Does God cause evil?

[DanieltheDragon]

Does God cause evil?

Some assert that God causes no evil. Is there cause to believe this is true. Can this position be supported. Is the character described in the bible incapable of evil?

I would assert that a position that claims God created everything would make him the original cause of evil. That God cannot escape being the cause of evil since he created any and all situations in which evil would arise.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The problem of free will and god is one that cannot be resolved logically.

I've provided the logic many times which you just pass by and reject for no reason...and no, I will not repeat myself again at this time just to see my work ignored.

I would suggest that there is a distinct difference between having one's claims ignored, and having one's claims disregarded. Claims which stand up to scrutiny are claims which serve to prove the nature of one's argument. Claims which DO NOT stand up to scrutiny are claims which fail to prove the nature of one's argument. Which in turns fully explains why the argument remains ongoing.

If you had a valid argument, the argument would now be at an end.

[theophile]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]

for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

I think Hoghead is near the mark. I've said before and will say again that God's power is that of a Word. No power in itself to effect itself, but if others obey, and participate in what it calls for, then we're getting somewhere...

Thus we have to see biblical eschatology in terms of all things participating in God's Word, and because all things participate in God's word, and devote their earthly power to it, God "omnipotent reigneth."

Thus I at least can happily affirm this statement and the fact that God is currently FAR from omnipotent...

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 126 by ttruscott]

I completely understand your thinking process. The implication is that, according to you, god is NOT all knowing in the sense that he knows all that has happened and all that WILL occur. He cannot foresee the future.

That belief may or may not place you out of the mainstream of Christian thought on the nature of god. More in line with some of the philosophies that see god as a "starting force" who is not omniscient. But that is not important if that is what you believe.

So, god puts into motion a universe (with laws and free will) and then allows the chips to fall where they may. In that case I must ask you this.

Does god intercede on anyone's behalf (by answering prayers) or does he stay neutral in the course of things? Further, does he have the POWER ti intercede if he so chooses?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]

for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

I think Hoghead is near the mark. I've said before and will say again that God's power is that of a Word. No power in itself to effect itself, but if others obey, and participate in what it calls for, then we're getting somewhere...

Thus we have to see biblical eschatology in terms of all things participating in God's Word, and because all things participate in God's word, and devote their earthly power to it, God "omnipotent reigneth."

Thus I at least can happily affirm this statement and the fact that God is currently FAR from omnipotent...

If God is not omnipotent, then God is subject to failure. If you believe that there is an ongoing war between the forces of God, and the forces of Satan (not all Christians subscribe to this belief), then you must accept the possibility that God's side may not win, despite all promises to the contrary. The nature of being fallible is not always being able to keep promises. Being a fallible being myself, I know this to be true despite the best of intentions. Because fallible beings do not possess infallible control. And a being who does not know the future, does not truly know how things will turn out.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 130 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Yes, we are fallible and have made mistaken assumptions about God. And yes, our concept of God has changed over time. And one prime example is the concept of divine omnipotence. It is utter nonsense, simply because it denies freedom and makes God the author of terrible evil. The fact you found the word "omnipotent" applied to God in Scripture simply means the translators projected in their misunderstanding of God's power.

Acts 18:17-18 is subject to more than one translation. My REB says, "Thus says the Lord, who is doing this as he made known long ago." Hence, the passage is saying God is fulfilling a promise he made in OT times, e.g., Micah 5:2. That has absolutely nothing to do with omnipotence or omniscience, the latter in the sense of God predestining the whole course of creation, every jot and tittle of it, rendering all future as a decided matter of fact, before the foundations of the world laid. It has been said that Jesus preaches more abut Hell than heaven.

Moreover, the passage is relating God back into the OT, so your notion that the NT throws out the OT is most incorrect. Plus, the idea of God as a vengeful, punitive judge definitely carries over in key passages in the NT, such as the Book of Revelations.

In the OT, God's promises and also warnings are always conditional. And at no point, does the NT say otherwise. And at no point dos the NT say that the OT was wrong where it stated God's knowledge of teh future is iffy, as per Sodom and also Jeremiah, where God warns, then waits to see how things go with the warning, before taking definite action. If God knew ahead of time what definitely would happen, this waiting period would not be necessary. And that means God knows the future as the realm of possibilities, not decided matters of fact. Hence, we find unfulfilled prophecies, such as Ezekiel 26. Or God changing his mind at the intercession of a prophet, as in Amos 7:3. God has stated what there is a very good possibility he will do, but knows that as a possibility, not a definite matter of fact. it all depends on what happens later on.

And that same principle holds with us. I can say right now that I am going to work on our locomotive this Saturday. But I know that is going on probabilities, not absolute matters of fact. As long as certain conditions are met, I'll be there. But there is no telling what might happen in the next couple of days. If I'm there, it isn't because I knew the future as a decided matter of fact. Same with God.

[OnceConvinced]

Even if we were to say that God does not directly create evil, can we say that he indirectly creates evil?

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]

Seems to me, if nothing but God existed in the past, then God created everything, then evil comes about, rather God created it directly or allowed it to be created is immaterial. God is ultimately responsible for evil existing.

Some say "God will eventually conquer evil!" but I ask "Why does he wait? Why does he allow evil to do evil things to people? Surely if he created everything and is all powerful, he could easily do away with evil. But he doesn't."

