Evidence for God from Science

Ichtus wrote:On the question of why evil exists if the Creator is good, I don't think there is a problem. Moral Law comes from God, and naturally where there is a moral law there is the possibility of going against it and doing evil. Evil isn't a "thing" in the way that good is; it's just what isn't good. God doesn't need to "create evil" any more than the existence of heat requires him to "create cold" or the existence of wetness requires him to "create dryness."

You are jumping ahead with conclusions. In order for God to give us a moral law to respect, that means that evil already exists. There is no logic and need for a moral law in a world where only good exists. Maybe you want to argue with me on that.

Ichtus wrote:Evil isn't a "thing" in the way that good is; it's just what isn't good

Evil isn't good and good isn't evil:)) Thanks for clearing that out. You can't define good without evil... And evil comes exactly from the same place good comes.

And by the way: you can't define cold without warm, dry without wet and viceversa. You are actually trying to explain me that God gave a moral law out of thin air just because... Be serious...


@1lover137

I read the verses you have provided, but they say that God will forget our sins. That doesn't change the fact that you are a sinner. You do understand that? You can't erase what you have already done. You can repent, ask for forgiveness etc etc.

@Bryan

Believers were and are sinners. But they will be forgiven and before entering Heaven they will no more have sinful nature I think.

@1lover137

And we reach the same point we left from. Why can't God do the same for non-believers?

BryanH wrote:@1lover137

And we reach the same point we left from. Why can't God do the same for non-believers?

Matthew 7:
7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; [d]seek, and you will find; [e]knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened."

Believers seek God. They admire Jesus and want to be like him and please him. Nonbelievers do not seek God and do not want to please him. Now imagine what would God have to do with a nonbeliever to get him into heaven. He would have to change his personality, change his likes and dislikes.

Furthemore, such a nonbelieving person is not righteous in the eyes of God. God is just, Bible teaches he is, not only loving but also just. And everybody will get what he deserves.

In the last day, God’s justice, mercy, and righteousness will be so plain to all that nobody will accuse him of wrongdoing. Rather, “All nations will come and worship you, for your righteous acts have been revealed." (Rev 15:4b)

BryanH wrote:

Ichtus wrote:On the question of why evil exists if the Creator is good, I don't think there is a problem. Moral Law comes from God, and naturally where there is a moral law there is the possibility of going against it and doing evil. Evil isn't a "thing" in the way that good is; it's just what isn't good. God doesn't need to "create evil" any more than the existence of heat requires him to "create cold" or the existence of wetness requires him to "create dryness."

You are jumping ahead with conclusions. In order for God to give us a moral law to respect, that means that evil already exists. There is no logic and need for a moral law in a world where only good exists. Maybe you want to argue with me on that.

I suppose it depends on what ontological status you assign to evil. I don't understand what you mean when you address my heat vs. cold analogy. Could you explain? I was attempting to illustrate that just evil might not actually "exist" in the same way that good does. Heat, for example exists. It is a "thing" that you can measure. So is water. Cold and dryness don't really exist. They're how we describe little or no heat or water. I was trying to show that, viewed in this way, evil isn't something that is ever created. It is only a lack of good. Therefore, as the source of goodness, God is not the source of evil because evil only exists as a lack of good.

But if you don't want to subscribe to that idea....

God giving a moral law doesn't mean that evil must actually exist, only that it must exist as a potential. Of course, saying "giving a moral law" might not be the best way to put it since it makes it seem like the law is brought into existence arbitrarily. God is classically defined as being good, as having "goodness" as an inevitable aspect of his being. Technically, in this way God did not "create" good anymore than he created himself. Because God is timeless and exists, many would say, as a philosophical necessity, goodness, being an integral part of him, must exist in the same way. He is, however, the source of goodness and the giver of moral law.

If this is so, then it isn't fair to say that God is the creator, or even the source, of evil. If God is good, then good exists, and if good exists, then the concept of evil exists necessarily.

I'm not exactly a philosopher though.

Icthus wrote: If this is so, then it isn't fair to say that God is the creator, or even the source, of evil. If God is good, then good exists, and if good exists, then the concept of evil exists necessarily.

I would go further to say that evil as a concept can only exist necessarily where there are free moral agents to make the choice to do evil, without the free moral agents conceptual evil cannot exist and there would be only good.

But this argument comes down to a blame game, not wanting to take responability for ones actions. Like the screaming child stamping his foot, it's not my fault I hit him with the bat, if Mum didn't give it to me I would never have hit him.

