Evidence for God from Science

SoCalExile wrote:A little bathroom theodicy:

Love it!

That's going on my bathroom wall

BTW that pic is from this thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/co ... _theology/

He is a philosophy student at UNC - Chapel hill, and his logic is from De Malo by Thomas Aquinas.

It gels with Isaiah 45:7 https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%2045:7
"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things."

Technically, darkness doesn't exist, because it is simply the absence of light. Likewise, evil doesn't exist, it is just the absence of good. By creating good, God created the absence of good, which is evil.

Storyteller wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:A little bathroom theodicy:

Love it!

That's going on my bathroom wall

How could evil be the absence of God if God is everywhere? (Omnipresent)

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:A little bathroom theodicy:

Love it!

That's going on my bathroom wall

How could evil be the absence of God if God is everywhere? (Omnipresent)

Ken

Can't you ask me an easy question? Geez!

Okay, let's say your posts on here are God and the forum is 'everywhere'

Now lets say I choose to ignore your posts, I then can't see them, for me they are no longer there. You are still everywhere.
God is good. God is light. God is love.
Evil is an absence of God in the sense that He cannot reside in your heart alongside evil. I'm not explaining this very well!

Maybe, in the end, it comes down to perception anyway. God is everywhere for me yet nowhere for you.

One question for you though Ken. Where does evil come from if God does not exist? Animals are not evil.

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:A little bathroom theodicy:

Love it!

That's going on my bathroom wall

How could evil be the absence of God if God is everywhere? (Omnipresent)

Ken

Can't you ask me an easy question? Geez!

Okay, let's say your posts on here are God and the forum is 'everywhere'

Now lets say I choose to ignore your posts, I then can't see them, for me they are no longer there. You are still everywhere.
God is good. God is light. God is love.
Evil is an absence of God in the sense that He cannot reside in your heart alongside evil. I'm not explaining this very well!

Maybe, in the end, it comes down to perception anyway. God is everywhere for me yet nowhere for you.

One question for you though Ken. Where does evil come from if God does not exist? Animals are not evil.

I don't see evil as having an actual existence. I see evil as a term people use to describe specific human behavior. Just like stupid, funny, unfair, lazy, or other such adjectives don't exist; (nobody would ask where does lazy or stupid come from right?) I feel the same applies to evil.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:A little bathroom theodicy:

Love it!

That's going on my bathroom wall

How could evil be the absence of God if God is everywhere? (Omnipresent)

Ken

Can't you ask me an easy question? Geez!

Okay, let's say your posts on here are God and the forum is 'everywhere'

Now lets say I choose to ignore your posts, I then can't see them, for me they are no longer there. You are still everywhere.
God is good. God is light. God is love.
Evil is an absence of God in the sense that He cannot reside in your heart alongside evil. I'm not explaining this very well!

Maybe, in the end, it comes down to perception anyway. God is everywhere for me yet nowhere for you.

One question for you though Ken. Where does evil come from if God does not exist? Animals are not evil.

I don't see evil as having an actual existence. I see evil as a term people use to describe specific human behavior. Just like stupid, funny, unfair, lazy, or other such adjectives don't exist; (nobody would ask where does lazy or stupid come from right?) I feel the same applies to evil.

Ken

Ken,

You do realize in the context being discussed, evil is a noun, not an adjective?

**edit
I think a better comparison, to help you understand what evil is, would be darkness. Just as darkness is an absence of light, evil is an absence of good. Or, evil is an absence of what something ought to be.

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:A little bathroom theodicy:

Love it!

That's going on my bathroom wall

How could evil be the absence of God if God is everywhere? (Omnipresent)

Ken

Can't you ask me an easy question? Geez!

Okay, let's say your posts on here are God and the forum is 'everywhere'

Now lets say I choose to ignore your posts, I then can't see them, for me they are no longer there. You are still everywhere.
God is good. God is light. God is love.
Evil is an absence of God in the sense that He cannot reside in your heart alongside evil. I'm not explaining this very well!

Maybe, in the end, it comes down to perception anyway. God is everywhere for me yet nowhere for you.

One question for you though Ken. Where does evil come from if God does not exist? Animals are not evil.

