A Formal Proof that if Evil Exists then the Theists' God Does Not

[sportinnc]

Then God should have simply let humanity swim.

I understand your point, but I believe that humanity can't swim, because we aren't perfect and we can't gain salvation by our own means.

 

[Me Myself]

Actually Christ was defined as wholly man and wholly God. God did not kill Jesus, Jesus was crucified at the hands of Pontius Pilate, a man. If there were no rules or laws to abide by, there would be no concept of evil, no justification, and no need for salvation. I don't know why God did what He did just that He did.

you don´t know what he did. You think you do

 

[sportinnc]

Well, let's define it as this, I know, and you think that I only think I know. I can't prove it to you, but I am convinced of it. Your statement really has no weight because you don't know what I am convinced of as reality.

 

[Skwim]

It's not cruel because He deserves any glory given to him.

Then you have a far different definition of cruel than I do. Mine pretty much follows those commonly found in dictionaries:

cru·el   [kroo-uhl]
adjective, cru·el·er, cru·el·est. 1. willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
​

And this fits many of god's actions to a tee. Moreover, I'm curious as to how deserving glory excuses cruelty, PLUS, why god deserves any glory (praise and honor) in the first place.

He's perfect.

Obviously then, perfection includes a fair amount of evilness, or at least cruelty, and is something we should strive for.

Matthew 5:48 (ESV)
"You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
​

And yes you're right, without God's need for being needed there would be no salvation needed, because we wouldn't be created, or we wouldn't have free will.

You do understand, don't you, that the excessive need to be needed is sometimes referred to as a savior complex or messiah complex, and is generally considered to be a personality disorder.

It's not egotistic, because He is God, he gave us everything we have, He deserves anything we can give Him.

Not egotistic, but egoistic. God only made us and does what he does to satisfy his need to be needed, and to accomplish this end he saddled us with misery and suffering. But if you feel such a selfish, cruel creature deserves to be glorified then go right ahead. To me, this is little different than glorifying the sadist who, keeping you chained in a dark dungeon, throws you a piece of stale bread every day to keep you alive. There's nothing compelling him to do so other than that it satisfies his aberrant needs, and needing to be needed to the extent that it requires the suffering of others is no different.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Noted. Then to answer the question with your definition of religion: Humor me for a moment and take on the view that Christianity is the only true religion. If it is the case, then technically we all do things for a divine being (God) because he has has an overarching plan that involves all mankind.

So if everything is of God, and also considering what you've said earlier (everything not of God is evil), technically nothing would be evil in that case.

 

[George-ananda]

Back to the OP Proof that God doesn't exist because evil does exist:

The Proof fails somewhere between 2) and 3)

(2) Evil occurs.
[Statement of the undisputed fact of evil]

(3) If someone did not prevent the occurrence of evil despite having full knowledge in advance that it would occur if he were not to prevent it and despite also having unlimited power to prevent it, then that person is morally culpable for its occurrence.
[Generalized principle of command responsibility]


You are not acknowledging the fact that what a human calls evil can actually be for a greater good. So by preventing the evil, God is preventing a greater good.
You are assuming someone with limited perspective can judge the actions of someone with unlimited perspective.

Somebody could come back with 'what about a baby killed in a genocide'. Even in such cases, the person making the claim has the limited perspective that life begins at birth and ends at death. God may see a soul that lasts eons; and that soul has been both the evil-doer and the wronged many times over.

 

[Penumbra]

Came across this formal disproof of god's existence. What do you think of it?

(1) If God exists he is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good.
[Hypothesis that the theists' God exists]

(2) Evil occurs.
[Statement of the undisputed fact of evil]

(3) If someone did not prevent the occurrence of evil despite having full knowledge in advance that it would occur if he were not to prevent it and despite also having unlimited power to prevent it, then that person is morally culpable for its occurrence.
[Generalized principle of command responsibility]

(4) By virtue of his omniscience, God knew in advance that evil would occur unless he was to prevent it.
[From 1 by definition of omniscience]

(5) By virtue of his omnipotence, God had the ability to prevent the occurrence of evil.
[From 1 by definition of omnipotence in terms of absence of nonlogical limits to God's ability]

(6) God did not prevent the occurrence of evil.
[From 2 by double negation]

(7) God had the ability to prevent evil from occurring and knew it would occur if he did not prevent it.
[From 4 and 5 by conjunction]

