A Formal Proof that if Evil Exists then the Theists' God Does Not

[sportinnc]

Well then yes I guess that's what I'm saying. An interesting theory I came across (not necessarily something I agree with) is that evil is simply the absence of God. Just like darkness is simply the absence of light. Anything not of God is evil.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well then yes I guess that's what I'm saying. An interesting theory I came across (not necessarily something I agree with) is that evil is simply the absence of God. Just like darkness is simply the absence of light. Anything not of God is evil.

That seems to run counter to the concept of omnipresence.

 

[sportinnc]

That's what I thought, I'm still struggling through the whole idea of the proposition (why I said I don't necessarily agree with it). I tend to disagree with the concept of omnipresence myself because I believe that Hell exists and is the state of absence from the presence of God.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's not necessarily a need for a need of God, it's a reality that simply exists. Evil doesn't necessarily exist to justify God's existence, God can exist without evil, we would just be drones without any concept of free will or need for a God. Evil exists because in the human mind it creates the need for a God.

Then why isn't it an instinct for all beings to be religious?

 

[McBell]

My belief is that God does exist, and has the "three O's" as characteristics and allows evil to exist because of a divine plan.

What limitations do you place on the "three O's"?
For example, some people say that God is all powerful, but cannot do something that is illogical. I.E. create a square circle.

The belief of Christianity (my belief) is that God allows evil to exist because without it, there is no need for a Savior (in the form of Christ), and if evil does not exist, there is no need for a God.

Would this not mean, being as god is all knowing, that God set man up to fail not only in the Garden of Eden, but also with the 613 OT rules?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well then yes I guess that's what I'm saying. An interesting theory I came across (not necessarily something I agree with) is that evil is simply the absence of God. Just like darkness is simply the absence of light. Anything not of God is evil.

What tumbleweed said, it destroys the concept of Omnipresence.

Not only that, but if you were to take that basis of morality, you'd have an awfully contradicting idea of morality.

 

[sportinnc]

I guess that depends on what you define religion as. All humans have a belief, whether expressed or not, on religion. If you have an opinion or belief in anything, that takes an amount of faith, which is an aspect of religion. So to answer your question, I think that all beings are religious.

 

[McBell]

I guess that depends on what you define religion as. All humans have a belief, whether expressed or not, on religion. If you have an opinion or belief in anything, that takes an amount of faith, which is an aspect of religion. So to answer your question, I think that all beings are religious.

Yes, but to define religion as such makes the word pretty much useless.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I guess that depends on what you define religion as. All humans have a belief, whether expressed or not, on religion. If you have an opinion or belief in anything, that takes an amount of faith, which is an aspect of religion. So to answer your question, I think that all beings are religious.

I'd agree with that, but I prefer "philosophical". By religious I meant doing things for a divine creature, such as God.

Just because you believe in something, does not mean you are of God.

 

[sportinnc]

What limitations do you place on the "three O's"?
For example, some people say that God is all powerful, but cannot do something that is illogical. I.E. create a square circle.


Would this not mean, being as god is all knowing, that God set man up to fail not only in the Garden of Eden, but also with the 613 OT rules?

I don't really place any limitations on them. As to your example, circles and squares are technically man made concepts, which do not bind or pertain to God. In response to your other question, I guess you could make a case that God did set man up to fail, we don't really know God's intentions. I don't really know what the 613 OT rules are, I'm not Jewish. In summary, we can't really make any definite claims that God does anything for a certain reason because we are limited by our human view of things. We will never really understand God completely.

 

[sportinnc]

I'd agree with that, but I prefer "philosophical". By religious I meant doing things for a divine creature, such as God.

Just because you believe in something, does not mean you are of God.

Noted. Then to answer the question with your definition of religion: Humor me for a moment and take on the view that Christianity is the only true religion. If it is the case, then technically we all do things for a divine being (God) because he has has an overarching plan that involves all mankind.

 

[McBell]

Noted. Then to answer the question with your definition of religion: Humor me for a moment and take on the view that Christianity is the only true religion. If it is the case, then technically we all do things for a divine being (God) because he has has an overarching plan that involves all mankind.

Ah, so rapists are merely fulfilling Gods plan?
Getting an abortion is merely fulfilling Gods plan?

 

[sportinnc]

Ah, so rapists are merely fulfilling Gods plan?
Getting an abortion is merely fulfilling Gods plan?

Well look back to Jesus. He lived a perfect life and was crucified. If an innocent man is killed then that is defined as an abominable evil as well, but without this death, there would be no plan of salvation. And yes, an act that seems "anti-God" is part of God's plan. I'll return to my original thesis that evil exists primarily because it helps us understand the need for God. If God never let evil in the world then there would be no need for Him. Wouldn't you feel stupid trying to save someone from drowning when they are swimming just fine?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Then God should have simply let humanity swim.

 

[Skwim]

Well look back to Jesus. He lived a perfect life and was crucified. If an innocent man is killed then that is defined as an abominable evil as well,

Why? Sometimes innocent men are mistakenly killed. Do you honestly feel such mistakes are evil? If so, please provide your definition of evil.

but without this death, there would be no plan of salvation.

And without god's need for being needed, salvation would not be needed.

And yes, an act that seems "anti-God" is part of God's plan. I'll return to my original thesis that evil exists primarily because it helps us understand the need for God. If God never let evil in the world then there would be no need for Him. Wouldn't you feel stupid trying to save someone from drowning when they are swimming just fine?

So god created evil in order to be needed. Nice guy. "I'm going to create creatures and make them suffer so much that they'll turn to me and satisfy my egoistic needs." Even I, a mere mortal, could never be that despicably cruel.

 

[McBell]

Well look back to Jesus. He lived a perfect life and was crucified.

Why would I look at a god when talking about humans?
The only reason he was able to live a "perfect life" (whatever that means) is because he was not human.

If an innocent man is killed then that is defined as an abominable evil as well, but without this death, there would be no plan of salvation.

So god himself is not only a perpetrator of abominable evil, but also commands it as well?

And yes, an act that seems "anti-God" is part of God's plan.

Then why the need for laws, rules etc. when everything is nothing more than Gods scripted movie?

I'll return to my original thesis that evil exists primarily because it helps us understand the need for God. If God never let evil in the world then there would be no need for Him. Wouldn't you feel stupid trying to save someone from drowning when they are swimming just fine?

So the best an all powerful deity can come up with is to create man, set him up for multiple failures, send himself as his son to "save" us from him?

 

[Iti oj]

No. Earth is mans kingdom not gods. The problem of evil is no problem at all.

 

[sportinnc]

Why? Sometimes innocent men are mistakenly killed. Do you honestly feel such mistakes are evil? If so, please provide your definition of evil.

And without god's need for being needed, salvation would not be needed.

So god created evil in order to be needed. Nice guy. "I'm going to create creatures and make them suffer so much that they'll turn to me and satisfy my egoistic needs." Even I, a mere mortal, could never be that despicably cruel.

It's not cruel because He deserves any glory given to him. He's perfect. And yes you're right, without God's need for being needed there would be no salvation needed, because we wouldn't be created, or we wouldn't have free will. It's not egotistic, because He is God, he gave us everything we have, He deserves anything we can give Him.

 

[sportinnc]

Why would I look at a god when talking about humans?
The only reason he was able to live a "perfect life" (whatever that means) is because he was not human.


So god himself is not only a perpetrator of abominable evil, but also commands it as well?


Then why the need for laws, rules etc. when everything is nothing more than Gods scripted movie?


So the best an all powerful deity can come up with is to create man, set him up for multiple failures, send himself as his son to "save" us from him?

Actually Christ was defined as wholly man and wholly God. God did not kill Jesus, Jesus was crucified at the hands of Pontius Pilate, a man. If there were no rules or laws to abide by, there would be no concept of evil, no justification, and no need for salvation. I don't know why God did what He did just that He did.

 

[Me Myself]

I expect it to be understood for what it is, and hardly consider your post or those of the others to be any kind of attack. If you don't understand formal logic so be it.

If God exists, it is X Y and Z.

this would mean that if God were not X Y and Z, it would not exist, yes?

so your affirmation does not leave any posibility of a God existing that is not X Y and Z.

so it works for disproving a God that is X Y and Z, but does not disprove gods that are not bound to be X Y and Z.