I don't see evil as having an actual existence. I see evil as a term people use to describe specific human behavior. Just like stupid, funny, unfair, lazy, or other such adjectives don't exist; (nobody would ask where does lazy or stupid come from right?) I feel the same applies to evil.

Ken

I'm not saying evil has an actual existence, it is just a term to describe an act. These acts stem from the heart, or mind, or soul, however you want to describe it. Why, as humans, do we describe such things? How do we recognise an evil act? Is it some in built morality? Where does this come from?

A lion who takes over a pride will often kill the cubs then mate with the lionesses to ensure his genes are carried on. We don't see this as evil but if as a human we did that, we would. Why?

If, just for a moment, you consider God existing, then you have your answer.

RickD wrote: You do realize in the context being discussed, evil is a noun, not an adjective?

**edit
I think a better comparison, to help you understand what evil is, would be darkness. Just as darkness is an absence of light, evil is an absence of good. Or, evil is an absence of what something ought to be.

Excellent point! I see light as a "noun" with darkness being the absence of this noun; but I only see evil as an adjective.

Ken

Storyteller wrote:I'm not saying evil has an actual existence, it is just a term to describe an act. These acts stem from the heart, or mind, or soul, however you want to describe it. Why, as humans, do we describe such things?

I see such descriptions as subjective value judgments that humans naturally make

Storyteller wrote: How do we recognise an evil act? Is it some in built morality? Where does this come from?

I see it as based upon individual subjective opinion. An example might be; a Hindu might see a cow (Cows are sacred in that religion) slaughtered as evil where as a person who likes hamburgers might see it as the beginning of a very good meal! Who is right? Who is wrong? How do you tell if you take religion out of the picture?

Storyteller wrote: A lion who takes over a pride will often kill the cubs then mate with the lionesses to ensure his genes are carried on. We don't see this as evil but if as a human we did that, we would. Why?

Because evil is only something we put upon human behavior; not beast behavior.

Storyteller wrote: If, just for a moment, you consider God existing, then you have your answer.

True! God belief does make complicated questions much easier doesn’t it.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: You do realize in the context being discussed, evil is a noun, not an adjective?

**edit
I think a better comparison, to help you understand what evil is, would be darkness. Just as darkness is an absence of light, evil is an absence of good. Or, evil is an absence of what something ought to be.

Excellent point! I see light as a "noun" with darkness being the absence of this noun; but I only see evil as an adjective.

Ken

With statements like that, it's really no wonder why others here have difficulty talking to you Kenny.

Ken,

Let me tell you a little secret...Google "evil definition", and you'll see that it's also a noun. Why would you deny the reality of that Kenny?

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:I'm not saying evil has an actual existence, it is just a term to describe an act. These acts stem from the heart, or mind, or soul, however you want to describe it. Why, as humans, do we describe such things?

I see such descriptions as subjective value judgments that humans naturally make

Why do we make them when animals don't? What sets us apart from animals?

Storyteller wrote: How do we recognise an evil act? Is it some in built morality? Where does this come from?

I see it as based upon individual subjective opinion. An example might be; a Hindu might see a cow (Cows are sacred in that religion) slaughtered as evil where as a person who likes hamburgers might see it as the beginning of a very good meal! Who is right? Who is wrong? How do you tell if you take religion out of the picture?
Where does this subjective opinion come from?

Storyteller wrote: A lion who takes over a pride will often kill the cubs then mate with the lionesses to ensure his genes are carried on. We don't see this as evil but if as a human we did that, we would. Why?

Because evil is only something we put upon human behavior; not beast behavior.
Again, why?

Storyteller wrote: If, just for a moment, you consider God existing, then you have your answer.

True! God belief does make complicated questions much easier doesn’t it.

Nope, I think it makes it harder. We have to ask ourselves some pretty difficult questions and examine ourselves a lot more closely. Far easier to say we are just instinctual animals. Why do we have a concience, for instance?

