From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: EVIL
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 17:27:25 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <JF6FsB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
>From: rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto)
>Message-ID: <BvptEx.IIH@umassd.edu>
>>
>>According to theists , this is true:
>>
>>-------->God is omnipotent
>>-------->God is omniscient
>>-------->God is the creator of "EVERYTHING"
 
 [note by DARIST that God need not have created everything deleted]
 
>So, the statement that God created everything is a little rash. It 
>is equally rash to say God created evil.  (You might not have 
>been saying that, but I include this point free of charge.) 
 
 Okay, but then we have the problem of where evil came from... and,
if God is omnipotent, could It have not *destroyed* evil?

[argument from evil deleted to save space]

>Here is an analogy.  You will no doubt find a way to use it or 
>change it to prove a different point.  But the point *I* wish to 
>illustrate is: God doesn't have to *do* everything He *can* do, 
>at least right now. 
 
 Well, see below.

>------->I have a library book which I have the *power* to return.
>------->I *know* it can be returned and how to return it.
> 
>------->Yet, I have not returned it.
> 
>From the above, it can not be concluded that I must (if I exist) 
>have returned it or must return it now.  Neither can it be 
>concluded from the fact that the book is still checked out that I 
>do not exist or that I don't have the power or knowledge to 
>return it. 

 You've got a point. Let's add a postulate...

------->I *want* to return the book.

 ...which, of course, corresponds to the traditional Xtian/Judaic/Islamic
claim that God dislikes evil and would rather not have it around.

>So, neither can it be concluded, from the fact that God has not 
>yet dealt with some evil, that He does not exist or that He is 
>weak. 
 
 I think, with this new postulate added, we *do* have such a problem;
not that there aren't answeres to it, but I think an answer is needed.

>Other points which are usually made on this topic are:
> 
><Why doesn't God force everyone to Do Good.  -or-
><Why didn't God make us so that we couldn't do evil.  -or-
><God's knowledge of the evil results of creation makes Him evil.
> 
>God could have done things differently.  However, He *chose* to do 
>just what He has done.  That does not make Him evil (except to 
>people who *want* to see Him as evil).  The manufacturer is not
>responsible for the many crimes committed with the cars he makes
>even though he can know this will certainly happen. 
 
 Well, now, the manuacturer can't know in a particular case that the
cars he or she makes will be misused. God, supposedly, by postulate #2
above, knew in advance all the consequences; this leads to a different
level of responsibility... 

>If anything, what He has done shows how powerful He is.  He can 
>create a being which has the ability to choose between good and 
>evil.  I submit that it is a lesser thing to create beings that 
>have no choice.  If God chose to show his power by doing what He 
>did, I, for one, would not have tried to prevent that or call it 
>evil.  (Rom 9:22.) 
 
 The traditional answer to this is to ask the simple questions, can God
do evil? And has God ever done so?
 The traditional theist answers are yes and no respectively. Then, one
might ask why did God not make humans with this remarkable property (namely,
being able to do evil but never doing so).
 If the answer to the first question is no, (and, thus #2 must be no) then
one might note the traditional theist position that God is the greatest of
all beings and worthy of the highest praise, and that humans should strive to
be like God in all ways. Well, then, if God is so great, and God can't do evil,
why bother making humans who can? Why is it great to make humans that can
do evil if God can't and God is the ideal? 

 The reason for the inclusion of the word 'traditional' above is that
you seem to be entertaining the position that God need not have created
all; this is a new one on me from a theist, so I Am interested to see
what other non-traditional ideas you may have, and I don't wish to put
words in your mouth.

>The quick answer to your Question is, "Yeah?  So?"  While I 
>understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it.  Can 
>you see my point of view?  (Surprise me.  Say yes.) 

 Well, I hope I have surprised you. :->

>DARIST
> 
>"God is not slack as some count slackness, but is patient." 
>(Otherwise we all would have long ago been "zapped.") 

 What a reassuring thought... and people wonder why one might choose
atheism...:->

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism