Did (could) God create evil?

[HannaH]

I was just wondering, if God is responsible for creating everything in the universe, was it God that created evil? If God did not create evil, is that to say that God is incapable of creating something? Also, who created it? How can "Satan" have created it if only God can create? And if God did create evil, than isn't God responsible for sin in the first place, not Satan and not Adam and not Eve?

It gets confusing and none of it makes much sense to me; it seems to create more questions than answers.

[bernee51]

Hey long time no see Bernie.

Likewise N-E

First look at Metaphysics and the nature of essense. What is essential to God. Perfect Good.

As in his nature? or his wants? or his actions?

Perfect good is an impossibility. Perfection is beyond (or outside of) the duality of good and evil.

What is essential to existence? Imperfection.

What we perceive as existence is, indeed, imperfect.

And there is a contradiction here of course.

I don't see any contradiction. Our perceptions are illusion. Our Self is perfect.

God created everything good in nature to serve a higher purpose (this purpose is unknowable).

If the purpose is unknowable how is it known to be higher or lower or in fact as purpose at all?

This is obvious in nature. A lion eats a deer, in doing this he is protecting the delecate ecosystem.

Protecting the ecosystem is incidental. The nature of the lion is to survive, survival means sating a need (in this case hunger).

But humans are different. We have free will and we can choose whether or not to do good.

We may be free to act as we choose - good or evil is incidental. We too are constantly sating (or attempting to) needs.

So instead of good and evil, there is good alone and with the introduction of free will, its absense. I think Aquainas makes alot of sense here, but your decision.

So man, in the face of his intrinsic sense of the divine, cannot rationalize existence of god and evil so accepts that weight (evil) on his own shoulders leaving the divine to bask in the glory of its own goodness. We should not sell ourselves so short.

[Excel]

As I see it:

God is omnipotent.

God is omnisceint.

God created everything.


Therefore, God knowingly created evil or knowingly created the circumstances that would lead to the creation of evil.

And because of his omnipotence, could make a universe without evil.

To say that god needs evil to define himself as good seems to make the big guy out to be more than a bit conceited.

You might say that it was the fault of man that evil was created, however it's still God's fault for knowingly making man inclined to evil.

Thats about it.

[Nirvana-Eld]

Bernie if I didn't know better i'd say your sounding buddhist.

Nirvana-Eld wrote:

First look at Metaphysics and the nature of essense. What is essential to God. Perfect Good.

As in his nature? or his wants? or his actions?

Perfect good is an impossibility. Perfection is beyond (or outside of) the duality of good and evil.

As in what makes the traditional omniscient God. By essence I mean that by which if it wasnt there, then it isnt God (in the traditional sense). God is all good according to the monotheistic religions today. So if we take from that that His essence is that he is all good then it clears up this discussion a bit.

The theory I'm promoting is an attempt to disprove the so called "duality" of good and evil.

The contradiction thus lies in that a perfect God (with infinite power and love) created an imperfect world. Why would an perfect God create an imperfect world when he had the power to do other wise? That is in a nut-shell the contradiction for you.

Our perceptions are illusion. Our Self is perfect.

If you could elaborate for my understanding i would very much appreciate that.

Nirvana-Eld wrote:

God created everything good in nature to serve a higher purpose (this purpose is unknowable).

If the purpose is unknowable how is it known to be higher or lower or in fact as purpose at all?

This is simply presuming that there is a God with a purpose in mind for you know the existence thing.

Nirvana-Eld wrote:

This is obvious in nature. A lion eats a deer, in doing this he is protecting the delecate ecosystem.

Protecting the ecosystem is incidental. The nature of the lion is to survive, survival means sating a need (in this case hunger).

My point is that in the act of survival it serves a higher purpose that is unknown to itself. We humans being higher up on the logic and conscience hierarchy, can see this purpose and the balance it protects. That is my point here, that as it unknowable for the lion ot know the full purpose of his actions, they still serve a higher purpose, and the same could possibly apply to us and God.

Nirvana-Eld wrote:

But humans are different. We have free will and we can choose whether or not to do good.

We may be free to act as we choose - good or evil is incidental. We too are constantly sating (or attempting to) needs.

Human conscience seems to disagree. Why would us humans for the past couple of milenia contemplate good and evil and what choice has to do with it. Also the common human practice of self-sacrifice defys mere need, it obviously surpasses it. Otherwise the word would be unheard of if we merely acted on need alone.

Nirvana-Eld wrote:

So instead of good and evil, there is good alone and with the introduction of free will, its absense. I think Aquainas makes alot of sense here, but your decision.

So man, in the face of his intrinsic sense of the divine, cannot rationalize existence of god and evil so accepts that weight (evil) on his own shoulders leaving the divine to bask in the glory of its own goodness. We should not sell ourselves so short.

Well if the divine is all perfect and infinite, then it does not bask in the first place, and in our free will, we didn't accept anything. It is our basic nature to choose via conscience and morality. Thanks for replying

[QED]

Does this mean that we would not expect to see any omissions of "goodness" attributable to God?