Evil:
Full Definition of EVIL

1
a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
2
a archaic : inferior
b : causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive <an evil odor>
c : disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>
3
a : causing harm : pernicious <the evil institution of slavery>
b : marked by misfortune : unlucky

or:

adjective
1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:
evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious:
evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous:
to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character:
an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.:
He is known for his evil disposition.
noun
6.
that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct:
to choose the lesser of two evils.
7.
the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8.
the wicked or immoral part of someone or something:
The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9.
harm; mischief; misfortune:
to wish one evil.
10.
anything causing injury or harm:
Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11.
a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence:
the evils of alcohol.
12.
a disease, as king's evil.

I don't think we can view the term "evil" as a subjective since it applies to something objective.
Evil, like dark as Rick pointed out, is used to describe or to define something that is negative.
If evil is subjective then so is good BUT if both good and evil are subjective then NEITHER actually mean anything at all.

See, if evil was subjective then there would be no need for an understanding of Good since, well, good and evil would be interchangeable depending on the POV or situation.
In short, Rape would be good depending on the situation.
Evil then would be saving the life of a child, depending on the situation.
And while one CAN argue those possibilities, the reality is that SHOULD you?
See, evil is doing what one KNOWS to be wrong because it IS wrong and DOING it anyways.

It can't be subjective because be it's very existences it makes the statement that there is a good and that means it is objective.

RickD wrote: With statements like that, it's really no wonder why others here have difficulty talking to you Kenny.

Storyteller seems to have no problem talking to me! Do you have a problem talking to people who do not share your point of view?

RickD wrote:Ken,

Let me tell you a little secret...Google "evil definition", and you'll see that it's also a noun. Why would you deny the reality of that Kenny?

I like dictionary.com’s definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil?s=t

When used as a noun it basically uses it in reference to something else like “lesser of two evils” or evil intentions.
But it also defines evil as “a force in nature that gives rise to wickedness and sin”. This definition I disagree with. I realize dictionary.com defines words the way they are used; and many religious people use it that way.
The reason I disagree with this definition is because (according to my understanding) all the forces of nature we are familiar with are detectable by science. Science is unable to detect evil. (if they could life would be much easier; imagine if we had an evil detector sorta like a carbon monoxide detector and when an evil person like Hitler enters the room, the evil detector sounds off and everybody knows not to pay any attention to him; could have saved a lot of lives)
The fact that evil is undetectable tells me that evil does not have an actual existence like gravity, Centrifugal force, or other forces of nature.

Ken

Storyteller wrote: Nope, I think it makes it harder. We have to ask ourselves some pretty difficult questions and examine ourselves a lot more closely. Far easier to say we are just instinctual animals. Why do we have a concience, for instance?

Don't cha think the answer "because God gave us a conscience when he created us" is an easier answer than some scientific mumbo-jumbo required without God as an answer?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:Evil:
Full Definition of EVIL

1
a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
2
a archaic : inferior
b : causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive <an evil odor>
c : disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>
3
a : causing harm : pernicious <the evil institution of slavery>
b : marked by misfortune : unlucky

or:

adjective
1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:
evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious:
evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous:
to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character:
an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.:
He is known for his evil disposition.
noun
6.
that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct:
to choose the lesser of two evils.
7.
the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8.
the wicked or immoral part of someone or something:
The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9.
harm; mischief; misfortune:
to wish one evil.
10.
anything causing injury or harm:
Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11.
a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence:
the evils of alcohol.
12.
a disease, as king's evil.

I don't think we can view the term "evil" as a subjective since it applies to something objective.
Evil, like dark as Rick pointed out, is used to describe or to define something that is negative.
If evil is subjective then so is good BUT if both good and evil are subjective then NEITHER actually mean anything at all.

See, if evil was subjective then there would be no need for an understanding of Good since, well, good and evil would be interchangeable depending on the POV or situation.
In short, Rape would be good depending on the situation.
Evil then would be saving the life of a child, depending on the situation.
And while one CAN argue those possibilities, the reality is that SHOULD you?
See, evil is doing what one KNOWS to be wrong because it IS wrong and DOING it anyways.

It can't be subjective because be it's very existences it makes the statement that there is a good and that means it is objective.

This does not make sense to me. Subjective and Objective are just categories. How does identifying an act as subjective rather than objective make it any less important?

Ken