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.

[Zzyzx]

.

First of all, I realize it is a fad among many atheists here and elsewhere to ridicule theists, with questions like.' Oh, did you hear than from God personally?," etc. Such sarcastic remarks are out of place in a serious theological discussion and are irrelevant. No, I don't have some personal revelatory experience of I I can appeal to. But big deal, so what?

Kindly respond to:

God's goal is to achieve beauty.

How do you (generic term) KNOW this? Have you heard it from God? Did some ancient writers claim to know 'God's goal'? Is there assurance that your or their testimonials are truthful and accurate?

Again, How do you KNOW that 'God's goal is to achieve beauty'?

I have presented arguments for my case and those should suffice. It amuses me how atheists become angered when the shoe is on the other foot, when fundamentalists say to them, "Oh, you were around to see the Big Bang? You have a camcording?," etc. If neither side can appreciate some degree of speculation is involved in this discussions, one way or the other, he shouldn't be here.

Notice that this Non-Theist does not debate origin of the universe (because it is pure speculation) or defend the BB Theory.

Those who DO choose to defend the God Theory often claim to KNOW how the universe originated – after reading ancient texts (written by people who didn't seem to know where the sun went at night). Those who make claims of knowledge are expected and required in honorable and reasoned debate to substantiate their claims with something more substantial that testimonials (ancient or modern).

In a number of previous posts, I have addressed why I am a realist, assume beauty is objective, out there.

Assumptions and opinions noted. Also noted, neither constitute evidence in debate.

Saying that some people find simplicity beautiful, is beside the point. Generally, what they are talking about is avoiding excesses. And you can be complex without being excessive.

If simplicity can be (or is) beautiful to some or under some circumstances, then any claim 'Beauty means complexity' is a false statement.

The fact remains that beauty does demand complexity, that is, similarity and diversity, the many become one.

Again, if some (of us) find beauty in simplicity, then 'beauty does demand complexity' is a false statement.

In number of previous posts, I resented my rationale for saying God is Cosmic Artist. I am a theist and I don't know of any other model of God that does as much justice to the facts. The universe is far too beautiful, far too magnificent, to be reduced to the tenets of some kind of penal code or mere morality.

Suit yourself. Your opinion is just that – an opinion.

I don't think it ever explained anything to say the purpose of life is the struggle for survival.

It has NOT been established that life has some assigned 'purpose'.

From a realist point of view, the fundamental function ('purpose'?) of life forms is to reproduce successfully to continue their genetic makeup. Doing so requires a certain amount of survival.

Anything I have seen of life suggests there is far more to it than just survival. The course of evolution has been from the most simple to the more complex and sensitive, the ones more capable of experience. And we just don't seek to survival, we seek to live better.

Most humans seem to have abilities beyond those necessary for survival in most situations. So what?

Our purpose is to be experiencing entities. That is why we are here.

Says who? Who, exactly, decrees human 'purpose' or decides 'why we are here'?

That is why we all seek beauty, feeling more deeply in ourselves and feeling more deeply into others, achieving greater harmony, more creativity, and a lifestyle that permits us to have enriched experience.

Perhaps in some idealistic / imaginary world that would apply to all (as claimed).

Those who get lost in idealism and philosophizing may lose sight of the reality of life for much of humanity.

Try applying that to people experiencing the carnage occurring in the Middle East currently. What may seem generally applicable to those in academia or similar environments may well NOT reflect conditions (and lose traction) 'where the rubber meets the road'.

Perhaps societies 'need' some idealists to talk about how things 'should be' and perhaps some individuals 'need' belief in supernatural entities to supply 'purpose' in their life.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 251 by Zzyzx]

Kindly respond to my last two paragraphs, where I stated part of to my case for God's goal being beauty. Also, in a number of pervious posts, I presented additional relevant material. one is that sensitivity and empathy are definitely virtues and so should be included in our concept of god, though sadly lacking in classical theism. Hence, God as truly transcendent enjoys an empathic sensitivity that is on a far grandeur scale than anything we can imagine. And, of course, sensitivity and compassion are the mark of any great artist. What's great art abut? Raising goose bumps, sharing experiences, so as to moving individuals to greater depth and breadth of experience. Plus, evolution denotes the rise of the genuinely novel. And, as I said before, such novelty demands a transcendental imagination.