I'm not sure what you're getting at yet, but yes that is correct. Upon the (re)creation of the world and man, everything was perfect - no omissions. Genesis testifies to that fact...

Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

"Very good" in such context simply means "perfect."

That was until the fall of man. The ripple effect of the first evil committed by man is still felt today. Such are the philosophical ramifications for the introduction of evil (sin) into a perfect world. God's absolute sustaining and perfect goodness on earth could no longer purely exist unmitigated by evil. That was the choice given to Adam and Eve through the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Prior to the fall, everything was sustained and provided by God. Man's relationship with God was intimate, close, and direct. Adam and Eve decided they wanted their independance from God and they got what they wanted. With that independance comes consequences. What man holds today is a broken, indirect relationship with God. Jesus Christ is our way to restoring that relationship back to the way it was prior to original sin.

All I want to say to you is "Photosynthesis".

You see there's another way of looking at this, but it takes a little unravelling. For God's creation to be "perfect" it would have to be free of evil. Now evil is a pretty broad term so there's plenty of scope for showing that the creation must have been far from perfect. For example all the bones and teeth of every living creature ever dug out of the ground reveal to us a continuous carnival of killing and mutilation. The whole ecosystem relies on a hierarchy of living things that convert the light from the sun into usable energy. For example, on land, Plants are at the base of this hierarchy acting like a vast array solar panels converting sunlight into sugar, which cellular respiration converts into ATP -- the "fuel" used by all living things. Herbivores are then specialized to munch on plants to get the energy, a trick that Carnivores are incapable of doing. So Carnivores are specialized to munch on Herbivores who've done already done all the tedious hard work.

Then there's omnivores like us who have the option to be a bit more civilized. Of course Carnivores don't have that option and when they start preying on us it sounds pretty evil to me, but then I understand that Adam and Eve were supposed to have been "roped off" in some way to prevent this sort of nastiness taking place. But why was God's initial creation organized in this strange and bloodthirsty way? Why didn't he build photosynthesis into every living thing? That sounds like a very clear omission of goodness to me.

[Nirvana-Eld]

Just an aside, photosynthesis is only sufficient for things that do not move, Anything that moves needs a more efficent means of obtaining energy, like respiration and eating. Photosynthesis would not work for a cheetah is all I'm saing. And theres nothing evil about survival and nature. Unless you can prove otherwise.

[Bro Dave]

The very purpose of the Universe hangs on moving from the lowest possible levels towards perfection of each level. To that end, the preditory hierarchy would be a necessity. Even when reaching the human level, much of the animal predation remains for a long time. Here is an interesting description:(UB Paper 52)

PRIMITIVE MAN
(snip)...
Primitive men are mighty hunters and fierce fighters. The law of this age
is the physical survival of the fittest; the government of these times is
wholly tribal. During the early racial struggles on many worlds some of the
evolutionary races are obliterated, as occurred on Urantia. Those who survive are usually subsequently blended with the later imported violet race, the Adamic peoples.
In the light of subsequent civilization, this era of primitive man is a
long, dark, and bloody chapter. The ethics of the jungle and the morals of the primeval forests are not in keeping with the standards of later dispensations of revealed religion and higher spiritual development. On normal and nonexperimental worlds this epoch is very different from the prolonged and extraordinarily brutal struggles which characterized this age on Urantia. When you have emerged from your first world experience, you will begin to see why this long and painful struggle on the evolutionary worlds occurs, and as you go forward in the Paradise path, you will increasingly understand the wisdom of these apparently strange doings. But notwithstanding all the vicissitudes of the early ages of human emergence, the performances of primitive man represent a splendid, even a heroic, chapter in the annals of an evolutionary world of time and space.

Bro Dave

[bernee51]

Bernie if I didn't know better i'd say your sounding buddhist.

All the world's religions/philosophies have something to offer.
I think it was G K Chesterton who said All religions are the same, especially buddhism."

I freely admit my worldview is heavily influenced by buddhism.

As in what makes the traditional omniscient God. By essence I mean that by which if it wasnt there, then it isnt God (in the traditional sense). God is all good according to the monotheistic religions today. So if we take from that that His essence is that he is all good then it clears up this discussion a bit.

I just finished reading a short piece concerning Satre and his discussions on existence preceding essence. (This comment is apropos of nothing in particular )

The theory I'm promoting is an attempt to disprove the so called "duality" of good and evil.

I would suggest all duality is a construct.

The contradiction thus lies in that a perfect God (with infinite power and love) created an imperfect world. Why would an perfect God create an imperfect world when he had the power to do other wise? That is in a nut-shell the contradiction for you.

Apparently he did it to give us all the opportunity to be saved.

OTOH - he did make a perfect world...man stuffed things up at the 'fall' and ruined it - nothing much has changed..

Our perceptions are illusion. Our Self is perfect.

If you could elaborate for my understanding i would very much appreciate that.

The 'Self' as I use the term is what in Vedanta is known as Pure Consciousness. It is what exists once the answer to the question "Who am I?" is realized. As it is nothing other than Pure Consciousness - it has no other aspects to it, it is perfect.