It's God's fault I can do evil because he gave me freewill, he created evil not me.................... wrong...............we created evil, we bought it on ourselves, evil would not exist if we did only good, it would remain as conceptual only, not being a real thing, it might not even be conceptual if we just wanted to do good because the concept would never enter our minds.

Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Icthus wrote: If this is so, then it isn't fair to say that God is the creator, or even the source, of evil. If God is good, then good exists, and if good exists, then the concept of evil exists necessarily.

I would go further to say that evil as a concept can only exist necessarily where there are free moral agents to make the choice to do evil, without the free moral agents conceptual evil cannot exist and there would be only good.


Dan

Yes, I agree. The difficulty is that there are too many ways to define the way something can exist. I mean, if God was the only thing that existed, then because there is only God, who is good, there would only be good. But of course, God would still know that it is possible for evil to exist in some conceivable world, and to some, this is enough to say that the concept of evil exists. It doesn't help that humans can string words together to get phrases like "a square circle" which can in principle never refer to anything in any possible universe yet to some seem like ideas that, because they can be said, even without having any meaning, exist as ideas. Perhaps it's best at times to, at least for the sake of making the argument make more sense, not argue as though ideas exist.

This is also why I try to avoid arguments involving ontology...besides that I'm not a philosopher.

Icthus wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Icthus wrote: If this is so, then it isn't fair to say that God is the creator, or even the source, of evil. If God is good, then good exists, and if good exists, then the concept of evil exists necessarily.

I would go further to say that evil as a concept can only exist necessarily where there are free moral agents to make the choice to do evil, without the free moral agents conceptual evil cannot exist and there would be only good.


Dan

Yes, I agree. The difficulty is that there are too many ways to define the way something can exist. I mean, if God was the only thing that existed, then because there is only God, who is good, there would only be good. But of course, God would still know that it is possible for evil to exist in some conceivable world, and to some, this is enough to say that the concept of evil exists. It doesn't help that humans can string words together to get phrases like "a square circle" which can in principle never refer to anything in any possible universe yet to some seem like ideas that, because they can be said, even without having any meaning, exist as ideas. Perhaps it's best at times to, at least for the sake of making the argument make more sense, not argue as though ideas exist.

This is also why I try to avoid arguments involving ontology...besides that I'm not a philosopher.

I see what your saying, I am no philospher either lol.

I have children and these sorts of arguments sound like the excuses my kids give me when they do the wrong thing, it is never their fault, always someone elses.

Dan

1lover137 wrote: Believers seek God. They admire Jesus and want to be like him and please him.

So God has a personal interest. He wants to be admired and pleased...

1lover137 wrote:Nonbelievers do not seek God and do not want to please him. Now imagine what would God have to do with a nonbeliever to get him into heaven. He would have to change his personality, change his likes and dislikes.

I imagine how hard that must be for God. I mean, he is only God and he has limited powers and stuff. A non-believer is the limit for him... Now about being righteous and stuff, people can be good without actually seeking God. As I said earlier, it seems that believing is more important that actually being good because nobody is good. What is the point of the moral law then? There are some contradictions which don't make any sense...

***By the way, personality and human psychological traits have a bipolar nature. You know that right? It doesn't matter if you are a believer or not. So God would have to change both believers and non-believers in the same way, but it would take a little bit longer for non-believers. Since he is a timeless being, I think time is not the issue here.

danieltwotwenty wrote: I would go further to say that evil as a concept can only exist necessarily where there are free moral agents to make the choice to do evil, without the free moral agents conceptual evil cannot exist and there would be only good.

If you go down this path, I already said this in a previous comment on this discussion: If God gave us free choice and then when people chose to be bad got punished for it then free choice is an illusion.

But besides that: you need to understand that God has to be both good and evil in order for evil to exist in the first place. Evil can't just appear out of thin air. You are saying that evil can and did appear out of thin air. I don't believe you. Sorry.

God is the origin of all things, but when it comes to evil, well, you dodge it and you say that it comes from God giving us free choice. It doesn't work out that way I am afraid.

And think a little bit about the logic behind what you say: if God gave you free choice to choose between good and evil, evil must first exist so you can actually make that choice. You can't just have good, you invent evil and then make the choice...

You can't make a choice about something that doesn't exist... Can you contradict me on that?

All of you trying to explain evil are walking in a circle because dichotomies can't be explained separately. Good and evil is a bipolar construct. They are on the same line.

It's like you are trying to say that the concept of beautiful exists individually of ugly or long without short...

