Could God Be Evil?

[Adrift]

The two are complementary concepts. You don't get one without the other. Asking "what does this mean in that world" makes no sense. The hypothetical purely good or purely evil is rooted in our world, a world where both good and evil exist. One can conceive of a world where only things we call 'good' exist just as easily as one can conceive of a world where only 'evil' things exist.

We may be talking past one another. I think I can only conceive of a world that is either purely good, or a world where both good and evil exist, but I don't think I can conceive of a world where pure evil exists. I think where we disconnect is that I understand "good", not as something that is merely the opposite of evil, but as something (simply stated) that is grounded in perfection. In our world, I believe that God is that ground. He is the paradigm of perfection. I can imagine a world that is purely good, because I can imagine a world that is in perfect harmony with a perfect, essential creator who is the greatest conceivable being. I can imagine a world with both good and evil, because I can imagine a world that is not in perfect harmony with that same essential creator. That lack of harmony...the point where things start to move away from the foundation that is perfection, or where the imperfect attempts to strive for it's own subjective good...that, to my understanding, is evil.

In my worldview, a purely evil world is almost a nonsense concept, because evil is not merely the opposite of good, but is the negation of a positive good. Even in a world where God does not exist, it would seem to me that in order to have a "good" one would require some objective, perfect, essential foundation to align that good with.

My biggest problem in conceiving of a purely evil world is that, the very concept of a "world" seems to me to require some sort of holistic structure, and that seems impossible if evil implies chaos.



Are you following at all what I'm saying, or have I lost you? A lot of my thinking on this subject stems from my reading of Aquinas and Anselm, but also Maimonides. If you haven't already, check out his Guide for the Perplexed, where he discusses the concept of evil in part 3 chapter 10. I'll actually post the entirety of that chapter in the next post, because it's not very long. I don't necessarily agree with everything he states, but I think he's on the right track.

[Adrift]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp146.htm

[Adrift]

God could just as soon be the fount of all evil and all evil flows from him. Goodness then, would just be a lack of evil. Your idea of the good is dependent upon your definition of god, in other words the conclusion is in the premise-"God is good, therefore evil is a lack of the good." But, there is no reason that you couldn't just as soon define "God as evil, and therefore good would be a lack of evil."

Most people I think agree that disorder, chaos, and confusion are products of evil. A God that was purely evil would be entirely chaotic, and thus, as Christianbookworm points out, likely unable and unwilling to create, since creation requires structure. So, your idea of an absolutely evil Creator who is the fount of all evil, upon which good may come as a negative, doesn't sound tenable. At least, not to me.

[Catholicity]

Gnosticism is such a complex heresy. They did not believe in God, but believed in false gods and demi gods and goddesses. The god of gnosticism was both the creator of good and evil and he took a wife (named sophia a demi-god) to produce mankind which made us all something of a demi god. Jesus himself was only considered to be a demi-god. Gnosticism is a complex form of universalism and born of pagan religions. I recently brought home a book I owned from my parents house that I own called the teachings of the Church Fathers and I think I accidently left The church Fathers on the heresies which includes a lengthy discussion on Gnosticism, Arianism and Monotanism(spelling?) as well as a few others.

[JimL]

Most people I think agree that disorder, chaos, and confusion are products of evil. A God that was purely evil would be entirely chaotic, and thus, as Christianbookworm points out, likely unable and unwilling to create, since creation requires structure. So, your idea of an absolutely evil Creator who is the fount of all evil, upon which good may come as a negative, doesn't sound tenable. At least, not to me.

Yes, so a god can't be defined as either purely good or purely evil because the one term as the definition of a thing would make no sense without the other. I'm assuming that we are talking good and evil in terms of morality here, and the one term as a definition, would makes no sense without the other.

[Catholicity]

Creating a good thing is in itself a good. How could a pure evil deity actually create anything?

That's the perfect question considering that God called his creation "good" In Catholicism the saying is Humans are born in God's image though with the stain of original sin. He created all of us and called us all "Good" despite a stain in our hearts that He washes clean. (I'm not a Calvinist obviously)

[Darth Executor]

I've thought about it. Evil, by its very definition is a negation of good.

No it's not.

A negation (in the sense we're using it) is typically defined as the "The absence or opposite of something actual or positive." In no sense can it be said that "evil" is a positive. Not that I know of at any rate.

Stabbing someone in the head is a positive act. It's not an absence of something.

