Thread: DID GOD CREATE EVIL?

God "understands" evil because he brags about creating it! See Isah. 45:7

By the way, "evil" is only an old religion word and has no validity in science. It is used to represent the force of Satan. Since there IS no evil god either, there is no evil. There are dishonest and immoral people, but no "evil."

The same is with "sacred," "sin," "holy," and even "truth." All these are holdbacks from ancient time and all interere with clear and accurate scientific thought. We never seek "truth" but ACCURACY.


charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

I think you have to define evil first.

if you are religius and belive in the creation story then god created evil

ah yes, a very interresting question and if you analyze it correctly you will come to the conclusion that "evil" is mostprobaly the basance of "good"

such as black is acctually no color, just the abcance of all colors and
dark is the abcance of light (brightness).

i thought light was the abcance of me

Originally Posted by Zelos

if you are religius and belive in the creation story then god created evil

But I am religious and believe in the creation story but do not believe God created evil. God created life, and the possibility for evil is inherent in the nature of life, but that is not the same thing.

Originally Posted by charles brough

God "understands" evil because he brags about creating it! See Isah. 45:7

I think it is hilarious the way some people quote the Bible to "prove" things, when they actually do not even believe that the Bible should be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by Isaiha 45:7

I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I the Lord, do all these things.

Obviously my translation reads differently, so we should look at the context to see which translation makes sense. Isaiha is one of the two prophets predicting the impending doom of Babylon destroying the nation of Israel and enslaving its people. In Isaiha 39 the king Hezekiah has pridefully shown all of his wealth to visitors from Babylon, complacent in his faith that God will protect Israel. In Isaiha 44 it speaks of God shaping the nation of Israel and compares it to the craftmanship of men, who strangely will worship the things they have made. But unlike them, God is not bound to serve what He has created and will return it to the forge for reshaping. So it is that this complacency of Israel and the king is unfounded because God will visit calamity upon His people for their reproof.

Originally Posted by Isaiha 45:8-9

Rain down, you heavens from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness; let the earth open , let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together. I the Lord, have created it. Woe to him who strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' Or shall your handiwork say, 'He has no hands?'

I see no prideful claim by God to have created evil here.

Originally Posted by charles brough

By the way, "evil" is only an old religion word and has no validity in science. It is used to represent the force of Satan. Since there IS no evil god either, there is no evil. There are dishonest and immoral people, but no "evil."

I think Bettina would disagree. Immoral is not a sufficient adjective to describe some people. Those who are "immoral" pursue habits in disregard to their own well being, but those who are evil pursue habits in disregard to the well being of others.

Originally Posted by charles brough

The same is with "sacred," "sin," "holy," and even "truth." All these are holdbacks from ancient time and all interere with clear and accurate scientific thought. We never seek "truth" but ACCURACY.

We? You claim to be a scientist? Scientists do not indulge in such rhetoric to condemn things which nothing that is objectively observable can either confirm or deny. It is not the method of science to make unfounded judgements about what it observes based on personal prejudices. That is more like the method of religion. A scientific approach to the study of religion would spend much more time making objective observations about the practice and behavior of religious people than in exercising a talent for contempt.

But I am religious and believe in the creation story but do not believe God created evil. God created life, and the possibility for evil is inherent in the nature of life, but that is not the same thing.

but god created everything and is almight and if evil is a by product and he dont remove it with his almight power he is logicly the creator of it

Originally Posted by Zelos

but god created everything and is almight and if evil is a by product and he dont remove it with his almight power he is logicly the creator of it

That's crap Zelos, would you hold the inventor of the motor car responsible for all the deaths on the road?

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by Zelos

but god created everything and is almight and if evil is a by product and he dont remove it with his almight power he is logicly the creator of it

That's crap Zelos, would you hold the inventor of the motor car responsible for all the deaths on the road?

The parallel is not exact. The American legal system just might do exactly that if such a decision would not devastate the American economy.

People might indeed hold an all knowing (but not all powerful) car manufacturer responsible for deaths on the road. The point is that God can ignore the stupidies of our legal system and unlike such manufacturers demand that people be responsible for their own lives. That doesn't, of course, prevent some people from wishing that they could bring such a legal suit against God, and being unable to do that, simply refuse to believe in Him instead.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by Zelos

if you are religius and belive in the creation story then god created evil

But I am religious and believe in the creation story but do not believe God created evil. God created life, and the possibility for evil is inherent in the nature of life, but that is not the same thing.

It is the same thing. If God created us in his own image....like the bible says....then evil had to come from Him. In todays language, "image" would be replaced with "clone".

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by charles brough

]
By the way, "evil" is only an old religion word and has no validity in science. It is used to represent the force of Satan. Since there IS no evil god either, there is no evil. There are dishonest and immoral people, but no "evil."

I think Bettina would disagree. Immoral is not a sufficient adjective to describe some people. Those who are "immoral" pursue habits in disregard to their own well being, but those who are evil pursue habits in disregard to the well being of others.

Your right, I would disagree.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by Zelos

but god created everything and is almight and if evil is a by product and he dont remove it with his almight power he is logicly the creator of it

That's crap Zelos, would you hold the inventor of the motor car responsible for all the deaths on the road?

No. But were not talking about humans here, were talking about the "designer in chief" so I would hold Him responsible for allowing evil to flourish. If you want to talk in human terms, I hold the inventor of Thalidomide for all the birth defects it produced.

Bettina

That's crap Zelos, would you hold the inventor of the motor car responsible for all the deaths on the road?

there is a differens, he aint allmight or all knowing

the thing is a all powerful bieng is responsible for everything just like we are partly responsible for something to happen when we know it iwll happen but dont do anything to try to stop it

Originally Posted by Bettina

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by Zelos

if you are religius and belive in the creation story then god created evil

But I am religious and believe in the creation story but do not believe God created evil. God created life, and the possibility for evil is inherent in the nature of life, but that is not the same thing.

It is the same thing. If God created us in his own image....like the bible says....then evil had to come from Him. In todays language, "image" would be replaced with "clone".

So it is Washinton's clone is on a one dollar bill and I look at my clone in the mirror, and through the looking glass is a person who shares my DNA? You may of course interpret "image" however you wish, but creating in ones own image sounds to me like a description of parenthood. It is not so much a matter of identical appearance as simply seeing potential equality and value in what you have created. It is a matter of love.

Originally Posted by Bettina

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by Zelos

but god created everything and is almight and if evil is a by product and he dont remove it with his almight power he is logicly the creator of it

That's crap Zelos, would you hold the inventor of the motor car responsible for all the deaths on the road?

No. But were not talking about humans here, were talking about the "designer in chief" so I would hold Him responsible for allowing evil to flourish. If you want to talk in human terms, I hold the inventor of Thalidomide for all the birth defects it produced.

Whereas I would not. No more than I hold Einstein responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even losing a child I would feel no need to share my pain and loss by torturing a person who is the unwitting cause. Shall we lash out and execute doctors for every patient they lose? Surely we can be a little more rational than that.

Now for those who know what they are doing it is a different matter. Cigarette manufacturers who cover up the findings that their product causes cancer so they can continue to make money, I would not only blame but consider them guilty of public menace and worthy of the death penalty.

Thalidomide is a facinating story. When I said I would not hold the "inventor" responsible, I meant in principle. For looking into it, I can see that this German drug company was not entirely ethical. But the actual scientist in the company that discovered it? Why hold him responsible? It was the company officials who decided to sell the stuff without sufficient testing who are responsible for what happened. After determining that the drug seemed harmless this company sold it as a sedative when there was no scientific evidence of any sedative effect.

A woman by the name of Kelsey in the FDA was praised as a hero for refusing to approve the drug for sale in the US for this purpose. So only 17 babies in the United States were effected because of the free samples sent to doctors. Now 53 years later the drug has been approved in the US for a completely different purpose (multiple myeloma) and the drug has been found to have positive value in the treatment of leprosy, arachnoiditis, Crohn's disease and some cancers.

I frankly would not want to be in the drug business. I think understanding the effects of drugs is one of the weaknesses of science, for how can the long term effects be properly understood without testing it for fifty years or more? And how can any company possibly afford to test something that long?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by Zelos

if you are religius and belive in the creation story then god created evil

But I am religious and believe in the creation story but do not believe God created evil. God created life, and the possibility for evil is inherent in the nature of life, but that is not the same thing.

Originally Posted by charles brough

God "understands" evil because he brags about creating it! See Isah. 45:7

The Bible I quoted is called the "Authorized King James Verson" and is the most widely used one in the world. Which Bible have you resorted to?
Different translations sure come in handy for the faithfull!


I

think it is hilarious the way some people quote the Bible to "prove" things, when they actually do not even believe that the Bible should be taken seriously.

Of course the Bible should be taken seriously! Someting like a billion people claim to believe its old myths and miracles. In them is a real good history of a few Jewish Tribes and an account of a anti-Roman revolutionary who tried to start a riot in The Temple, got caught and was executed. I am glad you find it all "hilarious."!

Originally Posted by Isaiha 45:7

I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I the Lord, do all these things.

Obviously my translation reads differently, so we should look at the context to see which translation makes sense. Isaiha is one of the two prophets predicting the impending doom of Babylon destroying the nation of Israel and enslaving its people. In Isaiha 39 the king Hezekiah has pridefully shown all of his wealth to visitors from Babylon, complacent in his faith that God will protect Israel. In Isaiha 44 it speaks of God shaping the nation of Israel and compares it to the craftmanship of men, who strangely will worship the things they have made. But unlike them, God is not bound to serve what He has created and will return it to the forge for reshaping. So it is that this complacency of Israel and the king is unfounded because God will visit calamity upon His people for their reproof.

Originally Posted by Isaiha 45:8-9

Rain down, you heavens from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness; let the earth open , let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together. I the Lord, have created it. Woe to him who strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' Or shall your handiwork say, 'He has no hands?'I see no prideful claim by God to have created evil here

.

Those who are "immoral" pursue habits in disregard to their own well being, but those who are evil pursue habits in disregard to the well being of others.

Do you really believe that? It isn't immoral to harm others? That is what your are saying.

Originally Posted by charles brough

The same is with "sacred," "sin," "holy," and even "truth." All these are holdbacks from ancient time and all interere with clear and accurate scientific thought. We never seek "truth" but ACCURACY.

