Argument from evil, restated

[Undeceived]

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

1. Love necessitates free will (otherwise we’d be robots/animals).
2. Free will necessitates evil (the option to go against God’s will).
3. Evil must exist in order for free will and love to exist.

So if God wants our love, he must create evil. But keep in mind that God is not actually doing evil. If sin is "anything against God’s will," God cannot sin because he cannot fly in the face of his own will. God merely creates the opportunity/option/idea of countering his will. He did this when he told Adam, “You must not eat from the tree.” Adam committed the first sin, and with it, committed the first evil.

To rephrase, God necessarily cannot do evil, because evil is sin, and sin is anything anti-God. So when Isaiah 45:7 says God “creates” evil, it can only mean that he introduces the idea.

Remember that we must use the Bible to interpret the Bible. Otherwise, we risk imposing our own conceptions on God’s word. The above, I hope, is a successful Christian interpretation.

[Minimalist]

Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

Then Fucketh the Lord.

So if God wants our love, he must create evil.

You explain that to Drippy. Frankly, I'm tired of mediating disputes between jesus freaks. It's like going to a boxing match and watching one of the prelims. You don't care who wins....you just keep shouting "Hit That Son of a Bitch."

[Ryantology]

For depth of relationship, as I explained.

God didn't want Adam and Eve to have knowledge of evil. Does that mean he didn't want a deep relationship with them? Is Adam's fall is a crime for which all humanity deserves punishment, or is that God's way of striking up more meaningful relationships with people? If the latter is true, why all the punishment and misery? Sounds to me that we're being asked to atone for something which was never Adam's fault in the first place (and is most certainly none of ours).

Then he's not omnicapable. Doesn't bother me. I don't see how he could have a deep relationship while not revealing important aspects of himself. It would be like an eternal first date.

If he's not omnicapable, then he's not worth worshiping because he is not the most superior thing there is.

The point isn't time and energy, it's unveiling. Most people could have a successful first date with many more people than they could have a successful marriage with. Some people choose superficial relationships. Some people want to find someone they can open up to and be accepted.

People aren't gods and comparing gods to people to explain his behavior only cheapens the god.

The argument fails because it refutes itself. The concepts of good and evil have no meaning without a moral order that transcends physical reality.

Unless I'm mistaken and morality is a physical object or force which can be measured, then every moral order transcends physical reality to whatever degree, so that takes care of that.

If you refer to the Isaiah 45 quote mentioned then you must first distinguish between natural and moral evil. No Christian denies that the Lord created all the features of the natural world including earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods. The fact that natural disasters happen does not have moral implications.

Natural disasters have no moral implications unless you have an omnipotent God behind the scenes. Then, every disaster has a moral implication and every one of them is, to some greater or lesser extent, that god's fault, for either allowing it to happen and not stopping it, or intentionally causing it. So many people in Oklahoma believe in a God who, according to that belief, is omnipotent and could have stopped that tornado. Yet, so many of them thanked the God which destroyed their neighbors, killed their children, and ruined their lives. The power of delusion is mighty.

I can already hear someone objecting,"yeah, but look how much death and suffering He allows to happen." I will remind that smarty pants that life is a gift. Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. We wouldn't even be alive if not for God, so we don't have any right to complain that ours wasn't long enough.

If life is a gift, it should never be taken away. Otherwise, it's not a gift at all. If you take back gifts, without reason or warning, you're an asshole. But hey, Chad, way to glorify your god's lust for random murder.

[Godscreated]

Whether or not God controls what happens in the world is irrelevant (and, there are millions of people who believe he takes an active role in the world's affairs). What is relevant, and why the argument from evil is irrefutable, is because God created everything, including the conditions necessary for sin to be possible. If he creates beings which can sin against him, it's his fault for making beings which can sin against him. He did not make humans capable of total cooperation and altruism. He made humans capable of rape and murder. He did not tell people to go and seek knowledge of the world, he told people who to kill and why. He did not tell people how to raise good kids, only to kill bad ones. Really, the Epicurean paradox is only reminding us of what is patently obvious throughout the entire Bible.

You are totally ignorant of what the Bible actually says and teaches, why do you even try, you might make yourself look good before those non believers here, however to those who know scripture you look quite dumb.

[Drich]

Please Minnie show me how what I have said contradicts what Isa 45 says.

You have previously denied that your fucking god said he created all "evil." Do you wish to retract that silly statement?

I am asking to see the statement great and wise one. Show me where I said God did not create evil.

---

I don't think you've said anything that contradicts Isaiah, but I might add that putting a barrier between the definitions of "sin" and "evil" makes my case stronger. If sin came into the world at the fall, then God went ahead and did bad things in addition to it. If sin and evil is the same concept, then you may still be able to make the claim that the only time God does "evil" is as punishment for those who disobeyed.

By who standards do you presume to judge the acts of God as 'bad things?'

[Godscreated]

Thought about this while listening to a debate when the concept of the atonement was brought up.

The argument from evil is usually: Evil exists, therefore a good god cannot. I'm going to make it backwards. Atheists, bear with me, I'm going to grant a lot of premises.

