God created evil

[afleitch]

'Good' and 'Evil' are inherent in humans as highly sentient primates. No deity has 'endowed' us with them; they are innate.

[??????????]

'Good' and 'Evil' are inherent in humans as highly sentient primates. No deity has 'endowed' us with them; they are innate.

Why has no other species come within any range of where we are at in terms of culture, civilization, language and on and on?

[John Dibble]

'Good' and 'Evil' are inherent in humans as highly sentient primates. No deity has 'endowed' us with them; they are innate.

Why has no other species come within any range of where we are at in terms of culture, civilization, language and on and on?

Because no other species aside from some of our evolutionary precursors evolved brains with capacity for such things. The answer would pretty much be the same if you asked that question about another species that had some trait that was either entirely unique or significantly greater than that of any other species. Just because only one species has a trait or a trait at a particular level it doesn't mean that evolution does not explain it.

Also, I'll note that none of the traits you list are unique to humans. Culture can be found in many animals, such as Killer Whales. Civilization is pretty similar to how superorganisms work. Just look at ants - they can develop massive colonies which can have millions of individuals which work in far greater harmony than members of our own civilization do. Let's also not forget that they live pretty much everywhere on the planet. As far as language, it does exist in animal societies for quite a few species, though admittedly their vocabularies aren't as great as ours.

[useful idiot]

The only thing that is inherently sinful is deviation from the will of God. The free choice and human faculties given to Adam resulted in his decision to disobey God. God knew this obviously, as he is omniscient, but that doesn't make him culpable. Having created something tabula rasa, he is free from the creation of sin.

I assume what you're referring to when you said that God created Lucifer as perfect, you're referring to Ezekiel 28(a use of the king of Tyre as an allegory for Satan and probably for mankind in general). It says that he was blameless until unrighteousness was found in him. I can only assume to take this as Satan, and humanity, being perfect in creation because he(or they) had not yet rebelled against God. If sin is a lack of obedience to God, and goodness/blamelessness/perfection is the lack of pride and disobedience, then everything God created at its outset is good.

Unlike Satan, however, God has chosen to save those humans who will accept the sacrifice found in Christ's atonement.

Some hyper-Calvinists (who consider Calvin a heretic, funnily enough), will argue that God is the author of sin, but unfortunately like so many groups out there they've taken certain Bible passages and twisted them for their own ends, such as those that speak of God hardening certain people's hearts, and particularly and frustratingly 2 Cor 4: 3-4. This passage is a good argument for authentic "Calvinism", but when read the wrong way can lead you to ridiculous conclusions that are out of step with the rest of scripture.

[??????????]

When an ant builds the Sistine Chapel let me know.

[ilikeverin]

As far as language, it does exist in animal societies for quite a few species, though admittedly their vocabularies aren't as great as ours.

No, no it does not.  Animals can communicate.  Animals do not have language.

[John Dibble]

When an ant builds the Sistine Chapel let me know.

I find it rather sad that you have no appreciation for the fact that these creatures were building the size equivalent of cities with full climate control millions of years before our ancestors were even huddling around a fire in a cave in a desperate struggle not to freeze to death.

[afleitch]

When an ant builds the Sistine Chapel let me know.

I find it rather sad that you have no appreciation for the fact that these creatures were building the size equivalent of cities with full climate control millions of years before our ancestors were even huddling around a fire in a cave in a desperate struggle not to freeze to death.

A good example of co-operative intelligence which we have to be thankful for. We're not far removed at all biologically from the first families of Homo Sapiens; we are the same species with the same capacity. But comparing us back then to other primates while we would be a few steps ahead, it wouldn't be too far beyond that. We can only appreciate the difference between us and our cousins now through human endeavor and civilisation over these past thousands of years. We did that with no external or spiritual interference. We should be proud of it; we should attribute our progress to ourselves. We should attribute the good to ourselves...but we need to take responsibility for the bad instead of 'hiving' it off to an external moral arbiter.

Why are we agressive, sadistic, brutal and discriminate? Because we need to be, without those traits we wouldn't have made it as far as we did. When society breaks down even just for a short time (see Haiti, Darfur...) we fall back on those traits to survive. At the end of it all we're lucky primates with too many teeth, residual appendixes and tail bones that settled down, farmed and civilised.