We? You claim to be a scientist? Scientists do not indulge in such rhetoric to condemn things which nothing that is objectively observable can either confirm or deny. It is not the method of science to make unfounded judgements about what it observes based on personal prejudices. That is more like the method of religion. A scientific approach to the study of religion would spend much more time making objective observations about the practice and behavior of religious people than in exercising a talent for contempt.

I am under the impression that I am NOT conducting scientific investigations in this forum and that you are NOT preaching. I thought we were just trying to explain our different perspectives here! In your case, it would appear that the only things that can be confirmed or denied are those explained in the Bible.

By the way, are you really saying that God did not create evil? Pray tell me how the Bible explains it got here if it is what you say it is?

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

If God did not create evil people then there is no reason to suppose he created nice people, Either he created both or neither.

If he intended to create 'nice' people then to know nice means he must have known 'not nice' or evil, if he created people knowing they had the choice to be nice or not nice then he created people with the ability to become evil, and is therefore responsible.

If he did not know 'nice' or 'evil' then he did not create everything, if he did not create everything then there is no reason to believe he created anything.

Originally Posted by charles brough

The Bible I quoted is called the "Authorized King James Verson" and is the most widely used one in the world. Which Bible have you resorted to?
Different translations sure come in handy for the faithfull!

Mine is the New King James. But I already demonstrated quite clearly from the context that your translation is misleading you to make an interpretation which was never intended by that passage. It is never a good practice to take a passage out of context to prove something entirely unrelated.

Originally Posted by charles brough

Those who are "immoral" pursue habits in disregard to their own well being, but those who are evil pursue habits in disregard to the well being of others.

Do you really believe that? It isn't immoral to harm others? That is what your are saying.

Yes I really believe that.

I said that the term immoral is insufficient. It is like calling rape an error of judgement, for there is considerably more than an error of judgement involved in this. It is a disregard of the fact that what you are doing is doing irreperable harm to another person. Immoral just doesn't cover it. Immorality is a term used for activities which religions or society disapprove of as being against the laws of God or laws of proper behavior but which the freedom of religion and individual rights guarantees that people have the right to make their own decisions about. But that which is evil cannot tolerated at all by a just society, for it destroys all sense of security and the possibility of trust between people.

Originally Posted by charles brough

I am under the impression that I am NOT conducting scientific investigations in this forum and that you are NOT preaching. I thought we were just trying to explain our different perspectives here! In your case, it would appear that the only things that can be confirmed or denied are those explained in the Bible.

Well to your first comments I would say, good, then we understand one another. But I have never used the Bible to prove anything but claims about the Bible. You claimed that the Bible says God created evil, so I turned to the Bible to examine that claim and found it to be an unsupportable use of scripture out of context. Therefore I refute your claim about the Bible. If you choose to believe that God created evil for reasons of your own as Bettina does, then I would be as silent in response to your belief as I remain silent in response to hers.

Originally Posted by charles brough

By the way, are you really saying that God did not create evil? Pray tell me how the Bible explains it got here if it is what you say it is?

Yes I believe that God created life in which the possibility of evil is inherent, just as everytime a woman gives birth to a child there is the possibility that a murderer or rapist or other evil person will be in this world. In my veiw the Biblical explanation of evil is given in the second chapter of Genesis, when the first human beings refused guidances of God AND refused take responsibility for their actions by blaiming others. This is the pattern of evil right there. It is just a seed but as this pattern repeats itself over and over again evil grows in the world.

We can see this in the story of Cain and Abel, where the point is not why one of the brother's offerings was acceptable and the other was not but how Cain responded to God when God declared that his offering was unacceptable. If Cain wanted the approval of God then clearly he should do what God wants him to do. Instead of blaiming others, Adam and Eve should have asked God what He wanted them to do to make things right, just as Cain should have. But Cain, instead followed the pattern of evil by blaiming what happened on his brother. God even warned Cain that he was about to make a terrible mistake, "So the Lord said to Cain, 'Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."

Adam and Eve assigned to Lucifer the burden of their guilt and appointed him to the position of responsibility for evil. It was the desire of God for Cain to reclaim that position of responsibiliy by "ruling over" this desire to act in denial of blame. By denying the responsibility of self determination, Adam and Eve handed power over themselves to Lucifer as a personification of the evil within themselves. So it is that this human habit began where man feels that his desires float outside of himself somewhere out of his own control, to the point where modern man tries to blame his desires on genetics and chemistry or sees himself as a victim of environmental influences.

It is the nature of living things that they are creatures of habit. The choices they make are a kind of self programming which is realized in the perpetuation of habit. This is their nature on every level from chemical to neurological (psychological). The possibility of evil is inherent in this because habits which stifle the potential for learning new thing are always possible. It is the diversity of life which allows for the possibility that some species can find their way past these limiting habits to greater potentiality. I believe that God plays an active role in this by encouraging both diversity and greater potential.

With Adam and Eve however direct communication with God became possible. The only question was, however, whether this would work to the betterment of mankind or to its ruin and the difference relied on our grasp upon being responsible for who and what we are. For if we refused that responsibility choosing to blame others for who and what we are then Gods presence would would be transformed from friend and parent to that of a puppeteer. Thus it was by the choice of Adam and Eve necessary for God to progressively retreat from the lives of men as this choice was only confirmed by decendents of Adam and Eve like Cain. So it is that after the time of Noah, God is back to quietly encouraging diversity and greater potential in a more indirect manner. But the result is that instead of being a family it is more like a jungle in which human beings find every role in human society from sheep, to cuckoo bird and predator.

Starting with Abraham, however, we see God pursuing the possibility of direct communication with man in a more limited manner with a chosen people. And we see that getting Abraham to achieve the proper balance of faith and responsibility is a difficult one achieve. And then to achieve that balance in the nation from Abraham is even more difficult. But finally there came a time when God thought that a direct relationship with God might be real possibility once again. And so He can to earth as a human being to speak with us and give us one final lesson in proper balance between faith and responsibility. Our faith in God can restore a direct relationship with God only by acknowledging that our sin put Him on the cross.

Evil = A poor choice. An abuse of power. Taking greed over humility.

I don't think that God created evil. Evil is not so much a thing in itself as a term used for describing actions which are harmful instead of helpful.

People keep making statements like “Would you hold (some real person) responsible for (some unforeseen or unavoidable consequence)?” If you want to make that an accurate analogy, you need to tack “if they were omniscient and omnipotent” onto the end of your question.

If you know with a high degree of certainty that your actions will result in a particular consequence, then you are responsible for that consequence. Saying "God didn't create evil, he just created people and people chose to be evil" is like arguing "I didn't blow up that building, I just placed a bomb that happened to blow up the building." If you know that placing a bomb will likely result in the destruction of a building, then you are responsible for the destruction of that building if you place a bomb near it. If you know that pulling a trigger will result in a few ounces of lead being driven into someone at a high speed, then you are responsible for killing them if you pull the trigger. Similarly, if you know with absolute certainty that creating people will result in those people committing evil acts, then you are at least partly responsible for those evil acts.

Since we aren't omniscient there is a certain amount of disconnect between our actions and the consequences of our actions when those consequences involve choices made by other people. For example, a store clerk couldn't be held responsible for selling lighter fluid to an arsonist who used the lighter fluid to burn down a building. But if the clerk somehow knew with certainty that his customer was an arsonist who was definitely going to use the lighter fluid to burn down a building, he would be responsible for it.

So yes, I would hold a mother responsible for murders committed by her child if she chose to become pregnant with the child even though she knew with certainty that the child would grow up to be a murderer. Similarly, I believe that god is responsible for evil since he chose to create people when he knew with certainty that they would commit evil acts.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

So yes, I would hold a mother responsible for murders committed by her child if she chose to become pregnant with the child even though she knew with certainty that the child would grow up to be a murderer. Similarly, I believe that god is responsible for evil since he chose to create people when he knew with certainty that they would commit evil acts.

I made the same essential point earlier in the thread:

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

People might indeed hold an all knowing (but not all powerful) car manufacturer responsible for deaths on the road.

But consider what your idea does to the parent-child relationship. If a mother knows what her child will become then she can change it by choosing a different father or lifestyle and all the things which contribute to what the child will become. Absolute foreknowledge equals absolute control. Consider how often parents and children come into conflict when the desires of the parent do not coincide with the desires of the child. In the situation you are supposing the child makes no choices, it is the mother who makes them all. The child is a puppet rather than a living human being.

I do not believe that a God with such absolute foreknowledge is compatable with the existence of life.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

But consider what your idea does to the parent-child relationship. If a mother knows what her child will become then she can change it by choosing a different father or lifestyle and all the things which contribute to what the child will become. Absolute foreknowledge equals absolute control. Consider how often parents and children come into conflict when the desires of the parent do not coincide with the desires of the child. In the situation you are supposing the child makes no choices, it is the mother who makes them all. The child is a puppet rather than a living human being.

I do not believe that a God with such absolute foreknowledge is compatable with the existence of life.

You have created the "God can do no wrong" scenario. If this was a Walt Disney world, where everyone got along, no murders, no rapes... in other words a nice place to live... you would attribute that to a loving God.

Since this is not that kind of world, and is full of murder, rape, etc... you attribute that to a loving God.

Not even close mitchellmckain....

Bettina

Originally Posted by Bettina

You have created the "God can do no wrong" scenario. If this was a Walt Disney world, where everyone got along, no murders, no rapes... in other words a nice place to live... you would attribute that to a loving God.

Say rather that because I believe in God, I am limited to understanding God as the kind of God that I can believe in. A lot of this is an act of faith on my part because I do not know the answer to all questions. By faith I assume there is an explanation. Meanwhile, I explain enough to my own satisfaction that the belief in God does not become too ridiculous in my own eyes. On the other hand, since you do not believe in God you are free to paint a picture of God that very few people would believe in.

Originally Posted by Bettina

Since this is not that kind of world, and is full of murder, rape, etc... you attribute that to a loving God.

Yes, I do. A parent will allow a child to fall from a bicycle but is there to comfort him/her afterfward. It is not cruel, because they want the child to grow up. Likewise, I believe that mankind cannot grow up unless God allows this world to be as it is. I do not believe that we could identify and refuse the evil within if God were to intercede and prevent the worst consequences of that evil. But I believe that God is waiting to pick up the pieces with open arms after it is all over.

