God allows evil so he looks better... WTF?

[Psalm23]

Evil only exists without the presence of God.

Q: Does cold exist? A: No! Cold is the absense of heat!

Q: Does darkness exist? A: No! Darkness is the absense of light!
When we measure a dark room.. We are measuring how much light is present in that room.
Darkness cannot be measured.

The existence of God, or evil cannot be measured by mankind's miniscule brain power..

Are you being serious? The problem of evil simply can not be dismissed with so easily! If "evil" were simply the absence of god's presence then you have to limit your god. "God is omnipotent" and "Evil is the absence of God" just don't work together!

If you believe both of these things about your God, then your God obviously doesn't exist.

God can either be:
a) An all-powerful entity that doesn't give a flying fuck about good and evil in the humanly sense,
or
b) The embodiment of everything good, powerless to stop evil in a "fallen" world.

Surely there's some other options available - but none of those would include an all-powerful and omni benevolent god (at least how we mortals would define one)

I understand what you're saying, but God knows where evil exists. evil exists in the lives of people who do not worship him.

secondly, the bible says.. "no one shall be righteous, not one!"

when was evil first introduced in the bible? A: When God turned his back on Adam in the Garden.

Evil existed without God being present.

think about that one..

it's all one big metaphor!!! learn it.

[curiosityandthecat]

I understand what you're saying, but God knows where evil exists. evil exists in the lives of people who do not worship him.

secondly, the bible says.. "no one shall be righteous, not one!"

when was evil first introduced in the bible? A: When God turned his back on Adam in the Garden.

Evil existed without God being present.

think about that one..

it's all one big metaphor!!! learn it.

[Sophus]

Hey Psalm,

I too allow evil to make myself look better. The other day a purse snatcher ran right by me. I tipped my hat and then told the robbed woman "Hey, at least I'm not as bad as that guy. Want to grab a cup of coffee?" I'm such a fantastic guy aren't I? WORSHIP ME!  

[PipeBox]

when was evil first introduced in the bible? A: When God turned his back on Adam in the Garden.

Evil existed without God being present.

think about that one...

I like how I can totally read that as God committing the first sin.  I think it has relevance to the first line of my sig.  

If we could only confront God while he was drawing himself away from Adam and Eve in the Garden.
"So, God, where are Adam and Eve?"
"What?  Am I man's keeper or something?"
"... What did you do?"
"Nothing, I just don't know where they are, OK?  But they're not hanging out with the serpent I don't know is in the Garden, so I definitely don't have to worry about them sinning or anything."

As to your statement that evil is only present where God is not, omnipotent God would make himself omnipresent if he cared.  He has the power, and yet he elects not to, ergo it's just as bad if I have a canteen full of water and I strategically avoid everyone dying of thirst because they got themselves into a position where they were dying of thirst by their own free will.  Sorry, the problem of evil is truly insurmountable for modern religion.

[Sophus]

when was evil first introduced in the bible? A: When God turned his back on Adam in the Garden.

Evil existed without God being present.

think about that one...

I like how I can totally read that as God committing the first sin.  I think it has relevance to the first line of my sig.  

I like that. Similar to this one:

"The attempt to solve the problem of suffering by postulating original sin depends on the belief that cruelty is justified when it is retributive; indeed, that morality demands retribution."

[Ben-AG]

Sorry, in my opinion, no one can understand the concept of good and evil.  To Christians, it's trying to understand the work of an infinite God from a finite disposition.  It's impossible; there are some things in this world we were never meant to understand.  To non-Christians, it's a concept put forth by believers and, in recognizing that there is such a thing as inherent good and evil, you, essentially, imply there is such a thing as a God.  Nonetheless, you are essentially trying to explain away something you don't believe in and thus are farther from understanding the proposed concept.

I am not going to be so bold as to say I think I know the purpose of "evil," but why should I?  I don't think there's a single person who really understands this complex concept.  Although, I'm sure there are people who think they do.  They, of course, are entitled to their opinion.

[curiosityandthecat]

Sorry, in my opinion, no one can understand the concept of good and evil.  To Christians, it's trying to understand the work of an infinite God from a finite disposition.  It's impossible; there are some things in this world we were never meant to understand.  To non-Christians, it's a concept put forth by believers and, in recognizing that there is such a thing as inherent good and evil, you, essentially, imply there is such a thing as a God.  Nonetheless, you are essentially trying to explain away something you don't believe in and thus are farther from understanding the proposed concept.

