[1] [2] [3] [4]
Part 1 of 4.
Part 1 of 4.
In my previous post titled 'Random' I posed the question, 'Why did GOD create Satan the Devil?' And I answered that HE didn't, Satan was the result of a free will independent minded personage exercising choice in decision making when empowered with the knowledge of good and evil and choosing to act out of bad faith and ill will.
In this second (of a four part or installment) discussion on this topic I will address the issue of evil, on why GOD allowed evil to corrupt and bring suffering and destruction to HIS “perfect” creation. GOD could easily, any and every time stop sin and evil but HE didn't and haven't — not yet.
The answer is amazingly simple (as in not complicated and puzzlingly difficult to understand, though complex) as are most of the doctrines of the Scripture of Truth. You do not need to be a “rocket scientist” or “boffin” to understand. To understand why, even as it need not be so, we would of necessity have to broach some basic common sense concepts that have to be understood.
Before we can address the issue on why there is evil we have to understand what is meant when we say something is evil or something is good. Since the question is about why evil exist, we shall first examine what is meant when it is said that there is evil in the world of man.
For those who hold totally to the theory of evolution the concepts of good and evil probably have no meaning. Because at the root of the theory of evolution is the theory of natural selection which has one of its fundamental frameworks the theory of survival of the fittest (or the fit, as per the latest contemporary scientific twist). What that means, for those atheists who subscribe to the very scientific theory of evolution, is that if you have the power to kick others around, exploit others, brutalize and kill others then you have the right to do so because that proves you are fitter and therefore have the evolutionary given right over all others who are inferior to you and the rest thus do not deserve to be alive or to propagate their linage except as fodder for your supremacy.
Before we can address the issue on why there is evil we have to understand what is meant when we say something is evil or something is good. Since the question is about why evil exist, we shall first examine what is meant when it is said that there is evil in the world of man.
For those who hold totally to the theory of evolution the concepts of good and evil probably have no meaning. Because at the root of the theory of evolution is the theory of natural selection which has one of its fundamental frameworks the theory of survival of the fittest (or the fit, as per the latest contemporary scientific twist). What that means, for those atheists who subscribe to the very scientific theory of evolution, is that if you have the power to kick others around, exploit others, brutalize and kill others then you have the right to do so because that proves you are fitter and therefore have the evolutionary given right over all others who are inferior to you and the rest thus do not deserve to be alive or to propagate their linage except as fodder for your supremacy.
These we have fully witnessed in atheists such as Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol pot. So for all those avowed supremely supreme Darwinian atheists who advance that religion is the root of evil and the suffering of humankind you should know what you really believe in first before boasting of your supreme righteousness, goodness and infinite wisdom. You are implicitly advancing that every power crazed tyrant, mass murderer, serial murderer and criminal have more rights to freedom and life than all the rest of law abiding mankind.
And that by the way is implicitly what the global ‘justice’ system have been advancing in all the advance, developed and “civilized” nations of our world today through their doublespeak, releasing wicked unrepentant criminals back into society after a brief period of confinement during which these are placed in an environment to be conditioned and trained so that they can more effectively and elusively continue their criminal rampages once they are released. That is the ‘righteousness, justice and great unconditionally loving mercilessness’ of the supremely “enlightened” mankind.
That is the net effect of this global “enlightenment” a worldwide population of “enlightened” humankind who do not hesitate to lie, cheat, steal, rob, rape and murder if there is an even a remote chance that they can do so without getting caught andor having to face the consequences of such acts.
Now whether evolutionary scientists want to believe it or not, both the theories of natural selection and that of the survival of the fittest have many issues of ambiguity. Since it is not the topic of this title we will not go any further than here which is just my intention of highlighting that there are missing areas of consideration by those who have totally advocated that evolution is the natural order of life on this earth and by extension in the whole of the material universe. This is equally the case with most who wrote their thoughts discussing this issue of evil.
What is Good and What is Evil?
Is good the absence of evil or is evil the absence of good? Sounds quite interesting that question but it also sounds quite ridiculous.
Since it sounds ridiculous we won't touch it lest we too sound ridiculous. What then is evil aside to comparing it with good? This is not to say that measuring evil against good is ridiculous but that question of whether evil is the absence of good. In my considered opinion whatever that is worth, it would be wiser to look at the issue being addressed rather than to drag in another concept that is not absolutely relevant to answering the question being asked. The concept of what constitutes evil can be independently evaluated without comparing it with the concept of what constitutes good.