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

Evil = A poor choice. An abuse of power. Taking greed over humility.

I don't think that God created evil. Evil is not so much a thing in itself as a term used for describing actions which are harmful instead of helpful.

The bible says god created all things

Therefore, god created evil.

Not that hard to figure out. For further hypothesizing along those limited lines:

If god can create all things, then god is capable of all things. Therefore, god is both good and evil, and is capable of all actions. He is neither pure good, nor pure evil.

Similarly, neither is satan. Yet rather than being pure either way, God supposedly emphasizes good, while satan evil. Furthermore, this entirely misses the point of good/evil subjectivity.

Therefore, I'd advise you discuss the subjectivity of good/evil first. It's also apparent that the ideology based on good/evil is humanistic. If it was gods version, would not god have made a perfect description of evil? Instead, the bible lists many things that are considered evil for the times (and those times alone). Most aren't listened to anymore, while some are vehemently held (mostly out of personal choice).

What I *DON'T* see in the bible, is a black and white line that says "this is a perfect description of evil, and this is a perfect description of good." All that I do see are many subjective ways to take it, and so far all worshipers seem to be content in their subjectivity, despite arguing it like it's objective.

You can say that good is subjective, but it is honestly not.

Some actions help life, and others hurt it.

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

You can say that good is subjective, but it is honestly not.

Some actions help life, and others hurt it.

but by the same coin, those actions can help another's life and yet hurt another's life. No action is good or evil, all actions are neutral. They're only subjectively good/evil.

I'd advise reading a few philosophy books to grasp this concept better.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

But consider what your idea does to the parent-child relationship. If a mother knows what her child will become then she can change it by choosing a different father or lifestyle and all the things which contribute to what the child will become. Absolute foreknowledge equals absolute control. Consider how often parents and children come into conflict when the desires of the parent do not coincide with the desires of the child. In the situation you are supposing the child makes no choices, it is the mother who makes them all. The child is a puppet rather than a living human being.

I do not believe that a God with such absolute foreknowledge is compatable with the existence of life.

Well, one could certainly make the argument that if God knows everything that is going to happen then we don't really have free will because our choices are all predestined. So one could argue that if we truly have free will, god could not be omniscient. Is that what you are saying? If so then I can kind of see your point, but that view certainly does not appear to be mainstream among christians.

A parent will allow a child to fall from a bicycle but is there to comfort him/her afterfward. It is not cruel, because they want the child to grow up. Likewise, I believe that mankind cannot grow up unless God allows this world to be as it is.

Yes, a loving parent might indeed allow their child some amount of suffering if they thought that the child would benefit from it. The common example is vaccinations - getting a shot hurts the child, but the benefit of the vaccination is worth the pain. But that's where the problem of omnipotence comes in; if god can do anything, then he should be able to create conditions that would allow us to "grow up" without the necessity of suffering. If god can't create conditions that would allow us to grow up without requiring suffering, then by definition god is not omnipotent. Of course no one would fault a parent who causes their child some small amount of suffering in order to protect them against diseases, but most people certainly would fault a parent who elected to better their child with a method that caused suffering when an alternative that didn't cause suffering was readily available. What loving parent would choose a painful shot for their child if a completely painless shot could do the same job?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

A parent will allow a child to fall from a bicycle but is there to comfort him/her afterfward. It is not cruel, because they want the child to grow up. Likewise, I believe that mankind cannot grow up unless God allows this world to be as it is. I do not believe that we could identify and refuse the evil within if God were to intercede and prevent the worst consequences of that evil. But I believe that God is waiting to pick up the pieces with open arms after it is all over.

God doesn't play with bicycles. He plays with rape and murder as the lesson choice and I don't believe a loving God will be waiting for you with open arms.

Like it was stated before, for God to witness someone raping and killing a nine year old girl and not stop it is guilty of murder himself and that makes him Evil. That statement is hard to overcome unless you have faith that God has some plan. I don't, which is why I reject God completely. The "glove" doesn't fit and never will.

Bee

Originally Posted by Bettina

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

A parent will allow a child to fall from a bicycle but is there to comfort him/her afterfward. It is not cruel, because they want the child to grow up. Likewise, I believe that mankind cannot grow up unless God allows this world to be as it is. I do not believe that we could identify and refuse the evil within if God were to intercede and prevent the worst consequences of that evil. But I believe that God is waiting to pick up the pieces with open arms after it is all over.

God doesn't play with bicycles. He plays with rape and murder as the lesson choice and I don't believe a loving God will be waiting for you with open arms.

Like it was stated before, for God to witness someone raping and killing a nine year old girl and not stop it is guilty of murder himself and that makes him Evil. That statement is hard to overcome unless you have faith that God has some plan. I don't, which is why I reject God completely. The "glove" doesn't fit and never will.

Bee

My explanation explains this. God is both good and evil, as is satan and everything else. The bible does not call god PURE GOOD or satan PURE EVIL (to my knowledge), this is just some odd perception theists pick up for a black/white universe.

as such, god strives to meet his own ends as far as I can determine. Which is also a neutral action. Thus, you're right, god is guilty of murder. But according to the bible, he's "guilty" of creation too. Kind of evens out into neutral, again.

But, aside from that, I'd agree with Bee.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Well, one could certainly make the argument that if God knows everything that is going to happen then we don't really have free will because our choices are all predestined. So one could argue that if we truly have free will, god could not be omniscient. Is that what you are saying? If so then I can kind of see your point, but that view certainly does not appear to be mainstream among christians.

Not really. It seems pretty evenly divided to me, with the Calvinists on one extreme and the Open Theists at the other extreme and vast majority somewhere between. Both daytonturner and myself are example of Christians who believe in free will, and I in particular am rather close to the Open Theist extreme of the spectrum.

Interestingly enough the scientist are also divided on nearly the same issue between determinism and quantum indeterminacy. The quantum indeterminacy of the Copenhagen interpretation holds the majority right now but physicist are almost predisposed to believe in determinism because of the mathematical nature of physics. So quantum physics often comes as quite a shock to them both historically and during the education of new physicists.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

But that's where the problem of omnipotence comes in; if god can do anything, then he should be able to create conditions that would allow us to "grow up" without the necessity of suffering.

First of all you must understand that omnipotence can only logically refer to what is accomplished and not the method. It is easy enough to think of methods that utterly contradict a particular goal. We would like to demand that God make us into a good and loving person by giving us whatever we want, but that is wrong path to the goal. It is like a child's wish that his parent raise by giving him only candy. These wishes might seem possible in dreams, where contradictions are ignored, but do we want substance or dreams.

I believe that the possibility of evil is inherent in the nature of what it means to alive. Likewise, it is impossible to have a parent-child relationship where the possibility of the child rejecting the parent does not exist. Excluding the possibility of evil also excludes life, just as excluding the possibility that the child can reject their parent excludes the possibility of a genuine parent-child relationship. Life cannot be controlled and yet be authentic life. Love cannot be forced and yet be authentic love.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

If god can't create conditions that would allow us to grow up without requiring suffering, then by definition god is not omnipotent.

Only according to a contradictory and meaningless definition of omnipotent. Power is itself powerless to accomplish many things when it comes to life and love. To imagine otherwise is to indulge in the same kind of magical thinking that is a part of the least psychologically healthy aspect of many religions.

God could dream such a world as you are talking about and such a dream would have all the appearance of reality but in the end it is just a dream because people in it are just playing out scripts given to them by God with no life or will of their own. It is clear to me that we are not such a dream in the mind of God because we are alive and our choices are quite real and have consequences that cannot be avoided.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Of course no one would fault a parent who causes their child some small amount of suffering in order to protect them against diseases, but most people certainly would fault a parent who elected to better their child with a method that caused suffering when an alternative that didn't cause suffering was readily available. What loving parent would choose a painful shot for their child if a completely painless shot could do the same job?

There was a childrens book called "The Giver" in which people suceeded in creating a world without pain. It was a nightmare. In the process of eliminating pain they eliminated everything that made life worth living.

Originally Posted by Bettina

God doesn't play with bicycles. He plays with rape and murder as the lesson choice and I don't believe a loving God will be waiting for you with open arms.

I don't think these "lessons" are designed by God. I don't think there is anything good about them at all. It is just that I think the consequences of God's interference would ultimately be worse.

Originally Posted by Bettina

Like it was stated before, for God to witness someone raping and killing a nine year old girl and not stop it is guilty of murder himself and that makes him Evil. That statement is hard to overcome unless you have faith that God has some plan. I don't, which is why I reject God completely. The "glove" doesn't fit and never will.

Well I certainly would do my best to stop it. If had the ability I would stop every single occurrence of such things, despite my conviction that the ultimate consequences for mankind would be devastating. I would probably have to see this "devastating result" for myself before I really believed it. But if the result is what I suspect it would be..... I am afraid it would be better to put an end to the earth altogether. I don't think God plans for rape and murder to happen, but I do think that God has a long term plan for mankind which is ultimately for the best.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

You can say that good is subjective, but it is honestly not.

Some actions help life, and others hurt it.

but by the same coin, those actions can help another's life and yet hurt another's life. No action is good or evil, all actions are neutral. They're only subjectively good/evil.

I'd advise reading a few philosophy books to grasp this concept better.

I disagree. Things are subjective, yes, but you can mould your personality to be more helpful, generous, outgoing, etc...

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

You can say that good is subjective, but it is honestly not.

Some actions help life, and others hurt it.

but by the same coin, those actions can help another's life and yet hurt another's life. No action is good or evil, all actions are neutral. They're only subjectively good/evil.

I'd advise reading a few philosophy books to grasp this concept better.

I disagree. Things are subjective, yes, but you can mould your personality to be more helpful, generous, outgoing, etc...

All in a subjective manner. To you, or a limited amount of people, they may be helpful or generous or outgoing. Yet to another, it has an adverse effect.

Thus, you are not being good, you are being neutral. As your action causes equal good and bad, no matter how you view it subjective wise.

Again, I advise you study some philosophy on the subject to grasp it better.

Originally Posted by jjg

I think you have to define evil first.

