The Creation Paradox. Of Good and Evil

[OHWceta]

So God created everything, thus making him all powerful.
But if this is so then does this mean God also created evil?
If God didn't create evil, where did it come from? And does this mean something more powerful than or equal to God created it?

[Oniya]

You may want to check out these two threads, which already have some lively debate on this very topic.

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=82390.0

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=93755.0

[AtlasEros]

I find the idea of an all knowing, all powerful, all good God to be totally ridiculous.

[Aethras]

Good and evil cannot exist independently of each other. Think of a couple of words you associate with good, for example. Bravery and altruism. How can you possibly call someone brave without them having had the chance to prove themselves a coward, or call someone an altruist, without them having had the chance to prove themselves a selfish narcissist?

[Sure]

The current 'in favor' theological argument, if I recall correctly, is that God didn't create evil but instead allowed evil to exist by allowing for free will. In this way, people can choose to be evil. So, we create evil. However, we also create good.

So God did not create evil in the same way he did not create this sandwich. I made the sandwich, God merely allowed it to be created. Similarly, God did not create evil, he simply gave man the capacity for evil under the umbrella of 'free will'.

The other arguments (that I can think of off the top of my head) are that: God did not create evil, man did through sin and the Fall. There is no evil. There is no evil in toto since the rewards of heaven outweigh it. There is no evil, only what we think of as evil. Evil is necessary so that we understand good. There is no 'best/perfect' world, therefore any world God created would be flawed and for whatever reason he chose to make this world.

What you're referring to seems, to me, to be a version of the Epicurean paradox (which was actually about the Greek Gods). "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" More generally, it's the Problem of Evil.

[Oniya]

Of course, with the Epicurean Paradox, there was always the ability to fall back on the gods incessant attempts to one-up the others.  Hera encouraged one action to protect marriage, while Aphrodite encouraged another to promote love, Dionysus got everyone drunk enough that it didn't matter, and then Ares walked in and started a bar-fight.  Collectively, they might have been omnipotent, maybe even omniscient, but they were rarely omnibenevolent.

[Sure]

Actually, the Epicurean Paradox addresses that: Gods which are able yet do not address evil (even evil in the form of 'one-upping' each other) are malevolent. Why worship something malevolent? Or to extend your analogy, a pantheon of bar-goers? The problem is there for all beings of great power, which is why it was transferred into atheism two millennia later. It still applied almost exactly to an entirely different God.

[Oniya]

I realize I got a bit carried away with that analogy.  What I was thinking is that with a polytheistic mindset, each individual god wouldn't necessarily be omnipotent outside of their given sphere - Poseidon's got no control over the summoning of lightning, and Aphrodite's not likely to give a flying flip over someone's sea voyage, unless it has something to do with someone getting laid at the end.  Even then, she's likely to go tempt Poseidon into sparing her worshiper in exchange for a little 'consideration'.  Zeus is closer to omnipotent than the others, but a concerted effort by two or more can easily trump any single god's best effort (i.e., the trumped god isn't malevolent, just not omnipotent when compared to a pair of mega-potent opponents).  Then you get situations like the Trojan War, where gods are lining up on both sides, and it ends up as a push.

[Sure]

In that case, Epicurus claims they're simply not Gods, or at least not Gods worthy of worship. They aren't good, and they aren't omnipotent. And keep in mind he came to this conclusion explicitly dealing with the Greek Gods, not the Abrahamic one.

[DudelRok]

Ya know, I'm not really a believer in God but I never understood why he COULDN'T have created evil (or let it create itself, or whatever).

I mean, doesn't it all matter on your concept of "good" anyway? My concept of "good" is balance and neutrality... meaning Good and Evil/Bad are needed. So... how is it even a paradox? XD

"God had to have created evil." "Okay, sounds good."

[OHWceta]

I think in all reality God is more neutral, and Evil was allowed to exist as a way to reference good.

For example: Bad things must happen to make the good things seem good, if al lwas good and no bad happened we'd take the good for granted and see it as mundane instead of the good it really is.

[Lady Kalypso]

I came across this just today, after having had an interesting conversation with my pastor... about this very topic. >.>

He told me something that truly struck me, causing such conviction in my heart that I was surprised (if not prepared) for when this came up on my screen.

I think that God did create evil, and I know that as a Southern Baptist, this is something I should never say! Haha. I believe that He created evil to exist with good. Evil was not just simply created, but was formed in the absence of good. In order for us to worship Christ and realize that yes, He is truly there (atheists please don't hit me! :(), He needed to create something so terrible that we would need to seek His guidance so that we would not worship Him out of obligation, but by choice. If we have the option of evil, we can go to Him and seek guidance. If everything is going hunky dory, then what would be the need to worship a higher power?