(8) God is morally culpable for the occurrence of evil.
[From the conjunction of 3, 6, and 7 by modus ponens]

(9) God is not wholly good.
[From 8 by definition of "wholly good"]

(10) God does not exist.
[From 1 and 9 by modus tollens]
7.4 Conclusion

The theist's God was supposed to be morally perfect as well as omnipotent and omniscient. But from the undisputed fact that evil exists in the world whose existence he supposedly brought about, it follows--by the unassailable moral truth expressed in the Generalized Principle of Command Responsibility--that he can't have all three properties at once. Ipso facto, such a God does not now, and never did, exist. It is the logic of the new Down-Under Disproof, not of Plantinga's Free Will Defense, that triumphs.

source
​

This is an argument against a subset of god concepts; not every god concept.

It's also much longer than it needs to be.

 

[HeartFire]

My view is that there is only one God, but also that God is all things, evil having a presence in all things that exist. NOT that God himself can be called evil, but that evil has always existed just as good has always existed. God is good in that love is the overpowering Spirit of God. God's motives are always loving. God may be called calamitous, but not evil in the sense many use the term.

Mankind, however is another story. We can be extremely evil. Just because God created us and we can be wicked, doesn't mean God is anything like us. We're talking about an infinite God, infinite good, and an infinite presence of evil. Evil may be present in life, but God never acts with evil intent like we do, which would (imo) make God evil.

If God does not exist, then nothing exists. God is everything. We were created in God's image, thus the we have both the presence of evil and good in us. However, we are not bound to act with evil intent. We get to choose what we honor. We can honor righteousness or unrighteousness. God, however, only acts righteously, and through love.

 

[Penumbra]

If God does not exist, then nothing exists.

The other option is that the assumption that god is everything can be incorrect.

 

[HeartFire]

Sure ... that is an option.

 

[jasson]

If consciousness is god inside and outside the observer.evil must be what disturbes that fact.

 

[StarryNightshade]

I suppose this can only be "proof" that an all-knowing, omnipresent being wouldn't exist; not the idea of god in general. Not everyone who believes in god has a homogenous concept of what "god" is.

 

[yokomodoful]

What God is defines wholly good. If it is His will to allow evil for the sake of allowing free will, then that is wholly good. Keep in mind that many Christians realize that the fullness of Gods plan is not carried out yet. In the end, all evil will be defeated. We do not see as God sees and can not see in the fullness of eternity.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Came across this formal disproof of god's existence. What do you think of it?

(1) If God exists he is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good.
[Hypothesis that the theists' God exists]

(2) Evil occurs.
[Statement of the undisputed fact of evil]

(3) If someone did not prevent the occurrence of evil despite having full knowledge in advance that it would occur if he were not to prevent it and despite also having unlimited power to prevent it, then that person is morally culpable for its occurrence.
[Generalized principle of command responsibility]

(4) By virtue of his omniscience, God knew in advance that evil would occur unless he was to prevent it.
[From 1 by definition of omniscience]

(5) By virtue of his omnipotence, God had the ability to prevent the occurrence of evil.
[From 1 by definition of omnipotence in terms of absence of nonlogical limits to God's ability]

(6) God did not prevent the occurrence of evil.
[From 2 by double negation]

(7) God had the ability to prevent evil from occurring and knew it would occur if he did not prevent it.
[From 4 and 5 by conjunction]

(8) God is morally culpable for the occurrence of evil.
[From the conjunction of 3, 6, and 7 by modus ponens]

(9) God is not wholly good.
[From 8 by definition of "wholly good"]

(10) God does not exist.
[From 1 and 9 by modus tollens]
7.4 Conclusion

The theist's God was supposed to be morally perfect as well as omnipotent and omniscient. But from the undisputed fact that evil exists in the world whose existence he supposedly brought about, it follows--by the unassailable moral truth expressed in the Generalized Principle of Command Responsibility--that he can't have all three properties at once. Ipso facto, such a God does not now, and never did, exist. It is the logic of the new Down-Under Disproof, not of Plantinga's Free Will Defense, that triumphs.

source
​

What is Evil ?

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

(3) If someone did not prevent the occurrence of evil despite having full knowledge in advance that it would occur if he were not to prevent it and despite also having unlimited power to prevent it, then that person is morally culpable for its occurrence.
[Generalized principle of command responsibility]
​

Omnipotence refers to being able to do all things that are possible (ref. Catholic Encyclopedia, CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Omnipotence). It is not possible for God to be able to change a person's will to good from evil because of the integrity of free-will that we believe human beings have.

