dark when the light is turned off. HE determined that when the lights are off, it's dark, rather than bubbles appearing out of thin air when the lights are out. If he didn't, then there are laws of physics for which god doesn't have control over. That would limit god's ability and power and subject him to law.

This would also negate the statement that god is all powerful, all knowing, etc. But if you believe god created everything, then you have to conclude that god created the laws by which the universe is governed. Lack of light equals darkness - lack of good equals evil.

God created evil

This was the argument I used. I thought it made sense in its simplistic way.

Apparently not, as I was told because I was a non believer, I didn’t have sprititual discernment, I wasn’t reading it in proper context, yadda-yadda-yadda... the usual.

Does this make sense to you? If not, how should I have worded it?

Monster

 

[DallasDad]

Before entering these discussions, you should reread your Cervantes.

Windmills: 7
Monster Machine: 0

 

[Cainkane1]

Humans who invented God say God is good but created evil so that he would know who was who. God is really really fantastically good because of this.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Does a sculptor create a statue or a pile of chipped-off rubble? The Christians arguing against you would have it that the pile of rubble is merely a consequence of the creation of the sculpture. The counter-argument is noting that the sculptor knows going in he will create a pile of rubble, and should take steps to dispose of it properly. The pile of rubble is not his intent, but it is a known consequence of his actions. So it is with God and evil. If he did not intend its creation, he at least should have known (that omniscience thing) it was coming, and should have disposed of it properly.

Of course, some may say dumping billions of soul in Hell is proper disposal...

 

[The Atheist]

In any event, I was trying to press upon the Chosen that god should get credit for creating evil.

Are you a christian?

I'm an atheist and don't believe any gods exist. How can one have created evil?

(Subset: who defines what "evil" is?)

 

[Michael Redman]

It seems those who believe in an omnipotent god do not actually understand what omnipotence would entail. They often make their god subject to nature in ways that demonstrate their own limited imaginations.

It's up to us athiests to give god the really cool powers.

 

[barrymore]

The most coherent argument I have heard is that evil is a human construction and that we only label it as so because we do not understand God's overall plan. For instance, natural disasters may seem evil, but perhaps God uses it for benevolent ends.

To me, this is more believable than claiming there is some petty and jealous God just waiting to pillage mankind when they slip up. Which is not to say it is believable.

 

[joobz]

My only complaint is that you are working from an argument of opposites and then used light/dark as the example.

The problem with this (as you are sure to observe) is that light/dark are only opposites in the most qualitative, non-exacting means. Light is the presence of em radiation, dark is it's absence. That's not really an opposite thing. It is a thing/no-thing kind of thing.

Indeed, your light/no light argument demonstrates a problem with the concept of god as creator of good/evil.

If you compare it to light/dark. Than you must believe that Good is the presence of something and evil is it's absence. However, evil (especially if we equate it to calamity) is an active thing and not purely the removal of good.

So, God's creation of evil/calamity is evidence of an evil character because there is no reason for opposites to exist. Another example is that of temperature. We have no negative temperatures, it is on an absolute scale.

 

[Monster Machine]

Are you a christian?

No. Not even close. I was playing devil's advocate.

My only complaint is that you are working from an argument of opposites and then used light/dark as the example.

The problem with this (as you are sure to observe) is that light/dark are only opposites in the most qualitative, non-exacting means. Light is the presence of em radiation, dark is it's absence. That's not really an opposite thing. It is a thing/no-thing kind of thing.

Indeed, your light/no light argument demonstrates a problem with the concept of god as creator of good/evil.

If you compare it to light/dark. Than you must believe that Good is the presence of something and evil is it's absence. However, evil (especially if we equate it to calamity) is an active thing and not purely the removal of good.

So, God's creation of evil/calamity is evidence of an evil character because there is no reason for opposites to exist. Another example is that of temperature. We have no negative temperatures, it is on an absolute scale.

Bolded - this is the definition used by the Chosen in the discussion - evil is the absence of goodness. Calamity was an example of how the Hebrew word "evil" should have been translated. But when discussions got into the many instances (even in context) of god creating evil, the Chosen were vehement that god did NOT do as the bible said.

