If God exists can evil also exist?

[stvdv]

Is the existence of evil in the world a reason to believe that God (as defined above) does not exist?

If you answer yes, please explain why you think so.
If you answer no, please explain why you don’t think so.

The existence of evil says nothing about God. Two unrelated things.
Anyway, the human definition of God says something about humans, it does not say something about God.

 

[Koldo]

There is a mistake here: The attributes of God are: a)Omniscient + b)Omnipresent + c)Omnipotent (not omnibenevolent)
Judging God is human interpretation

I would say that even using the any omni- attribute is a form of judging (although not of the moral kind). We would have no way of truly knowing, in practice, the difference between omnipotence and a freaking lot of potente.

 

[stvdv]

I would say that even using the any omni- attribute is a form of judging (although not of the moral kind). We would have no way of truly knowing, in practice, the difference between omnipotence and a freaking lot of potente.

I agree.
The Wise therefore declared that "Words are used to describe That which is beyond words".

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Going back, then: it seems that you're arguing against God's omnipotence.

You seem to be arguing that God is training humanity for something (though with no details on what we'd be training for or why, or why we should think that this is the case) and that God is incapable of training us adequately without having us suffer evil and inflict it on others.

Eh... no, forgive me. I must not be good at expressing myself.

A simplification now, of course, but - in a nut-shell - this is what was meant:

The O.P. asked whether the existence of “evil” suggested the non-existence of God, to which I said no, because “evil” is of Man and not of God.

The reason I then gave for “evil” being of Man and not of God, was that “evil” stems from Man’s Ego, which Man has because he’s limited to experiencing life through the perspective of an “individual” (because of Man’s 5 senses, bla, bla, bla (see my original comment)).

To then address why God would not, if so, simply stop Man from using free-will and doing “evil”, I said that sometimes, to give someone the chance to really understand the meaning of something, we must let them experience it first-hand.

Later, as my epistemological views (that we can learn from others, but understand better from own experience, bla, bla) seemed slightly off topic to the thread, I PM:ed you about that instead.

And so, to your latest - also slightly off topic (apologies to O.P. for this) - question to me, I’d say that it is not that God is “incapable of training us adequately without having us suffer evil and inflict it on others”, but that the way by which God “trains” Man (I wouldn’t use “train” personally; I’d say “gives Man the opportunity to comprehend the meaning of what is taught”) leads to Ego, misjudgment and sin.

In faith, the faithful here, choose to trust that from that universal “God‘s view” (all-knowing, free from Ego and perspective) that Man does not possess, it is wisely judged that somehow, the insight possible through life is worth the side-effect of Man having to deal with Ego, misjudgement and sin.

I hope I expressed myself less blurry now, but possibly not.


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Koldo]

Eh... no, forgive me. I must not be good at expressing myself.

A simplification now, of course, but - in a nut-shell - this is what was meant:

The O.P. asked whether the existence of “evil” suggested the non-existence of God, to which I said no, because “evil” is of Man and not of God.

The reason I then gave for “evil” being of Man and not of God, was that “evil” stems from Man’s Ego, which Man has because he’s limited to experiencing life through the perspective of an “individual” (because of Man’s 5 senses, bla, bla, bla (see my original comment)).

To then address why God would not, if so, simply stop Man from using free-will and doing “evil”, I said that sometimes, to give someone the chance to really understand the meaning of something, we must let them experience it first-hand.

Later, as my epistemological views (that we can learn from others, but understand better from own experience, bla, bla) seemed slightly off topic to the thread, I PM:ed you about that instead.

And so, to your latest - also slightly off topic (apologies to O.P. for this) - question to me, I’d say that it is not that God is “incapable of training us adequately without having us suffer evil and inflict it on others”, but that the way by which God “trains” Man (I wouldn’t use “train” personally; I’d say “gives Man the opportunity to comprehend the meaning of what is taught”) leads to Ego, misjudgment and sin.

In faith, the faithful here, choose to trust that from that universal “God‘s view” (all-knowing, free from Ego and perspective) that Man does not possess, it is wisely judged that somehow, the insight possible through life is worth the side-effect of Man having to deal with Ego, misjudgement and sin.

I hope I expressed myself less blurry now, but possibly not.


Humbly,
Hermit

But is this training required per se? Couldn't God just give this knowledge instantly?

 

[rrobs]

God, if he existed, would prevent all people from doing evil.

A dictator might do that, but God is not a dictator.

According to Genesis, when God finished the creation He said, "it is all good." The Hebrew word for "good" is "tov" and it is not so much concerned with moral values, but more with what works to keep order, what is functional. In other words, the universe worked. Sickness, death, pain, etc., are signs of dysfunction, so they were not present in God's original creation.