God knew in advance that some human beings would abuse the gift of free-will at the dawn of Creation but He did not stop creating them anyway. I think I recall an American theologian (Professor Scott Hahn) state something like that the reason why God did this, was possibly because of the intrinsic good of free-will in spite of any future abuse. God chose to create free-will and tolerated the foreseen, but not willed, evil that would come about. The following quotation might explain well God's relationship to evil:

... God, who, as St. Thomas teaches, in allowing evil to exist in the world, "neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills only to permit it to be done; and this is good."(11) This saying of the Angelic Doctor contains briefly the whole doctrine of the permission of evil.

- Libertas, encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the nature of human liberty.

A distinct source of evil is the evil following on from Original Sin which has put the whole world into disorder and from which things like natural disasters, man's impaired intellect and concupiscence come about. This sin, according to Catholic theology, is a sin committed by the first human beings. Once again, the above paragraphs on sin apply.

Yet God is also able to bring good out of evil (whilst not positively willing the evil in the first place), and this, I guess, points to the triumph of good over evil. Ultimately, the existence of Heaven 'undoes' the evil and suffering we experience in this world that has not yet been repaired (assuming we die in the grace of God), and gives us redresses for such evil injustices we may have experienced in this life. Such a 'rebalancing' must exist from the point of view of God's justice.

So, for example, God creates a man who goes on one day to commit murder. According to this Generalized Principle of Command Responsibility, God should have prevented the man from ever existing. It may seem that God is responsible for an evil He should not tolerate. However, from the point of view of the existence of Heaven (& Hell), and God being able to bring good out of evil, the man's murder is not the 'end of the story' in reality. Injustices are redressed and the evil can be tolerated (by God) whilst not being willed by God.

 

[Skwim]

Omnipotence refers to being able to do all things that are possible (ref. Catholic Encyclopedia, CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Omnipotence). It is not possible for God to be able to change a person's will to good from evil because of the integrity of free-will that we believe human beings have.

No True Scotsman eh.

God knew in advance that some human beings would abuse the gift of free-will at the dawn of Creation but He did not stop creating them anyway. I think I recall an American theologian (Professor Scott Hahn) state something like that the reason why God did this, was possibly because of the intrinsic good of free-will in spite of any future abuse.

Which isn't explaining anything. A isn't B because A isn't B.

In any case. Wasn't it nice of god to knowing create a mix of humans some of which he knew would necessarily never make it to heaven. Wonder if he knew what percentage of his products would end up failures. Kind of like a gum ball manufacturer who knows that not all of his gum balls will make the grade and have to be rejected, BUT goes ahead anyway because the rate of failure is tolerable.

Yet God is also able to bring good out of evil (whilst not positively willing the evil in the first place), and this, I guess, points to the triumph of good over evil.

So, when does god do this? As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity."* so obviously this last minute redemption doesn't work for everyone. Some of his creatures will remain rejects in hell.
*source

Ultimately, the existence of Heaven 'undoes' the evil and suffering we experience in this world that has not yet been repaired (assuming we die in the grace of God), and gives us redresses for such evil injustices we may have experienced in this life. Such a 'rebalancing' must exist from the point of view of God's justice.

And for those gum balls who were not rejected in the grace of god? What of these poor souls? Ah yes. Eternal

So, for example, God creates a man who goes on one day to commit murder. According to this Generalized Principle of Command Responsibility, God should have prevented the man from ever existing. It may seem that God is responsible for an evil He should not tolerate. However, from the point of view of the existence of Heaven (& Hell), and God being able to bring good out of evil, the man's murder is not the 'end of the story' in reality. Injustices are redressed and the evil can be tolerated (by God) whilst not being willed by God.

See the passage I quoted above from The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Hell is not an unpopulated. SOOOOO, although god may not have willed individual X into a state of hell, he knows that a certain percentage of his creatures, and obviously an acceptable percentage, will indeed end up there.

Just hope that you, or a loved one, isn't one of these Xs because god isn't about to lend a hand up. In other words.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

Perhaps, if we concentrate on the first two human beings it might be easier to reply to you.

