evil God?

[bx_racer]

okay this is more apologetic than anything. i've been thinking, what if God is evil? i know this sounds awful but i mean it in a serious way. try to look at it in an apologetic point of view somewhere around God exists, but what is the truth about Him? like when you are analyzing religions, in a way. so what if He gives us happiness on earth just so He can send us all to hell after this and well suffer even more having tasted it? cause that would totally make sense for a purely evil being to do. im in times of analysis right now and i'm just trying to get this "possibility" cleared, cause as stupid as it sounds it actually kinda makes "sense". ok, your turn

[Guest JeffCR07]

The problem with such a proposition is that it only serves to betray one's faulty notion of what the term "God" actually means.

If you mean by "God" "a being with limitless power" then you could, perhaps, think of God as evil. In order to do this, you would have to show that doing evil is not contrary to power conceived in and of itself, and thus that even a being of limitless power could be evil. This would entail that you provide definitions of "evil," "power," and "limitless."

However, even setting aside the fact that many philosophers and theologians would object that the above is impossible, the majority would argue that the above doesn't even provide an adequate definition of "God." Most would offer a tentitive definition of the type "That than which nothing greater can be conceived." Regardless of the definitive wording, the vast majority of philosophical definitions will have some reference to maximal goodness or greatness. Any of these definitions will involve the [i]a priori[/i] exclusion of God being evil, because they would render him [i]definitionally[/i] good.

Now, lets say that you defined God the first way, and the person you are discussing defined him the second way. In this case, the second person would point out that what you mean by God and what he means by God are two very different things, and so, even if you were to prove that "an evil being of limitless power" were to exist, it would not logically follow that [i]God[/i], under his terminology, would be rendered evil. In essence, you would be talking past each other.

Also, it should be noted that, in point of fact, an "evil being of limitless power" is impossible. This is true [i]a priori[/i] because if "power" is the bringing of a potentiality into actually, "limitless" in this context denotes the fact that the "power" extends over [i]all[/i] potentiality, and "evil" is the lack of a good that something ought to have, then it logically follows that an evil being of necessity lacks some good that it ought to have. But a thing [i]ought[/i] to have only something that it [i]can[/i] have. Thus, whatsoever good an evil being is lacking necessarily [i]can[/i] (logically) be possessed by that being. From this, it follows that the good exists in the evil being [i]potentially[/i] but not [i]actually[/i]. Now this means that, for a being to be "evil" it must necessarily have some unactualized potential. Therefore, if all of that being's potentialities were actualized, it would follow that the being was not, in fact, evil. Now, recalling that power is the actualizing of potential and that a being of limitless power would be one who actualizes all potential, it follows that there is no unactualized potential in a being of limitless power. But if an evil being necessarily has some unactualized potential, then it follows that an evil being [i]cannot[/i] be a being of limitless power.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[bx_racer]

thanks so much Jeff. looks like you put some time into that and i'm thankful. however, i'd like to expand a little bit. what if we were to define evil as not the lacking of something, but the tendency to make others suffer?

[Guest JeffCR07]

You put yourself into a really sticky place philosophically if evil is defined as simply the tendency to make others suffer.

1.) Under this definition, it would be impossible to do evil to yourself, since it is the tendency to make [i]others[/i] suffer. But an unjust man does evil to himself, does he not? Also, what about the impatient man, or, even more, the man who lacks self-control and temperance? All of these can exist without ever being oriented towards other people. Are you prepared to say that someone who does all of these things in private is just as good as a man who does none of them at all?

2.) Also, under this definition, evil is simply the [i]tendency[/i] to make others suffer, rather than simply making them suffer. This means that you are forced to say identify evil with concupiscience. This leads you into some pretty sever problems. For example, lets imagine a married man who sees a beautiful woman, a lustful thought enters his head, and he immediately drives it out. Now let us imagine another man who, rather than immediately driving it out, actually goes and commits adultery with the woman. If evil is merely the tendency, then that tendency was in both equally, and the only difference between them was which person [i]acted[/i] on it. Thus, you are forced to say that the two men are equally evil. Are you prepared to admit this?

3.) Finally, this definition leads you into more problems because it is based on the notion of suffering. First, it seems that there are many evils that are not accompanied by immediate suffering. For example, if a thief were to steal a dollar from Bill Gates without him ever finding out, or if the adulterers above were never caught, there would be no suffering, but it seems clear that there would be evil. Now perhaps one could argue that, while there is no immediate pain, there will be the pain of hell. But if [i]that[/i] is all that is meant, then really your definition is that evil is the "tendency to go to hell" and this begs the question of what causes one to go to hell, which would lead to your new definition being forced to relapse into the definition I gave before, namely, evil is the lacking of a good.

So, it is my belief that you cannot viably hold that evil is "the tendency to make others suffer." I invite you to modify your position, or offer a new definition, whichever you want. I'm really enjoying this conversation!

