1. God is not evil.
2. God did not create evility.
3. Humans have free will and they created evility with their moral displestitude.
4. The devil exists. — god must be atheist

2.) Evility was not "created" rather something greater than good or evil "freedom" or "choice" was created and so evility is merely one of many by-products of a creation that while detested is of no greater significance than any of the many others.

3.) See 2.)

4.) In mainstream Christian theology the "devil" is one of at least (assuming they are numbered incrementally) 665 other beings and possesses nothing special other than "being attractive" and apparently being able to convince others and gain power and influence that way..

Again, the average reader will see us as debating whether Santa Claus prefers to be called "Nick" or "Mr. Claus" but for what it's worth these are the facts of the chosen topic.

I see a couple of problematic statements there.

2. God did not create evility. — god must be atheist

Sez who, where?

3. Humans have free will and they created evility with their moral displestitude. — god must be atheist

Humans are free to choose God, any of the other gods, or Satan. They didn't create anything.

The devil exists. — god must be atheist

According to Genesis, the serpent existed, back in Eden. It is reputed to have been an incarnation of Lucifer, who shows up much later in the bible, but the serpent of Eden is just a clever snake when God curses him to be the enemy of woman.

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Many Christians believe the Devil was once a beautiful angel named Lucifer who defied God and fell from grace. This assumption that he is a fallen angel is often based on the book of Isaiah in the Bible, which says, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations.”

But it's by no means a solid foundation.

2. The devil (Satan) is god-made. Humans can't create angels. Satan is a transformed angel. — god must be atheist

According to one version of the myth and several versions in later religious tradition. In fact, the probability is that Satan has many precedents in Middle Eastern and European folklore. He can - with little stretch of the imagination - be identified with a number of pre-existing malevolent entities.

3. Angels are not humans; they have no free will. — god must be atheist

That's a direct contradiction - without any scriptural foundation afaik - of the previous statement. He wouldn't have been "transformed" - Christians prefer 'fallen' - unless he made a very bad decision - i.e. to stand against God in an armed uprising. You don't get will much freer than that!

QED evil (*some evil) has been created by god directily. — god must be atheist

Indirectly, if his ex-creature made it. Directly, only if he put it into the world on purpose. There is nothing the big book to indicate which.
* Why? Where does the other evil come from?

Stiring the theist pot, I see.

The argument might be simplified to:

1. god created everything.
2. therefore, god created evil.

...and since theists have great difficultly in denying the assumption, they will have to squirm about explaining why God is not culpable for creating evil. But theists would much rather give up on logic than god, so the replies will be - have been - shall we say unphilosophical?

But theists would much rather give up on logic than god, so the replies will be - have been - shall we say unphilosophical? — Banno

Usually they scream 'free will' at you like so many overwrought Randian neophytes.

Usually they scream 'free will' at you... — Tom Storm

yep, second post:

Evility was not "created" rather something greater than good or evil "freedom" or "choice"... — Outlander

But this bit leaves one wanting to see the film...

In mainstream Christian theology the "devil" is one of at least (assuming they are numbered incrementally) 665 other beings — Outlander

Mainstream? That'll be the folk with "I break for angels" bumper stickers.

How does free will explain childhood cancer? Tsetse fly? Covid?

Then there's this -

...only if he put it into the world on purpose... — Vera Mont

So there are things that god does not do on purpose? Unforeseen consequences to his acts? He's not omnipotent, or he's not omniscient?

Faith is indeed an amazing thing, with its capacity to reach beyond mere reason into gullibility.

Always struck me that the God of the Bible is a fascist prick who behaves like a mob boss, so he most definitely could have created evil. He's on the wrong side of most social outrages, from genocide and rape through to slavery. And then he turns out to be a child abuser, sending his own son to be stung up like a criminal in some frankly stupefying blood sacrifice - a bizarre atonement ritual he might have managed in a totally different and peaceable fashion. Then there's hell... Can we really take Yahweh as anything but violent, petulant and egomaniacal?

How does free will explain childhood cancer? Tsetse fly? Covid? — Banno

In my limited experiences I've found there is an unspoken elephant in the room regarding humanity's origins and past, known colloquially as Original Sin. Things can get pretty Sci-Fi from that point on in casual theist-athiest compatible thought experiments.