Especially as moral goodness is defined in philosophical theology,

I wouldn't call chainmail with a manufactured Einstein story in it "philosophical theology".

while we can imagine a world where only pure moral goodness prevails, one in which only pure moral evil prevails, is, I think, harder to conceive of.

You can't imagine the stereotypical view of hell?

[Adrift]

Yes, so a god can't be defined as either purely good or purely evil because the one term as the definition of a thing would make no sense without the other. I'm assuming that we are talking good and evil in terms of morality here, and the one term as a definition, would makes no sense without the other.

No, I obviously wouldn't agree with that. I believe that God is purely good, in that he is the good by his very nature, and it would be impossible for evil to be in him, as that would be contrary to his nature. I think evil can exist only as potential without it existing in reality. So, before creation rebelled, there was the potential for evil, but there was no evil, only the good.

[Adrift]

No it's not.

Yes it is. Or at least, that's how Augustine defined it.

"For evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name 'evil'."

Stabbing someone in the head is a positive act. It's not an absence of something.

It's not? I don't follow though, what does stabbing someone in the head have to do with the definition of evil?

I wouldn't call chainmail with a manufactured Einstein story in it "philosophical theology".

I don't know what "chainmail with a manufactured Einstein story" means.

You can't imagine the stereotypical view of hell?

Yeah, I can imagine hell, but I don't believe that even in hell, pure moral evil prevails. Sure, it prevails in the sense that those who have turned from God get exactly what they want, a place devoid of his relational presence (2 Thess. 1:9), but as Dr. William Lane Craig explained in one of his Defenders classes when discussing the omnipresent nature of God,



That sounds about right to me.

[37818]

I've thought about it. Evil, by its very definition is a negation of good.

Evil is not possible without there being [finite] good. Evil needs good to be evil. Good does not need evil to be good.

Infinite good cannot be negated by evil. God is infinite good.

[Adrift]

Evil is not possible without there being [finite] good. Evil needs good to be evil. Good does not need evil to be good.

Infinite good cannot be negated by evil. God is infinite good.

Yeah, I suppose I'd go along with that, as it doesn't seem to contradict the view I've put forward here. Although, I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean by "finite" and "infinite" good. All good, in my opinion, is ultimately derived from God.

[Sparko]

I think stabbing someone in the head would be a lack of love, empathy and compassion for that person.

[Darth Executor]

Yes it is. Or at least, that's how Augustine defined it.

"For evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name 'evil'."

This quote is just a restatement of the issue, it does nothing to demonstrate or even argue for this definition. Last I checked his definition didn't even make the dictionary.

It's not? I don't follow though, what does stabbing someone in the head have to do with the definition of evil?

It's an evil act that does not fit your definition. In fact I have a harder time imagining the opposite. Nearly every good act involves amending an evil of some sort, either natural or inflicted by others.

I don't know what "chainmail with a manufactured Einstein story" means.

It's a reference to a chain email that popularized this theory, with einstein as a protagonist.

Yeah, I can imagine hell, but I don't believe that even in hell, pure moral evil prevails. Sure, it prevails in the sense that those who have turned from God get exactly what they want, a place devoid of his relational presence (2 Thess. 1:9), but as Dr. William Lane Craig explained in one of his Defenders classes when discussing the omnipresent nature of God,



That sounds about right to me.

Unless you are a pantheist God would not be a part of hell and God's presence there would in no way make hell good.

[Darth Executor]

I think stabbing someone in the head would be a lack of love, empathy and compassion for that person.

You could say that about a lot of acts. The evil in the act is the harm inflicted on the victim though, not the killer's state of mind.

[Adrift]

This quote is just a restatement of the issue, it does nothing to demonstrate or even argue for this definition. Last I checked his definition didn't even make the dictionary.

Right, I wasn't attempting to demonstrate anything about the definition, I was simply showing where it came from. Aquinas goes into it a bit more if you're interested.

It's an evil act that does not fit your definition. In fact I have a harder time imagining the opposite. Nearly every good act involves amending an evil of some sort, either natural or inflicted by others.

It's an act. Whether it's evil or not probably largely depends on context.

It's a reference to a chain email that popularized this theory, with einstein as a protagonist.

I still have no idea what you're talking about, but whatever.

Unless you are a pantheist God would not be a part of hell and God's presence there would in no way make hell good.

God does not have to be a part of hell in order to be omnipresent, or do you reject omnipresence as a characteristic of God because you believe it is a form of pantheism? God's presence in hell does not make hell good, but neither does it make hell a world absolutely devoid of good, which was what I said I thought was hard to conceive of.