So Daniel, people haven't created evil and even historically speaking, that is a false statement given the fact that Lucifer is the primordial evil. Someone else beat us to inventing evil. Be careful... Lucifer might sue you for false claims )

BryanH wrote: If you go down this path, I already said this in a previous comment on this discussion: If God gave us free choice and then when people chose to be bad got punished for it then free choice is an illusion.

I disagree, you still had the choice to choose, just because there are consequences to a choice does not remove the choice itself, so freewill does exist and is not an illusion. I wouldn't say we are punished either, God just accepts our choice and gives us what we want and that is to be seperated from him, because after all that is what you chose, any punishment would be self inflicted.

BryanH wrote: But besides that: you need to understand that God has to be both good and evil in order for evil to exist in the first place. Evil can't just appear out of thin air. You are saying that evil can and did appear out of thin air. I don't believe you. Sorry.

No God does not have to be good and evil, evil is the absence of good and is only conceptual, conceptuals do not actually exist until they are actualised by a free moral agent. Because good was not chosen evil is actualised bringing it from conceptual to actual. I don't believe you. sorry.

BryanH wrote: God is the origin of all things, but when it comes to evil, well, you dodge it and you say that it comes from God giving us free choice. It doesn't work out that way I am afraid.

Maybe in your mind but not in mine, evil only existed as a conceptual idea until free moral agents actualised it, that is when it began to exist. No dodging, just using logic and reason, seems to me your trying to dodge your own evil and put the blame onto God, which in itself is an evil act, how ironic.

BryanH wrote: And think a little bit about the logic behind what you say: if God gave you free choice to choose between good and evil, evil must first exist so you can actually make that choice. You can't just have good, you invent evil and then make the choice...

Once again, evil would only exist as a conceptual idea, conceptual ideas don't actually exist until the are actulised.
If a man invents a car, it goes from being a concept to an actual, before it was actual it did not exist, so conceptual ideas do not exist until actualised.
Think about what your saying, your saying the car existed when it was only a concept, which we know is not logical.

BryanH wrote: You can't make a choice about something that doesn't exist... Can you contradict me on that?

Yep easy, I can choose to do God's will or I can choose to do the opposite which would be actualising an evil.

BryanH wrote: All of you trying to explain evil are walking in a circle because dichotomies can't be explained separately. Good and evil is a bipolar construct. They are on the same line.

I don't agree, and you have not shown that they are.

BryanH wrote: It's like you are trying to say that the concept of beautiful exists individually of ugly or long without short...

I really don't see what they have to do with what we are talking about, but anyway. You could say there is no ugly, it is really just a lack of beauty, to me everything is beautiful, I don't see ugly, so I really don't get that example. This comes back to the heat analogy, there is no such thing as cold, there is only a lack of heat.

BryanH wrote: So Daniel, people haven't created evil and even historically speaking, that is a false statement given the fact that Lucifer is the primordial evil. Someone else beat us to inventing evil. Be careful... Lucifer might sue you for false claims )

If you had read what I wrote, I said free moral agents, Lucifer is a free moral agent. So I don't see any grounds for suing, case dismissed.


Dan

danieltwotwenty wrote:If a man invents a car, it goes from being a concept to an actual, before it was actual it did not exist, so conceptual ideas do not exist until actualised.
Think about what your saying, your saying the car existed when it was only a concept, which we know is not logical.

And before something becomes a concept, it needs to be INVENTED first... My point exactly.

danieltwotwenty wrote:No God does not have to be good and evil, evil is the absence of good and is only conceptual, conceptuals do not actually exist until they are actualised by a free moral agent. Because good was not chosen evil is actualised bringing it from conceptual to actual. I don't believe you. sorry.

It seems we don't understand each other... You can't have a property that God doesn't have... So you can't be evil and good and God just good. God is the origin point for all things. No matter if you actualize or not... The nature of God can't exclude evil... logically speaking. The fact that you try to explain how people came to having a choice between good and evil is perfectly valid. I am not arguing against that. I am simply asking about the existence of evil. And you can't say that evil is a conceptual notion described by the lack of good. I can describe good as the absence of evil. Dichotomies can't be defined individually without one another.

danieltwotwenty wrote:If you had read what I wrote, I said free moral agents, Lucifer is a free moral agent. So I don't see any grounds for suing, case dismissed.

You can't invent something that was already invented... Lucifer was the first evil doer. You said that humans invented evil by free choice. They were second...

danieltwotwenty wrote:This comes back to the heat analogy, there is no such thing as cold, there is only a lack of heat.

