-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did god create evil?
- Thread starter ProfLogic
- Start date
Rejected
Under Reconstruction
Victor said:
Just because I've never run anyone over with my car doesn't mean I dont have the ability to. The ability to perform an action exists, therefore the action must exist. Simply because the ability has not been performed does not negate the existence of the action. There is nothing fallacious about my argument.
Even if Adam or Satan had never committed evil, by stating they had the ability you are implying that evil exists.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Rejected said:
I disagree.
God had the ability to create the world, but at one point God did create the world. God is the only eternal element in Christian theology.
Rejected said:
Applying such logic to a inanimate object is easy. No one could deny that it makes sense. But when speaking of evil you're referring to a condition not a car. For example, laughter is a condition. The ability to laugh is abundant. But one does not always do it. It's existence is conditional, depending on the situation. You speak of evil as if it's something you pick up at the grocery store or as if it's just floating in the air waiting to be used. While the ability to commit a evil act exists in each individual, whether or not he will act on that will depend on his beliefs and values.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Victor said:
Howlaluya!:yes:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Rejected said:
It's a pretty clear example of how your "car" construct cannot work logically.
Take a logic course.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Rejected said:
If [God has] the ability to do anything, lets call it [do an evil act], then in order for that ability to exist then [evil] must exist.
If [evil] did not exist then the ability to [do an evil act] would not exist.
By simply stating that the ability to [do an evil act] exists then one implies that [evil] exist.
This construct does not work. We can replace the variables with just about anything, but the construct completely negates originality or creative process.
1) Did the car exist before Ford built his first one? No, but he had the ability to build one.
2) Did the telephone exist before Bell? No, but he had the ability to build one.
Rejected
Under Reconstruction
angellous_evangellous said:It's a pretty clear example of how your "car" construct cannot work logically.
Take a logic course.
Ok, so break it down for me instead of assuming I know what you're trying to say. How does your statement invalidate my statement?
Sorry about the logic course crack.
I'll try to refrain from any more petty attacks.
BTW I have taken logic courses.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Ford
If [Ford] the ability to do anything, lets call it [build a car], then in order for that ability to exist then [cars] must exist.
If [cars] did not exist then the ability to [make cars] would not exist.
By simply stating that the ability to [make cars] exists then one implies that [cars] exist.
If [Ford] the ability to do anything, lets call it [build a car], then in order for that ability to exist then [cars] must exist.
If [cars] did not exist then the ability to [make cars] would not exist.
By simply stating that the ability to [make cars] exists then one implies that [cars] exist.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
angellous_evangellous said:
One wonders how cars existed before Ford built it.
Rejected
Under Reconstruction
angellous_evangellous said:
Actually the car did exist; Ford simply developed a more streamlined method of manufacturing them.
I have a piece of paper on my desk. It is not a paper airplane. I create a paper airplane. Before I physically created it it did not exist in physical form, but as a concept in my mind. Much like the telephone, before Bell put all the pieces together it did exist as a concept in his head.
Your God argument is flawed because the act of creation calls a thing into existence, even if he had not created the world yet, it still existed as a concept in his mind as soon as he thought of it.
My construct says nothing about the nonexistence of a thing, only that a thing must exist to have an action associated with it.
Rejected
Under Reconstruction
Anyway, Im done.
If we don't understand each other then there's no reason beating a dead horse.
I'm having a good morning and I don't want to mess it up by having a senseless argument with people I don't even know.
What matters is this: as long as you are content with the way you view the universe and how it works then thats all that matters. I cant make you see my POV and vice versa.
If we don't understand each other then there's no reason beating a dead horse.
I'm having a good morning and I don't want to mess it up by having a senseless argument with people I don't even know.
What matters is this: as long as you are content with the way you view the universe and how it works then thats all that matters. I cant make you see my POV and vice versa.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Mike182 said:
The definition of "good" (and its existence) do not depend upon the definition of "evil" (or its existence.) The value of "good" is defined and dependent only upon its own merits. Your argument is like saying that we can only define a horse and the value of a horse by the existence and value of a duck.
In what way is light a "neutral property?" We can see it and measure it without darkness being present...