I may have run off the deep end with that, but I was happy to see someone question it, and had to put in my two cents. :) I'll see myself out, now. Toodles!

[MasterMischief]

Not so fast, Kalypso.  I think you bring up some valid points.

However (I am an atheist, so you know a 'however' was coming)...our concept of needing bad so we can recognize good is only because the universe as we understand it works that way.  God created it that way.  Being omnipotent, he could have just as easily created the universe where good can be recognized without its reverse.  God is not limited, at least that is what I was always told, but how our universe works.

Secondly, why does god need us to worship him?  To me, this reminds me of Kirk's question in Star Trek V.

”What does god need with a starship?”

[Oniya]

Secondly, why does god need us to worship him?  To me, this reminds me of Kirk's question in Star Trek V.

”What does god need with a starship?”

'But would it have done any harm to gather - a few laurel leaves?'

[MasterMischief]

'But would it have done any harm to gather - a few laurel leaves?'

Did worshiping the Roman pantheon do any harm?

[Sure]

Did worshiping the Roman pantheon do any harm?

As much as any other ideology, the Roman Pantheon has its victims.

Anyway, the most pertinent counter to what you said, Llama, is the 'No Best World' argument. Basically, it argues, that though God could make any world none of them are objectively 'best'. He chose a world with evil for some unknown reason. The other argument that really jumps out at me is that a lot of what is Evil comes from people, and God gave everyone total free will. To limit our capacity for evil would be to limit our free will, so that could be why he did it.

[Inkidu]

Evil is the absence of God, not that God created evil.

[Oniya]

Did worshiping the Roman pantheon do any harm?

* Oniya thinks MM missed the reference.   :'(

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708488/quotes?qt0194373

[Lady Kalypso]

Evil is the absence of God, not that God created evil.

Amen, Inkidu! :) Although, I think Einstein would tip his hat to you as well.

I might just mention that to Preacher tomorrow at choir practice.

Secondly, why does god need us to worship him?

God needs us to worship Him for a very simple reason: we become what we worship. Have you ever seen the Justin Bieber freaks out there, wearing everything they can possibly wear because the idolize and adore him? Or even the Harry Potter freaks (sorry to those who are here!) who read everything about him, even dress up like him? They want to be just like Harry Potter and his friends. The more we worship God, the more you will become God just as He intended. We can never be perfect in his eyes, for we create sin every day, but the more we strive to be the best Christians we can be for Him, the more we will become Him and live a more satisfied life.

At least, that's my take on it. Others, of course, will have different opinions. :)

[Shjade]

Evil is the absence of God, not that God created evil.

Conflicts with omnipresence.

[Inkidu]

Conflicts with omnipresence.

God is all powerful, and the point to being all powerful is having control not to use one of his powers.

[Zakharra]

Evil is the absence of God, not that God created evil.

How does that explain the Devil then? He's undoubbtably one evil bastard. Once one of God's angels.

[Silverfyre]

Amen, Inkidu! :) Although, I think Einstein would tip his hat to you as well.

I might just mention that to Preacher tomorrow at choir practice.

God needs us to worship Him for a very simple reason: we become what we worship. Have you ever seen the Justin Bieber freaks out there, wearing everything they can possibly wear because the idolize and adore him? Or even the Harry Potter freaks (sorry to those who are here!) who read everything about him, even dress up like him? They want to be just like Harry Potter and his friends. The more we worship God, the more you will become God just as He intended. We can never be perfect in his eyes, for we create sin every day, but the more we strive to be the best Christians we can be for Him, the more we will become Him and live a more satisfied life.

At least, that's my take on it. Others, of course, will have different opinions. :)

Okay, I think you are generalizing a great deal here.  Harry Potter fans have a plethora of reasons for dressing up as the characters and enjoying the fiction.  The same goes for Justin Bieber fans and any fandom for that matter.  It isn't just about "becoming what you worship" and wanting to be that which they emulate or just simply enjoy interacting with.  You can believe what you want but I think oversimplify people's reasoning for loving their hobbies and what have you as nothing but hero worship is a little too much.

[Inkidu]

How does that explain the Devil then? He's undoubbtably one evil bastard. Once one of God's angels.

God is perfect because He is incapable of evil. The angels are not perfect and Lucifer's pride caused him to fall to Hell. So wherever man does sin, and by that be absent from the grace of God the Devil can worm his way in. Yes, God could simply destroy Satan, but that would defeat the purpose of His all-forgiving nature. Because if Satan begged God's forgiveness He would let him back into Heaven as if he'd never left.