Here are some examples of other ridiculous questions and statements:
Now whether evolutionary scientists want to believe it or not, both the theories of natural selection and that of the survival of the fittest have many issues of ambiguity. Since it is not the topic of this title we will not go any further than here which is just my intention of highlighting that there are missing areas of consideration by those who have totally advocated that evolution is the natural order of life on this earth and by extension in the whole of the material universe. This is equally the case with most who wrote their thoughts discussing this issue of evil.
What is Good and What is Evil?
Is good the absence of evil or is evil the absence of good? Sounds quite interesting that question but it also sounds quite ridiculous.
Since it sounds ridiculous we won't touch it lest we too sound ridiculous. What then is evil aside to comparing it with good? This is not to say that measuring evil against good is ridiculous but that question of whether evil is the absence of good. In my considered opinion whatever that is worth, it would be wiser to look at the issue being addressed rather than to drag in another concept that is not absolutely relevant to answering the question being asked. The concept of what constitutes evil can be independently evaluated without comparing it with the concept of what constitutes good.
Here are some examples of other ridiculous questions and statements:
1. Is sanity the lack of madness or is madness the lack of sanity?
2. Is righteousness the lack of sinfulness of is sinfulness the lack of righteousness?
3. To do what is right we must not do what is wrong.
4. Death is separation from God.
5. Sin is falling short of the glory of God or falling short of the perfection or expectation of God.
The reason I included these is because there are just too much of these types of statements floating around expressed as great supreme wisdom or philosophies in our current age of great supreme “enlightenment”.
General Views of What is Evil.
Most says that evil is that which causes harm and destroy and especially when this relate to intents. Others go further to differentiate evil into natural and moral. Others still define two types of evil one as a state of being and the other as an act. There are indeed numerous views on what evil is and even more on if a God who is all powerful and good exist, why then in His creation is there seemingly so much evil?
The reason I have chosen to address this issue is because there is just so much confusion sprouted by all these brilliant experts of religion, philosophy and thoughts. Nearly all of these just don't seem to understand. Well firstly because they don't understand GOD, who HE is and why HE created the heavens and the earth and populated them with life. Secondly they don't seem to understand concept, context and perspective. So as it is with the Christian Holy Scriptures so also it is with all the things that are essential to true understanding, for some strange reasons they just don't seem to be able to grasp it. Not to say some of them were not really pretty close to the answer but having no notion of what they are really talking about they got lost in vain words and philosophies.
Let me first quote some examples of people who seem to regard themselves highly but have been sprouting meaningless words and vain philosophies. And these are just a small sampling of all that can be gleaned from a Google search (at the time of this discussion's first posting).
1. What is evil? Not fulfilling G-d's will.
2. Evil exists in all human beings in different degrees.
3. Therefore, for God to stop evil and suffering may very well mean that He must remove the ability for people to freely choose what they want to do. So, if God is going to stop evil, is He required to stop all of it or just some of it? If only some of it, then the question would still stand. If He stops all of it, would we be free?
4. Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity itself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting the deity's power. But if not, then the deity is still not omnipotent because it cannot create that rock
5. Omnipotence, sometimes known as being all-powerful, refers to God’s ability to do absolutely anything God wants. This characteristic is usually treated as implied from God’s characteristic as absolute creator. If God is capable of creating all of existence (whether ex nihilo or ex deo), it is felt that it would be nonsensical to then assert that there are things beyond God’s abilities. Any Being capable of creating existence itself must therefore be capable of anything at all — right?
Unfortunately, the most absolute sense of omnipotent has been found to be incoherent. If God were truly omnipotent in an absolute and unlimited sense, then God could be capable of both existing and not existing at the same time, meaning that every form of theism and every form of atheism would be equally justified at all times simultaneously. Such a God could be capable of informing humans of certain requirements for attaining heaven and avoiding hell but actually holding to entirely different requirements without ever actually lying.
I am thinking are these people completely insane or are they incompletely sane? They allure to great and many words but don't appear to know what the words they are saying mean.
In order not to make this discussion too long (even as it is long) let me just examine the first statement [1] and last statement [5].
[1] Evil is not fulfilling G-d's will.
Sounds so much like a smart and profound thing to say doesn't it? Good is the absence of evil, evil is the absence of good. Left is the opposite of right. Right is opposite of wrong. Just too highly intelligent and profound for me to grasp the point. Basic problem here is in not understanding the concepts of indicative and definitive. Vanities of vanities. Sigh.