Good on us.

[fezzyfestoon]

'Good' and 'Evil' are inherent in humans as highly sentient primates. No deity has 'endowed' us with them; they are innate.

Well, clearly.  But we're making the massive assumption in the question that a higher power does exist, God in particular as described in the Bible.

[Derek]

By definition, it is clear because by definition all is from God. This includes evil.

[John Dibble]

By definition, it is clear because by definition all is from God. This includes evil.

You're assuming that this God thing exists, and you're assuming that there could only be one source for things to come from, so until you can prove both of those things you can't say that with certainty.

[Derek]

By definition, it is clear because by definition all is from God. This includes evil.

You're assuming that this God thing exists, and you're assuming that there could only be one source for things to come from, so until you can prove both of those things you can't say that with certainty.

Ok and if there are more sources, eventually those sources had to come from something and so forth. If you don't believe in God then you don't really have a point in posting here. This thread is for people to debate if God did or did not create evil.  Evil as I see it is a state of mind and by definition yes even ideas come from God on that level. This does not make God evil but makes it so that God was the root of ideas as well. Evil is an idea.

[John Dibble]

Ok and if there are more sources, eventually those sources had to come from something and so forth.

No, not necessarily. Many believe in a deity who has no source - it's an existence that just has always existed and is the source of things. If you admit that one such being exists, then it's perfectly reasonable to say that other such beings could exist. There is no reason it has to be limited to one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Horse s**t. Just because I don't believe in a god does not mean I have no reason to post here. I can very well give my perspective on the origins of this idea of evil even if I don't believe in a god, the point being to get people to consider my views on it. Maybe they'll agree, maybe they won't, or maybe they might partially agree and change their views. Given that most people think their views are more likely to be valid than others, then obviously there is a point in trying to get others to consider them.

[fezzyfestoon]

By definition, it is clear because by definition all is from God. This includes evil.

You're assuming that this God thing exists, and you're assuming that there could only be one source for things to come from, so until you can prove both of those things you can't say that with certainty.

Ok and if there are more sources, eventually those sources had to come from something and so forth. If you don't believe in God then you don't really have a point in posting here. This thread is for people to debate if God did or did not create evil.  Evil as I see it is a state of mind and by definition yes even ideas come from God on that level. This does not make God evil but makes it so that God was the root of ideas as well. Evil is an idea.

Uh...I created the thread and I don't believe in God.  I don't have a problem with him posting here, for the record.

[Derek]

Ok and if there are more sources, eventually those sources had to come from something and so forth.

No, not necessarily. Many believe in a deity who has no source - it's an existence that just has always existed and is the source of things. If you admit that one such being exists, then it's perfectly reasonable to say that other such beings could exist. There is no reason it has to be limited to one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Horse s**t. Just because I don't believe in a god does not mean I have no reason to post here. I can very well give my perspective on the origins of this idea of evil even if I don't believe in a god, the point being to get people to consider my views on it. Maybe they'll agree, maybe they won't, or maybe they might partially agree and change their views. Given that most people think their views are more likely to be valid than others, then obviously there is a point in trying to get others to consider them.

You can give your perspective but how does matter always exist? Where did it come from?

[tmthforu94]

God created a perfect man. That man became evil on his own will. It was not God.

[Sewer]

God created a perfect man. That man became evil on his own will. It was not God.

So god thinks evil is perfect?

[Derek]

all things are derived from a first mover and that is what we know as God. Stop complicating this.

[fezzyfestoon]

God created a perfect man. That man became evil on his own will. It was not God.

What I asked is how that evil option exists if God created everything and God is perfectly good.  Only God can create, man didn't come up with evil on its own.

[Derek]

God created a perfect man. That man became evil on his own will. It was not God.

What I asked is how that evil option exists if God created everything and God is perfectly good.  Only God can create, man didn't come up with evil on its own.

Read what I posted in the creation thread of this forum. You'll find part of your answer there.

[John Dibble]

Ok and if there are more sources, eventually those sources had to come from something and so forth.

