God created Evil

[sthitapragya]

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume God created evil: 'God, you're to blame for this!' Great, I feel better myself, having assigned blame. What can we do with this revelation?

This means that God is not Good but neutral when it comes to Good and Evil. This means that God is responsible for all our suffering. He also responsible for confusion in creation.

Okay. I will let some theist take this from here on.

[Immanuel Can]

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

It means that God knows it to the core.

I don't see how the semantics of your chosen phrase give us that, but I'll take your word for it. You can stipulate a term there.

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.

I fully knew you would respond. Does that imply I "made" you do it?

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.

Maybe. But its crucial to you making your case here too. If evil is not a creatable thing of some kind -- that is, if it's just a negation --then your argument does not entail your conclusion anymore. That would be a problem here.

[Immanuel Can]

[What is the problem with that definition?

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

Victim blaming.

"Subjected to evil" is quite different from "perpetrator of that evil." That is, unless you are confusing the presence of anything "bad" for an indicator that in some sense the suffering person "deserves" what he or she gets. And how would that be?

[bahman]

Double post.

[bahman]

I don't see how the semantics of your chosen phrase give us that, but I'll take your word for it. You can stipulate a term there.

I am sorry for being short here.

I fully knew you would respond. Does that imply I "made" you do it?

I don't think so. I think we just agree on the same point.

Maybe. But its crucial to you making your case here too. If evil is not a creatable thing of some kind -- that is, if it's just a negation --then your argument does not entail your conclusion anymore. That would be a problem here.

I already defined Evil: Evil is state of suffering and confusion.

[bahman]

Victim blaming.

"Subjected to evil" is quite different from "perpetrator of that evil."

I understand the difference. One acts Evil and one receives Evil.

That is, unless you are confusing the presence of anything "bad" for an indicator that in some sense the suffering person "deserves" what he or she gets. And how would that be?

I distinguish difference between Bad and Evil. Bad is opposite of right whereas Evil is opposite of Good. I think both Good and Evil are necessary for our developments. I however equate Bad and Evil in this thread.

[Immanuel Can]

I fully knew you would respond. Does that imply I "made" you do it?

I don't think so. I think we just agree on the same point.

Right. So if I can "know" something and yet not have "caused" you to do it, then why could not God do the same? Why would His "knowing" entail more than mine or yours does? You'd need to show that it did.

I don't think it does.

Maybe. But its crucial to you making your case here too. If evil is not a creatable thing of some kind -- that is, if it's just a negation --then your argument does not entail your conclusion anymore. That would be a problem here.

I already defined Evil: Evil is state of suffering and confusion.

Okay, but is "suffering and confusion" a thing-in-itself, or merely a byproduct of a lack or removal of a "good"? That's what you'd need to confirm.

[Immanuel Can]

I understand the difference. One acts Evil and one receives Evil.

Right.

But now you cannot fairly say that "faith" is culpable when a "faithful" person receives evil. The recipient is not to blame.

I distinguish difference between Bad and Evil. Bad is opposite of right whereas Evil is opposite of Good. I think both Good and Evil are necessary for our developments. I however equate Bad and Evil in this thread.

Interesting. For most people, the standard pairs are bad-good and right-wrong. But I suppose you can pair bad and right...it's just a little unconventional and likely to confuse some.

[bahman]

Okay, but is "suffering and confusion" a thing-in-itself, or merely a byproduct of a lack or removal of a "good"? That's what you'd need to confirm.

I think that suffering and confusion are a thing-in-itself. Why? We can distinguish between Good and Evil: Simply lack of pleasure is neutral in the same way lack of suffering is neutral either.

[bahman]

Right.

But now you cannot fairly say that "faith" is culpable when a "faithful" person receives evil. The recipient is not to blame.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, but is "suffering and confusion" a thing-in-itself, or merely a byproduct of a lack or removal of a "good"? That's what you'd need to confirm.

I think that suffering and confusion are a thing-in-itself. Why? We can distinguish between Good and Evil: Simply lack of pleasure is neutral in the same way lack of suffering is neutral either.

But your proof assumes "suffering" is a substantive thing: for we can only speak of "lacking" substantive things. If suffering is a negation, then we cannot "lack" it at all. I think perhaps your wording has assumed your conclusion there, not shown why it is so. But if you've got further proof, I'm open to it.

In fact, its also worth considering that we can only "lack" what we need. I can understand an argument that says people "need" pleasure; but do we, in any sense, need suffering? That looks a bit odd, and I think a lot of folks would wonder about that.

[bahman]

Okay, but is "suffering and confusion" a thing-in-itself, or merely a byproduct of a lack or removal of a "good"? That's what you'd need to confirm.

I think that suffering and confusion are a thing-in-itself. Why? We can distinguish between Good and Evil: Simply lack of pleasure is neutral in the same way lack of suffering is neutral either.

But your proof assumes "suffering" is a substantive thing: for we can only speak of "lacking" substantive things. If suffering is a negation, then we cannot "lack" it at all. I think perhaps your wording has assumed your conclusion there, not shown why it is so. But if you've got further proof, I'm open to it.

In fact, its also worth considering that we can only "lack" what we need. I can understand an argument that says people "need" pleasure; but do we, in any sense, need suffering? That looks a bit odd, and I think a lot of folks would wonder about that.

Just think of perfect Evil. Could perfect Evil exist if Evil is negation of Good? No. But we can imagine extreme suffering. I think that is what you are looking for.

[Immanuel Can]

Just think of perfect Evil. Could perfect Evil exist if Evil is negation of Good? No. But we can imagine extreme suffering. I think that is what you are looking for.

I think that "evil" by definition is "not-perfection." I don't think you can have "perfect evil" at all, and I don't think anyone can even imagine such a thing.

And consider "extreme suffering." It's not "absolute suffering," because suffering only happens when we are conscious of a distance between what we are experiencing and what we should or could be experiencing. So again, it's derivative by way of deprivation of the good. It doesn't exist on its own.

But as it is, how is it we know suffering is "bad" or "evil"? Does not the Law of Survival of the Fittest tell us that suffering is very, very good for the progress of the more-adapted members of society? If the weak and foolish lack, suffer and die, we all win according to Evolutionary theory....

[Necromancer]

What about this way? Only Evil as possibility because the wanton of Heaven and the will to it may be very dear to God.

Another issue: we do not have to conduct Evil or the most depraved Evil to anyone. How many of us are professional torturers? Even then, how many of us have tortured and killed a single human being?

Aren't we evolving from the war-torn ancient times to now, with largely peace among the states/nations of the World?

No, Evil is for losers! Their souls dwindle to Nothingness and they find themselves caught in their own psyche of misdeeds, I believe!

Then again, being Good is a kind of cool game in trying to make the World a better place to live for your fellow human being with all legal games being available, like the arcade games, the computer games, the tabletop games, card games and more. Then yet, the sparetime interests of all you may imagine, still legal, like stamp collecting, toy trains on a table, model building plus much more.

The world of today proves that there are vast opportunities for making the Good choices and at the same time rejecting the Evil ways in life that are still for losers, not caring for their own mentalities and so on...

Now what? Goodness for you too?

[Reflex]

I think most people don't know the difference between omnipotence and omnificence. That ignorance leads to BS OP's.