[5] If God were truly omnipotent in an absolute and unlimited sense, then God could be capable of both existing and not existing at the same time.
Here this person speaks of ‘could’ and ‘capable’ and 'existing' and ‘not existing’ and ‘same’ and ‘time’ and numerous other concepts but he has no idea what are the concepts in those words. But worst of all he thinks that GOD is like him, a total contradiction. He thinks omnipotent equates to omni stupid, must have been the dictionary he used. The reason the most absolute sense of omnipotent is incoherent to him is from the in-coherency of his exalted mind.
Statement number [4] is the most quoted (by all those who know it) to say that a truly without limit omnipotent (all powerful) God cannot possibly exist. It has the same presumptuousness as statement number [5]. Another example of such type of presumptuous statement (and there are many, very many) would be declaring, ‘If God is all powerful, meaning He can do anything, then He can create a God more (or twice more) powerful than himself. If He can't then He cannot be all powerful and if He can then He cannot be all powerful because there can be another God (twice) more powerful.’
All those who hold to such logic are unable to grasp the simplest of things. They are unable to tell the difference between logic and language, that language constructs are not necessarily always logical in the sense that mathematical logical operations are. Fact is mathematical construct may be also be expressed illogically which would then be evaluated to false. We can as easy say 1 + 1 = 2 as we can say 1 + 1 = a big fat horse while a big fat horse is less than 1 and greater than 2. The fact is we can structure language into any kind of nonsense at all as is so often seen being done by some of the brilliant men and women of our time as the above quoted examples proved.
Even as language can be used to convey logic it also can be used to convey utter nonsense. Nonsense is another expression of invalidity or to be in ridiculous error. The basis to evaluate whether any claimed argument is true is to examine the premise against the conclusion to see if both are true individually and also if the construct is valid (that is their 'relationship' is valid). One example of an absolute nonsense is in many versions of the well known 'Liar's Paradox' which can be easily proven to be so by breaking the 'cyclic infinite' presumption (see the solution below). The construct of sentences and even entire essay are not bound by the laws of mathematical logic or any other possible kind of rational logic.
Next, those who sprout all these vain words do not even have the common sense to understand between conjecture, postulation, hypothesis, theories and reality. They have no notion of what is real from what is not. Neither are they able to understand value as a quantum that there are reality values (natural numbers or absolute values as defined in mathematics) and theoretical values. Even things as simple as negation and contradiction they do to appear to be able to grasp.
For the discussion of the meaning in the word of the original text where the Christian Holy Scriptures recorded all the names and words to denote the GOD of the Holy Christian Scriptures and also what are the concepts carried in the words, ‘omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresence’ please read the post ‘GOD’ in the blog ‘The Scripture Of Truth’.
In all these cases those who sprouted such statements have no sense of the concepts they were dealing with in the words they used.
But most of all they have no concept of GOD and have limited GOD to what they can reason and imagine, thinking that the CREATOR and the creation is the same thing both existing bound within the same constraints of limited time and space of the created domain. These are the same with those who invented the Trinity to restrict GOD to their severely limited minds having no understanding that numerical quantities, comparative quantum (including mass, energy, space and time) and mathematical logic are all attributes of the limited (finite) created realms of Angels and humankind. GOD does not have HIS ‘existence’ in the created domain even if such a limited concept word as ‘existence’ can be used to define the unlimited CREATOR other than as some basis for conceptual reference in the created realm. The created domain and all its concepts and definitive laws exist within GOD and are limited by GOD not the other way around. The CREATOR is not limited by the creation. Religious experts and authorities have for millennia put forward the idea that GOD is omniscience, omnipotent and omnipresence. But these did not for one ‘nanoinstance’ understood the concepts in those terms, that these encapsulate the concepts of not having any limits or having no limits or is undefinable by the limits of the limited created realm. That means GOD cannot be limited by any thing at all much less by the concepts of our time and space limited domain or the reasoning of severely limited minds. Read the chapter of 'GOD IS' of Bible 101 - The Holy Bible Expounded for a more complete discussion on this.
Logic Paradoxes.
Most if not all paradoxical logic are not because logic itself is illogical but the premises (reasons or arguments that supports the declared/inferred conclusion) and/or the conclusions so drawn whether in language or mathematics are in error.