I think that as humans we are hardwired to seek meaning and purpose. So claiming there is no purpose to life is a nonsensical statement, as far as I am concerned. And when I think about what purpose we may have, I cannot but help but think: to experience. That is what we are designed to do. That is why we are experiencing entities, arise out of our experiences, which is, of course, also true of everything else in the universe as well. Live well and live better, continually enrich our experience. And that's precisely why, as you yourself pointed out, much human behavior goes way beyond just mere survival. We a;; seek to survive, because we all seek to experience. Experience is the ultimate payoff. And that is why there is far more to nature, to the universe, than just mere bare existence: There is great beauty.

While we're at it, kindly provide evidence for beauty existing solely in the eyes of the beholder. Kindly show how color, sound, smell, emotion exist only in the mind of the beholder. Kindly show where we have two separate experiences, one of the primary qualities, what's out there, and then another where we experience color, for example, as just in us. In our common, recurrent experience, our experience is a unity, not two separate ones. The redness of teh sun is just as definitely out here as the roundness of the sun. If you know of different experiences, kindly show them. [

I already explained about persons seeking beauty in simplicity. That does not eliminate complexity, just excess. Seek simplicity, and distrust it. We all do that. There is an old hymn that goes, "Tis a gift to be simple, tis a gift to be free, tis a gift to sing in perfect harmony." Yes, but singing well and in harmony is not easy, simple. First rule of thumb in music: There is no simple, easy music. The minute you think that, you're doomed, believe me. Been there, done that. Sometimes the simplest are the most complicated. And even "simple" objects aren't so simple. I don't know of anything that dos not have parts. I don't know of anything that doesn't show both uniformity and diversity. And that's one of teh reasons why I said the universe is fundamentally beautiful.

Also, we're not dealing here with just old accounts or ancient texts, important as they may be. So don't give me this ancient-text line. it is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The fact that people down through the ages have believed in all sorts of gods is also largely irrelevant. Scientists down through the ages have believed in a lot of theories. Big deal, so what? If you are trying to invalidate theology because of a diversity of belief existing historically, you would end up also invalidating science and everything else.

Also, consider the fact that belief in a transcendental realm is very ancient and universal. That tells me it is something we are hardwired to do. And I don't believe we are hardwired just to produce fantasies. As I have said before, our concepts, no matter how imaginative they may be, always have a basis in fact. So if there really wasn't any God, then no one would have ever come up with the idea.
However, as I already mentioned, the OP assumes God, is not a sub-forum to debate the existence of God. If you want to do that, establish another OP. I'm here to discuss how I see God and evolution as interacting. If, however, you don't believe in God, then I don't see the relevance of your posts to the OP. [/table]

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 5 by JehovahsWitness]

[center]A correction[/center]


QUESTION Does God cause evil?

Not according to the bible.

Correction:

What you should have said is: "Not according to my interpretation of the Bible."

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 250 by hoghead1]


[center]Ridicule[/center]

First of all, I realize it is a fad among many atheists here and elsewhere to ridicule theists, with questions like.' Oh, did you hear than from God personally?," etc. Such sarcastic remarks are out of place in a serious theological discussion and are irrelevant.

Many people think that ridiculous beliefs should be ridiculed. We should always respect one another as persons, but that doesn't mean we can't make fun of silly beliefs. Some people believe in fairy tales, and others a flat earth, that Obama isn't an American.. and so on.

Theologians sure do love to be taken seriously, don't they?
But as far as I'm concerned, they are discussing fairy tales, with the head fairy being "God".

It's hard for me to take the whole project of theology very seriously.
It's not as if theology was going to find a cure for cancer or some other worthy pursuit.

That ridicule should not extend to the theologians, however.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 243 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Good question. See, I don't think God as having set up some detailed plan ahead of time and then everything goes to that plan. God's goal is to achieve beauty. Beauty means complexity. Complexity means freedom. And freedom means things can go otherwise than as indented. If a piano had only one note on it, nobody could ever hit a wrong note. With 88 keys, then yes, there is possibility of wrong notes. Chances for evil always overlap with chances for good. God knows the future for what it is in its own nature: the realm of possibility, not decided matters of fact. God cannot decide our decisions for us. God can influence them; but in the end, its up to us to decide. Hence, the future is iffy, indeterminate, both for ourselves and for God. God is the great risk taker. Since the future is iffy for God, no, God didn't wit down ahead of time and think about having Shakespeare come along and write his plays. God knows The future is too iffy for that kind of planning and hope. God is not in the guarantee business, cannot guarantee every story will have a happy outcome. What God is assured of is that he or she will present creative possibilities to lure us to actualize such beauty as is possible under the circumstances.