There is no such things as heat, there is only the absence of cold. There is no such thing as beautiful, but the absence of ugly...
I have to repeat myself, but dichotomies can't be defined individually... You can try and pretend you are doing that, but the reality is a little bit different.

danieltwotwenty wrote: I wouldn't say we are punished either, God just accepts our choice and gives us what we want and that is to be seperated from him, because after all that is what you chose, any punishment would be self inflicted.

The Bible has quite a few interesting examples where GOD PUNISHED sinners. So God doesn't give what you want, but actually punishes you if you don't respect the 10 commandments.

So punishment was not SELF-INFLICTED. God inflicted it... Or is the bible telling lies? Which one is it?

danieltwotwenty wrote:Maybe in your mind but not in mine, evil only existed as a conceptual idea until free moral agents actualised it, that is when it began to exist. No dodging, just using logic and reason, seems to me your trying to dodge your own evil and put the blame onto God, which in itself is an evil act, how ironic.

The only place where EVIL could exist as a concept before we humans actualized it was within God. And in order for a concept to exist someone must invent it. The only inventor at that point was God.

BryanH wrote:

danieltwotwenty wrote:If a man invents a car, it goes from being a concept to an actual, before it was actual it did not exist, so conceptual ideas do not exist until actualised.
Think about what your saying, your saying the car existed when it was only a concept, which we know is not logical.

And before something becomes a concept, it needs to be INVENTED first... My point exactly.

danieltwotwenty wrote:No God does not have to be good and evil, evil is the absence of good and is only conceptual, conceptuals do not actually exist until they are actualised by a free moral agent. Because good was not chosen evil is actualised bringing it from conceptual to actual. I don't believe you. sorry.

It seems we don't understand each other... You can't have a property that God doesn't have... So you can't be evil and good and God just good. God is the origin point for all things. No matter if you actualize or not... The nature of God can't exclude evil... logically speaking. The fact that you try to explain how people came to having a choice between good and evil is perfectly valid. I am not arguing against that. I am simply asking about the existence of evil. And you can't say that evil is a conceptual notion described by the lack of good. I can describe good as the absence of evil. Dichotomies can't be defined individually without one another.

You fail because evil is most certainly NOT a property, it is precisely the complete lack of a property, i.e. pure love. You seriously need to get off this track of thinking if you want to argue in a rational manner with theists. So far you haven't.

Byblos wrote:You fail because evil is most certainly NOT a property, it is precisely the complete lack of a property, i.e. pure love. You seriously need to get off this track of thinking if you want to argue in a rational manner with theists. So far you haven't.

At least I am 'more' rational. If evil is the lack of property of good, then why do we have moral laws which tell us to be good? We aren't good by the definition you have provided.

And besides that: I can describe Evil as the absence of good as well. That is why it's called a dichotomy in the first place. One excludes another, but none can exist on their own because the concept wouldn't have a logical reason to be used...

The fact that you present good as the fundamental property and evil as the lack of that property doesn't mean that you are right...

By your definition, a person can't be good and evil at the same time... So tell me, rationally speaking, if we lack good, how come we have moral laws? I don't get it...

BryanH wrote:

Byblos wrote:You fail because evil is most certainly NOT a property, it is precisely the complete lack of a property, i.e. pure love. You seriously need to get off this track of thinking if you want to argue in a rational manner with theists. So far you haven't.

At least I am 'more' rational.

We can only hope and pray, we'll see.

BryanH wrote:If evil is the lack of property of good, then why do we have moral laws which tell us to be good? We aren't good by the definition you have provided.

Did you even read what you wrote? We have moral laws because we are neither pure love (that is God) nor pure evil (that is hell). We are creatures with free will and as such, we were given a moral law to serve as a compass by which we can judge on what side we stand, left or right, of the moral yardstick center.

BryanH wrote:And besides that: I can describe Evil as the absence of good as well. That is why it's called a dichotomy in the first place. One excludes another, but none can exist on their own because the concept wouldn't have a logical reason to be used...

your point being what exactly?

BryanH wrote:The fact that you present good as the fundamental property and evil as the lack of that property doesn't mean that you are right...

Really? So why don't you then explain to me where I'm wrong.

BryanH wrote:By your definition, a person can't be good and evil at the same time... So tell me, rationally speaking, if we lack good, how come we have moral laws? I don't get it...

Because we don't sit on one extreme or the other. Not yet at least, but we will ... Where do you foresee yourself Bryan?

@Byblos

There is no such place as pure evil. Nothing can be outside god'S reach. That would imply a limited god. So hell can't exist outside of god so therefore hell can't be pure evil. It is illogical to say such a thing.