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Pontifite 7 of 10]

Our God is a God of [i]JUSTICE[/i]. And some people ,after they die, even though God loves everyone like they are only one on Earth, aren't good people and don't love God. So they can't enter heaven, so he has to put 'em somewhere.
And for suffering on earth, we humans caused that. We would still be living in the Garden of Eden if [i]we[/i] haven't had sinned. And don't say it's Eve's fault because anyone would have done it.
God allows natural disasters or deaths to happen. He dosen't cause them. He allows the disasters to happen to see whop will rise up to the call and help others.
I will pray for you so you won't think this thought again

[bx_racer]

[quote name='Pontifite 7 of 10' post='1001255' date='Jun 9 2006, 10:31 AM']
Our God is a God of [i]JUSTICE[/i]. And some people ,after they die, even though God loves everyone like they are only one on Earth, aren't good people and don't love God. So they can't enter heaven, so he has to put 'em somewhere.
And for suffering on earth, we humans caused that. We would still be living in the Garden of Eden if [i]we[/i] haven't had sinned. And don't say it's Eve's fault because anyone would have done it.
God allows natural disasters or deaths to happen. He dosen't cause them. He allows the disasters to happen to see whop will rise up to the call and help others.
I will pray for you so you won't think this thought again
[/quote]

i think you're taking this the wrong way. i'm posing this as a theological question, not professing it as my belief. thank you for having me in your prayers though.

[dairygirl4u2c]

why would you define evil as a lack of good?
if you did that, you could define good as a lack of bad.

if someone said that God is good, and showed all the suffering, then one might conclude that God is lacking in being completely good. Of course, one may say the bad causes good, though one still cannot decide that I see why God didn't make all good completely to begin with. Maybe the suffereing is just an illusion, but it's still an illusion that didn't need to be.

my point is that God could just as easily be defined as bad given our circumstances. Sure, God didn't just start us out frying, ie there are some good things that happen, but with a good God, there are also bad things that happen. You can try to rationalize the bad to be good as I showed, but surely you could rationalize the good to be bad. love is really just a glimpse of good so that we can all be one day damned in fire and miss it.

it seems to make a claim as to God nature relies on faith.

Edited June 11, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[bx_racer]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1001241' date='Jun 9 2006, 10:14 AM']
You put yourself into a really sticky place philosophically if evil is defined as simply the tendency to make others suffer.

1.) Under this definition, it would be impossible to do evil to yourself, since it is the tendency to make [i]others[/i] suffer. But an unjust man does evil to himself, does he not? Also, what about the impatient man, or, even more, the man who lacks self-control and temperance? All of these can exist without ever being oriented towards other people. Are you prepared to say that someone who does all of these things in private is just as good as a man who does none of them at all?

2.) Also, under this definition, evil is simply the [i]tendency[/i] to make others suffer, rather than simply making them suffer. This means that you are forced to say identify evil with concupiscience. This leads you into some pretty sever problems. For example, lets imagine a married man who sees a beautiful woman, a lustful thought enters his head, and he immediately drives it out. Now let us imagine another man who, rather than immediately driving it out, actually goes and commits adultery with the woman. If evil is merely the tendency, then that tendency was in both equally, and the only difference between them was which person [i]acted[/i] on it. Thus, you are forced to say that the two men are equally evil. Are you prepared to admit this?

3.) Finally, this definition leads you into more problems because it is based on the notion of suffering. First, it seems that there are many evils that are not accompanied by immediate suffering. For example, if a thief were to steal a dollar from Bill Gates without him ever finding out, or if the adulterers above were never caught, there would be no suffering, but it seems clear that there would be evil. Now perhaps one could argue that, while there is no immediate pain, there will be the pain of hell. But if [i]that[/i] is all that is meant, then really your definition is that evil is the "tendency to go to hell" and this begs the question of what causes one to go to hell, which would lead to your new definition being forced to relapse into the definition I gave before, namely, evil is the lacking of a good.

So, it is my belief that you cannot viably hold that evil is "the tendency to make others suffer." I invite you to modify your position, or offer a new definition, whichever you want. I'm really enjoying this conversation!

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[/quote]

really? cool man . ok sure, of course... well i was going to say about #1, this is a question about God, and many things that apply to men don't apply to God. this leaves significant doubt in this argument, because if He is the origin of, well, everything, He could create us to, theoretically, suffer consequences from our evil acts while He does not. sounds a bit far-fetched, but it does seem to make "sense"

ok, on number 2, let's go ahead and change the definition to making others suffer. this brings up some interesting stuff involving good but i'll bring it up a bit later if you don't.

and on number 3, we'll say hell is not a place of punishment, simply the unescapable creation of a being who destines its creatures to eternal suffering in it

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1002870' date='Jun 10 2006, 09:16 PM']
why would you define evil as a lack of good?
if you did that, you could define good as a lack of bad.

if someone said that God is good, and showed all the suffering, then one might conclude that God is lacking in being completely good. Of course, one may say the bad causes good, though one still cannot decide that I see why God didn't make all good completely to begin with. Maybe the suffereing is just an illusion, but it's still an illusion that didn't need to be.

my point is that God could just as easily be defined as bad given our circumstances. Sure, God didn't just start us out frying, ie there are some good things that happen, but with a good God, there are also bad things that happen. You can try to rationalize the bad to be good as I showed, but surely you could rationalize the good to be bad. love is really just a glimpse of good so that we can all be one day damned in fire and miss it.

it seems to make a claim as to God nature relies on faith.
[/quote]

Dairy, it seems that you have misunderstood the nature of this discussion. bx_racer is not asking a question concerning theodicy, but rather, he was asking a theological question concerning the nature of God.