I thought I HAD defined it! I define it as a word/concept of the Three Religions of the Book which represents the force and effect of Satan.

You should never tell a Born-Again Christian that something he did was "evil."
He may see it as immoral, or selfish, but only Satan makes you do evil things. This is why our President got everyone to use the old religion world again so much. He is telling is in so many worlds that Islam is "evil." It is, to the Religious Right, something to be beaten down and defeated. The Bible says "Christ came not to bring peace but a sword," and it is our great Alpha-male leader who proudly wears it and who, in times of crisis, the public huddles behind and eggs him on.

Next stop is Iran . . .


charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com (430 hits PER DAY in January!)

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

Evil = A poor choice. An abuse of power. Taking greed over humility.

I don't think that God created evil. Evil is not so much a thing in itself as a term used for describing actions which are harmful instead of helpful.

Does this not make sense to anyone?

We live in a construct where we are allowed to make choices. Some people are going to make the wrong ones.

And Jeremy, you are so very wrong. I could choose to go out and murder the first person I see, or I could choose to go out and say "Good morning!" to the first person I see.

If you think Good and Evil are subjective you are simply wrong.

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

And Jeremy, you are so very wrong. I could choose to go out and murder the first person I see, or I could choose to go out and say "Good morning!" to the first person I see.

If you think Good and Evil are subjective you are simply wrong.

You keep repeating that, and refusing my suggestions to study up on it so you understand it more before you argue against it.

Who are you trying to convince? Me? Or yourself?

Aside from that, murdering someone can do the following: Cause severe sadness for those that knew the person
Cause oppertunities for other people
Give someone else his job (probably someone who needed it more)
Put a bit more money into circulation
and probably cause some good effects within the family as well.

There are a number of other "good" things it could do. It's about equal with the "bad" things it does.

As I said: Subjective. just saying "NO IT'S NOT!" is not proving your point.

So, again, PLEASE study on it a bit first. I'm not rushing you to reply with "NO IT'S NOT!" In fact I don't want such childish replies. :P

No action in this world could be define as total good nor total evil, that's wut i think. Every evil action is certain to hav some good effect however minute it may be. Like wise, every good action is bound to hav a certain evil effect or bad effect to some1 or somthing. It's jus how u choose to see one's action, from which view. But saying so, i believe God is neither good nor evil. Also i believe Satan and teh devil is jus a figure created by religion to blame on for thier own doings.

Oh noes, childish replies!

seriously, I see what you are saying but hopefully you can see what I am saying. Without some sense of morality the world would go into chaos.


I agree that everything is subjective, but that doesn't mean that certain things or actions have inherent properties that hold true regardless of perspective.

I am not going to continue this debate, because you think I don't see what you are saying and I certainly do. I am simply saying that on a deeper level, morality is actually a real thing. You can try to be a good person.

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

Oh noes, childish replies!

seriously, I see what you are saying but hopefully you can see what I am saying. Without some sense of morality the world would go into chaos.

You speak of morals as if they are objective. Again, this is not the case. In many instances, most morals in place in todays society were not morals against doing something in ancient times.

For example, "pedophilia" was condoned in many ancient cultures, and in a few I think rape wasn't considered a bad thing (females are objects), and their societies lasted for quite a long time.
And in the instances of murder, they made it "fair play." Like the vikings, something along the lines of a challenge when it came to who was right/wrong.

Given how RELATIVE "morals" are, all societies to have "morals," but nothing like the ones you probably think of. But, granted, without some form of social structure society would fall into chaos. The problem with that idea is that civilizations, even from the ashes of another, have always implemented a different structure (had the prior one failed).
That being said, a non-moral society has never been, and wont ever be.

I agree that everything is subjective, but that doesn't mean that certain things or actions have inherent properties that hold true regardless of perspective.

This makes me think you don't understand what "subjective" means. Lets use war as an example:

Say you kill your enemy, this prevents that enemy from killing you or your friends. That is a good action perceived by everyone on your side.
On the flip side, that persons family and everyone else suffers greatly due to the loss.

This is an example, but do tell me what actions hold inherent properties. Otherwise this will be a very short discussion.

I am not going to continue this debate, because you think I don't see what you are saying and I certainly do. I am simply saying that on a deeper level, morality is actually a real thing. You can try to be a good person.

In your subjective view, you can strive to be a "good" person or a "moral" person. In another view, that same thing could mean doing acts you perceive as something short of a horror film.

More agressive debating? - calm down guys. I see flaming and insults creeping in, such posts will be deleted in their entirety and not just edited.

Go and make a nice cup of tea....

Originally Posted by Megabrain

More agressive debating? - calm down guys. I see flaming and insults creeping in, such posts will be deleted in their entirety and not just edited.

Go and make a nice cup of tea....

I don't think I was being THAT aggressive. :P

lol, yeah not agressive just intense. I think we both make a good point.

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

lol, yeah not agressive just intense. I think we both make a good point.

:? I think you utterly failed to make any type of logical point at all. :P

So you were just winding me up then eh? - making look like flame wars?
Well it worked - congratulations - if you're happy I'm happy.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

So you were just winding me up then eh? - making look like flame wars?
Well it worked - congratulations - if you're happy I'm happy.

Yeap, we're both very happy to have fooled you. haha

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

lol, yeah not agressive just intense. I think we both make a good point.

:? I think you utterly failed to make any type of logical point at all. :P

If you don't understand morality then..... wow......


If you really think murder is not a bad thing, then..... wow

Yeah, you've just proven you learned nothing from what I said.

Eh, well, can't expect someone who doesn't wish to understand to quickly comprehend.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Aside from that, murdering someone can do the following: Cause severe sadness for those that knew the person
Cause oppertunities for other people
Give someone else his job (probably someone who needed it more)
Put a bit more money into circulation
and probably cause some good effects within the family as well.

Such a nice family that person has.

I agree that moral is subjective. However, I think TOWK is looking at morality from a 21st-century perspective. We believe in something called "human rights." Murder may have both good and bad outcomes, but it is nevertheless wrong because you take away someone's right to live. That in itself is wrong -- period.

Say you kill your enemy, this prevents that enemy from killing you or your friends. That is a good action perceived by everyone on your side.
On the flip side, that persons family and everyone else suffers greatly due to the loss.

I know this is probably not the place to say this, but two wrongs don't make a right. On the one hand, it is wrong for your enemy to want to kill your family. On the other hand, it is also wrong for you to kill your enemy to prevent him from doing something wrong. Although your family may view it as something good, it is still wrong. Being good doesn't equal being moral.

On a different note, why can't we all get along with each other? :?

By the way, Jeremy, you need to come back. You're one of my favorite users thus far. Don't leave just right after I registered!

Originally Posted by pseudoscientist

Such a nice family that person has.

I agree that moral is subjective. However, I think TOWK is looking at morality from a 21st-century perspective. We believe in something called "human rights." Murder may have both good and bad outcomes, but it is nevertheless wrong because you take away someone's right to live. That in itself is wrong -- period.

Since I've just finished listening to foamy, I have the strongest urge to copy him in the worst way possible: "Stop missing the point, you fucking BASTARD!"

But, as funny as copying foamy would be, you did half-get the point. Unfortunately you fail to apply moral subjectivity to "taking someones life," and instead brand it as "wrong period."
This is where it gets interesting: Is taking someones life truly wrong, or is it only wrong in the eyes of those incapable? Seriously, how many people capable of killing with/without remorse truly view it as WRONG? Not many, I can damn well tell you.

Why is it viewed as "wrong"? Short answer: EMPATHY! Every one of the neurons in your brain fights you when you're going on the damn war path. Few people, even when outraged beyond all imagination, can resort to killing.
That being said, one of the things people in the military learn is to block that empathy. Some can, most can't (and as a result suffer long-term trauma!).
I, on the other hand, am one who definitely cannot (although that could probably change in a life-death scenario, which triggers most peoples bodies to stop resisting simply for survival). I get traumatic flashbacks from a cat's death for peet sakes!

While empathy wise, killing is "wrong," logically speaking there is always equal good to do with killing that would end up making up for the loss of mental ability and life in general.
For example, what if killing someone made someone else force themselves to become better than anyone else? Or perhaps encouraged them to become a brilliant person. Maybe even a policeman or detective (perhaps someone famous for being a good one). Quite frankly, ignoring the empathy one would receive from taking anothers life (which evolution has firmly cemented in us to prevent our genocide), there is little reason not to kill a lot of people.

Unfortunately the scope and types of people one kills changes from subjective view to subjective view (One might hate whores, and kill them Jack the Ripper style, while another might hate scientists and assassinate them), so I can't really say that there is some objective route to this.

I know this is probably not the place to say this, but two wrongs don't make a right. On the one hand, it is wrong for your enemy to want to kill your family. On the other hand, it is also wrong for you to kill your enemy to prevent him from doing something wrong. Although your family may view it as something good, it is still wrong. Being good doesn't equal being moral.

Except, it's not objectively wrong. Each have goals, and in order to reach those goals one must die. This is mostly common with religious viewpoints; if conversion is not applicable, then slaughter is the last resort (democracy is OUT the window!).
But recently on a modern scale, it's not been so much religious as political (politics is religious if you ask me). And in most cases in order for one side to get their way, or protect their way, war is the only option (since neither side is willing to talk). So it isn't really religion so much as conflicting ideals neither side is willing to talk out (nor can).

However, lets define virtues (the definition of moral on answers.com basically said "virtue."):

1. Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness.
2. An example or kind of moral excellence: the virtue of patience.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=virtue&gwp=13

Yes, morals equate to good. But it's a different kind of good: It's good relies on the empathy one feels about something. Which means it's the most subjective and inaccurate thing one can live ones life by.

Pedophile: Molesting a child is not immoral
Person: Molesting a child is immoral

Since both rely on the same empathy infrastructure in the brain, who is right? Answer: Neither. I'll give you a cookie if you figure out why.

On a different note, why can't we all get along with each other? :?

By the way, Jeremy, you need to come back. You're one of my favorite users thus far. Don't leave just right after I registered!

..umm...yay, I have a fan? Well, I doubt I will anymore. Haha

Do you think all perspectives are equally valid? Do you think the rapist has a valid perspective?

Just because someone doesn't think what they are doing is wrong doesn't mean it isn't evil.