I am not going to be so bold as to say I think I know the purpose of "evil," but why should I?  I don't think there's a single person who really understands this complex concept.  Although, I'm sure there are people who think they do.  They, of course, are entitled to their opinion.

I don't think "good" and "evil" are concepts put forward by believers. They are concepts that are at the very root of human nature. The labels "good" and "evil" maybe, but not the concepts. To say that admitting there are positive and negative social forces in the world means admitting there is a god just doesn't follow.

Why someone is evil is a much more complex concept than evil, itself. Good and evil are completely subjective, after all.

[Ben-AG]

Sorry, in my opinion, no one can understand the concept of good and evil.  To Christians, it's trying to understand the work of an infinite God from a finite disposition.  It's impossible; there are some things in this world we were never meant to understand.  To non-Christians, it's a concept put forth by believers and, in recognizing that there is such a thing as inherent good and evil, you, essentially, imply there is such a thing as a God.  Nonetheless, you are essentially trying to explain away something you don't believe in and thus are farther from understanding the proposed concept.

I am not going to be so bold as to say I think I know the purpose of "evil," but why should I?  I don't think there's a single person who really understands this complex concept.  Although, I'm sure there are people who think they do.  They, of course, are entitled to their opinion.

I don't think "good" and "evil" are concepts put forward by believers. They are concepts that are at the very root of human nature. The labels "good" and "evil" maybe, but not the concepts. To say that admitting there are positive and negative social forces in the world means admitting there is a god just doesn't follow.

Why someone is evil is a much more complex concept than evil, itself. Good and evil are completely subjective, after all.

Of course, agreed, good and evil are completely subjective.  If you are trying to deduce why one is "evil," "evil" in that sense describes attributes that individual may hold.  That does not necessarily imply an existence of a God.  But, if you are referring to evil as the "force of evil," this implies something beyond the natural world.  This is where the existence of a God only seems reasonable.

I believe a major discrepancy arises when theists and atheists are debating "good and evil."  A theist would be referring to the "force of evil" while "evil" to an atheist would merely be something of an adjective.

[curiosityandthecat]

But, if you are referring to evil as the "force of evil," this implies something beyond the natural world.  This is where the existence of a God only seems reasonable.

I believe a major discrepancy arises when theists and atheists are debating "good and evil."  A theist would be referring to the "force of evil" while "evil" to an atheist would merely be something of an adjective.

But why is it something beyond the natural world? Seems like simple anthropomorphism, to me. We have evil, the "force" of which being nothing more than the collected and varied motives of those doing evil deeds, implying nothing other than, vaguely, some universally agreed upon number of desirable and undesirable actions. The assumption is that there is something outside us that causes evil. This assumption is wrong.

You are right about (at least I can speak for myself) the atheist referring to "good" and "evil" as adjectives rather than some fantastic, external energy that guides human action. For me, the "force of evil" is as nonsensical as the "force of hope." It's just a way to project an aspect of human psychology and sociology outside ourselves.

[Tanker]

Sorry, in my opinion, no one can understand the concept of good and evil.  To Christians, it's trying to understand the work of an infinite God from a finite disposition.  It's impossible; there are some things in this world we were never meant to understand.  To non-Christians, it's a concept put forth by believers and, in recognizing that there is such a thing as inherent good and evil, you, essentially, imply there is such a thing as a God.  Nonetheless, you are essentially trying to explain away something you don't believe in and thus are farther from understanding the proposed concept.

I am not going to be so bold as to say I think I know the purpose of "evil," but why should I?  I don't think there's a single person who really understands this complex concept.  Although, I'm sure there are people who think they do.  They, of course, are entitled to their opinion.

I'm going to go on a limb here and guess that you believe man gets his morals from the bible. That would be wrong. As an example how about child rape. As far as I know the bible says nothing about raping children in fact according to the OT the age of adulthood is 13. That means a 60 year old man can marry a 13 year old girl. Do you think child rape ,even at the ripe old age of 13, is wrong? If you answered yes then you have discerned good from evil without the bible, in fact against the bible.