Our perceptions, all those things that go to make up the sense of the individual self, are nothing more than a projection onto the screen of the Self. Maya. Illusion.

A great Vedantic sage, Shankara, said "Only that is real which does not change or cease to exist". And for something to be real it must exist in the three states of consciousness - waking, dreaming and deep sleep. According to Vedanta the only thing that fills this criterion is the Self.

BTW this Pure Consciousness manifests in humans as a sense of the 'divine' and has been the seedbed for the establishment of most if not all the worlds religions. As humans are obviously imperfect then this 'divine' must be something separate to our humanness - ergo god(s)

My point is that in the act of survival it serves a higher purpose that is unknown to itself.

It certainly has influences outside the sating of hunger - saying it is a higher purpose is perpetualting a duality.

We humans being higher up on the logic and conscience hierarchy, can see this purpose and the balance it protects. ]

It is a great pity that our actions as humans do not match our perceptions of the 'higher purpose' of the need for bio-diversity. Other needs appear to have a stronger influence.

That is my point here, that as it unknowable for the lion ot know the full purpose of his actions...

Can you be sure of that?

Have you seen Lion King

We may be free to act as we choose - good or evil is incidental. We too are constantly sating (or attempting to) needs.

Human conscience seems to disagree. Why would us humans for the past couple of milenia contemplate good and evil and what choice has to do with it.

In the first instance, survival of the self, then the tribe.

Also the common human practice of self-sacrifice defys mere need, it obviously surpasses it. Otherwise the word would be unheard of if we merely acted on need alone.

There are needs and needs - have you read any Maslow?

[QED]

Just an aside, photosynthesis is only sufficient for things that do not move, Anything that moves needs a more efficent means of obtaining energy, like respiration and eating. Photosynthesis would not work for a cheetah is all I'm saing.

Of course. That's how it is with the laws of physics as they are. But why did God make them that way so creating the need for an extended food chain?

And theres nothing evil about survival and nature. Unless you can prove otherwise.

But don't forget that we're not quite at the top of the food chain (yet ) I'd like to see you say there's nothing evil about survival and nature after you or yours were run down by a pack of hungry Wolves! But we've also got plenty of other nasties out there in nature. If you want to argue that only humans kill for sport I'd vector you to the nearest Hippo. They may be herbivores but that's very little consolation after they've spat you out

[HannaH]

Dear, Bro Dave. First of all, I respect you no matter what you think, however; but to say that God did not "create" evil (or good for that matter) is a bit of a cop out. There I said it. Evil, even if it just a mere concept, had to come from somewhere.

When you say: "He did create a system capable of being evil. This was a necessary starting point for growth to occur." To me that's like a man who rigs a game and then punishes people who play and lose because of his tampering. It's like making a kid handicapped and then punishing the kid for being handicapped. And when you speak of growth, what growth? With all the murder, wars, bloodshed and mayhem in the world, it doesn't seem to be getting any better, not saying it's getting worse, but we don't seem to be learning from our mistakes.

Anyway, that's what it seems like to me, but I think I've missed something.

[Nirvana-Eld]

Hey sorry it took so long for me to respond. Been busy with school

OTOH - he did make a perfect world...man stuffed things up at the 'fall' and ruined it - nothing much has changed..

first I know i might sound infinitely stupid but what does OTOH stand for?

second are you refering to the "fall of man" as an actual event in time? I'm not a "fundy creationalist". When i mention things like original sin and the fall, I mean our free will, our conscience, the ability we hold to choose a certain course of action in any given situation which has consequences that are good/bad.

It certainly has influences outside the sating of hunger - saying it is a higher purpose is perpetualting a duality.

I don't see how that logic follows sorry. If you could elaborate i would appreciate it.

Nirvana-Eld wrote:

[We humans being higher up on the logic and conscience hierarchy, can see this purpose and the balance it protects. ]

It is a great pity that our actions as humans do not match our perceptions of the 'higher purpose' of the need for bio-diversity. Other needs appear to have a stronger influence.

In one sentence the whole purpose point is this. Purpose does not have to be recognized to exist. If you are eating a chocolate bar and a dog is begging for it and you refuse, the purpose is so the dog does not get poisoned by the chocolate (chocolate is poisonous to them im pretty sure). It obviously do not recognize the purpose of you with-holding the chocolate from him, he only knows that he wants it and hes not getting it. Thus; Purpose does not have to be recognized to exist.

Now on your human point, just because it's there doesnt mean we act on it. It's a pity that we don't I agree.

In the first instance, survival of the self, then the tribe.

Utilitarians would cringe at that. If you ask me, when people put their needs first that would inherently slow progress of any sort. Our government for example, We elect people to put our needs before theirs and act on them in legislature, imagine if they put their own needs before anyone else, I shudder to think.

I havent really read Maslow but i know of his hierarchy of needs, through which one can reach actualization. Yet to put your own hierarchy above that of the "tribe" seems insensitive and selfish when you look at humans as the social communitive creatures that we are.