God created Evil

[bahman]

I think that "evil" by definition is "not-perfection." I don't think you can have "perfect evil" at all, and I don't think anyone can even imagine such a thing.

I can imagine perfect Evil if I define Evil as state of suffering and confusion.

Moreover the OP stands even if you define Evil as not-perfection

And consider "extreme suffering." It's not "absolute suffering," because suffering only happens when we are conscious of a distance between what we are experiencing and what we should or could be experiencing. So again, it's derivative by way of deprivation of the good. It doesn't exist on its own.

I don't understand you. We can imagine absolute suffering/Evil as we can imagine absolute pleasure.

But as it is, how is it we know suffering is "bad" or "evil"? Does not the Law of Survival of the Fittest tell us that suffering is very, very good for the progress of the more-adapted members of society? If the weak and foolish lack, suffer and die, we all win according to Evolutionary theory....

Evil could be useful if you define it as state of suffering.

[Walker]

Suffering is not evil because suffering is how one learns to continue living, which benefits the species.

For example, a great sculptor who knows he did not do his best suffers for it, and thus discovers to be uncompromising with quality.

For example, a child discovers the edge of balance by suffering bicycle falls. To avoid future suffering she non-conceptually discovers the physics of balance and motion as applied to the original test dummy, just as she discovered how to balance her head-heavy body on chubby soles.

Good is when you can peacefully go about your business.
Evil is what wants to kill you.

Unlike humanity, humans are not a concept even though concepts describe a human with varying fidelities to reality. Discovery of ever-unique synchronicity results from non-attachment.

Non-attachment is the involved but impartial and thus objective relationship between awareness and attention. This is where suffering is discovered to be a superfluous and arbitrary state of mind to be witnessed by awareness.

In this way discomfort is incorporated without separation into the totality of being and thus has the effect like raindrops on the ocean.

[Immanuel Can]

I can imagine perfect Evil if I define Evil as state of suffering and confusion.

That sounds like the Hindu view. In Hinduism, there IS no concept of "evil" really, at least not the same concept we have in the West. In the West, evil is just plain bad, wrong, and shouldn't exist. In Eastern thought, it's regrettable in one sense, but permanent and necessary in another. In fact, "all is suffering." (samsara). It's a solid attribute of reality, in Hindu thought, one just as indispensable as what we perceive as good.

But I don't think we have reason to believe that's true.

Moreover the OP stands even if you define Evil as not-perfection

It doesn't actually. If evil is the absence of perfection, then evil is not an inherent attribute of reality but is rather a deficiency of the inherent attribute of reality. Creation is deeply, profoundly and essentially "good," but has been deprived of that quality in some measure through the severing of man from his relationship with the Creator. But it is quite coherent to think of a completely "good" universe, one in which no evil at all exists. So evil is not a real, substantial or necessary thing: it's a derivative lack of good.

That's not thinkable from a Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist perspective. So redemption cannot be cosmic, but rather must be the individual through enlightenment. Reality will always proceed to be composed of the dark and the light, regardless.

Again, I think we have no reason to believe that. But that's what they say.

I don't understand you. We can imagine absolute suffering/Evil as we can imagine absolute pleasure

.
Well, can we really "imagine" either? But the point is this: that which was absolutely evil would have no coherent structure at all; for coherence is a positive quality. So is existence. So is intelligibility. So while a good thing could have all of these qualities, an ultimately evil thing could not have any of them.

How then could we "imagine" what simply cannot have form, existence or intelligibility? You see, it makes no logical sense.

But as it is, how is it we know suffering is "bad" or "evil"? Does not the Law of Survival of the Fittest tell us that suffering is very, very good for the progress of the more-adapted members of society? If the weak and foolish lack, suffer and die, we all win according to Evolutionary theory....

Evil could be useful if you define it as state of suffering.

Well, and Evolutionism says that even death is a desirable thing. It eliminates the unfit from the gene pool. And suffering, well, that's just evidence of insufficient evolutionary formation -- it's not "bad" or "evil" in any sense at all. Those are words imported from Jewish and Christian thought; they are not inherent in Evolutionism.

But if, in any sense, evil is really valuable and necessary, then any indictment of God for allowing it evaporates. For then He has not allowed anything "bad," and has only done what was valuable and necessary.

So either way, the OP syllogism is in trouble.