One common of error is in what I called the 'embedded cyclic infinite' which is the assigning of infinite values that finite logic cannot truly evaluate to finite objects or operations. Most of those who postulated all these do not understand what is finite from what is infinite.
The infinite does not exist in the finite even as it can be expressed as a theoretical value but not a reality (absolute) value. The finite exist within the infinite and therefore cannot logically evaluate the infinite. There is no numerical or quantifiable value in the infinite.
Even as you can do so in “warped” theory you cannot in ‘reality’ add two infinite values to give you another infinite value as they do not exist in the finite realm because they have no constraints or defining limits. Infinity minus infinity would not be zero but infinity. In mathematics there is the term ‘undefined’ which refers to when logic operation cannot be carried out as the value does not and cannot exist whether in theory or in reality. Such is the case with the infinite; it cannot in reality be defined in the finite realm.
Another error is in the assigning of reality values to possibilities and probabilities. Possibilities and probabilities conceptualize averages (statistical median or modes) or as postulation and not real instance occurrences.
If a lottery has a one to one million chances of winning, you would still not be guaranteed a win by buying nine hundred and ninety nine thousand tickets even as your chances of winning may increase. In the rolling of a dice if the first roll yields the value ‘one’ it does not mean that the second and subsequent roll the value ‘one’ will be less likely to be rolled than the other values. The chances of rolling the value ‘one’ does not lessen or diminish with each subsequent roll no matter how many times previously the value ‘one’ had been rolled unless you are using some kind of loaded dice.
Other errors include what I call the ‘single whammy’ which is a type (subset) of ‘cyclic infinite’ where the logic structure (which is self contradictory) cancels itself out such as in the self referencing declarative Liar's Paradox. In most cases of ‘single whammy’ paradoxes there is no real premise or no real separation of premise from conclusion thus essentially there is no allowance for logical evaluation. This is when a statement declared a conclusion without directly and precisely stating or expressing a premise that can be logically or rationally evaluated. The premise is essentially undefined from a truth value evaluation perspective.
All these paradoxes do not deal with the reality of the finite realm and are the result of people trying to make logical evaluations of nonsensical postulated statements. Obviously they have too much time on the hand and nothing better to do with their life.
To then use this non reality related hypothetical postulation to make judgments on what is real, well that has got to take the cake for arrogant stupidity. All those of such minds do not even have the wisdom to grasp the concepts in the dominion of their existence where their sensory perceptions can detect to make associative connections with the various object concepts. These are unable to grasp the simplest concepts such as finite and infinite, limited and unlimited, affirmation and negation, contradictory and supportive, and yet they arrogantly make judgments, declarations and pronouncements about things they entirely have no notion of.
The Liar's Paradox Solved!
Firstly the Liar's Paradox is not a complete logical statement (argument) on its own being without a valid qualifying premise. It is a type of a loaded question only in this case it is a loaded statement. Without clearly defining its premise, it states (declares or infers) the conclusion. Any completely sane person will understand that when we evaluate a statement or even an entire assay on its validity or truth value (whether the statement of assay is true or not) we do so on both the conclusion and the premise(s) arguments. This we do by evaluating the premise individually (and then collectively if there are many premises) to see if they logically lead to the conclusion, whether the conclusion drawn from the premises is valid and logical. If one or more instances of the premise failed to be proven true it may or may not affect the final truthfulness or validity of the conclusion. This will depend on how essential or nonessential a part these premises played to arrive at the drawn or inferred conclusion.
For a more complete discussion on the Liar's Paradox and the GOD Paradox please read the post Idle Minds And Twisted Logic.
Let us now evaluate the Liar's Paradox in its simplest form: ‘This statement is false.’
What we can see right away is that there is no clarity on the value of the premise even as it is declared as false. ‘This statement is false’ can be rephrased to say ‘X is false’ so we can immediately see that unless we know the value of ‘X’ which is not really declared (even as it can be postulated or hypothesized), there is no way for the statement's truth value to be evaluated. So what these incompletely sane people do is, they postulate a value for 'this statement' as either false or true to see if they can then evaluate the statement based on the postulated values. And of course you can do that if you have nothing better to do with your life than filled it with nonsensical considerations. But then they overlook a few simple concepts of logic; one of this is negation (and contradiction), and the other is what I called the ‘cyclic infinite’ where an embedded premise leads to a circular reference logic in self referencing statements. Now if these people really have any sense instead of postulating the premise as true or false they could just as easily postulated it to say ‘Elephants fly by using their ears’ to replace ‘This statement’ giving the statement ‘Elephants fly by using their ears is false’ solving the whole paradox within one millisecond.