No, not necessarily. Many believe in a deity who has no source - it's an existence that just has always existed and is the source of things. If you admit that one such being exists, then it's perfectly reasonable to say that other such beings could exist. There is no reason it has to be limited to one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Horse s**t. Just because I don't believe in a god does not mean I have no reason to post here. I can very well give my perspective on the origins of this idea of evil even if I don't believe in a god, the point being to get people to consider my views on it. Maybe they'll agree, maybe they won't, or maybe they might partially agree and change their views. Given that most people think their views are more likely to be valid than others, then obviously there is a point in trying to get others to consider them.

You can give your perspective but how does matter always exist? Where did it come from?

Do you know how to read? I never said anything about matter, I'm talking about possibilities for original sources here, which seems to be what you define as God. It doesn't have to be matter, or it could be. Doesn't really matter in terms of my argument. As to the "how" of it that is also irrelevant. Just because I don't know the answer doesn't negate the possibility.

You keep making these arguments based on this God thing, but you can't even be sure if God as you're defining it actually exists. It's the classic logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance - because you can't think of a different possibility that suits you more, you accept it as true even though you have no evidence.

[Derek]

Ok and if there are more sources, eventually those sources had to come from something and so forth.

No, not necessarily. Many believe in a deity who has no source - it's an existence that just has always existed and is the source of things. If you admit that one such being exists, then it's perfectly reasonable to say that other such beings could exist. There is no reason it has to be limited to one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Horse s**t. Just because I don't believe in a god does not mean I have no reason to post here. I can very well give my perspective on the origins of this idea of evil even if I don't believe in a god, the point being to get people to consider my views on it. Maybe they'll agree, maybe they won't, or maybe they might partially agree and change their views. Given that most people think their views are more likely to be valid than others, then obviously there is a point in trying to get others to consider them.

You can give your perspective but how does matter always exist? Where did it come from?

Do you know how to read? I never said anything about matter, I'm talking about possibilities for original sources here, which seems to be what you define as God. It doesn't have to be matter, or it could be. Doesn't really matter in terms of my argument. As to the "how" of it that is also irrelevant. Just because I don't know the answer doesn't negate the possibility.

You keep making these arguments based on this God thing, but you can't even be sure if God as you're defining it actually exists. It's the classic logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance - because you can't think of a different possibility that suits you more, you accept it as true even though you have no evidence.

How do you know how I define God?

[John Dibble]

How do you know how I define God?

You have talked about it before.

[Derek]

Ok and if there are more sources, eventually those sources had to come from something and so forth.

No, not necessarily. Many believe in a deity who has no source - it's an existence that just has always existed and is the source of things. If you admit that one such being exists, then it's perfectly reasonable to say that other such beings could exist. There is no reason it has to be limited to one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Horse s**t. Just because I don't believe in a god does not mean I have no reason to post here. I can very well give my perspective on the origins of this idea of evil even if I don't believe in a god, the point being to get people to consider my views on it. Maybe they'll agree, maybe they won't, or maybe they might partially agree and change their views. Given that most people think their views are more likely to be valid than others, then obviously there is a point in trying to get others to consider them.

You can give your perspective but how does matter always exist? Where did it come from?

Do you know how to read? I never said anything about matter, I'm talking about possibilities for original sources here, which seems to be what you define as God. It doesn't have to be matter, or it could be. Doesn't really matter in terms of my argument. As to the "how" of it that is also irrelevant. Just because I don't know the answer doesn't negate the possibility.

You keep making these arguments based on this God thing, but you can't even be sure if God as you're defining it actually exists. It's the classic logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance - because you can't think of a different possibility that suits you more, you accept it as true even though you have no evidence.

We get it, you're an agnostic and that's cool but we get it. You're talking all day about nothing and coming to no conclusions.

[John Dibble]

We get it, you're an agnostic and that's cool but we get it. You're talking all day about nothing and coming to no conclusions.

I've come to the conclusion that you're incapable of debating your way out of a paper bag. Does that count? Seriously, you can't refute the things I say so you just start accusing me of being unable to come to a conclusion, so you use straw men arguments as a cover. Pathetic.