Not only must it not be loving, kind, etc. but it must be the opposite of those. There's a subtle difference there. I can be unloving for example, without being hateful and resentful. That's precisely why evil (injustice, malice, etc.) isn't merely the absence of good, but rather its opposite. — Agustino

What makes it the opposite? What does opposite really mean?

What makes it the opposite? What does opposite really mean? — Lone Wolf

Opposite means contrary to it. If love is what brings people together, then its opposite isn't the mere absence of love, but rather hate, that which pushes people apart.

I think that some of the modern, and perhaps not so modern, theological efforts to define evil in terms of goodness (as if evil was nothing but not good) are one of the most profound theological mistakes ever made. This definition of evil is a subversive reification - attempting to attribute existence to an abstraction, thereby denying the independent reality of evil. — Agustino

I agree. I've always found the claim that evil is the privation of the good to be arbitrary. It's just axiomatically asserted with a few paltry examples. Why couldn't evil be real and goodness the absence of it? Why couldn't there be a Form of Evil as the one true reality instead of a Form of the Good?

Once this is affirmed, then God becomes the Creator of the good and of the evil — Agustino

Perhaps you have solved the dilemma (I think that depends on how a lot of the terms you used are defined), but you've failed to provide any compelling reason to worship this God. Why worship a God who deliberately creates evil? Just as we wouldn't follow or admire a human being who caused evil, so we shouldn't do the same of God. It would be morally obligatory to oppose such a being.

Hmmm...true opposite must be the complete absence. Why does hate push people apart? If love brings them together, then hate clearly lacks that binding agent. We can somewhat define what the elements of love is (trust, patience, ect.), but what are the elements of hate?

Why worship a God who deliberately creates evil? Just as we wouldn't follow or admire a human being who caused evil, so we shouldn't do the same of God. It would be morally obligatory to oppose such a being — Thorongil

Yes, very good question. I have not understood that either. How could a God that is supposed to be good produce evil? How can a good tree produce bad fruit?

Hmmm...true opposite must be the complete absence. Why does hate push people apart? — Lone Wolf

That's like asking why love pulls people together. It's just it's nature.

But the true opposite isn't a complete absence, that's precisely my point. The complete absence of that which pulls people together doesn't push them apart also, this is an important point.

but what are the elements of hate? — Lone Wolf

Selfishness, pride, etc.?

I suggest that "evil" isn't well-defined. It isn't possible to discuss something without a good definition.

It sounds to me as if you're re-ifying evil.

Look, there are seriously misguided and lost people, and typically then have a malicious tendency. Some of them are dangerous &/or harmful to others.

That isn't "evil". It's just misguided, lost, malicious &/or dangerous people.

Michael Ossipoff.

That isn't "evil". It's just misguided, lost, malicious &/or dangerous people. — Michael Ossipoff

This is a philosophy of religion discussion... it's not placed in Ethics this topic, you know...

This is a philosophy of religion discussion... it's not placed in Ethics this topic, you know... — Agustino

Call it what you want. My answer is still valid.

When I say that this philosophy-of-religion discussion is using a made-up term without a meaning ("evil"), I'm validly participating in this discussion of philosophy-of-religion.

P.s. At no extra charge, I'll offer an answer to why there is "evil" in this world:

We were all born in the Land of the Lost.

I suggest that, consistent with that, could be some really messed up conduct or ours in previous lives, whereby we really messed-up our lives..

We discussed reincarnation at a discussion-thread by that name.

You can't very well object to an explanation involving reincarnation, in a philosophy-of-religion discussion. Yes, different people believe differently, but some of you have a difficult time explaining the sorry state of our societal-world. Reincarnation neatly explains our birth in a world such as this.

Michael Ossipoff

Why couldn't evil be real and goodness the absence of it? Why couldn't there be a Form of Evil as the one true reality instead of a Form of the Good? — Thorongil

For the same reason that good isn't just the absence of evil either :P . The fallacy there is that two different aspects of reality cannot be defined in terms of each other, but must rather be defined in-themselves. The experience of evil, is different than the experience of good. So defining evil in relation to good is just as false as defining good in relation to evil. It would mean to reify it.

Why worship a God who deliberately creates evil? — Thorongil

What's the problem with this? God is God, He's not a human being. I find this highly incoherent, trying to judge God by the very Law (which you call morality and is written in everyone's heart) that God Himself has created :s Human beings, and those under the Law can be judged by the Law, but God? That's silly - it is blasphemy, treating God as one of your fellow creatures that you can judge. God is His own justification, He is above good and evil. How could anything God does be evil, ie against the Law, when God is the Creator of the Law and supreme over it? God ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Can you imagine being Abraham, and approaching Mount Moriah, knowing that you have to pull that knife and thrust it into your son's neck?! That seems horrifying to us, and it is. It is completely against the moral law that is written in our hearts. But God is above the Law. That is why Abraham was right to have faith in God, believing both that he will kill Isaac, and that Isaac will live - even though it was absurd. For nothing is impossible for God.