God gave the perfectly functioning earth to Adam and He also gave him dominion over it. Along with that, he gave Adam free will. He gave Adam specific instructions on how to keep it everything functioning properly. Adam, having free will, determined for himself whether or not to follow God's directions.

Adam chose to ignore God's idea on how to keep things functional, and came up with his own ideas. God didn't force Adam to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Before Adam introduced evil (Hebrew "ra" = dysfunction), all was good (tov = functional).

I suppose God could have not given Adam a choice, but I, for one, am glad He didn't. One only needs to look at life in say, North Korea, or China, to see what it would be like to be forced into proper behavior,

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To then address why God would not, if so, simply stop Man from using free-will and doing “evil”, I said that sometimes, to give someone the chance to really understand the meaning of something, we must let them experience it first-hand.

But free will is irrelevant to this.

"Free will" only refers to our ability to choose to act on - or not - desires we hold, or our ability to choose between competing desires. What those desires are is beyond the scope of free will.

Free will can only lead you to evil if you had evil motivations that free will could act upon.

It's like the Boss Tweed quote: "I don’t care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating." Free will - the "electing" in the analogy - can only act on what it's provided with... i.e. the "nominees."

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

If God exists can evil also exist?

Dear Trailblazer,

I previously commented on your thread but now got stuck on this:

@ Koldo said:
.../ God's utmost desire: our well-beings.//...[/QUOTE]

Because, I have never heard this before...

But let’s say it is so: that God’s greatest desire is Mankind’s well-being.

My guess is that from an all-knowing, all-encompassing view like God’s, the definition of “well-being” would differ somewhat from that of “well-being” from individual - or even social - human perspectives...?

I call “God’s greatest desire” Divine Will and, were I forced to put into words what that is, I’d say, it is the will [for Man] to understand the meaning of what is known.

In a way, understanding the meaning of what is known, does lead to well-being, so perhaps there is no argument between my definition of Divine Will and the passage in your OP that I had never heard...

Then to me, that too would explain why the existence of evil does not prove the non-existence of God:
If Man is incarnated to live by Divine Will (as per above definition) and incarnation inevitably leads to a limited perspective (via 5 senses), an idea of self, an ego, misjudgment and “sin” (as in my previous comments in thread), then, although understanding of what is known and well-being continuously may be evolving, there’d still be an awful lot of evil around.

Maybe.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

But is this training required per se? Couldn't God just give this knowledge instantly?

Dear Koldo,

My thoughts go as such: If Man were capable of understanding the meaning of what is known, would he be Man?

I believe that we are only incarnated so that we may have a chance to understand the meaning of what is known. And I say “have a chance” because we can opt to do nothing with the opportunity (life) to understand ...and that’s okay too. Though it will not lead to well-being. But it is still our choice whether to embrace or reject the opportunity.

I’m going off topic again, sorry.
I think that he who understands the meaning of what is, without the need to experience, needs no incarnation and so, is not manifested as Man.

He who is here, does not yet understand.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

But free will is irrelevant to this.

"Free will" only refers to our ability to choose to act on - or not - desires we hold, or our ability to choose between competing desires. What those desires are is beyond the scope of free will.

Free will can only lead you to evil if you had evil motivations that free will could act upon.

It's like the Boss Tweed quote: "I don’t care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating." Free will - the "electing" in the analogy - can only act on what it's provided with... i.e. the "nominees."

You may be able to ignore the free-will bit if you wish. Maybe it was not necessary in the reasoning; I’m not sure...

 

[Trailblazer]

This is really the crux of it. As soon as you state that a deity is utterly outside human comprehension and/or beyond human concepts of morality then labelling such a being as omnibenevolent (or for that matter, simply labelling it as good) makes no sense.

EXACTLY.
According to my religion, the Essence of God is utterly outside human comprehension and God is certainly not subject to human concepts of morality, since God sets the standards for human morality through His Messengers/Prophets. Another belief we hold is that all we can know about God are His Attributes, because those are revealed in scriptures and reflected in God's Messengers, and that is why God gets labeled as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, among other things.....

However, it is also in our scriptures that God is above all His Attributes, so to me that means we cannot say God is x, t, or z. I am fine with saying that God is omnipotent and omniscient, because that makes logical sense, but I do not buy that God is everything else that is attributed to Him. IMO, the reason believers say that God is omnibenevolent and God is love is because they want to believe that, even if the evidence contradicts it.