But back to theist-compatible science, simple. Man was given instruction to produce children in a sacred covenant of marriage and to live simply without extravagance. We chose (someone and enough did somewhere up the line) to overproduce, to try to become gods of this planet with machines and technology that produce all kinds of lethal and harmful things to us ie. hazardous byproducts, radiation, air contaminants, you name it, wage war on others for worldly purposes and visit places we were not meant to be (could be radioactive land, places at risk for natural disasters, etc), as well as change the way man was meant to live by social practices whose effects on society are still largely unknown (some people are on the computer or the XBOX staring at a screen for days or even weeks on end without seeing another soul- that can't be good?)

The argument:
1. Assuming that 3 is right, it does not explain the existence of the devil.
2. The devil (Satan) is god-made. Humans can't create angels. Satan is a transformed angel.
3. Angels are not humans; they have no free will.
4. The devil has never had free will.
5. Therefore the devil's existence can only be explained by its creation by god. (Via a transfromation of it from regular angel status.)
QED evil (some evil) has been created by god directily. — god must be atheist

How the bloody hell does that even begin to be an argument? No wonder you find my arguments confusing if you think that is one! It's just a series of random claims with a therefore bunged in.

An argument extracts the implications of its premises. Here are some argument forms that you can use:

1. If P, then Q
2. P
3.Therefore Q

1. If P, then Q
2. Not Q
3. Therefore not P

1. If P, then Q
2. If Q, then T
3. Therefore, if P then T.

1. P
2. Q
3.Therefore P and Q

1. P or Q
2. Not P
3. Therefore Q

Can you express your point using those argument forms?

God is not evil. — god must be atheist

From the King James Bible (OT):

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. — Isaiah 45:7

Also, read the Book of Job. The "free will" theidiocy amounts to nothing more than vacuous and vicious blame-shifting doubletalk. :pray: :naughty:

:up:

I'm with you on that.

P's and Q's? Not your cuppa, you said. But here they are.

But back to theist-compatible science, simple. Man was given instruction to produce children in a sacred covenant of marriage and to live simply without extravagance. We chose (someone and enough did somewhere up the line) to overproduce, to try to become gods of this planet with machines and technology that produce all kinds of lethal and harmful things to us ie. hazardous byproducts, radiation, air contaminants, you name it, wage war on others for worldly purposes and visit places we were not meant to be (could be radioactive land, places at risk for natural disasters, etc), as well as change the way man was meant to live by social practices whose effects on society are still largely unknown (some people are on the computer or the XBOX staring at a screen for days or even weeks on end without seeing another soul- that can't be good?) — Outlander

What is that paragraph? An apology? A prayer? A curse? Certainly not an argument.

What are you on about?

P's and Q's? Not your cuppa, you said. — Banno

No I didn't.

:rofl: Have it your way!

Squiggle squoggles. That's what I have no time for. Ps and Qs are fine.

I was merely suggesting the possibility that all things have an explanation, rather that we can both "be right" about certain things as opposed to live forever in disagreement due to one of us not considering the other's possibility of which we both agree the other has no way of knowing.

To the point, "how does freewill explain <insert suffering here>", man does not expect unexpected consequences for his actions ie. a king having his whole kingdom destroyed over losing an unnecessary war driven by greed or a child suffering from lead or asbestos poisoning due to paint or building methods from the '70s.

Am I saying it's that simple, I'm right, and that explains everything? No, I am saying that it is a possibility that passes all of the reasonably assumed prerequisites of your inquiry.

I was merely suggesting the possibility that all things have an explanation — Outlander

Well, "god did it" will explain anything and everything, and hence is useless. If nothing is ruled out, nothing is actually explained.

For the rest, your writing is beyond my understanding.

But this bit leaves one wanting to see the film...

In mainstream Christian theology the "devil" is one of at least (assuming they are numbered incrementally) 665 other beings — Banno

Somewhat disappointing. The book is better.

So there are things that god does not do on purpose? Unforeseen consequences to his acts? He's not omnipotent, or he's not omniscient? — Banno

Huh. I made no claims for or against God. I countered a claim with an if-then argument.