Just as we wouldn't follow or admire a human being who caused evil, so we shouldn't do the same of God. It would be morally obligatory to oppose such a being. — Thorongil

No it wouldn't. This is precisely the difference between creature and Creator. I have no right to destroy God's creation, for it is God's, not mine. But God has a right to destroy all of creation if He so desires, for it is His. I don't understand why so many people insist that God must be an anthropomorphism of the human :s Why make out of God a creature like us? :s

As for why I admire God, it is precisely because He is transcendent, and thus beyond Good and Evil - that He is Lord over all of Creation, unbounded by anything, entirely free, and He doesn't owe us anything. Many people have this tendency to have expectations from God, but God doesn't owe a creature anything. He decides what to do with His Creation, for it is His. No human judgement can comprehend God. Once someone gets this, there is a profound humility towards God that is felt, as well as acceptance of life as it is. It is much like the end of Job's story. Job cries to God and wrestles with Him, until God booms to him that he has no right to question His creation to begin with!

He has created such beautiful things as the stars in the heavens, the galaxies, each of the animals, the angels, the demons, and everything that exists. Job should be grateful even that he had the chance to see the rest of creation, even if for a single second. And behold Job is protesting because he is suffering. So what? Who is he to have expectations of God and demand that life be as he wants it to be? Is he greater than God to judge God? It is God's right as His Creator to allow anything to happen to him. Job has no right to demand something out of God. How can God owe any man anything?!

"What's the problem with this? God is God, He's not a human being. I find this highly incoherent, trying to judge God by the very Law (which you call morality and is written in everyone's heart) that God Himself has created :s Human beings, and those under the Law can be judged by the Law, but God? That's silly - it is blasphemy, treating God as one of your fellow creatures that you can judge. God is His own justification, He is above good and evil. How could anything God does be evil, ie against the Law, when God is the Creator of the Law and supreme over it? God ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Can you imagine being Abraham, and approaching Mount Moriah, knowing that you have to pull that knife and thrust it into your son's neck?! That seems horrifying to us, and it is. It is completely against the moral law that is written in our hearts. But God is above the Law. That is why Abraham was right to have faith in God, believing both that he will kill Isaac, and that Isaac will live - even though it was absurd. For nothing is impossible for God."

How about the muslim terrorists then like those who flew into world trade center or ISIS today? They would love hearing what you said here and say that this is exactly what they do; God demands them to kill for the sake of faith, and because God is above the Law... I mean, if one is demanded by God to go beyond the moral law, then why blame these terrorists? Perhaps they actually do what God tells them? You see, I am not saying that you are wrong, because I am familiar with this reasoning from Kierkegaard and find it interesting(and I see the same spirit in Nietzsche even if you reject and hate him - perhaps because he doesn't use christian terminology but instead tries to create a new definition of things?) but it is certainly a risk to say that God is above his law and can demand people to do evil things and consider it "good"(though I know that God prevented Abraham from killing Isaac)...

"No it wouldn't. This is precisely the difference between creature and Creator. I have no right to destroy God's creation, for it is God's, not mine."

So, once again, what if God wants you and me to destroy creation, using us as tools? Is that then immoral? I mean, you say that God is beyond good and evil but yet that man is to be condemned if he acts "beyond good and evil", if I have understood correctly? But what if God wants us to act beyond good and evil?

You guys need to make a mega thread.

God demands them to kill for the sake of faith — Beebert

Because God doesn't demand them that (therefore this premise would be false)? Human beings are bound by the moral law, and they will be judged by the Law. So if you break the law (remember that Abraham didn't actually break the law), then you'll be judged for breaking the law.

it is certainly a risk to say that God is above his law and can demand people to do evil things and consider it "good"(though I know that God prevented Abraham from killing Isaac)... — Beebert

No, the actions wouldn't be considered good. Remember that with Abraham, he didn't believe God was commanding him to do evil, for he believed in his heart that Isaac would live, since God promised him earlier that Isaac would live. It was however a teleological suspension of the ethical, in that Abraham's direct relationship with God was more important than his commitment to the law. The good was his faith, not his actions. So Abraham didn't actually break the law, it was just his readiness to break the Law for the sake of God that was in question - namely his faith.

I mean, you say that God is beyond good and evil but yet that man is to be condemned if he acts "beyond good and evil", if I have understood correctly? — Beebert

Yes, exactly, for man is not God.

But what if God wants us to act beyond good and evil? — Beebert

There is no indication that God wants you to act beyond good and evil, which is for example why He stopped Abraham from killing Isaac. That's also why we're judged by the Law. It was but a test of faith, of bringing Abraham closer to God and making him trust God more than he trusts himself that such was demanded of him. The story and the rest of the Bible though does make it clear that such demands are exceptional, and God doesn't actually intend any creature to do evil unto another.

Suppose a child wants to play video-games. If he really wants to, his dad might allow him to. But who says that that dad will or should ensure that he always wins? The variety of outcomes is part of the game.

But, despite the societally messed-up nature of some worlds (such as ours), God has given us better than that.:

Let me quote from a song by the Byrds, entitled "5D":

"I opened my heart to the whole universe, and found it was loving."

(Surely, by "universe", they're referring to Reality, all that is.)

Yes we live in a societally messed-up world, but the larger Reality is good.

