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
Are Good and Evil mutually exlusive? Is Evil the absense of goodness?. Just like light is the absense of darkness.
ReplyDeleteAccording 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
Found these notes online..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.leewhitbeck.info/evilVsGood.htm
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.
ReplyDeletei 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?
Jillien
post script:
[but i do like and accept you theory on why God allows evil in the world and how it came about.]
check this out...
ReplyDeletehttp://hbingham.com/religion/evil.htm
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?
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?
ReplyDeletebut 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]
*Jillien
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..
ReplyDeleteHere is another read I found regarding the 2nd link I sent you..
ReplyDeleteThe 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
show.
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
propose:
(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
sequitur.
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
conclusion.
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
sequitur.
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.