Why did God create evil?

[cool_operator]

---

holy shit! i think God didn't create evil... we humans created evil..

[gareb]

in that case cool_operator, God still did.

if we accept the premises that GOD is omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent and omni-present, then he created evil still.

if it was us humans that espoused the concept of evil, i believe that it will no escape the mind of GOD, as he is suppose to be omniscient. and if all thoughts and everything else is suppose to come from him, then he did it all. humanity is but a product of his "creativity" whatever it is that humans are capable of doing, he knew it in the first place. he is suppose to be the one who gave us what we have and what we are.

discrepancy is that, pure good cannot concieve of pure evil. so perhaps good is not that good after all.

[silent-kill]

if the purpose of evil is to define good, then it is best that good was not define the first place. since defining good would mean to create a counter part "evil"

[junnjix88]

if you dont know evil, what is your reference of :idea: good

[gareb]

... and who says what is "good" and what is "evil"?

[Bigfoot Oracle]

the thread is interesting. You make a distinction between abilities and free will, which I believe is proper. However, you have mis-interpreted the problem and that is what’s causing you some trouble.

you made the following argument:

"Christianity teaches that God who is all-powerful and all-loving created the universe. By the Christian definition everything is created by God. Everything includes evil and sins. So it is a logical deduction that evil and sins are creations of God."

The problem here is that you have a faulty premise. Evil and sins are not "things" in and of themselves. They do not exist autonomously. Rather, they are the absence of the perfect which God did make. This becomes complicated, so let me give you a couple of examples. I have the ability to create a vacuum of space. Now I do this not by making something out of materials, but by removing all the air and particles out of that space. The void that remains is what we choose to label a vacuum. It isn’t a thing in itself, but it is a term we use to state that everything else is gone. Likewise we use the term cold to describe a lower temperature. Any air conditioner man can tell you that to cool something down you don’t put cold in, but you have to take heat out! Cold is the absence of energy that causes heat.

Sin and evil are regarded the same. These things cannot exist as "things" that are independent of circumstances, but are the labels given to actions or characteristics that do not meet the goal of perfection. Now, you might say "Aha! If these things are actions that can be performed, then they must exist autonomously." That is not true. A friend I knew recently suffered a very severe dislocation of the elbow. All of her bones were misaligned. If she could have stood the pain, she was able to bend her arm in ways that are impossible for you and I to duplicate. Our arms just cannot bend behind themselves like that. Now, just because she possessed this ability, we did not consider it an asset to be attained, but we rightly sought medical attention to put the elbow back together so it would function properly. We knew if we left it that way, there would be more detriment to her overall ability than asset.

Just like that broken arm, evil and sin are the painful results of a fall. The world and all that is in it was created perfect, but the fall of man created ramifications and consequences that we are still struggling with today. They are not abilities or goals to be achieved, but they are the terms we use to convey the idea of absence of righteousness. This is why when someone reads that God cannot lie and they try to claim that God could not be omnipotent because He lacks something, they are mistaken. The act of lying is really an act of not being able to tell the truth. When you ask why God allowed humans to have the capability for evil, you are not framing your question fairly. You might as well ask why did God create us with joints that could be broken. He did not want us to break His rules, but once we did (and every one of us has) He had to take steps to repair the state we are in.

Christianity is vital in this way. We are in a spiritual condition much more severe and dangerous than a broken arm. We are dying of an illness called sin. God showed His love to us while we were in that sinful state. He sent a cure for humanity by allowing His perfect Son to die for us so that we might live. He even made the treatment as simple as possible. All we must do is trust and rely on Jesus, believe that He died for our sins, and choose to follow Him. This way we could be freed from the effects of sin forever without losing our free will. But on the other hand, you choose your way not to believe because you think it's irrelevant ..that's your will....and think you kick asses...