 

[Trailblazer]

My thoughts go as such: If Man were capable of understanding the meaning of what is known, would he be Man?

I believe that we are only incarnated so that we may have a chance to understand the meaning of what is known.

I assume you believe we were given the capacity to understand and act on our understanding, so I assume you believe we have free will? If, as I believe, God gave us a rational mind and free will we must have it for a reason and in that case why would God give us the knowledge of things that we can discover for ourselves? It does not comport with logic.

 

[Trailblazer]

The bible says god created evil (most versions of the bible anyway) so is the bible wrong?

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

I take what is in the Bible with a grain of salt because the Bible is not the book I go by for my beliefs.
I believe there is truth to what is in the Bible, the problem is figuring out what it means.

I believe that verse means that God is responsible for all of existence, both the light and the dark.
I believe that God allows evil but I do not believe that God creates evil, because evil is a human invention.

 

[Trailblazer]

According to the Bible ─

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.

As a Baha'i, I do not interpret what is in the Bible literally.
I do not believe that God creates evil as evil is simply the absence of good.
Humans create evil when they are not good.

 

[Trailblazer]

An omnipotent God would able rid all natural evils, and all evils. Evil is meaningless other then the damage it creates. Evil would be conquered if God were omnipotent. Evil would hold no power.

Just because an omnipotent God could rid the world of all evil does not mean that is in our best interest.
Nonbelievers seem to forget that God is omniscient so God has to know what is best for humans.
I fully agree with this post: #35 bobhikes, Today at 2:59 AM

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not believe that God creates evil as evil is simply the absence of good.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread when someone suggested this idea:

If evil were just an absence of good, then intending evil toward someone would be no worse than being apathetic toward them.

 

[ChristineM]

I take what is in the Bible with a grain of salt because the Bible is not the book I go by for my beliefs.
I believe there is truth to what is in the Bible, the problem is figuring out what it means.

I believe that verse means that God is responsible for all of existence, both the light and the dark.
I believe that God allows evil but I do not believe that God creates evil, because evil is a human invention.

Ok so the bible is wrong when it says

" and create evil "

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually, there's nothing good and bad in this world because there's NOTHING good or bad which can be done to soul.
The only problem is that we are assuming ourself as body, rather than soul.

I believe that we are souls that inhabit bodies for a short period of time on earth, but during that time I believe that the soul can be harmed by how we choose to live, and that harm will be carried over into the next life.
This passage sums up my beliefs in that regard:

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths...”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159

This is really no different from what Jesus said about losing our soul, as these are eternal spiritual truths....

John 12:24-26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

 

[Trailblazer]

If we also include the assumption that this God is the source of all things, then no: the God you describe would not allow evil to exist.

Why not? Why would an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God not allow evil to exist?

Well, where would the evil have come from?

- did God deliberately put it there? Then he's not omnibenevolent.
- did God not foresee that evil would inadvertently arise in his creation? Then he's not omniscient.
- did God foresee the evil, not want it, but couldn't prevent it? The he's not omnipotent.

I do not believe that God deliberately put evil in the world. What is termed natural evil is simply part of the natural world and it is not evil unless you consider it evil. All other evil comes from the immoral actions of man.

I believe that God is omniscient so God foresaw that man would do evil acts because God gave man free will. God have man the ability to choose between good and evil. Is it evil to give us a choice? How is it God’s fault if we choose to do evil acts?

I believe that God foresaw evil and could prevent it because God is omnipotent, but why should God prevent what humans can prevent?

It's certainly reason to reject that particular belief system, but it could be reconciled with other possibilities.

For instance, maybe this omnimax God exists, but other equally powerful but not omnibenevolent gods also exist.

I believe it can be reconciled if we stop blaming God for the evil acts of man and realize that God is not responsible for eliminating evil simply because God is omnipotent. It can also be reconciled if we can see a reason for evil to exist, that it serves a purpose for man, to learn lessons he needs to learn.

 

[Koldo]

Dear Koldo,

My thoughts go as such: If Man were capable of understanding the meaning of what is known, would he be Man?

I believe that we are only incarnated so that we may have a chance to understand the meaning of what is known. And I say “have a chance” because we can opt to do nothing with the opportunity (life) to understand ...and that’s okay too. Though it will not lead to well-being. But it is still our choice whether to embrace or reject the opportunity.

I’m going off topic again, sorry.
I think that he who understands the meaning of what is, without the need to experience, needs no incarnation and so, is not manifested as Man.

He who is here, does not yet understand.

Humbly,
Hermit

It still raises the question on why God chose to create a being that has to suffer to learn. Certainly doesn't look like a good action.