Monster

 

[blue deamon]

I believe that the god did not
create evil

We are (the humans) create evil by breaking the laws of the god

Lack of light equals darkness - lack of good equals evil.

That is completely right

 

[barrymore]

As I understand it, if lack of good equals evil, then the world must be fundamentally evil. Is this correct? Lack of light is only darkness because the world is inherently dark; light is a positive action, whereas dark is the default. Good would be a positive action, and evil would be the default.

ETA:

To better illustrate: a fundamental quality is that which is left after stripping away all non-essential attributes. Stripping away light leaves darkness. You cannot strip away darkness (you can only add light), so darkness is fundamental. If goodness is non-essential and can be stripped away, and the opposite of goodness is evil, then evil must be fundamental. You cannot strip away evil; you can only add goodness.

Is this a correct interpretation? If so, why would God create a fundamentally evil world?

 

[Snixtor]

Regardless of whether evil is the abscence of good, or is an opposite of good, the traditional "all powerful" definition of gods role in creation still places the blame on him.

If evil is abscence of good, and god is good, then evil is his abscence, so he's no longer omnipotent / omniprescent.

If evil is mans doing, god created man, he created something that would do evil. He would know this would happen, otherwise he's not omniscient.

Logically it can't be both. If you try and explain away evil as something that is out of gods control, then he's obviously not quite supreme. If you demand that he is the supreme being then he's responsible for evil (or earthquakes, or plagues, or whatever other nasty things you want to ascribe to "evil"). If you say he works in mysterious ways, then I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[slingblade]

It's really simple. There are no gods. We do it all. All of it. Thus endeth the lesson.





Well, it works for me!

 

[Trent Wray]

My only complaint is that you are working from an argument of opposites and then used light/dark as the example.

The problem with this (as you are sure to observe) is that light/dark are only opposites in the most qualitative, non-exacting means. Light is the presence of em radiation, dark is it's absence. That's not really an opposite thing. It is a thing/no-thing kind of thing.

Indeed, your light/no light argument demonstrates a problem with the concept of god as creator of good/evil.

uote:
I don't agree with this response at all, by stating evil exists by default simply because it's opposite to god's nature.

God receives credit for creating everything: the universe, the world, the animals, plants, etc. Should he also not get credit for creating the laws by which nature is governed?

As it stands now, if we turn off a light, it's dark. But if god created the light, he also created the law which states it's dark when the light is turned off. HE determined that when the lights are off, it's dark, rather than bubbles appearing out of thin air when the lights are out. If he didn't, then there are laws of physics for which god doesn't have control over. That would limit god's ability and power and subject him to law.

This would also negate the statement that god is all powerful, all knowing, etc. But if you believe god created everything, then you have to conclude that god created the laws by which the universe is governed. Lack of light equals darkness - lack of good equals evil.

God created evil

This was the argument I used. I thought it made sense in its simplistic way.

Just my two cents ... I am not an atheist, as I'm not content yet there is not an intelligence behind reality. That's just where I'm at. So here's my take on what you said:

I think what you argued was basically sound. The evidence (I know ... there is no evidence, but hypothetically speaking) would seem to suggest that if there is a "god", then that that god is limited and subject to some kind of "laws." He is not all powerful, all knowing, etc. This wouldn't make him (him, for the sake of common usage) not god per se, just not the god most Christians claims exists. He is more like a fallible Gepetto perhaps. Perhaps

The idea I am personally not content with, is our awareness of the concept of good and evil. I'm not convinced that other animals are aware of these concepts, and so for now I think humans are unique in this sense. Animals at times display that good and evil are part of their being, but that they are aware of it is another matter. As such, I'm not sure we can properly define good and evil.

So if God created good and evil, I wouldn't have a problem with it, if my concepts of good and evil weren't "meant to be". And thus the Judaic tradition that the knowledge of good and evil "was our defining moment, thus making us like god" would be a philosophical idea I find worth exploring.

So, if we had no concept of good and evil, would the concept of God even matter? Do animals care if there is a god? Maybe we do, only because of good and evil.