[gareb]

Rather, they are the absence of the perfect which God did make.

god is suppose to be ever present, which means that he is suppose to be present everywhere. if we are to accept the premise that god is all good and all loving, and that he is ever present, how then can evil exist, or not exist since god is suppose to be good and ever present?

to state that being "good" is having something in it, and being "evil" is the absence of good, is basically an arbitrary definition of the terms presented. so in this situation, it means that the concept of evil and its existence as the "absence of good" is dependent upon the status of good itself. whatever good does affects evil. yet evil cannot be attributed with any action that originates from itself as its status can only be influenced by good and not even by itself. but this concept of consequence does not hold true with reality. we know for a fact that evil or at least those people whom we see as such, do the initiatives to disrupt the "plans" of good.

there can be no "absence of good" if there is a god who is omnipresent and omni-benevolent. therefore evil, in itself is independent and not just the "absence of good". it exists not just as the "absence of good" but a concept itself that is inversely equal to that of good. it is independent and can take the initiative to do the things it can do. it is not dependent upon the action of good though the actions of good can influence and affect it somewhat.

there is practically nothing wrong with seeing this in a cultural and religious perspective, aside from the fact that biases erupt here and there, biases that would like us to believe that the brand of belief that we are professing is the absolute truth, everything else is pure fallacy and lies.

unfortunately we sometimes fall for the sweet words and flattery of some. the critical mindedness that we once possess are lost with the high words and praises that overwhelms our labelled imperfect minds. we deem ourselves worthless and incapable of understanding what happens around us and trust those people whom we see as more capable that we do in analyzing what is supposed to be believed and what is not. we are sometimes so charged up with zeal that we fail to see the flaws that are inherent in the shield that we call our faith. and when we are confronted with these anomalies, we tend to ignore them because we believe that our blind faith will lead us through. instead of listening what they have to say, we would rather label them as heretics and blasphemers.

[crazy_monkey]

maybe bad is good?

[Bigfoot Oracle]

gareb quoted what

Rather, they are the absence of the perfect which God did make.

GOD CREATED EVIL- for the record ( a statement from a believer and is supported by the Bible)
the absence of the perfect which God did make is evil and sin..

Sin and evil are regarded the same. These things cannot exist as "things" that are independent of circumstances, but are the labels given to actions or characteristics that do not meet the goal of perfection.

god is suppose to be ever present, which means that he is suppose to be present everywhere. if we are to accept the premise that god is all good and all loving, and that he is ever present, how then can evil exist, or not exist since god is suppose to be good and ever present?

as what is written above it is the label given to actions or characteristics that do not meet the goal of perfection. (nobody's perfect, but pure deeds could be) now lemme ask you, (as examples) if you kill somebody how would you label the act itself? is it good? If you tell the truth
( wholeheartedly) how do you label that act? ( that's just basic)... What is evil for you? and what is good? why do you hold yourself in doing something when you think it wont do any good for you? how do you label the act if you do so? God is ever present...as matter of choices He allows you to do the things you want freely..so if you ask "how then can evil exist, or not exist since god is suppose to be good and ever present?" who does the deed God or you? Analyze. [/

we are sometimes so charged up with zeal that we fail to see the flaws that are inherent in the shield that we call our faith. and when we are confronted with these anomalies, we tend to ignore them because we believe that our blind faith will lead us through. instead of listening what they have to say, we would rather label them as heretics and blasphemers.

First, here is a classic mis-definition. Faith DOES NOT mean jumping to a conclusion without examining the evidence. It means trusting in that of which you don't have full knowledge. When a man sits in a chair for the first time, he doesn't know with no doubts that the chair will hold his weight. He observes the chair, judges it sound based on what he sees and his past experience, then sits down. He has faith that the chair will support him. Everyone exercises faith every day ( even atheists..they just deny it). The question is whether the evidence upon which that faith is based is sound.

Then, we are asked to produce some "evidence of the 'supernatural' ". The Bible has eyewitness accounts of supernatural phenomena. Eyewitness accounts are considered admissible in a court of law. The eyewitness' testimony is judged as trustworthy based upon their grasp of the facts. The interesting thing is even the skeptics agree that the Bible contains historically accurate data, unless it refers to a miracle or an unexplainable wonder. Those are the parts they deny.(By the way, the definition of supernatural is: "not explainable by known natural forces or laws", NOT unobservable.)

I often find it interesting that the non-believer has a certain set of ethics; but I often wonder on what are they basing them? Hitler did what was legal in Germany at that time. Was he still right? Of course not, but why? Ultimately, to have an ethical standard that transcends all governments or man-made institutions, one has to look above mankind. That again brings us to God. The Nuremberg trials that convicted many Nazis for war crimes argued the same. They had committed crimes against God and man.
( well, atheists would strongly say.. HE DOES NOT EXIST...what's the use of telling this anyway?)
...

[junnjix88]

The personification of good and bad.... which is god and lucifer sounds like a fairytale, which athiest does'nt agree.

Perhaps in the future there will be a more concrete proof of his existence other than faith.