God created Adam & Eve. Out of their own free-will they were cast out of paradise. So the first two human beings were failures in this respect, although we believe that they repented from their sin. Adam & Eve are the ancestors of all human beings. If they had not existed, then no other human being would have existed.

Humanity, as a whole, can - I guess - in this respect be considered to have been a failure right from the beginning. God could have chosen to create humanity or not create humanity (knowing that even the first two human beings would fail at least for a time.) Knowing that some souls would end up in Hell, God still created humanity as a whole, perhaps because some would end up in Heaven.

Your gum ball analogy perhaps is misleading because it models human beings as gum balls. Gum balls not having any free-will, it may confuse some people. Anyhow, perhaps it is key to remember that souls are damned on account of their abuse of free-will. God does not will any soul to go to Hell, whilst having created humanity as a whole.

I do hope that myself and no loved one will end up in Hell but of course it is according to our free-will that we will avoid the Hell of the Damned or not.

 

[Skwim]

Perhaps, if we concentrate on the first two human beings it might be easier to reply to you.

God created Adam & Eve. Out of their own free-will they were cast out of paradise. So the first two human beings were failures in this respect, although we believe that they repented from their sin. Adam & Eve are the ancestors of all human beings. If they had not existed, then no other human being would have existed.

Okay (nothing new here).

Humanity, as a whole, can - I guess - in this respect be considered to have been a failure right from the beginning.

Why? Why saddle all of humanity with the sin of two people? No loving and just human being would ever do this with another group of people. Would you? Would you hold a whole country, say, guilty for what its despotic leader does? I would hope not. And here we have a supposedly all-loving and all just-god doing just this. Two of his creatures slip up so he afflicts all of humanity that follows, approx. 107 billion of us.

God could have chosen to create humanity or not create humanity (knowing that even the first two human beings would fail at least for a time.)

Okay.

Knowing that some souls would end up in Hell, God still created humanity as a whole, perhaps because some would end up in Heaven.

Yup, with some, maybe many of us going to his hell. As I said: he goes ahead anyway because the rate of failure is tolerable. Think this is a nice thing to do when he has the opportunity of not doing it?

Your gum ball analogy perhaps is misleading because it models human beings as gum balls. Gum balls not having any free-will, it may confuse some people.

I would argue that humans don't have freewill either, but that's another discussion. In any case, god knew, absolutely knew for a fact, that some of his humans would fail his test---freewill or not. Say its 10%. What of all these poor souls (713 million of today's world population)? Think letting 700 million go to hell is worth putting 6.4 billion in heaven, when in reality he could choose to make sure that all 7.125 billion got into heaven? Just what kind of just and loving god does such a thing? Where is the benefit in putting 700 million in hell? There is none. Just what kind of just and loving god does such a thing?

Anyhow, perhaps it is key to remember that souls are damned on account of their abuse of free-will. God does not will any soul to go to Hell, whilst having created humanity as a whole.

Perhaps not any particular soul, but he knows that millions of souls will end up there nonetheless.

Just a posting note. It helps us all to address the person you're replying to. Preferably by use of the quote function.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your entire argument, all 10 points, fails miserably because not every theist defines god, or the nature and origin of good and evil, in the same way. Without further specifying what sort of god and specifically what beliefs, you have presented a non-working argument.

 

[jeager106]

Wow! What an argument!
Lots of people posting here need do some serious reading.
There is, never was, never will be a "hell" as in Dante's Inferno or any other kind.
Jesus was a JEW! Get it? Jews never had a word close to "hell", didn't believe in such a place. Why then would Jesus? Yeah, the word is in Scripture and should not be in there. It isn't in all translations of the Bible. And as far as "going ot heaven" is concerned you can toss that silly notion. Heaven was never meant for the masses of "good" Christians". Do the reading, do the research, it's worthwhile.
To the ancient Jew the worse thing that could happen was to be so bad that one was cut off from God forever. That is what "hell" is.
By the way. Dante was a playwrite and painter. He wrote Dante's Inferno, A Devine Comedy. A joke you see? The painting was a spoof. Hell evolved much the way Christ-mass evolved into a meaningless tangle of pomp, tinsel, food, parties, gifts, lights, to cover it's pagan origins. Hey. I may not be right at all. I've only been a serious student of our bible for 20 years. I'll never get "it" all right.
The Bible is the most fascinating book I've ever read and I never stop learning about how it makes meaning.