[bobevenson]

I believe the following negates the premise of this thread:
"For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled."
-Revelation 17:17 (a description of the beast with 7 heads and 10 horns in chapter and verse)

[bahman]

Suffering is not evil because suffering is how one learns to continue living, which benefits the species.

For example, a great sculptor who knows he did not do his best suffers for it, and thus discovers to be uncompromising with quality.

For example, a child discovers the edge of balance by suffering bicycle falls. To avoid future suffering she non-conceptually discovers the physics of balance and motion as applied to the original test dummy, just as she discovered how to balance her head-heavy body on chubby soles.

Good is when you can peacefully go about your business.
Evil is what wants to kill you.

Unlike humanity, humans are not a concept even though concepts describe a human with varying fidelities to reality. Discovery of ever-unique synchronicity results from non-attachment.

Non-attachment is the involved but impartial and thus objective relationship between awareness and attention. This is where suffering is discovered to be a superfluous and arbitrary state of mind to be witnessed by awareness.

In this way discomfort is incorporated without separation into the totality of being and thus has the effect like raindrops on the ocean.

How do you define Evil?

[bobevenson]

How do you define Evil?

What God hath not put in their hearts to fulfill his will.

[Walker]

Suffering is not evil because suffering is how one learns to continue living, which benefits the species.

For example, a great sculptor who knows he did not do his best suffers for it, and thus discovers to be uncompromising with quality.

For example, a child discovers the edge of balance by suffering bicycle falls. To avoid future suffering she non-conceptually discovers the physics of balance and motion as applied to the original test dummy, just as she discovered how to balance her head-heavy body on chubby soles.

Good is when you can peacefully go about your business.
Evil is what wants to kill you.

Unlike humanity, humans are not a concept even though concepts describe a human with varying fidelities to reality. Discovery of ever-unique synchronicity results from non-attachment.

Non-attachment is the involved but impartial and thus objective relationship between awareness and attention. This is where suffering is discovered to be a superfluous and arbitrary state of mind to be witnessed by awareness.

In this way discomfort is incorporated without separation into the totality of being and thus has the effect like raindrops on the ocean.

How do you define Evil?

Evil is what wants to kill you.

Since it can't be said any plainer, you must be looking for an elaboration.

Relativists will be happy to know that there are shades of evil with appropriate labels which precede and are predicated upon the intent of coup de grace.

When you see a thing you don’t like, which includes an idea, and you attempt to destroy that thing, then you are the evil … to that thing.

This is measured by the life (existence, for the inanimate) … of that thing.

You may be a crusader destroying in the name of goodness, but you are evil to that which is being destroyed, even if you think you are good for destroying that evil thing (as thing has been defined).

Think of that next time you bite into a vile weed.

Someone … Honey mustard!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91au6Y5q8j0

[bahman]

That sounds like the Hindu view. In Hinduism, there IS no concept of "evil" really, at least not the same concept we have in the West. In the West, evil is just plain bad, wrong, and shouldn't exist. In Eastern thought, it's regrettable in one sense, but permanent and necessary in another. In fact, "all is suffering." (samsara). It's a solid attribute of reality, in Hindu thought, one just as indispensable as what we perceive as good.

But I don't think we have reason to believe that's true.

Interesting. Lets just focus on definition Evil as wrong/bad for sake of this thread.

It doesn't actually. If evil is the absence of perfection, then evil is not an inherent attribute of reality but is rather a deficiency of the inherent attribute of reality. Creation is deeply, profoundly and essentially "good," but has been deprived of that quality in some measure through the severing of man from his relationship with the Creator. But it is quite coherent to think of a completely "good" universe, one in which no evil at all exists. So evil is not a real, substantial or necessary thing: it's a derivative lack of good.

OP stands. Evil is inherent attribute of reality since God was aware that Evil would happen before the act of creation. It is simple, creation must be perfect if God is perfect.

That's not thinkable from a Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist perspective. So redemption cannot be cosmic, but rather must be the individual through enlightenment. Reality will always proceed to be composed of the dark and the light, regardless.

Again, I think we have no reason to believe that. But that's what they say.

Lets focus on western definition of Evil for sake of this thread.

[bahman]

Evil is what wants to kill you.

So that is your definition? I define Evil as bad and wrong for sake of this thread. Can we stick to this definition? What is your opinion about OP?

[Walker]

Evil is what wants to kill you.

So that is your definition? I define Evil as bad and wrong for sake of this thread. Can we stick to this definition? What is your opinion about OP?