I don't know who foamy is, but let me copy him for you: "Stop missing the point, you fucking BASTARD!"

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

But, as funny as copying foamy would be, you did half-get the point. Unfortunately you fail to apply moral subjectivity to "taking someones life," and instead brand it as "wrong period."
This is where it gets interesting: Is taking someones life truly wrong, or is it only wrong in the eyes of those incapable? Seriously, how many people capable of killing with/without remorse truly view it as WRONG? Not many, I can damn well tell you.

Yes, but morality, as I think of it, is the accepted moral standards in a certain society. Morality varies from culture to culture (which is why I agreed that it is subjective), but it is not an individual's view that matters; it's the society's view as a whole. I have never heard of a society that encourages everything that is unquestionably wrong--to us normal people, that is. A society that encourages for-fun robbery, murder, etc. will not survive that long, methinks.

Why is it viewed as "wrong"? Short answer: EMPATHY! Every one of the neurons in your brain fights you when you're going on the damn war path. Few people, even when outraged beyond all imagination, can resort to killing.
That being said, one of the things people in the military learn is to block that empathy. Some can, most can't (and as a result suffer long-term trauma!).
I, on the other hand, am one who definitely cannot (although that could probably change in a life-death scenario, which triggers most peoples bodies to stop resisting simply for survival). I get traumatic flashbacks from a cat's death for peet sakes!

I might have to think about it more and what I'm about to say probably makes no sense, but for now I still think that doing things that result in good outcomes is not equal to being moral. Killing people is bad because it violates basic human rights. Therefore, it's immoral. If the people in the military kill other people for their country's sake, they are still immoral. However, their immorality in this area is outweighed by the benefits that the country gains, and therefore they don't look as immoral as people who kill for fun.

Wait. :|

While empathy wise, killing is "wrong," logically speaking there is always equal good to do with killing that would end up making up for the loss of mental ability and life in general.
For example, what if killing someone made someone else force themselves to become better than anyone else? Or perhaps encouraged them to become a brilliant person. Maybe even a policeman or detective (perhaps someone famous for being a good one). Quite frankly, ignoring the empathy one would receive from taking anothers life (which evolution has firmly cemented in us to prevent our genocide), there is little reason not to kill a lot of people.

Well, the key here is "what if." I have in mind mentally-unstable people like Barry the Chopper who kill for fun. No good whatsoever will come after the killing; just a personal satisfaction and a desire to kill more. And I think we're trying to ignore empathy here.

Also, if there is any good that will come from killing, it cannot be attributed to the killing itself because there will be several factors involved. For example, can one instantly transform into a brilliant person right after he kills? No. (Smack me if I'm going off-tangent here. It's been a long day.)

Unfortunately the scope and types of people one kills changes from subjective view to subjective view (One might hate whores, and kill them Jack the Ripper style, while another might hate scientists and assassinate them), so I can't really say that there is some objective route to this.

Agreed.

Except, it's not objectively wrong. Each have goals, and in order to reach those goals one must die. This is mostly common with religious viewpoints; if conversion is not applicable, then slaughter is the last resort (democracy is OUT the window!).
But recently on a modern scale, it's not been so much religious as political (politics is religious if you ask me). And in most cases in order for one side to get their way, or protect their way, war is the only option (since neither side is willing to talk). So it isn't really religion so much as conflicting ideals neither side is willing to talk out (nor can).

However, lets define virtues (the definition of moral on answers.com basically said "virtue."):

1. Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness.
2. An example or kind of moral excellence: the virtue of patience.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=virtue&gwp=13

Yes, morals equate to good. But it's a different kind of good: It's good relies on the empathy one feels about something. Which means it's the most subjective and inaccurate thing one can live ones life by.

Pedophile: Molesting a child is not immoral
Person: Molesting a child is immoral

Since both rely on the same empathy infrastructure in the brain, who is right? Answer: Neither. I'll give you a cookie if you figure out why.

Maybe I should have read the entire post before I started replying to it, but I'm too tired to rewrite everything. But just as a note: pedophiles usually know that molesting a child is "immoral," especially if they have been conditioned to believe so (i.e., if they grew up in countries like the U.S.). Pedophiles end up molesting children anyway because they can't control their urge and they don't think they'll get caught, not because they don't think it's not immoral.

Whatever, I guess I can't prove my point, but somehow I know that some things are good and others are evil, regardless of perspective.

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

Whatever, I guess I can't prove my point, but somehow I know that some things are good and others are evil, regardless of perspective.

You know, I didn't know half of what I was talking about either, but at least I made attempts to sound otherwise by disguising ignorance as some elaborate mumbo jumbo. Pseudointellectualim rocks. You should try it sometimes.

Originally Posted by pseudoscientist

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

Whatever, I guess I can't prove my point, but somehow I know that some things are good and others are evil, regardless of perspective.

You know, I didn't know half of what I was talking about either, but at least I made attempts to sound otherwise by disguising ignorance as some elaborate mumbo jumbo. Pseudointellectualim rocks. You should try it sometimes.

Yes, I noticed. Replaced that with actual knowledge, and maybe I'll spend more time *REPLYING* instead of not replying to that large body of text you wrote.

But on the "no good whatsoever" point (really quick): there is good that comes out of it. You just aren't looking at a large enough picture to see it (kinda a cheap wise-man saying I know, but true).

As for pedophiles "knowing" it's immoral: INTELLECTUALLY they know that society VIEWS it as immoral. EMPATHY wise, they don't view it as immoral. Although some pedophiles receive conflicting arguments in their brain, but this is normally intellectual vs. empathetic. Empathetic tends to win (unless they receive therapy).

P.S: google search for "Foamy" and click the first link. it should be a website with cartoons on it made in flash about foamy the squirrel.

Jeremy, do you think that there are absolutes (standards, morals, etc) ?

Pssh. myhfht, you would never have noticed if I didn't volunteer to say that out loud.

I'd like to take the discussion more seriously (i.e., when I'm more awake), but I'm currently at a loss as to what morality has to do with whether or not God created evil. We probably have strayed away a little too far from the main topic here, and if we haven't, we really need to start looking at the big picture as opposed to the silly little details.

With that said, did God create evil? I say yes. I shall now retreat from this discussion until I feel like taking sides again. Cheers.

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

Jeremy, do you think that there are absolutes (standards, morals, etc) ?

...pssst...big hint mr. clueless (since apparently you haven't been reading what I write): No.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Originally Posted by The One Who Knows

Jeremy, do you think that there are absolutes (standards, morals, etc) ?

...pssst...big hint mr. clueless (since apparently you haven't been reading what I write): No.

The question is what exactly does a yes or no answer to that question really mean.

Some people say yes when what they means is that someone (whom they call God) arbitrarily decides what is evil or bad and what is not. To the atheist this means they or their religion arbitrarily decides what is evil or bad and what is not. So does absolute mean arbitrary?

Other people naturally say no to this question when they understand it to mean something like the above, because they believe in some standard of good versus evil based on some principle like avoiding harm to other people - or to other living things. Somehow this seems more substantial - more absolute - to me that the arbitrary determination of good and evil dictated by someone.

So what exactly does "absolutes (standards, morals, etc)" mean? And what does Jeremy's denial mean?

Just a thought. An evil God would naturally declare an evil creation good. 'And the Lord saw that it was good', no doubt He did. In fact it all makes more sense if God is evil.

What's more evil? Knowing your evil and acting evil or knowing your evil and acting good? The former pulls no punches but the latter intentionally disguises evil. God could very easily be the most evil force known in the universe.

I can't fathom a benevolent God committing evil acts no matter what excuse we give Him to do so. On the other hand, committing evil acts should be like falling off a log for an evil God, even to the point of being boring. However an evil God can disguise an evil act as a gesture of love just to make it more evil than ianyone could magine.

I think the best way to commit evil acts is to have your victims accept it as love. Maybe God didn't create evil but it appears He revels in it, the ultimate high, His elixir for life.

There may not be such things as good and evil.

Originally Posted by jjg

I think you have to define evil first.

I think I just did define "evil"! It is a Christian term representing the force and the result of the force of Satan. When you use the term other ways, you are misusing it. When President Bush said in 2002 he was going to "eliminate evil" he was talking religion and expressing his intent to ravage reactionary Islam. Notice there is no Christian nation on his list of the "Axis of Evil."

We evolved as huntingf/gathering group social animals and have an instinctive moral-social nature. Some of us are relatively "good" or better and some relatively less so or "bad." There is no such thing as "badness" nor "evil."

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

No,

I think that evil created God.

The necessity of our intelligent forefathers to control the masses via crime reduction through fear to engage the all important step of protecting the human race and society, id say.

I just happened to find this old thread. Mitchel wrote the last post and we end up with the usual argument that it was taken out of context. In other words, if you don't like something in the Bible, you go to another translation and if that doesn't work, you claim it is out of context.

If you believe God created the universe, you would defend God as creator of everything, both good and "evil" and quite trying to account for something He did not create! Are you saying he made a mistake and something else created "evil" and he did not create that "something else?

If you do not believe God createde the universe, do you believe in evolution! Then where did "evil" come from?

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Sorry, for the inturuption. I didn't read any of the other posts but, was just inspired by the main question.

What if evil created god?

That's all I got.

I am surprised that anyone would be so defensive about what God claims to have created! Of course "He created evil" because if he exists at all, he created everything. If there is "evil" then he created it or he made a mistake and it arose anyway. Why make a big issue over that? The real question is WHY he did it?

In the quoted text, God bragged about creating evil and about creating everything and being the ONLY god, the one of "Israel" (of the Jews). He was bragging about his power in order to impress Cyrus---to make him feel threatened. "Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker!" verse 9

Apparently you have your own distinction between what is immoral and what is "EVIL." Is "evil" caused by Satan? I make a distinction also. I say that "evil" is an old religion word that represents the influence of the devil and, hence, does not exist. People are evolved social beings with an innate moral sense. There are those who are less moral and those who are more immoral, but there is no such thing as "evil."

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Sorry, for the inturuption. I didn't read any of the other posts but, was just inspired by the main question.

What if evil created god?

That's all I got.

Doesn't really matter, does it? :wink:

Well many people spend their whole live trying to find God. Maybe they must first identify evil before they can be capable of seeing from a view that allows them to see God... :? yeeah...