It's in no way impossible to discern right from wrong and it is not a concept put forth by only christians. All people in the world decide right from wrong. Weather or not they have ever heard of Christianity. Most, if not all morals (good and evil) are subjective (hence the 13 year old age) to one certain group of people in one place at a given time. What is considered good and what is evil changes, or can be made to change, that's why otherwise sane people can be convinced that genocide, racism, human experiments, ect are justified when they do them.

Christians in no way have a monopoly to say what is good or evil.

[Ben-AG]

But, if you are referring to evil as the "force of evil," this implies something beyond the natural world.  This is where the existence of a God only seems reasonable.

I believe a major discrepancy arises when theists and atheists are debating "good and evil."  A theist would be referring to the "force of evil" while "evil" to an atheist would merely be something of an adjective.

But why is it something beyond the natural world? Seems like simple anthropomorphism, to me. We have evil, the "force" of which being nothing more than the collected and varied motives of those doing evil deeds, implying nothing other than, vaguely, some universally agreed upon number of desirable and undesirable actions. The assumption is that there is something outside us that causes evil. This assumption is wrong.

You are right about (at least I can speak for myself) the atheist referring to "good" and "evil" as adjectives rather than some fantastic, external energy that guides human action. For me, the "force of evil" is as nonsensical as the "force of hope." It's just a way to project an aspect of human psychology and sociology outside ourselves.

You are right.  Humans can be inherently evil.  But, because I am a Christian, I believe there is also such a thing as a "force of evil."  You may not hold that ideal.  That's okay.  Point is, you cannot try to explain away the Christian concept of evil because you simply do not see it the same way a Christian does.  Evil, in this sense, is used in different contexts.  Some concepts of the Christian faith are beyond understanding to a Christian, that's okay.  Personally, it is not imperative for me to understand it.

[Ben-AG]

Sorry, in my opinion, no one can understand the concept of good and evil.  To Christians, it's trying to understand the work of an infinite God from a finite disposition.  It's impossible; there are some things in this world we were never meant to understand.  To non-Christians, it's a concept put forth by believers and, in recognizing that there is such a thing as inherent good and evil, you, essentially, imply there is such a thing as a God.  Nonetheless, you are essentially trying to explain away something you don't believe in and thus are farther from understanding the proposed concept.

I am not going to be so bold as to say I think I know the purpose of "evil," but why should I?  I don't think there's a single person who really understands this complex concept.  Although, I'm sure there are people who think they do.  They, of course, are entitled to their opinion.

[curiosityandthecat]

You are right.  Humans can be inherently evil.  But, because I am a Christian, I believe there is also such a thing as a "force of evil."  You may not hold that ideal.  That's okay.  Point is, you cannot try to explain away the Christian concept of evil because you simply do not see it the same way a Christian does.  Evil, in this sense, is used in different contexts.  Some concepts of the Christian faith are beyond understanding to a Christian, that's okay.  Personally, it is not imperative for me to understand it.

I find that interesting. Do you accept the "force of evil" because you are a Christian (dogmatically), or are you a Christian because you accept things like a "force" of evil (based on observation/decision)?

[Ben-AG]

You are right.  Humans can be inherently evil.  But, because I am a Christian, I believe there is also such a thing as a "force of evil."  You may not hold that ideal.  That's okay.  Point is, you cannot try to explain away the Christian concept of evil because you simply do not see it the same way a Christian does.  Evil, in this sense, is used in different contexts.  Some concepts of the Christian faith are beyond understanding to a Christian, that's okay.  Personally, it is not imperative for me to understand it.

I find that interesting. Do you accept the "force of evil" because you are a Christian (dogmatically), or are you a Christian because you accept things like a "force" of evil (based on observation/decision)?

I think that it is a loaded question.  I did not become a Christian because of the "force of evil," I am a Christian because I realized my brokenness.

[curiosityandthecat]

I think that it is a loaded question.  I did not become a Christian because of the "force of evil," I am a Christian because I realized my brokenness.

You may have misunderstood.   It's not loaded, I promise. I was trying to find out if your opinions about the force of evil we're discussing is based on your identity as a Christian, or if your identity as a Christian is based on the conclusions you've reached via the experiences you've had. Not leading, just curious.