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.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 67 by William]

Why is a tornado adverse to life and thus considered to being evil?

Umm, if I see a tornado coming, I run and hide. Because I know damn well it is adverse to life.

I'm not sure how to respond to this other than it is obvious that tornadoes are extremely dangerous to life. And destroy life. And habitats. Thus, meets the definition of evil.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 68 by marco]

Which is to say the end justifies the means, regardless of who suffers in the process.

Are you saying it doesn't? Or are you just summarizing my view?

Well obviously we cannot examine the proposition that all evil acts of God were done for a good conclusion. An evil-doer whose action results in good does not have his deed sanctified. Of course we can justify almost anything and with God helping us, then evil can quickly blossom into good. I think if we go down this road we start to justify torture and burning, for the good that they eventually bring.

Are you saying that Israel, if we stick with that example, should have been left in bondage? Is that your view?

I know these are hard situations but let's stop being so damn sentimental and make the hard decisions already. Life isn't all roses and butterflies.

At least God does that versus this incessant moralizing that does nobody any good.

[Demented_Literature]

The argument of 'evil' is a strange argument in that it requires a basis of value. I'll use this tornado that has cropped up as an example of this.

A tornado rips through a village; destroying the village and wiping out all the people of the village.

This is arguably the definition of an 'evil' entity. As humans we place value on our lives and anything that destroys our lives is 'an evil cause' according to us. This is due to the value which we have on human life that we give it.

Now lets imply that after the village was wiped out; the poaching and killing of animals in the area by the villagers ceases and species of animal that were almost extinct thrive extensively and return to life and retake the village for their homes and are no longer in danger of being removed from our world as we know it.

Now we have an issue; what is the value of a village of people versus the value of genocide of an animal species. Does this make the tornado a force of good? Or a force of evil?

This is the kind of paradox that is often presented by religious dogma. Within the dogma it must exclusively state that human life is the pinnacle of good. The sacrifice of a human life is the ultimate sacrifice. Anything that takes human life within the context of most religious dogma is considered evil or to get around this a punishment. Within the context that the creator can take away without being evil.

Evil becomes a rapidly shifting entity that can not be attributed to a creator there for the creator can not be evil because whatever he does has a 'reason' and there for is a force of 'good' and if you can't find that reason it's because you can not understand the creator.

For the record; a tornado is no more evil than a storm, or a tidal wave, or a plague, or a rainbow, or a smiling child.

Evil is a completely arbitrary value we apply to things that we feel is counter productive to us.

[Zzyzx]

.

Are you saying that Israel, if we stick with that example, should have been left in bondage? Is that your view?

Sure, why not -- a lot of people are enslaved worldwide. Why should a supposed supernatural entity become concerned about one particular group since it does not give equal 'help' to others?

Could it be that storytelling Israelites made up tales about an invisible 'god' helping them even if no such thing happened?

I know these are hard situations but let's stop being so damn sentimental and make the hard decisions already. Life isn't all roses and butterflies.

I agree. Let promoters of Judaism stand or fall on their own merits -- without help from gods or the US or UN.

At least God does that versus this incessant moralizing that does nobody any good.

There doesn't seem to be evidence of any gods doing anything -- but there is a lot of moralizing by promoters of god worship.

[William]

[Replying to post 67 by William]

Why is a tornado adverse to life and thus considered to being evil?

Umm, if I see a tornado coming, I run and hide. Because I know damn well it is adverse to life.

I'm not sure how to respond to this other than it is obvious that tornadoes are extremely dangerous to life. And destroy life. And habitats. Thus, meets the definition of evil.

Well as you are likely aware, the universe is quite hard on biological life forms, and everyone eventually is killed by it.

Therefore, in relation to your reply, I can conclude that you think the universe is evil?

Also - if one lives in an area well known for tornadoes and one builds their habitat on the ground (instead of under the ground) then is the tornado evil or the person kinda stupid?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 59 by Donray]

Since you asked, I have an M.S. in clinical psychology (Purdue) and a Ph.D. in theology (University of Pittsburgh). My AOS is process metaphysics.

As I pointed out in several previous posts, I am a panpsychist. I believe that mind and matter are one, that all things in all their aspects, consist exclusively of minds or souls or psyches. Even atoms have tiny minds. In my previous post, I was agreeing with the comment made by another member that many scientists hold with the view life comes from the nonliving, from passive, inert, dead matter, and pointing out why I consider this wrong. I don't know if you have read any of my pervious posts where I presented my rationale for panpsychism.

[theophile]

[Replying to Demented_Literature]

Now lets imply that after the village was wiped out; the poaching and killing of animals in the area by the villagers ceases and species of animal that were almost extinct thrive extensively and return to life and retake the village for their homes and are no longer in danger of being removed from our world as we know it.

This fits nicely with my view. Let's call evil what is evil. The adversity that village faces; the adversity the animals faced due to certain villagers.

Let's call good what is good. The fact that those animals are now free of an oppressor.

Good can lead to good.
Evil can lead to good.
Evil can lead to evil.
Good can lead to evil...

I think all these are true.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 74 by Zzyzx]

Sure, why not -- a lot of people are enslaved worldwide. Why should a supposed supernatural entity become concerned about one particular group since it does not give equal 'help' to others?

Sure, if God is God, then God should act on behalf of all enslaved peoples. I agree. But the fact that God frees Israel is a step in the right direction: that perhaps this is a God who stands with the enslaved against their oppressors.

The fact that not all slaves have been freed is not an argument against this God, but only against this God's power to act.

There doesn't seem to be evidence of any gods doing anything -- but there is a lot of moralizing by promoters of god worship.

There's a lot of moralizing on both sides: religious and non-religious.

I suppose the question is: if there was a god we could proclaim as God, and that we would aspire to and model ourselves after (becoming in the image and likeness of), what would that God say or do?

I say that God would stand against oppressors of life. (And I think that the Hebrew God does this.)

I say that God would make the hard decisions when faced with these situations. (And I think that the Hebrew God does this too - making the hard decisions to cause evil against oppressors for the sake of the oppressed.)

[theophile]

[Replying to post 75 by William]

Well as you are likely aware, the universe is quite hard on biological life forms, and everyone eventually is killed by it.

Therefore, in relation to your reply, I can conclude that you think the universe is evil?

I've setup good and evil as relational. As what is supportive or beneficial to life, and what is adverse or harmful.

So I think the previous point about tornadoes being both good and evil holds. It is evil insofar as it destroys life. It is good insofar as it enables life.

The tornado in itself... It might make no sense to apply a moral value to it except in its relationship to others.

Also - if one lives in an area well known for tornadoes and one builds their habitat on the ground (instead of under the ground) then is the tornado evil or the person kinda stupid?

Both.

[William]

Personally I think that good and evil are constructs of self awarenes, and if a tornado is both good and evil then this cancels both, and the tornado becomes neither.

Which is to say that it was not good or evil in the first place, and is only able to be labelled as such by consciousness, and the labeling is itself erroneous...perhaps a symptom of emotion.

If you look at images of Jupiter's great storm you do not see good or evil. More than likely you see art.

Thus, in order for something to be good or evil one has to be experiencing it as such.

When someone brings a child into this world, they know the child is at risk of any number of evil things which could/probably will happen to it. Yet people bring children into this world despite that. It is recognized as a loving thing to do, and love is seen to be good.