Now any mathematician would know that when you have an equation that has a circular reference such as ‘x = x + 1’ the value is dynamic and changes with each incremental evaluation. In the case of the Liar's Paradox the value in the ‘cyclic infinite’ is a toggle value between true and false. So what we get then are brilliant minds caught in the quagmire of the ‘cyclic infinite’ going round and round in the perfect circle of total ridiculousness between true and false.
The fact is there are numerous simple ways to evaluate the Liar's Paradox and statements construct that are self referencing and embedded with the cyclic infinite with a negation or contradiction property without going mad. This I will discuss in a coming article titled, 'Idle Minds And Twisted Logics' in this same blog just so we may understand what utter nonsense is.
In many of my blogs and writings I railed against those whom I called “rocket scientists” referring not to the brilliant men and women of science but to those puffed up individuals (even if they are the brilliant men and women of science) who are not able to see themselves for the severely limited minds that they are, thinking and behaving as if they have absolute knowledge and are infallible.
This “rocket scientist” syndrome affects all creatures, this author not excluding, as it is a property or attribute of the created personage's psyche. The Holy Christian Scriptures had very simply and appropriately recorded, ‘Knowledge puffs up’ referring to the pride element in the human self identity which is a weakness in the component of the Spirit-mind.
For a more detail discussion of this component of the Spirit–mind please read the chapter ‘GOD IS’ of ‘Bible 101 – The Holy Bible Expounded.’
One aspect of this weakness in the Spirit–mind is the inability through arrogant unwillingness to see 'beyond the tip of one's nose'. This affects every intelligent creature who had allowed himself/herself to be puffed up by pride and self glorifying self perceptions of themselves (even if these are just very humble self depreciating self glorifying self perceptions).
As severely limited humankind in our conceptualization of our MAKER we of necessity because of our limitation uses words in language as a tool of communication to define concepts that are applicable to our realm of existence in order that we may understand HIM through HIS communication to us in the context of what we can sense and understand. But to then used this limitations to define our MAKER as if HE is a creature like us bounded by the constraints of time and space and all the parameters of this domain is nothing short of arrogant stupidity and blindness.
Let me illustrate in a few examples the severe limitations of the dominion of our existence using concepts and perspectives that can be perceived and understood pertaining to our physical realm.
Scientists and the Structure of the Universe.
In the unfolding of the centuries of “enlightenment” the more commonly held view of the structure of our universe has undergone several changes. This is not to say that all these scientists are in agreement in their theories about how our Universe actually is like. There was a time some less than a hundred years ago when the bulk of scientist contemporary to that time thought that our galaxy the Milky Way was the whole of the universe and that the atom was the smallest divisible unit of matter. Overtime these views changed to that of a universe which consists of many such galaxies (besides other celestial bodies) spaced by vast emptiness, and of “god” particles that magically “comes into and goes out” of existence. Today scientists are beginning to tell us that our universe is actually structured more like a super humongous large sponge.
I am now beginning to wonder if not two far into the distance future they will be telling us that our universe is actually a ‘solid’ not too different from ourselves and the solid or semi solid objects that we handle everyday.
What this should teach us and particularly our brilliant men and women of science is that we are not seeing everything there is but as the advances in science give us the ability to see better and farther beyond our ‘nanoscopic’ planet we are slowly beginning to see a bigger and clearer picture of our cosmos. This is the essential hindsight that sadly many of our brilliant men and women of science do not seem to have. From every generation of these men and women, many have been those who spoke like they already saw and understood everything perfectly considering themselves the utmost authority, not seeing that they were just ill informed students they spoke exactly like the “rocket scientists” I railed against so often in my writings.
A Vision Impaired Person.
A person who was born completely blind and never had the experience of light will not be able to appreciate spatial imagery such as distance, the visual of three dimensional shapes and also the color spectrum that those who have vision take for granted. This is not to say they are unable to make associative connections of these visual concepts to what they can sense in sounds, smells, tastes and touch. But their conceptualized perceptions of these are totally different from similar associations that those who are not so impaired make.