Now, asking me what the sky fairy is exactly .... I of course don't know. But all I'm saying is that I'm not content to rule out the possibility as of yet.

One other thing .... the Judaic tradition again claims that before god existed, "his spirit hovered over the surface of the deep", whatever that is. So right there, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, Judaeo-Christian scripture posits that the surface of the deep existed separate from god. In that sense, "he" didn't create it. So it might be possible that god didn't create "evil" .... and so he is not subject to good and evil anymore than any other creature in creation. But we are aware of it. That makes us unique, perhaps even compared to god. Not more powerful, just unique. But there are of course many holes in this thinking ... but I'm still personally exploring it

 

[Monster Machine]

Trentwray and Snixtor. I like your explanations. Thanks for posting your thoughts.

It's really simple. There are no gods. We do it all. All of it. Thus endeth the lesson.

Well, it works for me!

Me too.

Monster

PS Slingblade - I miss Spotted Dick.

 

[Beerina]

Humans who invented God say God is good but created evil so that he would know who was who. God is really really fantastically good because of this.

Nominated.

 

[The Shrike]

According to creationist-types, God created creatures like the cicada killer wasp. These catch hapless cicadas, inject a paralyzing - though not deadly - venom, and then imprison the cidadas in burrows they have dug specifically for this purpose. Oh yeah, the wasp lays an egg on the cicada before she closes up the burrow with the paralyzed cicada inside. You know what happens next.

Is this good or evil? Is Ebola virus good or evil? Did God not create such things?

 

[HansMustermann]

Oh, there are a few more fun God's creatures.

Take the worm Spinochordodes Tellinii for example, which parasitizes several species of insects, including grasshoppers. It slowly eats the host's insides as it grows. By the end the grasshopper is little more than a still living husk with a brain and leg muscles. Whent the worm has grown to adult, it excretes a substance which (presumably by imitating some brain or metabolic signal) basically makes its host hop into water and drown itself. Then the worm emerges from the dead insect (it can be several times longer than the grasshopper at this point) as its adult aquatic form and proceeds to reproduce.

Wasps, well, forget the cicada ones. There's an even more interesting one in the forests of Costa Rica: it passes the job of building the shelter to its victim too. It parasitises the spider Plesiometa Argyra, which normally produces a normal web and generally is a rather common garden-variety kind of spider. Once injected with the wasp's larvae, it does nothing more than build a coccoon instead of its normal web, where it will slowly be devoured from inside by the larvae.

(If you thought you lack free will just because you use your judgment in predictable ways, now contrast that with being mind-controlled by a larva.)

 

[skeptiform5]

Yes. God creates everything and evil is something and anything that explains that is not in the bible so any explanation is either improvised or made up so it is obviously a yes and if anyone disagrees with me could you please then explain why there are so many different answers to this question. For example : it was already there, there has to be an opposite, humans aren't perfect so there had to be evil, etc. (some of these may sound made up but trust me, these are real answers)

 

[quarky]

Oh, there are a few more fun God's creatures.

Take the worm Spinochordodes Tellinii for example, which parasitizes several species of insects, including grasshoppers. It slowly eats the host's insides as it grows. By the end the grasshopper is little more than a still living husk with a brain and leg muscles. Whent the worm has grown to adult, it excretes a substance which (presumably by imitating some brain or metabolic signal) basically makes its host hop into water and drown itself. Then the worm emerges from the dead insect (it can be several times longer than the grasshopper at this point) as its adult aquatic form and proceeds to reproduce.

Wasps, well, forget the cicada ones. There's an even more interesting one in the forests of Costa Rica: it passes the job of building the shelter to its victim too. It parasitises the spider Plesiometa Argyra, which normally produces a normal web and generally is a rather common garden-variety kind of spider. Once injected with the wasp's larvae, it does nothing more than build a coccoon instead of its normal web, where it will slowly be devoured from inside by the larvae.

(If you thought you lack free will just because you use your judgment in predictable ways, now contrast that with being mind-controlled by a larva.)

That is very cool. Reminds me of a beetle that convinces ants to feed it with ant babies. They even bring the beetle into the brood chamber and coddle it.