Satan never will though.

[Sandman02]

  This argument reminds me of a conversation I had with a priest regarding Hell. He was a Dominican friar. He said that Hell is not an actual "place" established in the spiritual world, but rather, Hell is a state of being. Hell is the end result of turning away from God and refusing to acknowledge Him and his love. In other words, Hell is your own making - again, a state of being, rather than some giant fire pit beneath the ground...

  I am not religious, but I found the argument/conversation quite compelling.

[Inkidu]

  This argument reminds me of a conversation I had with a priest regarding Hell. He was a Dominican friar. He said that Hell is not an actual "place" established in the spiritual world, but rather, Hell is a state of being. Hell is the end result of turning away from God and refusing to acknowledge Him and his love. In other words, Hell is your own making - again, a state of being, rather than some giant fire pit beneath the ground...

  I am not religious, but I found the argument/conversation quite compelling.

I think hell is that, and in the spiritual sense hell is looking at God in all His love and perfection and then being denied it for eternity. It can only be described as being burned in a lake of fire.. and its still not a good comparison.

[Zakharra]

God is perfect because He is incapable of evil. The angels are not perfect and Lucifer's pride caused him to fall to Hell. So wherever man does sin, and by that be absent from the grace of God the Devil can worm his way in. Yes, God could simply destroy Satan, but that would defeat the purpose of His all-forgiving nature. Because if Satan begged God's forgiveness He would let him back into Heaven as if he'd never left.

Satan never will though.

But if he's all knowing, he knew Satan would turn to evil and did nothing to stop it, other than mouth some words he knew Satan would ignore. He let evil into the world that way.

I'm reminded of the saying, 'All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.'

[Zakharra]

I think hell is that, and in the spiritual sense hell is looking at God in all His love and perfection and then being denied it for eternity. It can only be described as being burned in a lake of fire.. and its still not a good comparison.

Another question then, what about all of the people who lived and died never knowing about God? Would they be going to hell? If they never knew about him?

[Inkidu]

But if he's all knowing, he knew Satan would turn to evil and did nothing to stop it, other than mouth some words he knew Satan would ignore. He let evil into the world that way.

I don't know. Maybe it's evil to impose his will so tyrannically? If I had the power to stop all evil I wouldn't because that would shatter free will. However, angels are not humans. So maybe God is using Satan to help humans find salvation and everlasting life in Jesus? He didn't stop Adam and Eve from committing the original sin. So maybe stopping Lucifer would have infringed on Adam and Eve's freedom of will?

It's hardly as simple as this idea of a paradox makes it out to be.

There's a verse in Revelations that says that everyone in the world will see God and all heads will bow and all knees will bend. So maybe that's an opportunity for all peoples to accept God.

[Zakharra]

I don't know. Maybe it's evil to impose his will so tyrannically? If I had the power to stop all evil I wouldn't because that would shatter free will. However, angels are not humans. So maybe God is using Satan to help humans find salvation and everlasting life in Jesus? He didn't stop Adam and Eve from committing the original sin. So maybe stopping Lucifer would have infringed on Adam and Eve's freedom of will?

Mmm..  possibly.

There's a verse in Revelations that says that everyone in the world will see God and all heads will bow and all knees will bend. So maybe that's an opportunity for all peoples to accept God.

Isn't it also said that you have to make your choice to follow god/Jesus before you die? If you get a choice afterwards, that's rather contradicting.

[Inkidu]

Eh... not really. The end of the world holds a lot of special circumstances. People will be let out of an "eternity in hell", but like most things in the Bible I think its trying to spoon-feed advanced metaphysical and uber-physics ideas to a primitive people. I think its the proverbial second chance as it were.

Of course, you could believe what Dante writes and "virtuous pagans" are confined to the outermost ring of hell, and therefor the most lenient. 

[Shjade]

God is perfect because He is incapable of evil.

How is being incapable of something a characteristic of perfection?

[Sandman02]

How is being incapable of something a characteristic of perfection?

Shjade,

  The argument is based on a particular definition of evil - specifically, evil being defined as an absence of good, rather than evil being a quality that is separate and apart from good. In that way, the paradox no longer exists. In that line of thinking, the misleading statement can be translated into something that is necessarily true.

"God is perfect because He is incapable of evil." - misleading

"God is perfect because He he does not lack any good qualities." - necessarily true

[Shjade]

"God is perfect because He he does not lack any good qualities." - necessarily true

I don't recall calling it a paradox, I simply questioned the validity of the description, as I do with the above, mainly because it requires defining perfection by having "good" qualities when what is considered good varies from person to person. If God is perfect because he doesn't lack any good qualities, and what person A feels is a good quality is considered by person B to be evil, God has evil qualities. If that doesn't conflict with interpreting God as perfect, cool. If he can't be considered perfect while having evil qualities, problem.