So either God created everything and is a (insert terrible descriptor here) being, or he isn't all that he wants us to believe he's cracked up to be. Or modern belief on God is totally wrong.
This is, assuming, he exists at all and has any interest in us.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 136 by OnceConvinced]

It all depends on what you mean by "indirectly caused evil." As I explained in previous posts, God is the great risk-taker. God seeks a beautiful universe, which necessitates freedom, which introduces the very real possibility of evil occurring. God hopes for the best, but is aware there is a very real possibility that the worst may also happen.

[William]

Even if we were to say that God does not directly create evil, can we say that he indirectly creates evil?

It appears that GOD could create environments which can be used to explore concepts of good, evil, or good and evil.

This then could be regarded as indirect creativity.

My understanding is that all consciousness derives from a First Source Consciousness and thus, all consciousness is an aspect of GOD.

FSC may be neither 'good' or 'evil' but potentially both or perhaps neither (depending on the individuals own definitions) and the creativity is for the purpose of exploration and discovery.

If FSC is eternal and is attributed with all the 'omni's', then why would there be any need to explore and discover?
The answer would have to be that it is something which provides the eternal something to do.

Creation is not the Creator. It is created to experience and even that the Creator would know (being all knowing) what it would be like to create a universe which say, allows it to experience pure evil and lose itself in that experience for a 'time', this would not mean it wouldn't do it. That it does do it means it knows everything will turn out fine in the end.

I think though, that when we as humans speak about good and evil, and even say that these concepts don't exist other than in the human mind, we still understand that they exist as actions in what we call the 'real world'.

When we observe most other critters doing things to each other that we might regard as evil, we accept a sort of justified reasoning that they are animals and don't have these concepts that humans have developed. They mostly seem to lack conscientiousness, and we see this as being 'perfectly natural'.

I think that all consciousness is an aspect of GOD (FSC) and depending on the form consciousness is experiencing through, good and evil actions (as defined by human conscientiousness) is GOD, not only indirectly creating evil but also directly creating it. Same goes for good.

But that is in line with the idea that we are all aspects of FSC. That can only ever really be indirect, from the position of FSC.

We are the ones experiencing, (consciousness) not the experience being had, (forms) to which FSC created the universe and knew the outcome before engaging with it as us. (More specifically, the 'us' being every conscious being in the entire universe).

Essentially then, it will all work out great in the end.

Another thing I think is that a universe is created, not just for the purpose of having an experience within it, but as a way of planning the next universe which is conceived through having the experience of this one. An endless process of creativity.

In all cases where good and evil are being manifested into the experience, GOD is both directly and indirectly responsible, not just as the overall consciousness, but as the aspects of the overall consciousness - the consciousnesses, in form.

I suppose then that this is why I like to try and 'be nice - do nice' - because my environment lends me the opportunity to do so and I don't want to give GOD a bad name, and I don't think of GOD as totally evil or totally good, but rather as a being who can be either, depending on what I am being - and I don't really feel attracted to being evil...evil in relation to what humans understand evil to being.

Of course we can go off on tangents of 'what is really good and evil' but I get the impression that to do so is more an expression of evil, than anything good, so am content with my personal definition of good as - in short - 'be nice - do nice'.

I haven't always been so conscientious in regard to this either. It has been a thing I have had to learn. I have done my fair share of 'cursing the figs trees' and acting out in anger ra-de-ra...moving on...

Due to evolution as a property of this universe, I tend to think that every conscious critter starts off ignorant and in terms of the learning curve, this has oft translated to evil in human actions - historically speaking, but not always...just usually.

And thus, we are collectively, an evil thing learning how to be a good thing and not doing too badly really, considering. We have had some help along the way, for sure...

I think my position on this is close to hoghead1's. I had not heard of the Panpsychist position before you mentioned it hoghead, and Googling it I discovered a reflection of my position therein.

In relation to the biblical GOD the OP was asking about, I see a setup therein but do not think it was for evil intent...not in the long run anyway.

If anything I am impressed with the overall idea as something spawned from the darker collective mind of the ancestors and even in that, it never has been all evil. That goes for any GOD ideas of humankind, for that matter. What it shows it what happens when an animal becomes self conscious and from that, begins to think in terms of good and evil.

We are moving forward to a place where the actual GOD is awaiting us, ever hopeful we will make it.



Except for atheists of course, because they lack belief in the existence of any GODs. Even so, we are all heading in the same direction.

[theophile]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]

If God is not omnipotent, then God is subject to failure. If you believe that there is an ongoing war between the forces of God, and the forces of Satan (not all Christians subscribe to this belief), then you must accept the possibility that God's side may not win, despite all promises to the contrary.

I wouldn't put it in terms of celestial warfare as you make it sound, but sure, of course, God could lose.

The nature of being fallible is not always being able to keep promises. Being a fallible being myself, I know this to be true despite the best of intentions. Because fallible beings do not possess infallible control. And a being who does not know the future, does not truly know how things will turn out.

The promise is not a guarantee of how things will turn out, I don't think, but a guarantee of how things will turn out if we stay true to the Word.

It is like Marx making a promise about the end of communism. Of course if we don't do what communism prescribes the promise won't come true.