God created Evil

[bahman]

1) God is cognitively open to act of creation
2) This means that God knows people's action before the act of creation
3) People does Evil
4) From (2) and (3) we can deduce that God created Evil by the act of creation

[Harbal]

1) God is cognitively open to act of creation
2) This means that God knows people's action before the act of creation
3) People does Evil
4) From (2) and (3) we can deduce that God created Evil by the act of creation

Didn't God creat everything? If he did, there isn't any need to go through the process of deduction to establish that he created evil.

[Reflex]

1) God is cognitively open to act of creation
2) This means that God knows people's action before the act of creation
3) People does Evil
4) From (2) and (3) we can deduce that God created Evil by the act of creation

BS

[HexHammer]

1) God is cognitively open to act of creation
2) This means that God knows people's action before the act of creation
3) People does Evil
4) From (2) and (3) we can deduce that God created Evil by the act of creation

Clueless as usual..

[Harbal]

Clueless as usual..

I think you're being a bit hard on yourself there, Hex.

[Dalek Prime]

1) God is cognitively open to act of creation
2) This means that God knows people's action before the act of creation
3) People does Evil
4) From (2) and (3) we can deduce that God created Evil by the act of creation

Didn't God creat everything? If he did, there isn't any need to go through the process of deduction to establish that he created evil.

Some people love doing cartwheels, for the sake of doing cartwheels.

[Immanuel Can]

1) God is cognitively open to act of creation
2) This means that God knows people's action before the act of creation
3) People does Evil
4) From (2) and (3) we can deduce that God created Evil by the act of creation

I'm not sure what "cognitively open to the act" means in 1).

But 2) assumes that to know something is the same as to cause it. In ordinary life, we don't think it is. So I think you must be aiming for us to assume it to be entailed in "creation,": but then premise 2 is redundant.

Premise 3 is generally conceded to be true, if "evil" is assumed to exist. Now, I would assume it does; but many others deny it does, so that would need proof for people like Materialists, Moral Relativists and Moral Nihilists.

Premise 4 requires an assumption: that "evil" is a "thing," in its own right,a sort of solid, creatable quantity of some kind. It does not consider whether or not evil is just a negation or shortage of "good," -- "good" not "evil" being the real thing-in-itself. Some people argue that evil is merely a negation of the good, just as "dark" is an absence of light, but "dark" is not a thing-in-itself, and in fact is not even detectable apart from the real existence of light. (That's why you can "turn on a light," but can't "turn on a dark").

[HexHammer]

Clueless as usual..

I think you're being a bit hard on yourself there, Hex.

Mayhaps, but least I try to say something intelligent and relevant in relation to the topic contrary you.

[bahman]

I'm not sure what "cognitively open to the act" means in 1).

It means that God knows it to the core.

But 2) assumes that to know something is the same as to cause it. In ordinary life, we don't think it is. So I think you must be aiming for us to assume it to be entailed in "creation,": but then premise 2 is redundant.

That is not correct. Giving the situation in a given moment God can know what would happen in the next point. This includes decision we make otherwise God cannot be cognitively open to universe.

Premise 3 is generally conceded to be true, if "evil" is assumed to exist. Now, I would assume it does; but many others deny it does, so that would need proof for people like Materialists, Moral Relativists and Moral Nihilists.

That I am aware of but that is subject of another thread.

Premise 4 requires an assumption: that "evil" is a "thing," in its own right,a sort of solid, creatable quantity of some kind. It does not consider whether or not evil is just a negation or shortage of "good," -- "good" not "evil" being the real thing-in-itself. Some people argue that evil is merely a negation of the good, just as "dark" is an absence of light, but "dark" is not a thing-in-itself, and in fact is not even detectable apart from the real existence of light. (That's why you can "turn on a light," but can't "turn on a dark").

That is subject of another thread.

[sthitapragya]

Premise 4 requires an assumption: that "evil" is a "thing," in its own right,a sort of solid, creatable quantity of some kind. It does not consider whether or not evil is just a negation or shortage of "good," -- "good" not "evil" being the real thing-in-itself. Some people argue that evil is merely a negation of the good, just as "dark" is an absence of light, but "dark" is not a thing-in-itself, and in fact is not even detectable apart from the real existence of light. (That's why you can "turn on a light," but can't "turn on a dark").

That is subject of another thread.

Not really. He makes a good point. Your entire claim is that God created evil. So you would have to prove that evil is a thing that can be created. Only then can you move on to prove that God created evil.

[bahman]

Premise 4 requires an assumption: that "evil" is a "thing," in its own right,a sort of solid, creatable quantity of some kind. It does not consider whether or not evil is just a negation or shortage of "good," -- "good" not "evil" being the real thing-in-itself. Some people argue that evil is merely a negation of the good, just as "dark" is an absence of light, but "dark" is not a thing-in-itself, and in fact is not even detectable apart from the real existence of light. (That's why you can "turn on a light," but can't "turn on a dark").

That is subject of another thread.

Not really. He makes a good point. Your entire claim is that God created evil. So you would have to prove that evil is a thing that can be created. Only then can you move on to prove that God created evil.

I can define Evil as state of suffering and confusion whereas Good as state of pleasure and clarity. Do you believe that Evil exists given the definition?

[sthitapragya]

That is subject of another thread.

Not really. He makes a good point. Your entire claim is that God created evil. So you would have to prove that evil is a thing that can be created. Only then can you move on to prove that God created evil.

I can define Evil as state of suffering and confusion whereas Good as state of suffering and clarity. Do you believe that Evil exists given the definition?

I cannot agree with the definition of evil. By your definition anyone suffering and confused would be evil.

[bahman]

Not really. He makes a good point. Your entire claim is that God created evil. So you would have to prove that evil is a thing that can be created. Only then can you move on to prove that God created evil.

I can define Evil as state of suffering and confusion whereas Good as state of pleasure and clarity. Do you believe that Evil exists given the definition?

I cannot agree with the definition of evil. By your definition anyone suffering and confused would be evil.

What is the problem with that definition?

That is true that anyone in state of suffering and confusion is subjected to Evil.

[Dontaskme]

[sthitapragya]

I can define Evil as state of suffering and confusion whereas Good as state of pleasure and clarity. Do you believe that Evil exists given the definition?

I cannot agree with the definition of evil. By your definition anyone suffering and confused would be evil.

What is the problem with that definition?

That is true that anyone in state of suffering and confusion is subjected to Evil.

Yeah but they are subjected to evil. They are not evil. So evil would be someone who instilled the state of suffering and confusion. And that person would need to be suffering and have clarity. Which would make him Good.