It seems to me that both Atheists (Atheists are always Fundamentalists) and many Theists seem to speak of God as an element of metaphysics. God isn't an element of metaphysics. We're talking about a Principle of Good that'sabove metaphysics.

Metaphysics is about what is. But we're talking about a Principle of Good, above metaphysics. ...the reason why what is, is as good as it is.

It isn't something provable. It's a feeling of gratitude that some people have, for the goodness of what is.

It isn't something to argue about or debate.

I debate metaphysics, not religion.

Michael Ossipoff

"Because God doesn't demand them that (therefore this premise would be false)? Human beings are bound by the moral law, and they will be judged by the Law. So if you break the law (remember that Abraham didn't actually break the law), then you'll be judged for breaking the law."

True, the law wasn't broken by Abraham, and God prevented it. But why? Isn't the answer to that also because GOD never breaks this law? He stands above it, but he doesn't break it.

True, the law wasn't broken by Abraham, and God prevented it. But why? — Beebert

Well God prevented Abraham, not Himself, from breaking the Law in that case.

Isn't the answer to that also because GOD never breaks this law? — Beebert

I don't think it is coherent to say that God breaks the Law, for God simply is His own justification, so God doing evil, or breaking the Law, etc. is incoherent.

"No, the actions wouldn't be considered good. Remember that with Abraham, he didn't believe God was commanding him to do evil, for he believed in his heart that Isaac would live, since God promised him earlier that Isaac would live. It was however a teleological suspension of the ethical, in that Abraham's direct relationship with God was more important than his commitment to the law. The good was his faith, not his actions. So Abraham didn't actually break the law, it was just his readiness to break the Law for the sake of God that was in question - namely his faith."

I agree with you, it is probably a correct interpretation and I would hold the same view, but still: The terrorists would probably also like this interpretation and use it to their advantage... They would probably say that they hear God's voice, perhaps even that he communicates with them as directly as he did with Abraham, that this relationship is more important than their commitment to the law and therefore... They might say "I break the Law and destroy the World Trade Center for the sake of God - namely my faith!"

. "That's also why we're judged by the Law."

By the Law here, do you mean how we have treated our neighbour, mainly if we have clothed the naked and visited the sick and helped the homeless etc? Or do you mean if we have followed the 613 commands of the Torah?

Does anyone really believe that God told Abraham to kill his son?

...or that God would order, condone and even assist Joshua's (alleged) massacres in Canaan?

(Actually, archaeological evidence suggests that the Israelites gradually and peacefully assimilated in Canaan, and that their supposed conquest of Canaan never happened.)

Michael Ossipoff

good post

I agree with you, it is probably a correct interpretation and I would hold the same view, but still: The terrorists would probably also like this interpretation and use it to their advantage... They would probably say that they hear God's voice, perhaps even that he communicates with them as directly as he did with Abraham, that this relationship is more important than their commitment to the law and therefore... They might say "I break the Law and destroy the World Trade Center for the sake of God - namely my faith!" — Beebert

Well again, as I said before, human beings will be judged by the Law, and are in fact bound by the Law. So if they do evil, then they are to be judged for it. Remember that Abraham didn't actually do evil, if he were to have done it, he would have been judged for it. So the terrorists in question will be judged since they are under the Law - they are not God. And the fact that they think they are God, and are thus above the Law is actually blasphemy.

By the Law here, do you mean how we have treated our neighbour, mainly if we have clothed the naked and visited the sick and helped the homeless etc? Or do you mean if we have followed the 613 commands of the Torah? — Beebert

Both really, BUT some of those 613 commands of the Torah are particular commandments to the Jewish people, not to everyone else. Noahide Laws + 10 Commandments (for Christians) form the "core" of the morality of everyone else.

Would God be able to answer someone if someone asked him; "God, why do you exist?"

Would God be able to answer someone if someone asked him; "God, why do you exist?" — Beebert

Yes >:) - He'd say "why not?!".

I know you are joking, but seriously haha... What would he answer? He can't stop existing and there isn't a point where he didn't exist... So... Does he know why he exists? xD

I know you are joking, but seriously haha... What would he answer? He can't stop existing and there isn't a point where he didn't exist... So... Does he know why he exists? xD — Beebert

Personally I find Spinoza's ontological argument for Substance valid if we were to transfer it to God. But what do you think of this Catholic theologian:

The fact God is transcendent would imply that He both exists and doesn't exist at one and the same time. Or better said, God is beyond Being and Non-Being or beyond metaphysics as @Michael Ossipoff says.

I haven't looked up Jean Luc Marion... I will though! Thanks!

Well, so if I asked God; "Why do you exist?", would he then answer "Well... In a sense I don't actually"? :P Is that really an answer? xD

Well, so if I asked God; "Why do you exist?", would he then answer "Well... In a sense I don't actually"? :P Is that really an answer? xD — Beebert

No, for He is beyond Being and Non-Being. Being beyond both, He cannot fall under either. If you want it, God exists more real-ly than Being, for He is not constrained by Non-Being.

Yet though, does he know why he is? If he has a conscious mind, if He Is He Who Is...