That and everything else I said which you may or may not have ignored, or comprehended, or perceived, or apprehended, or processed, mulled, ruminated, and so on.

Since you asked and since I did not volunteer as it may have derailed your thread, I thought your definition of evil is weak and ineffectual, and see no purpose in applying reasoning to a watery premise.

However, I did provide some meat for thought.

Apologies if I've disrupted whatever else you intended.



Muslims or others correct me if I’m wrong, but Islamic-caused killings of humans because they are Christian is not an act intended to actually kill the person, though that happens when the killer is a fundamentalist who worships and names swords. Rather, killing Christianity is to kill the objective quality inherent in the principles which define Christianity, principles which any Christian should know.

[sthitapragya]

I think what Bahman is trying to point out is that nature itself is full of what can be considered evil. All of nature and living things generally need to be violent to survive. The design of life seems to be violent. Then we have so many creatures which kill their preys in horrific ways. Slow, painful deaths, violent deaths, preying on new born animals because they are easy prey, all these things are abhorrent to us. Then there is death and destruction through natural disasters, sometimes on extinction level scales. If God designed all of this, then what he designed seems to be evil itself. It is not only about man acting evilly against man. Nature herself is violent and evil by the standards used by us to define evil. That is not the doing of humans. That is the doing of the creator if there is one.

[bahman]

I think what Bahman is trying to point out is that nature itself is full of what can be considered evil. All of nature and living things generally need to be violent to survive. The design of life seems to be violent. Then we have so many creatures which kill their preys in horrific ways. Slow, painful deaths, violent deaths, preying on new born animals because they are easy prey, all these things are abhorrent to us. Then there is death and destruction through natural disasters, sometimes on extinction level scales. If God designed all of this, then what he designed seems to be evil itself. It is not only about man acting evilly against man. Nature herself is violent and evil by the standards used by us to define evil. That is not the doing of humans. That is the doing of the creator if there is one.

Yes. In simple world why God created a universe where Evil could happens. God is not perfect if He create imperfect universe. God should create only perfect universe where there in no Evil is possible.

[bahman]

So that is your definition? I define Evil as bad and wrong for sake of this thread. Can we stick to this definition? What is your opinion about OP?
That and everything else I said which you may or may not have ignored, or comprehended, or perceived, or apprehended, or processed, mulled, ruminated, and so on.

Since you asked and since I did not volunteer as it may have derailed your thread, I thought your definition of evil is weak and ineffectual, and see no purpose in applying reasoning to a watery premise.

However, I did provide some meat for thought.

I am sorry. I am open to new idea for thought. Please correct me if I am wrong. You quoted "Evil is what wants to kill you." twice which to me that is a case of Evil action too.

Apologies if I've disrupted whatever else you intended.



Muslims or others correct me if I’m wrong, but Islamic-caused killings of humans because they are Christian is not an act intended to actually kill the person, though that happens when the killer is a fundamentalist who worships and names swords. Rather, killing Christianity is to kill the objective quality inherent in the principles which define Christianity, principles which any Christian should know.

Even Christian kill each other. Look at the first and second world wars.

[Immanuel Can]

Interesting. Lets just focus on definition Evil as wrong/bad for sake of this thread.

Sure.

There is an implication, though. That is, if you believe that a real "evil" exists, if things can really be "bad," and so on, you're already admitting that objective values exist. Before I would ever force such an implication on you, I'd want to ask if you are prepared to be in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound on that one? Shall we accept that good and evil are actual properties, objective facts in the world?

Because if we stop and the point of saying, "Good and evil are just feelings/evaluations people have, but are not grounded in any objective fact," then your OP fails again immediately. For how can God "create evil" when no such thing as "evil" actually exists?

...creation must be perfect if God is perfect.

This would be a logical conclusion only if God is the only effective will in the universe, and human will is just an illusion. But if human will is real, and can be different from the Divine Will, then there's no reason to suppose that human will must produce perfection. Original creation might indeed be perfect: but if it allowed space for human will, then that perfection would be unlikely to remain perfect.

[Immanuel Can]

Even Christian kill each other. Look at the first and second world wars.

Those are 100% secular wars. Not a single person -- not even the Jews -- were killed for their religion in WW1 or 2.

The Jewish People themselves can tell you that -- converting to Lutheranism, Catholicism or Atheism did not protect a single one of them from the Nazis. You can see that: they were killed for their race, not their religion.

So your example is a powerful one against your point.