If any sin is committed, no matter how insignificant, it's all the same in the eyes of God, which is because he is sin-free, 100% good, and detests evil. Yet in Isaiah 45:7 it explicitly states that he created it, and indeed, if you believe that the tree of knowledge of good and evil existed, then the concept of evil existed prior to Adam choosing it.

The point is, why would a god who detests evil also create or allow it to exist in the first place? The correct answer is, he wouldn't, regardless of giving us free will.

This also brings into question the atonement, because there need be no retribution for god since the problem originated with him in the first place.

You are taking Isaiah 45:7 and using a wrong translation of the word used, in some translations the word is translated evil, the word evil does not even fit the wording of the verse.
Isaiah 45:7 The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well being (peace) and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. NASB
Do you see how light and darkness fit with each other, so peace and calamity fit with each other, evil does not fit especially if you read the entire chapter. Even more so if you take into account what this book is telling us.
Now how can anyone explain how God being righteous could create evil. Evil is an action not a thing, God did not even create Love or Good, that is who God is, not what He tries to be or attained. So love and good have existed forever because God has always existed. For God to have created love and good He would have had to create Himself and God was not created, He has always been.
So where did evil come from if it was not created, others here have already explained it, going against God's will, disobedience. Lucifer brought this about, he is the perpetrator of evil, until Lucifer went against God's will there was no evil.
God did not create evil for it was not created it was simply done and evil then existed, so you can blame Lucifer for evil and sin, because they can only exist as long as someone is going against the will of God. It can and will disappear one day, it will leave as it came.

[Minimalist]

I hate to break this to you G-C ( actually....I fucking love it!) but you have your head shoved firmly up your ass again.

You see, the Israel Museum has just produced a digital copy of the DSS which includes the Great Isaiah scroll and their translation of the earliest known hebrew version is:

Chapter 45 : Verse 7

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am HaShem, that doeth all these things.

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#45:7

Now, as I have established many times the earliest version of this happy horseshit is the Greek Septuagint.

7 ἐγὼ ὁ κατασκευάσας φῶς καὶ ποιήσας σκότος ὁ ποιῶν εἰρήνην καὶ κτίζων κακά ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα πάντα

Or...rendered into English...

I am the one who made the light and the darkness, the maker of peace and maker of evil things, I am Lord the God the maker of all things.

http://en.katabiblon.com/us/?text=LXX&book=Is&ch=45

Sucks to be you but both of these early versions of your bullshit use the word "evil."

[Praetorian]

I'll respond to a few things, but it's clear at this point that we need to retiurn to the actual argument. Name calling gets us nowhere, nor do straw men and non sequiturs.

First, let's be clear that most atheists agree that the Bible is full of examples of God committing atrocities, directly and indirectly. You may or may not agree, but it's not relevant to the argument. I'm using "evil" in the same broad, vague term that the Bible itself uses. Moreover, it doesn't matter whether or not evil was necessary for us to choose a way of life. The fact that something exists that displeases God is a massive contradiction; if he created it, he is responsible for it.

I'm surprised nobody has said anything about my claim that the atonement was meaningless. Anybody care to take a stab at it?

[Minimalist]

I am asking to see the statement great and wise one. Show me where I said God did not create evil.

Rather than search for it you may simply deny ever making such a silly claim. Actually, G-C has jumped in and made it again but I'll let you speak for yourself. You usually come up with some useless drivel without G-C's help.

[Godscreated]

I hate to break this to you G-C ( actually....I fucking love it!) but you have your head shoved firmly up your ass again.

You see, the Israel Museum has just produced a digital copy of the DSS which includes the Great Isaiah scroll and their translation of the earliest known hebrew version is:

Chapter 45 : Verse 7

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am HaShem, that doeth all these things.

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#45:7

Now, as I have established many times the earliest version of this happy horseshit is the Greek Septuagint.

7 ἐγὼ ὁ κατασκευάσας φῶς καὶ ποιήσας σκότος ὁ ποιῶν εἰρήνην καὶ κτίζων κακά ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα πάντα

Or...rendered into English...

I am the one who made the light and the darkness, the maker of peace and maker of evil things, I am Lord the God the maker of all things.

http://en.katabiblon.com/us/?text=LXX&book=Is&ch=45

Sucks to be you but both of these early versions of your bullshit use the word "evil."

Just because they use it does not mean they are right, many times translations of some words were just passed from one translation to the next. Then further research shows a different word should have been used, this is true for many writings in different cultures through ancient times. Just how many times do you think ancient text were translated correct the first, second, third or ect...time, until they were correctly translated if any have been completed 100% correct.
The New American Standard Bible is considered by most Biblical scholars to be the or one of the most accurate translations. In the NASB if a word has a definite meaning yet another word is used to make it easier to understand or fit our modern English more readily, then it (that particular word) is numbered and the literal translated word is given at the side of the page, at least in the NASB study version does. The word translated calamity has no such notation number given to it. Besides the word evil just doesn't fit the rest of the text, can't you ever use some common sense. I know you're smarter than that, why can't you accept that at times you are just plain wrong. Can't you see that "maker of evil things would be better represented by the word calamity, also see if you can figure this one out, in scripture to make does not necessarily mean to create, check out the creation account.