Originally Posted by charles brough

Apparently you have your own distinction between what is immoral and what is "EVIL." Is "evil" caused by Satan? I make a distinction also. I say that "evil" is an old religion word that represents the influence of the devil and, hence, does not exist. People are evolved social beings with an innate moral sense. There are those who are less moral and those who are more immoral, but there is no such thing as "evil."

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Well I think evil in the context of this thread means suffering/unhappiness/immorality in general. In the context of the Christian faith, if one believes the devil is the root of all evil, God indirectly created evil through creating the devil (and was fully aware that the devil would become evil <or not> because He is omniscient). In the context of theism in general, He indirectly created evil, because the actors in question were created by Him.

"mitchellmckain"
""""Mine is the New King James. But I already demonstrated quite clearly from the context that your translation is misleading you to make an interpretation which was never intended by that passage. It is never a good practice to take a passage out of context to prove something entirely unrelated.""""

Hello! I just came across this post! I re-read the whole Biblical chapter and it is clear that God was bragging about how powerful and ruthless he was in order to intimiidate someone. That is the context which you claim I removed it from!

Also, you liken the presense of "evil" to an unknown hereditary defect showing up in a new born baby! We humans are not omnipotent, but doesn't God claim to be omnipotent in the Bible? You are saying he does this in which he does not know what the outcome will be. . . that the outcome is in doubt and up to chance, He rolls the dice, so to speak. Is that what you are admitting?

The appearance of "evil" had to be either a mistake or deliberate in the Biblical picture of things. It has to be one or the other. No matter how you rationalize it, and how many paragraphs you take to explain your position, it all adds up to the same thing. It is one or the other.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

[

The Devil = The Ego
Evil = Temptation/Craving
Jesus = Realization
God = Freedom

In this analogy Evil and its source have always existed (recently the Devil has become quite powerful) and Jesus created God. The ultimate obtainment.

Originally Posted by charles brough

God "understands" evil because he brags about creating it! See Isah. 45:7

By the way, "evil" is only an old religion word and has no validity in science. It is used to represent the force of Satan. Since there IS no evil god either, there is no evil. There are dishonest and immoral people, but no "evil."

The same is with "sacred," "sin," "holy," and even "truth." All these are holdbacks from ancient time and all interere with clear and accurate scientific thought. We never seek "truth" but ACCURACY.


charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

what i believe is that God created evil to give man a choice. if evil did not exist, then man would be forced to simply obey God, which isnt true faith. Why did God place the apple tree in the Garden of Eden? Because he wanted Adam and Eve to choose to obey him, not to obey him mindlessly like a robot would.

If you torture someone or compel them to love you, is that true love? Isn't it much more meaningful if the person makes a conscious choice to love you?

Then you should also offer your children the choices between drugs and education.

Originally Posted by ZebraFiesta

what i believe is that God created evil to give man a choice. if evil did not exist, then man would be forced to simply obey God, which isnt true faith. Why did God place the apple tree in the Garden of Eden? Because he wanted Adam and Eve to choose to obey him, not to obey him mindlessly like a robot would.

welcome to the scienceforum. if you take the bible literally, they dis-obeyed, now could you explain how adam and eve could make any choice, prior to having the knowledge of good and evil, and do think about your answer please, thank you.

Originally Posted by prasit

Then you should also offer your children the choices between drugs and education.

They do have the choice...insofar as you let them through that door to go to school, they have the choice; they are exposed to drugs in every way possible.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by ZebraFiesta

what i believe is that God created evil to give man a choice. if evil did not exist, then man would be forced to simply obey God, which isnt true faith. Why did God place the apple tree in the Garden of Eden? Because he wanted Adam and Eve to choose to obey him, not to obey him mindlessly like a robot would.

welcome to the scienceforum. if you take the bible literally, they dis-obeyed, now could you explain how adam and eve could make any choice, prior to having the knowledge of good and evil, and do think about your answer please, thank you.

you raise a good point, you have stumped me

spt wrote:

They do have the choice...insofar as you let them through that door to go to school, they have the choice; they are exposed to drugs in every way possible.

Then why does government try to stop it? It should be set up alongside the school. Let the children decide, the same way as God let Adam decide.

Originally Posted by prasit

spt wrote:

They do have the choice...insofar as you let them through that door to go to school, they have the choice; they are exposed to drugs in every way possible.

Then why does government try to stop it? It should be set up alongside the school. Let the children decide, the same way as God let Adam decide.

Well...now you're changing it from the parents to the government...

Regardless, the government acts kind of like God. While there are restrictions and consequences with respect to drug use, the kids aren't confined to the point that they cannot access drugs...they still have freedoms. Similarly, while God at times places restrictions on our actions, we still have the freedom of choice, and face the consequences of our choices (for example, hell for a life of evil).

And consider this fact: illegal drugs are inherently "evil"; the fruit wasn't inherently evil.

spt wrote:

Well...now you're changing it from the parents to the government...

Because parents are powerless to stop drugs access, not that they don't want to.

While there are restrictions and consequences with respect to drug use, the kids aren't confined to the point that they cannot access drugs...they still have freedoms.

Not that the Government does not want to confined them so that they cannot access drugs, but it is because by doing so, it also stop access to other things that are not evil. If the Government has a way to get rid of all drugs from its country without impacting anything else they would certainly do so. God, on the other hand, purposefully let Adam have access to the apple. It is like you let your two-year old child into a room full of cake and tell him not to eat any. You know your child well enough that he cannot resist the temptation. Does God know Adam well enough? Was Adam so unpredictable? Did he know what would happen?

Originally Posted by prasit

spt wrote:

Well...now you're changing it from the parents to the government...

Because parents are powerless to stop drugs access, not that they don't want to.

Regardless, you originally said parents.

Originally Posted by prasit

While there are restrictions and consequences with respect to drug use, the kids aren't confined to the point that they cannot access drugs...they still have freedoms.

Not that the Government does not want to confined them so that they cannot access drugs, but it is because by doing so, it also stop access to other things that are not evil.

Like?

Originally Posted by prasit

If the Government has a way to get rid of all drugs from its country without impacting anything else they would certainly do so. God, on the other hand, purposefully let Adam have access to the apple. It is like you let your two-year old child into a room full of cake and tell him not to eat any. You know your child well enough that he cannot resist the temptation.

Like I said, illegal drugs are inherently evil; fruits and cakes aren't. So while it would be foolish for children to take drugs because it's harmful, it's foolish for them to eat cake if their parents tell them not to.

Originally Posted by prasit

Does God know Adam well enough?

Yes.

Originally Posted by prasit

Was Adam so unpredictable?

No.

Originally Posted by prasit

Did he know what would happen?

Yes, He knew what would happen (He's omniscient).

pst wrote:

Like I said, illegal drugs are inherently evil; fruits and cakes aren't. So while it would be foolish for children to take drugs because it's harmful, it's foolish for them to eat cake if their parents tell them not to.

My point is: we do not intend to give our loved ones the choices of evil and good, especially when it is likely that they may choose the evil. As God knows everything, past, present and future, He knows that, under the circumstances set by himself, Adam would disobey him and committed sin. Yet He punished Adam, his own creation because he did somehing evil, which He introduced, and knows fully that Adam would not have done otherwise.

I have changed from parents to government, cake to fruit, children to Adam. But there is no change in the intended message. I hope it is clear enough for you to understand.

Originally Posted by prasit

pst wrote:

Like I said, illegal drugs are inherently evil; fruits and cakes aren't. So while it would be foolish for children to take drugs because it's harmful, it's foolish for them to eat cake if their parents tell them not to.

My point is: we do not intend to give our loved ones the choices of evil and good, especially when it is likely that they may choose the evil. As God knows everything, past, present and future, He knows that, under the circumstances set by himself, Adam would disobey him and committed sin. Yet He punished Adam, his own creation because he did somehing evil, which He introduced, and knows fully that Adam would not have done otherwise.

I have changed from parents to government, cake to fruit, children to Adam. But there is no change in the intended message. I hope it is clear enough for you to understand.

God didn't make Adam eat the fruit. He may have known that he would have eaten it, but to preclude his eating it by not introducing it to him would:

1) Reduce man's free will. If God precludes all our actions out of love, we cannot have free will. The rich parent who makes his son dependent on him all his life is considered a bad parent, because he never allows his son any independence.

2) Not proven man's trustworthiness, or lack thereof. God needed to make man freely accept him. If man accepted him with no temptations, then that wouldn't be acceptance. If you and your spouse never argue simply because you are filthy rich, you can't assert that you have a strong relationship, as no test was there to prove this relationship strong. So he knew Adam would have disobeyed him, but it had to happen in order to allow man's free will, and to make man develop a genuine relationship with him. Atheists (or, rather, some) are a good example of this. Atheists don't have a good (actually, don't have any) relationship with God--many out of awe at what's happening in the world. These are the people who would have had a good relationship with God only if they lived in the Garden.

spt wrote:

1) Reduce man's free will. If God precludes all our actions out of love, we cannot have free will. The rich parent who makes his son dependent on him all his life is considered a bad parent, because he never allows his son any independence.

God is pondering: I can set a number of circumstances for Adam:
a) Hang an apple 30 metre-high. Tell him not to eat it. I KNOW he, under his free will, will not climb that high just to pick an apple.
b) Put the apple within easy reach. Tell him not to eat it. Show him vividly the horror, the pain, the sorrow he and all his subsequent offsprings will have to endure for millenium. Let him feel the pain for a minute, then leave. I KNOW he will realize how serious I am. And he, under free will, will not take the apple.
c) Put the apple within easy reach. Tell him not to eat it. Tell him very little about the consequence. Then leave. I KNOW he, under free will, will take the apple.
d) Make an apple-pie. Tell him it is delicious. Tell him he can eat it. Then leave. I KNOW he, under free will, will eat the apple-pie.

And God decided on option c. Because on the surface, it actually looks like Adam acted on his free will, without any external influences. He also KNOW that a lot of people will believe this.

God needed to make man freely accept him. If man accepted him with no temptations, then that wouldn't be acceptance.

Why does God need men to accept him at all? Does he need recognition? And as God is omniscient, He KNOWs already all the circumstances that will MAKE men, under his free will, accept or not accept Him. If He controls the circumstances, can we still say men act under freewill? If He does not, are the acceptance random events?