In a similar manner those of us who have full facilities of all our senses cannot conceptualized in our minds things that our senses cannot perceived as our brains are not able to make any associative projection of something we know nothing about being unable to sense them. Even among us who are not visually or in any way impaired there are sounds and some color spectrum that our senses cannot detect. We would be oblivious to sounds as loud as a thunder if the frequency is too high or two low for our auditory senses to detect.
In a parallel concept when it is dark and those of us with normal visual facilities see total darkness it is not because there is total absence of light but our sensory abilities are restricted and are unable to detect those light waves that are outside of our perceptive range.
Here I thought it also appropriate to highlight the fact that a person born totally blind do have the facility to be able to sense optical imagery as the region of the brain that process visual sensation are not necessarily impaired even as their eyes are. So technically if appropriated signals can be conveyed to this region of their brain those who do not have eyes or whose eyes do not function would be able to see exactly as a fully sighted person can.
From this we should have the wisdom to understand that our minds cannot grasp concepts for which we do not have some referential basis, that is there are things our minds just cannot conceptualize because we totally have no notion of them.
Note: Richard Hammond’s Invisible Worlds is an interesting BBC television documentary program on things happening right before our eyes all the time which we can't detect.
The World of Nature.
In the world of nature some ants are blind having no eyes, while others have limited sight and others still are equipped with good eye sights akin to those of dragonflies and robberflies. Many visually impaired ants' species sense their world mostly through scent using their antennae. In many such species the acute reach of these senses are less than a few millimeters from the tip of their antennae. So literally many ants species are not able to see (sense) far beyond the tip of their 'noses'.
Among ants species some are very slow moving while others move very fast such as the crazy ants. It is interesting to note that the slow moving ants which are usually more heavily armored are unable to sense these fast running ants. It is very conceivable that these fast moving ants such as crazy ants are just moving too fast for the slow moving ants to be even able to detect them as they zoomed pass their very ‘noses’.
Similarly when we deal with many small and tiny organisms of our planet, such organisms are not able to sense our presence even as we are standing directly over them. We can squash them or physically lift them to another location and they would not be able to understand being unable to sense us due to the limitations of their cognitive and sensory abilities.
Through all that nature and our world teaches us in our daily lives if we have not closed our minds to learning wisdom we should appreciate our own severe limitations and not be going arrogantly around thinking we are smarter, wiser and greater than our CREATOR. Even as our knowledge and understanding of our cosmos increases, still many among the most brilliant of our scientists and thinkers are oblivious to the awesome ingenuity seen in the defining laws that structured our existence as they vainly declared that there is no CREATOR GOD. These puffed up individuals do not seem to realize how completely breakable and severely limited they are that had it not been granted them, they would not have been able to even scratch their very own noses.
Now I may appear to be speaking rather boastfully when I say all those things. Again my challenge to you, 'Don't judge me and this work because you don't like how I say things. Read what I have to say then and only then judge for yourself if I am speaking the truth or am I just another egoistical know-it-all “rocket scientist”.
Evil And Evolution.
In the order of nature, organisms (both plants and animals) kill others for a number of reasons.
The first reason is for food. Would it be consider evil if one animal feeds on other animals? How about if an animal feeds on plants? How about if a plant feeds on another plant? In nature we have predators and preys, parasites and hosts. Now I am pretty sure about the animals when they kill other animals for food or other reasons they did it mostly intentionally not accidentally. I am not so sure about plants whether there is intent or not when a parasitic plant strangles the life out of another plant or digs its roots into the trunk or branches of other plants. Looks pretty premeditated to me, wouldn't be accidental that is for sure.
A parasitic plant feeding off a tree.
A parasitic plant inflicting a "bleeding" wound on its host.
We can see animals competing for mating rights, for food, foraging and hunting range, for living space and for dominance (and all the perks that comes with it). We also have plants competing for territory, nutrients and sunlight. We have plants that make use of other plants, plants that prey or parasite on other plants and animals; plants that poison other plants and even poison animals; and we have plants (mold, fungi and bacteria) that prey on animals and plants. Then there are viruses that are the absolute total parasite.
Through the course of such competition and predation these organisms cause much harm and suffering to one another. That is the whole basis of the theory of natural selection and the survival of the fittest (i.e. of the fit). Are all these evils?
Does it begin to look like the evolutionists are right, that there is really no such thing as evil? Or it is because GOD allows evil or did not stop evil that all these things are taking place?
Evil And The Creation.