Also, concerning your question regarding the definition of evil: If Good were to be defined as the "lack of bad" as you say, then Good would be a privation. But this would mean that non-existence is a form of the Good, since it is a privation of Being. However, this is clearly not the case. However, the converse [i]is[/i] true, namely, that the privation is evil, since the more a thing truly [i]is[/i], the better that thing is. It follows, then, that we can rationally define evil as the privation of Good, but not vice versa.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='bx_racer' post='1002880' date='Jun 10 2006, 09:20 PM']
really? cool man . ok sure, of course... well i was going to say about #1, this is a question about God, and many things that apply to men don't apply to God. this leaves significant doubt in this argument, because if He is the origin of, well, everything, He could create us to, theoretically, suffer consequences from our evil acts while He does not. sounds a bit far-fetched, but it does seem to make "sense"

ok, on number 2, let's go ahead and change the definition to making others suffer. this brings up some interesting stuff involving good but i'll bring it up a bit later if you don't.

and on number 3, we'll say hell is not a place of punishment, simply the unescapable creation of a being who destines its creatures to eternal suffering in it
[/quote]

Sorry it is taking me so long to get back to you, my little sister graduated from high school this weekend and my family has been pretty busy. Now, on to the discussion! Regarding your objections, I will deal with them in turn:

1.) While it is very true that some things that are true of men are different for God (and indeed, the Catechism teaches that every similarity between God and Man that we speak of also betrays an even greater [i]dis[/i]similarity), we have to be careful. If the [i]definition[/i] of evil is that is the tendency to make others suffer, then anything that [i]doesnt[/i] fit that description simply isn't evil. Appealing to a difference between God and men wont help, since we are talking about [i]definitions[/i], and definitions have to be true regardless of who you are talking about, because otherwise it will render the word meaningless. So, this brings us back to our original problem with the definition: if we can really do evil to ourselves, then your definition doesn't work, and I think we [i]can[/i] do evil to ourselves.

2.) I think getting rid of the word "tendency" is a wise choice.

3.) You still have not really replied to the problem that I raised here: If evil is tied to suffering, then there can be no evil where there is not suffering. But this isn't true, as with my Bill Gates example. If a thief steals one dollar from Bill Gates, and he never notices it, then no one suffers, but the action is still evil. Therefore, evil cannot be tied to suffering.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

bumping, just cuz I dont want it to get lost in the flood of all the political debates

[bx_racer]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1004853' date='Jun 13 2006, 02:19 PM']
bumping, just cuz I dont want it to get lost in the flood of all the political debates
[/quote]

ok thanks man, sorry i'm kinda busy right now too, so yeah.. lets see..

[bx_racer]

ok this is all starting to make sense. a lot to swallow, i must admit, but some serious meditation really helps. however, what if we simply leave out the term evil and leave an omnipotent being that makes all, including itself, suffer. and the trinity is not perfect love, but perfect hate, so that each person in the trinity lives to make others suffer and to suffer. a grim view, truly, but if we are to clear this thing up we have to do it right.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='bx_racer' post='1006335' date='Jun 15 2006, 11:51 AM']
ok this is all starting to make sense. a lot to swallow, i must admit, but some serious meditation really helps. however, what if we simply leave out the term evil and leave an omnipotent being that makes all, including itself, suffer. and the trinity is not perfect love, but perfect hate, so that each person in the trinity lives to make others suffer and to suffer. a grim view, truly, but if we are to clear this thing up we have to do it right.
[/quote]

I would maintain, along with almost every other serious theologian and many philosophers, that such a being is a contradiction in terms. Suffering implies either the lack of some good or the prevention of some potentiality. But an omnipotent being can neither lack a good nor have a potentiality prevented (in fact, a truly omnipotent being cannot have potentiality at all). Thus, the being that you propose is impossible [i]in principle[/i].

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[bx_racer]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1006416' date='Jun 15 2006, 02:23 PM']
I would maintain, along with almost every other serious theologian and many philosophers, that such a being is a contradiction in terms. Suffering implies either the lack of some good or the prevention of some potentiality. But an omnipotent being can neither lack a good nor have a potentiality prevented (in fact, a truly omnipotent being cannot have potentiality at all). Thus, the being that you propose is impossible [i]in principle[/i].

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[/quote]

hey, thanks man