I would like to butt in with couple of points, to the both of you.
firstly god being a perfect being would want for nothing, so it would certainly not need anybody to accept it.
secondly god knowing all, before hand eradicates, Adams free will.
thirdly in regard to Adams free will, from where did it come, prior to eating of the fruit.
free will is the ability to make choices, how was that possible, prior to eating the fruit.

Originally Posted by prasit

spt wrote:

1) Reduce man's free will. If God precludes all our actions out of love, we cannot have free will. The rich parent who makes his son dependent on him all his life is considered a bad parent, because he never allows his son any independence.

God is pondering: I can set a number of circumstances for Adam:
a) Hang an apple 30 metre-high. Tell him not to eat it. I KNOW he, under his free will, will not climb that high just to pick an apple.
b) Put the apple within easy reach. Tell him not to eat it. Show him vividly the horror, the pain, the sorrow he and all his subsequent offsprings will have to endure for millenium. Let him feel the pain for a minute, then leave. I KNOW he will realize how serious I am. And he, under free will, will not take the apple.
c) Put the apple within easy reach. Tell him not to eat it. Tell him very little about the consequence. Then leave. I KNOW he, under free will, will take the apple.
d) Make an apple-pie. Tell him it is delicious. Tell him he can eat it. Then leave. I KNOW he, under free will, will eat the apple-pie.

And God decided on option c. Because on the surface, it actually looks like Adam acted on his free will, without any external influences. He also KNOW that a lot of people will believe this.

First of all, the above shows your complete lack of knowledge concerning this specific story (the devil tempted EVE, who then ate the fruit and presented it to Adam; further, the fruit wasn't specified to be an apple: people just assume this. Secondly, God wanted to test his obedience. If God told him in detail the consequences, he'd not eat it because of the CONSEQUENCES, not because he is obedient; similarly, if God put it out of reach, he'd not eat it because he CANNOT reach it, not out of obedience.

Originally Posted by prasit

God needed to make man freely accept him. If man accepted him with no temptations, then that wouldn't be acceptance.

Why does God need men to accept him at all? Does he need recognition? And as God is omniscient, He KNOWs already all the circumstances that will MAKE men, under his free will, accept or not accept Him. If He controls the circumstances, can we still say men act under freewill? If He does not, are the acceptance random events?

Indeed, he doesn't control how events happen (when He doesn't want to). That is why science exists, because things can happen NATURALLY (which is not to say randomly).

Originally Posted by geezer

secondly god knowing all, before hand eradicates, Adams free will.

Doctors often know that their patients are going to die in a few weeks: that doesn't mean that they control their free will.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by geezer

secondly god knowing all, before hand eradicates, Adams free will.

Doctors often know that their patients are going to die in a few weeks: that doesn't mean that they control their free will.

what an utterly stupid statement, there is no comparison between an all knowing, all seeing being and a doctor, I know doctors sometime can appear to be gods, but lets not give them this accolade.

doctors may know someones going to die, but they cant know the exact minute, but your god does.
anyway you haven't explained this "thirdly in regard to Adams free will, from where did it come, prior to eating of the fruit.
free will is the ability to make choices, how was that possible, prior to eating the fruit."

Originally Posted by geezer

firstly god being a perfect being would want for nothing, so it would certainly not need anybody to accept it.

Agreed!

Originally Posted by geezer

secondly god knowing all, before hand eradicates, Adams free will.
thirdly in regard to Adams free will, from where did it come, prior to eating of the fruit.

Agreed!

However there are a rather large number of Christians who reject this rather strange conception of a God. This is called open theism. This idea of a God who is chained to a human definition of being all-knowing or all-powerful is not worthy of worship, but defiance. And so it is that I worship a God of love and goodness, instead.

Originally Posted by geezer

free will is the ability to make choices, how was that possible, prior to eating the fruit.

This however is a little twisted and I suspect is something left over from some previous religious affiliation. If Adam and Eve had no free will priory to eating the "fruit" then they are not responsible, and if they are not even responsible for the circumstances which have been thrust upon their descendants then how are any of us responsible?

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by geezer

secondly god knowing all, before hand eradicates, Adams free will.

Doctors often know that their patients are going to die in a few weeks: that doesn't mean that they control their free will.

what an utterly stupid statement, there is no comparison between an all knowing, all seeing being and a doctor, I know doctors sometime can appear to be gods, but lets not give them this accolade.

doctors may know someones going to die, but they cant know the exact minute, but your god does.

You fail to understand my analogy. What I'm saying is that one's knowing the outcome of a situation does not mean that one controls the outcome of that situation.

Originally Posted by geezer

anyway you haven't explained this "thirdly in regard to Adams free will, from where did it come, prior to eating of the fruit.
free will is the ability to make choices, how was that possible, prior to eating the fruit."

Man had free will prior to eating the fruit. What I'm saying is that if God had precluded man's eating the fruit, man wouldn't be free to shape the path of his destiny (as God would be in essence preventing his actions beforehand).

spt wrote:

First of all, the above shows your complete lack of knowledge concerning this specific story (the devil tempted EVE, who then ate the fruit and presented it to Adam; further, the fruit wasn't specified to be an apple: people just assume this.

Just stick to the essence of this debate. omit trivial detail.

Secondly, God wanted to test his obedience.

Why did He want to do that? He already KNEW the result. He created Adam, He set Adam's obedient level to be lower than a dog, higher than a donkey. He KNOWs what kind of circumtances will make Adam jump (by his own free will, of course). A good psychologist can design an experiment to make a subject behave in a certain way, by his own free will. God, by definition, can do much better. He can do it Perfectly.

Indeed, he doesn't control how events happen (when He doesn't want to). That is why science exists, because things can happen NATURALLY

Oh. He just happened to put Adam where an apple is nearby, unintentionally. Unknowingly of the consequence, perhaps?

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

You fail to understand my analogy. What I'm saying is that one's knowing the outcome of a situation does not mean that one controls the outcome of that situation.

You are quite right. However, assuming that a person knows what will happen, I see only 4 possibilities
1. That person has no power to influence events
2. That regardless of whether the person has the power to influence events the person is not involved in the shaping of events.
3. The person is involved in the shaping of events, but his power is limited, and so there are events which he can shape and events which he can do nothing about.
4. The person is involved in the shaping of events and being all powerful, he is not limited in either which events he can manipulate or the details of those event which he can control. However, since he also knows the precise consequences of his involvement in every detail, then what ever happens, happens precisely because that is what he decides will happen.

I believe that geezer was assuming that like most Christians (including myself) you believe in a God that is all powerful and involved in human events. This is why geezer automatically selected option 4, in which human free will is utterly nonexistent. But perhaps you believe in a different kind of god.

1. A God so powerless that He can do nothing.

2. The Deist God who does not involve himself in our affairs.

3. A God who is limited in what He can do.

4. Christian God but man has no free will.

Now my God is none of these because like othe open theists I do not accept this idea that God absolutely knows everything that we will do before we do it, and that is why I can affirm that God is all powerful and all knowing (in the more meaningful sense that he is capable of all knowlege and power subject to His own will) and that He is involved in human affairs and yet that human beings have free will because God is willing to sacrifice absolute control over events that we may have this free will.

5. Christian God who chooses not to know everything that we will do before we do it because the act of acquiring this knowledge would destroy our free will.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Man had free will prior to eating the fruit. What I'm saying is that if God had precluded man's eating the fruit, man wouldn't be free to shape the path of his destiny (as God would be in essence preventing his actions beforehand).

More than that, man would not even be alive, but just characters in a novel which God had written.

Mitch wrote:

5. Christian God who chooses not to know everything that we will do before we do it because the act of acquiring this knowledge would destroy our free will.

If you put food on a plate and call your dog, you know it will come running for it. Does it mean the dog does not have free will?

Originally Posted by prasit

Mitch wrote:

5. Christian God who chooses not to know everything that we will do before we do it because the act of acquiring this knowledge would destroy our free will.

If you put food on a plate and call your dog, you know it will come running for it. Does it mean the dog does not have free will?

No, but if you know absolutely what the dog will do as a result of your actions, (for example you know that if you take your dog outside and show him a place where he can dig then he will never poop on your carpet again, and you likewise know that if you just say "bad doggie" then he will continue to poop on your carpet) then isn't it you who are responsible and you who decide what the dog will do? Of course this simple example does not mean the dog has no free will, but now carry this to the extreme and apply it to every single action of the dog, because remember you know exactly what it will do in response to your every action. Now then in this extreme case, who controls the action of your dog, and more more importantly who is responsible for what the dog does?

Now of course there are ways out of this and I outlined them in the post above in 1-3.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

This however is a little twisted and I suspect is something left over from some previous religious affiliation.

twisted how.
explain how, they could have had the free will to make choice's without the knowledge to weight the pros and cons, having the free will to make a choice and having no knowledge at all as to what a choice's outcome will be or why theres a choice in the first place.
having free will, is useless without knowledge.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

If Adam and Eve had no free will priory to eating the "fruit" then they are not responsible, and if they are not even responsible for the circumstances which have been thrust upon their descendants then how are any of us responsible?

exactly.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Man had free will prior to eating the fruit.

how, please explain. I ask again " from where did Adams free will come, prior to eating of the fruit.
given that, free will is the ability to make choices, how was this possible, prior to eating the fruit."

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

What I'm saying is that if God had precluded man's eating the fruit, man wouldn't be free to shape the path of his destiny (as God would be in essence preventing his actions beforehand).

that was your debate with prasit, I interested in your response to the questions I posed.(see above)

Mitch wrote:

Now then in this extreme case, who controls the action of your dog, and more more importantly who is responsible for what the dog does?

Q: Who controls the action of the dog? The dog does.
Q: Who is responsible for what the dog does? The dog is. The owner is. The dog's mother is. And so on.
What is your definition of free will?

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

This however is a little twisted and I suspect is something left over from some previous religious affiliation.

twisted how.
explain how, they could have had the free will to make choice's without the knowledge to weight the pros and cons, having the free will to make a choice and having no knowledge at all as to what a choice's outcome will be or why theres a choice in the first place.
having free will, is useless without knowledge.

