Monday, January 30, 2006

good and evil`

i'm really having some theological questions. but mostly when it comes to good and evil. me and lee have been in an on-going conversation about theology for about 4 months. Certain theories and concerns:

1. Does God create everything and then just step aside and allow randomness to occur, which means the creation of innately evil people and events or occur. but then that leavees no room for destiny or a reason for life.
2. Does God have his hand in all of creation for all of time then how do you explain horrible things [of course not natural disasters because i dont personally feel that hurricanes and tornados are evil but NATURAL] does God create someone or something evil? how? for God is good.

my conclusion: maybe 'god' is just an entity where good and evil coexist as one, where all creation takes up good and evil qualities. which would explain everything but negate my whole religion. i dont know what to think. i'm going to keep studying


  1. Are Good and Evil mutually exlusive? Is Evil the absense of goodness?. Just like light is the absense of darkness.

    According to the Bible, God planned a perfect world where only goodness prevailed. However, he also wanted Adam and Eve to be able to choose to embrace perfection(goodness) and love him by choice. Since they made the choice not to live a perfect life, God allowed them to live a lifestyle that did not completely embrace goodness. As a result, sin, death, and goodness coexisted. God's plan is to come back and have heaven on earth. Evil and the Devil will be destroyed. But when this time comes, will we not have free will? In order for us to have free will, we should always be able to not choose goodness. If God destroys Evil, then would we not merely be the robots he purposely did not want, programmed to Love, Love, and only Love?

    my 2 cents..
    El_Roy_Brown.. Baddes Dude in Town

  2. Found these notes online..

  3. ok but then heres another come back: so if GOD created CHOICE then that means that GOD had a direct affect on the creation of evil? did God create choice thus creating evil? or did evil just ALWAYS exist, which is what i'm leaning towards quite honestly.
    i mean think about it. if there were no evil [which in this case would be the opposite of good, the absense of God] then how could God even bring up the concept of CHOICE. i mean if only good existed? just because we did not have the ability to choose not to follow God, does that mean that the opposite of following God were not already in conceptual existence. right? or wrong?


    post script:
    [but i do like and accept you theory on why God allows evil in the world and how it came about.]

  4. check this out...

    If Evil does not exist, and is really just the complete absense of good. Then that would mean that for those in heaven on earth, at any point that they choose not to be perfectly good, they would not exist.

    what do you think?

  5. hmm interesting concept BUT i don't deny the existence of evil. i think that it is a very real and powerful entity that has always existed because i believe you can not have one with out the other. if there were no darkness then how could you define light? it would just be or not be, it doesnt make sense. for good to be 'good' it needs to not be evil. and for evil to be 'evil' it cannot be good. i just believe in their eternal co-existance. ya know?

    but to get back to your point. if evil did not exist and then someone chose to not be good. then they would no longer exist. gets me back to my original point that just to be able to do the opposite of good is the existence of evil. if there were no evil there would be no options. get me? no evil means you could ONLY DO GOOD. there would not be a choice. or a concept or an ability. [i think]


  6. true.. Actually, now that I think about it some more.. The bible does say God will eventually destroy Evil. So according to the Bible it must exist. I gotta look into this some more..

  7. Here is another read I found regarding the 2nd link I sent you..

    The Logic:

    Premise A: Dark does not exist; dark is an absence of light.

    Premise B: Cold does not exist; cold is the absence of heat.


    Statement C: Evil does not exist; evil is simply the absence of God.

    Conclusion: The argument (against God) from evil, is invalid


    Premises A and B are used to establish C. The logic appears to be, that
    because A and B are true, the analogy C, that evil is simply the
    absence of God, must also be true.

    Premises A and B use the antonyms of dark and cold (light and heat) but
    in the deduction (or third premise) the antonym of 'evil' is presented
    as, 'God' when it should naturally be, 'good'. So immediately we see a
    false analogy being employed.

    To substitute in God assumes, circulus in demonstrando, the very thing
    that the 'proof' tries to establish, God. Why should the sceptic accept
    that evil is the rejection of God? That is what the theist needs to

    But let's say the analogy were true. Let's, for the time being, equate
    'God' with the proper antonym for 'evil', 'good' and analyze this
    statement in a form that is more sensible and more analogous to
    premises A and B:

    (i) Evil does not exist; evil is simply the absence of [good].

    The trouble is that one could just as easily swap it around and

    (ii) Good does not exist; good is simply the absence of evil.

    The fact that it can be swapped around is something else that makes it
    different to A and B, yet another problem for the analogy. Also, there
    are scientific reasons for saying that dark/cold is merely the absence
    of light/heat but the student's presentation would not established that
    (i), instead of (ii), is true. Actually, just because premises A and B
    are true, doesn't mean that either (i) or (ii) must to be true. Either
    deduction as the logical consequence of A & B would constitute a non

    Many would (and should) propose that neither good nor bad exist by
    themselves and that both are intangible and subjective. But even
    from subjectiveness there should be agreement that a rock, for
    instance, is neither evil nor good. Does the absence of good/God make
    that rock evil? Does the absence of evil make that rock good/Godly?
    The intuitive answer would be to both would be, "No". If the theist
    would claim otherwise, then he/she needs to demonstrate otherwise. The
    theist can't simply impose a Christian tenet as a premise, for to do
    so is to assume the theistic conclusion as part of the proof for that

    Expanding on whether or not evil exists, let's say a mugger bashes
    and robs an old lady. Is that act to be judged in terms of the good
    that the mugger didn't do, like say, "Good morning" and offer to help
    her across the street? Of course it isn't. Whether it be considered
    subjective or not, evil acts are judged on their malice, not on their
    absence of goodness. This suggests that C is not only false analogy,
    it is also a false premise.

    So, we have shown that the proof fails because of circular logic, a
    false analogy, a false (or unsupported/dubious) premise and a non

    The reusable professor/student story, where a student outwits the
    professor, is a recurring apologetic device. The names and the
    arguments may change, but the outcome is always the same; the
    student and his faith make the sceptical professor look silly. When
    this story was last presented to me, it finished with, "The young
    man's name [sic] Albert Einstein". One does not to be Einstein to
    know that this story is fictional, just another naive pulpit myth.


I love your comments!