If GOD is love and is all powerful, all knowing and good why then are there so much evil as seen in the harm that man do to one another? Why are there sufferings as in pain, injury, degeneration, torment and death in the world? Why are there natural disasters, predations and disease plagues that inflict suffering and death? Why is life programmed or ordained with so many avenues for all manner of torment, pain, misery, suffering, horror and sorrow on the participants or holders of life on this planet?
So the questions that arise are:
2. Is HE not able to stop evil or is HE not willing to stop evil. If He is not able then can He still be all powerful? If HE is able but not willing than can HE be love and good (or the embodiment of good)?
The first question assumes that GOD is either not stopping evil or that He out of intents allowed evil to be manifested or to exist. Both assumptions are in error.
The error in the second question is in association. The questions associated 'not able' against 'not willing' that it is an 'either or' postulation. That makes it a loaded question, a question that makes assumptions which are not true or correct to force a false conclusion or answer.
Some Other Erroneous Assumptions:
1. The creation is finished or completed in the Genesis chapter 1 account, but it 'fell apart' (or so called ) and now GOD is trying to fixed it. The truth is that Genesis chapter 1 covered just the beginning of the process of the creation of humankind (and not even of the universe except as a very concisely summarized statement) make specifically in the image and likeness of GOD, not the end of it. Revelation chapter 21 is when the creation of humankind as Children conceived be and born of the HOLY SPIRIT of the CREATOR GOD is completed.
2. The same error is in the teaching that JESUS completed the act of Salvation when HE died to institute the New Covenant in the Passover commemoration. The truth is that was just the beginning of the process of Redemption and Salvation not the completion of it. The completion of Salvation is in Revelation chapter 21 verse 6.
3. Good and Evil are totally absolute values. The truth is they are not. This is answered in the fourth part of this discussion - The Context Of Evil.
4. Good and Evil are moral or ethical values. The truth is they are not. This too is answered in the fourth part of this discussion - 'The Context Of Evil'.
Here then is the answer to the two questions raised above. This is not the complete answer to this topic of why there is evil but just the answer that directly address the error in the two questions mentioned.
Firstly we need to understand the connection between the concepts in the words ‘can’t’ and ‘won’t’. To say I can't do something does not necessarily mean I can't in the absolute sense such as literally not being able or not having the capability to carry out.
As severely limited personage there are many things we are unable to do, not having either the physical capabilities (or power abilities) due to our physical limitations such as we can't physically fly like a bird without some assistance by machines or powered apparatus. But there are times when not restricted or limited in the physical sense we are not able to do something because of the state of our minds whether we are emotionally unwilling or emotionally incapacitated.
In the absolute sense of the word ‘won't’ the meaning concept is translatable to mean ‘can’t.’ Also ‘allow’ do not equate to 'intent' or willful purpose. ‘Allow’ is a concession not an intention.
More Questions
1. If GOD is all powerful and all knowing why can’t He create everything forever perfect instantly, why must it be a drawn out process?
2. Why is so much suffering necessary to create the perfect, can’t GOD create perfection without suffering for the creature?
3. Why is the appearance or introduction of evil necessary in the creation process?
∎ Updated: 2021 02 04
Why Did GOD Create Satan Part II
[1] [2] [3] [4]
Next in this series: Why GOD Allowed Evil Into His Creation.
Related Reads:
Satan (the meaning in the term)
The Devil (the meaning in the term)
Supportive Reads:
Other Relevant Reads:
Previous Post: The Passover Season Is Here Again.
Next Post: Why GOD Allowed Evil Into His Creation.
Special Note
Please note that all discussion by this author are based on a general non expert assessment of information gathered from material published in the public domain (i,e, readily available to members of the public). All of this author's discussions are presented as material for any and all lay person with no special expertise. Anyone twelve years of age and older, who is not mentally incapacitated in some ways, would (or should anyway) be able to understand anyall the discussions of this author. You do not need to be an expert or a genius to understand the simple and straight forward truths and facts discussed by this author.
All “proclaimed and acclaimed” super mega brilliant supremely intelligent geniuses leading experts, defining master authorities, super holier than GOD man, women, entities and beings of whatever godly glorious illustrative mega holy and reverent titles, please go somewhere else to announce and proclaim your supreme superiority and lowest humility over all other members of humankind.
Update History:
2021 02 04
2015 05 16
Posted On: 2011 04 15
2015 05 16
Posted On: 2011 04 15
© Quah 2011 – 2022. All rights reserved.