Twisted for one because you seem to think there is a tree which gives you knowledge by eating the fruit. This is not how knowlege is gained. With a name like "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil", this "tree" is the most obviously symbolic thing in the whole Bible. If you have decided that the comic book/fairy tale interpretation of Genesis has no truth in it, then I applaud you, for you are right. Comic books and fairy tales are for entertainment only, unless you understand them in an alegorical manner.

Just because a choice is made in ignorance of all the consequences of that choice does not mean there is no free will. Free will is simply the freedom to make the choice not the freedom to control the future. This is the nature of a living being. A living being is a finite being with finite understanding but with the capacity to learn and become more than it is. It makes choices and the in the process of making those choices it makes mistakes and learns from them, thereby becoming more that it was.

Unfortunately this can be a dangerous and so a child usually needs the guidance of a parent to warn them that certain actions have deadly consequences. Thus parental commandments are indispensible in the process of a child growing up, to help the child through the transition from being protected from the dangers of the world by the parent to avoiding the dangers of the world for himself. That there are dangers in the world is unavoidable for they can be found within the child himself in his own ability to be creative.

It is also a common misconception that the fall of man was due to disobedience. But the fall of man had much more to do with the behavior of Adam and Eve afterwards. They blamed each other, God and the snake. By doing so they refused to be responsible, which means they refused to learn from their mistake. This made God's presence in their lives do more harm than good and thus it was necessary for them to make it on their own so that they could learn to face the fact that their actions had consequences that could not be escaped by blaming others and expecting God or these other to be responsible for everything.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

If Adam and Eve had no free will priory to eating the "fruit" then they are not responsible, and if they are not even responsible for the circumstances which have been thrust upon their descendants then how are any of us responsible?

exactly.

[/quote]
So this idea that Adam and Eve only had free will after they ate the fruit is contradictory and meaningless.

Originally Posted by prasit

Mitch wrote:

Now then in this extreme case, who controls the action of your dog, and more more importantly who is responsible for what the dog does?

Q: Who controls the action of the dog? The dog does.
Q: Who is responsible for what the dog does? The dog is. The owner is. The dog's mother is. And so on.
What is your definition of free will?

I disagree and your answers make no sense.

To have free will (to be alive) is to be responsible by making the choices that determine ones behavior. It is the nature of life and free will that ones actions are influenced but not controlled by a variety of influences. Life is a delicate balance between sensitivity to the environment and independence from the environment. The moment that influence moves over from mere influence into control, that balance is broken and life and free will ceases to exist.

In this case it is the all knowing owner who makes all the relevent choices about what the dog does every second and therefore he has the only responsibility for what the dog does. The dog makes no choices at all. In this case I have described, the dog is an extension of his will alone and dog has no free will at all. It has indeed no independent life but is merely a limb of the owner.

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Man had free will prior to eating the fruit.

how, please explain. I ask again " from where did Adams free will come, prior to eating of the fruit.
given that, free will is the ability to make choices, how was this possible, prior to eating the fruit."

Man had free will prior to eating the fruit. Man had not expressed (or, at least, not significantly expressed) his free will prior to eating the fruit. But in eating the fruit, or not eating it thereof, man was supposed to express his free will. It's like you having a bike. The state of you having the bike but not using it is analogous to the state of man before eating the fruit. The state of you riding the bike would be analogous to the state of man after eating the fruit.
*This is to defend the views of those who take Genesis completely literally. I myself interpret Genesis a lot less literally (for example, six days implies six steps, not six days) than others...interpreting it literally, to me, presents it almost as complete myth. Genesis is not a detailed account of what happens, contrary to some views. There are several jumps here and there (where'd Cain's wife come from?) that, apparently, God, or the physical writer(s) thereof, thought were unnecessary. In my interpretation, there may have been instances in which Adam expressed his free will: instances that were deemed unnecessary.*

mitch wrote:

To have free will (to be alive)

To have free will is not equal to to be alive.

Life is a delicate balance between sensitivity to the environment and independence from the environment.

Plant has life. Chickens have life. Prisoners in Guantanamo have lives. Life is not a delicate balance. It is a struggle for survival.

The moment that influence moves over from mere influence into control, that balance is broken and life and free will ceases to exist.

How to we determine the moment? 100% control? 99%? Did the prisoners in Auswich have free will? Were they alive?
God created Adam. At which time did He cease to be responsible for Adam action?

Originally Posted by prasit

mitch wrote:

To have free will (to be alive)

To have free will is not equal to to be alive.

On the contrary it is exactly the same thing. Only human beings are more alive and thus have correspondingly more free will. Life and free will are quantitative things and they are in fact inspeperable.

Originally Posted by prasit

Life is a delicate balance between sensitivity to the environment and independence from the environment.

Plant has life. Chickens have life. Prisoners in Guantanamo have lives. Life is not a delicate balance. It is a struggle for survival.

Plants and chickens have free will. They do not have much free will but they do have it and the measure of that free will is also the measure of their life.

The prisoners in Guantanamo have free will. Freedom and free will are not the same thing.

No, life is not just a struggle for survival. That is just stupid. If that were the case then rocks being much better at survival would be more alive than people are.

Originally Posted by prasit

The moment that influence moves over from mere influence into control, that balance is broken and life and free will ceases to exist.

How to we determine the moment? 100% control? 99%?

The are many indicators depending on the form of life in question. For the human body and most mamals, body temperature is a good indicator. Mammals maintain a body temperature independent of their environment. When the body fails to do this and the temperature goes outside a certain range then this is an indicator of the onset of death.

Originally Posted by prasit

Did the prisoners in Auswich have free will? Were they alive?

Yes indeed. The Germans could kill them, torture them, and imprison them. But the Germans could not destroy their spirit. Like all prisoners there are always a few who can prove just how alive they are and how free their will is no matter how their jailors try to crush them.

Originally Posted by prasit

God created Adam. At which time did He cease to be responsible for Adam action?

God was never responsible for the actions of Adam or Eve.

God created Adam in the same way that all living things are created. As a gardner creates plants, and as a teacher creates doctors. This is not a process of design but of participation in the lives of living things to guide them and help them to realize their potential.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

This however is a little twisted and I suspect is something left over from some previous religious affiliation.

twisted how.
explain how, they could have had the free will to make choice's without the knowledge to weight the pros and cons, having the free will to make a choice and having no knowledge at all as to what a choice's outcome will be or why theres a choice in the first place.
having free will, is useless without knowledge.

Twisted for one because you seem to think there is a tree which gives you knowledge by eating the fruit.

no I dont think it, the bible states it.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

This is not how knowlege is gained. With a name like "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil", this "tree" is the most obviously symbolic thing in the whole Bible. If you have decided that the comic book/fairy tale interpretation of Genesis has no truth in it, then I applaud you, for you are right. Comic books and fairy tales are for entertainment only,

I'm glad you agree.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

unless you understand them in an allegorical manner.
Just because a choice is made in ignorance of all the consequences of that choice does not mean there is no free will.

I never said there wasn't free will I said it is invalid, without knowing how to make a choice.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Free will is simply the freedom to make the choice not the freedom to control the future. This is the nature of a living being. A living being is a finite being with finite understanding but with the capacity to learn and become more than it is. It makes choices and the in the process of making those choices it makes mistakes and learns from them, thereby becoming more that it was.

agreed, but what has that to do with the adam and eve scenerio, prior to the eating of this fruit/gaining of the knowledge, they weren't really making choices, or put another way they were the choices of a chimpanze, with only a very limited understanding of the consequences.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Unfortunately this can be dangerous and so a child usually needs the guidance of a parent to warn them that certain actions have deadly consequences. Thus parental commandments are indispensible in the process of a child growing up, to help the child through the transition from being protected from the dangers of the world by the parent to avoiding the dangers of the world for himself. That there are dangers in the world is unavoidable for they can be found within the child himself in his own ability to be creative.

exactly, however in this case, the child/adam was unaware, of the consequences of it action because it had very limited understand, of said consequences, even though god and the serpent, had told it so.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

It is also a common misconception that the fall of man was due to disobedience.

most definitely considering they were coerced.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

But the fall of man had much more to do with the behavior of Adam and Eve afterwards. They blamed each other, God and the snake. By doing so they refused to be responsible, which means they refused to learn from their mistake.

isn't that just like any child it takes two three tries before they understand fully, did you learn to read and write overnight, no of course not.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

This made God's presence in their lives do more harm than good and thus it was necessary for them to make it on their own so that they could learn to face the fact that their actions had consequences that could not be escaped by blaming others and expecting God or these other to be responsible for everything.

so in effect the parent of these children, abandoned them when they needed it most nice parent.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

If Adam and Eve had no free will priory to eating the "fruit" then they are not responsible, and if they are not even responsible for the circumstances which have been thrust upon their descendants then how are any of us responsible?

exactly.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

So this idea that Adam and Eve only had free will after they ate the fruit is contradictory and meaningless.

I never said that, I repeat, I said it was invalidated, without knowledge.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Originally Posted by geezer

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Man had free will prior to eating the fruit.

how, please explain. I ask again " from where did Adams free will come, prior to eating of the fruit.
given that, free will is the ability to make choices, how was this possible, prior to eating the fruit."

Man had free will prior to eating the fruit.

no one said different.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

Man had not expressed (or, at least, not significantly expressed) his free will prior to eating the fruit.

exactly.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

But in eating the fruit, or not eating it thereof, man was supposed to express his free will.

but how, they were the choices of a chimpanze or a very small child, with very limited understanding.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

It's like you having a bike. The state of you having the bike but not using it is analogous to the state of man before eating the fruit. The state of you riding the bike would be analogous to the state of man after eating the fruit.

exactly, what I said free will is invalidated without knowledge.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

*This is to defend the views of those who take Genesis completely literally. I myself interpret Genesis a lot less literally (for example, six days implies six steps, not six days) than others...interpreting it literally, to me, presents it almost as complete myth. Genesis is not a detailed account of what happens, contrary to some views. There are several jumps here and there (where'd Cain's wife come from?) that, apparently, God, or the physical writer(s) thereof, thought were unnecessary. In my interpretation, there may have been instances in which Adam expressed his free will: instances that were deemed unnecessary.*

so what I can gaver, from both your response's, is that adam and eve were not responsible, for the fall from grace.