Notice that in the two portraits of two different women above, both women have two eyes, a nose and a mouth. One woman is generally considered to be beautiful, and one is, well, not. The difference between the two women is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Beauty and ugliness are simply opinions.

There is no question that the Bible was literally written by the hand of men. Even so, many Christians are of the opinion that the Bible represents the inspired Word of God, that it is perfect, inerrant, and means exactly what it says. Because that is what they choose to believe. Others like you are of the opinion that the Bible is more what you might call a guideline than actual rules. Meaning that it can be interpreted as one sees fit. So if they choose to, as an example, dismiss the truth of the story of the sun stopping in the sky for 24 hours, but to accept the story of a corpse coming back to life and flying away, it's entirely within their right to interpret the truth or false nature of the claims as they see fit. Because the truth and value of the Bible is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

"I have a superpower which allows me personally to know what is true and what is not," is not really an effective argument, I am afraid. Because many of us have discovered that considering how a particular claim compares with generally observable reality is the most effective way in determining the probability of a claim for being true, or not. Doubting one unrealistic claim and then sustaining another unrealistic claim is inconsistent to the point of being pointless. Personal opinion does not lend itself to making a coherent argument when it is inconsistent.

[William]

[Replying to post 237 by William]

GOD does not cause evil. Human beings are the ones who do this, in their actions.

Who created humans?

I contend that;
The human form (and all life forms on the planet) was created by the Entity that wished to experience existence through those forms.

Did this creator of humans know that their actions could be evil?

I would think that this would likely be the case, yes. Also It would know that in creating humans, their actions could also be good.

Did this creator provide an environment of scarcity which leads to evil?

No. There is plenty. Scarcity does not 'lead to evil'.

Did this creator create an evil entity that tempts humans into evil actions?

No. Humans created that in order to have a scapegoat. "The devil made me do it."
It can be argued that since the Entity is also all 'the humans', that the Entity therefore does act out evil and create concepts of evil beings created by GOD, which are manipulating humans. But this is only indirectly.
Some of the GODs etc that humans have imagined, have been 'given life' by the Entity in order to attempt to direct the humans believing in them, towards a more appropriate expression. 'That hasn't always gone to plan', as the saying goes.

Does this being allow evil to perpetuate?

Not directly. Humans allow evil to perpetuate. So indirectly, yes, directly, no. The same of course, applies to good.

It is the nature of the situation the Entity is within which determines what can and cannot be done in relation to that.

I write more about this subject here.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 255 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Sorry, but I don't see how your comments are relevant to my post which you are referring to. Yu asked me a question and I answered it. Let's stick with that topic.
As to beauty, I am not necessary taking about attractiveness or pleasantness or prettiness. I view beauty as depth and breadth of experience. Hence, the "ugly" can be aesthetically interesting, i.e., beautiful. So you paintings aren't at all relevant.
I never said I have supernatural powers or anything of the like. So, what brought all that up?
Unrealistic claims? Whose? Mine? My response to your question? If so, show me how you find them unrealistic? Opinion? What do you mean by "opinion"? Aren't you simply stating your "opinion" on the matter?

[William]

[Replying to post 255 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Beauty and ugliness are simply opinions.

No. Nor are good and evil simply opinions.

The are displayable facts.

Beholding beauty: How it's been studied.

There are all types of ugly and beauty as well.

The images in those pictures show clearly which woman's form is ugly and which is not, but equally we all know (or should do) that a beautiful female form can house a reprehensibly ugly personality and an ugly female form can house a stunningly beautifyl personality, and this is not a matter of opinion, but of fact.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 244 by hoghead1]




[center]
Another ( probably gonna be unanswered ) challenge[/center]

See, I don't think God as having set up some detailed plan ahead of time and then everything goes to that plan. God's goal is to achieve beauty.

Some people like to tell us what God's thinking.
Because they like to think they know that kind of thing.

I hereby challenge that WONDERFUL notion.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 258 by William]


[center]
Here goes Blastcat with his stupid ANCHOVIES again[/center]

No. Nor are good and evil simply opinions.

The are displayable facts.

It's a displayable FACT that I like anchovies on my pizza.
Meh.. it's a matter of TASTE.

Are tastes facts?
Maybe a bit subjective?