[zoarster]

I'm going to limit my discussion of the topic of "evil" to the only evil that is really meaningful to us as human beings: the evil we can choose to commit. Therefore, in this discussion, I shall define evil as the uniquely human ability to transgress the laws and will of God, as demonstrated in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation myth. The reason I have chosen to do this is that it puts into suspension the fundamentally unanswerable question of God's qualities--good, evil, or otherwise. Since the definition of God's qualities, as Shjade points out, is unavoidably subjective, let us simply settle, for the moment, on the somewhat unsatisfactory answer that God's actions, hence the actions of the created world less mankind and Satan, are by nature neither good nor evil in a human sense, since they come from a freedom that is completely different than our own--more on that later. But first, a quick gloss of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation mythos:

God creates Adam and Eve, and all is good. The snake, generally portrayed as possessed by or otherwise acting as an agent of Satan, tempts Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve eats, Adam eats, and they realize that they are naked. God sees their shame, interprets this as proof that they have eaten from the tree, and, upon their confession, expels them from the garden, in some accounts for fear that they will eat of the tree of eternal life and thereby become like God.

In the Islamic version of the story, the ideas are further expanded--mankind alone is given freedom as the caretaker of God's creation (prior to the fall, of course), and all creatures bow down before him at God's command. Satan and the fallen angels refuse to bow down, however, and therefore become the forces of temptation.

The pertinent theme we see in this story is one of conflicting freedoms. As the scene opens, we see that God has exercised a unique freedom: the freedom to create, ex nihilo, both in form and in law. But, later in the story, mankind exercises a freedom that not even God has: the freedom to transgress. God, by virtue of the very fact of his omnipotence, cannot transgress his own laws; any transgression by God's part is de facto not a transgression, but a suspension of the law.

This conflicting freedom, the freedom to transgress the law, is what must necessarily exist to put man in any relationship to God. Mankind stands in contrast to two other groups--the animals and bulk of creation, who are in complete compliance with God's law, and the fallen angels, who are in complete refusal of God's law. Neither of these groups can have any meaningful relationship with God.

For the animals, their complete obedience to God's law makes them little more than cogs in a machine. This is not to say that God is uncaring or indifferent toward them, but rather to say that their obedience is meaningless to God. Lacking both the freedom to transgress the laws and the judgement to derive the laws (i.e. the knowledge of good and evil), there can be no meaning to their relationship.

The fallen angels, on the contrary, lack relationship to God by virtue of their total refusal to acknowledge the rule of God. By refusing God's rules and refusing to in any way enter into a covenant with him, the fallen angels have stripped themselves of all positive relationship with God. Their only defining characteristic, indeed, is their negative relationship--that which God commands, the fallen oppose. This relationship, though seemingly more willful than that of the animals, is at the end just as meaningless. It is important too, to note that if man did not exist for the fallen to tempt, there would be no purpose for them. They are relevant only insofar as they relate to mankind and, to borrow from the Islamic tradition, would by definition not have fallen had mankind not stepped in.

So now we are left with mankind, mankind alone who has both the freedom to transgress God's law and the knowledge that he is doing it. That places mankind in a relationship that is best embodied in the Book of Job, where Job knows well enough that he deserves none of the torments inflicted upon him, and has the choice to curse God and die. Both of these elements--knowledge and freedom--are essential to what comes next: Job's challenge to God. Now God's final answer--that his ways are unfathomable, that humans are specks of dust compared to God--is largely irrelevant in this analysis. What is important is that mankind alone, as personified through Job and his unique freedom, has the ability to live in relationship to God, a relationship so strong that mankind alone can question God, hold him responsible, call him into account.

And where does that leave us? It leaves us, in many ways, back at the beginning, where we have always already begun: with the question I intentionally left in suspension, because it embodies our calling God into account--the question of God's "morality." But it is my conviction that this examination is not meaningless or absurd in any way. We have hopefully begun an answer, or at least a journey toward an answer, to that evil that is within our own control, i.e. the freedom to transgress. This journey makes us ready to offer up to God our own response to the question that he must raise in our relationship of our own freedom. Just as we do not know what it is to create, to make the laws, and must thus ask God for an answer as Job did, God by definition does not know what it is to transgress. We must take the meaning of "evil" not as an answer, but as a question--and in doing so, we must know that our freedom to do evil, to transgress, is the only thing that makes God accountable in our relationship for the other kind of "evil" that we question.