Can we really take Yahweh as anything but violent, petulant and egomaniacal? — Tom Storm

Yes. You can take him in his proper context as the god of a patriarchal tribe of herdsmen in the middle east of 1500BCE. They had a rough living to make among other rough peoples; they sure could not afford a genteel god.

Man was given instruction to produce children in a sacred covenant of marriage and to live simply without extravagance. — Outlander

Not in the version I read:

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

That chapter is largely neglected, as Christians prefer the second version.

To the point, "how does freewill explain <insert suffering here>", — Outlander

It's not supposed to, not directly. Original sin does, to the extent that eating the fruit resulted in 1. man's ability to identify evil and do evil and 2. his expulsion from the make-believe garden; forced to live in the real world of disease, hardship, sorrow and pain. (Gen 3:15-19)

evility — god must be atheist

How is "evility" different than "evil?"

It is a problem for Christians given that they present God with the usual attributes of wisdom, goodness and so on.

But I've also asked myself the question - which may or may not be applicable to religion - why is evil a problem specifically?

Perhaps God doesn't consider evil what we call evil, regardless of how horrific it may look to us. Either this option "dissolves" the problem or, just what you mentioned, we postulate the devil.

But then what do we postulate for those acts that are neutral, not good, not evil? We'd need a third God for that...

Yes. You can take him in his proper context as the god of a patriarchal tribe of herdsmen in the middle east of 1500BCE. They had a rough living to make among other rough peoples; they sure could not afford a genteel god. — Vera Mont

This is true where god is fiction and just an enlargement of human tendencies, a wish fulfillment fantasy with all the sins of its creators, hence, genocide, rape, slavery as part of the divine plan. :wink: The result is a god, which like humans, is perfectly compatible with evil and tyranny.

But theists would much rather give up on logic than god, so the replies will be - have been - shall we say unphilosophical? — Banno

Faith is indeed an amazing thing, with its capacity to reach beyond mere reason into gullibility. — Banno

The irony here is that realism is that remnant of Christian religious faith which motivates the scientistic accusation of religious faith as being ‘unreasonable’ and ‘illogical’.

2. God did not create evility.
— god must be atheist
Sez who, where? — Vera Mont

Many Christians say that.
Please see this and internalize its meaning:

Four basic premises present in Christian dogma give rise to this argument: — god must be atheist

How is "evility" different than "evil?" — T Clark

Evility is a noun. Evil is an adjective. Evil is used as a noun because the English language lacks a noun form of evil. Hence the neologism evility.

But I've also asked myself the question - which may or may not be applicable to religion - why is evil a problem specifically? — Manuel

I think early religionists feared to give the almighty any negative qualities. This later evolved into annointing god only with positive qualities and leaving him bereft of negatives. Hence, the evility is impossible to be god-created.

How does free will explain childhood cancer? Tsetse fly? Covid? — Banno

Good question.

Evil is an intentional harm done. For harm's sake, for the pleasure of the harmer.

Tsetse flies and cancer: according to Christian dogma, god created them. So no human free will is involved in the harm, but god's intentional doing in the works of creation. You're right, Banno, I agree, the evility lies with god in these instances and have nothing to do with free will of humans.

Evility is a noun. Evil is an adjective. Evil is used as a noun because the English language lacks a noun form of evil. Hence the neologism evility. — god must be atheist

"Evil" is both a noun and an adjective and works very well as either.

"Evil" is both a noun and an adjective and works very well as either. — T Clark

You are right; I have no arguments against that. I am just saying I am not happy with that arrangement, and I created a neologism to circumvent this use of the same word for both.

I have no arguments against that. I am just saying I am not happy with that arrangement, and I created a neologism to circumvent this use of the same word for both. — god must be atheist

Making up new words when there are already perfectly good ones is one of the reasons people don't take philosophy seriously.

Making up new words when there are already perfectly good ones is one of the reasons people don't take philosophy seriously — T Clark

On the other hand, the best philosophers make up new words for perfectly good reasons. Best not to avoid philosophy just because of the bad apples.

Making up new words when there are already perfectly good ones is one of the reasons people don't take philosophy seriously. — T Clark

Tell that to Heidegger...