Did God Create Evil?
January 29, 2007
A University professor at a well-known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question.
“Did God create everything that exists?”
A student bravely replied, “Yes he did!”
“God created everything?” The professor asked.
“Yes, sir, he certainly did,” the student replied.
The professor answered, “If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil.”
The student became quiet and did not answer the professor’s hypothetical definition. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, “May I ask you a question, professor?”
“Of course,” replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, “Professor does cold exist?”
“What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?”
The other students snickered at the young man’s question.
The young man replied, “In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat.”
The student continued, “Professor, does darkness exist?”
The professor responded, “Of course it does.”
The student replied, “Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton ‘s prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn’t this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present.”
Finally the young man asked the professor, “Sir, does evil exist?”
Now uncertain, the professor responded, “Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.
To this the student replied, “Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”
The professor sat down.
-Unknown
SupernaturalWarfare 
Funny, I was trying to answer the question in the very beginning. It was answered for me though. I like the description a lot!
nicely put.
Augh… I’m sorry… In posting it I forgot to give the author credit! Who ever he/she is…
This came to me in a forward-email. It’s not mine, but someone else’s.
very refreshing! it’s so frustrating to see intellectuals and pundits so confident in their science convincing so many people to look at so many things without considering the perspective of faith at all.
thanks for passing this one along =]
You left out the part where the professor got angry with the student and kicked him out of his class.
Still, good story. Evil is something that is not of God.
That has to be one of the oldest emails on the internet. I’m not sure how many times I’ve seen that forwarded around email and MySpace. I still like it though. =D Evil is everything that’s… not God.
lol Freshman. I can’t wait to hear all of your stories when you’re at college and the professor kicks you out of class. And when I get kicked out for all of my persuasive essays…
I didn’t get the part where the student was kicked out.
Personally, I can’t wait until college so I can get professors mad at me for my “outlandish” ideas.
*evil chuckle* Bring it professor…
may I also use this story and copy it into one of my pages? It’s quite fascinating!
That’s pretty straight forward. Very nice.
I’ll have to forward that myself…
I don’t know who the “author” is, but I heard Robert Emmitt tell that story, and said that the student was Albert Einstein.
I’ve heard/read that before. Pretty interesting topics bound up in that, though. Such as the light vs. darkness, I’ve actually had some good debates on that before.
I don’t think that works.
The question is that of God’s omnipotence.
It is fine to say that there is no ‘cold’, but the fact is that if God created the universe, he is responsible for either the presense of molecular motion (heat) or the lack of it. He created the playing field.
Similarly, if God created the universe, he is responsible for either the presense of admirable behavior (good) or the lack of it.
It is irrelevant whether you talk about one phenomena and the absense of the inverse (good and lack of good) or whether you talk about two phenomena in contention (good and evil).
The point is: Christianity maintains that God is the creator. Choose one:
1. God created good. But God is omniscient and knew the creation of good would result in the presense of evil. (Failure of God’s goodness)
2. God created evil. (God is perverse)
3. Evil is an unintentional byproduct of creation (Failure of God’s omnipotence)
– DD
Question: Would there be love if there was not a choice?
I think that should be asked before “Did God create evil”, why because most people will say no God did not create it, men had a free will and created him self. I dont think that is to its fullest, meaning God gave a choice: to follow Him or to not follow Him, Adam and Eve chose not to and that is how The Fall came about… so God did create evil, so that he can show us (sinners) his love.
I’m i goign crazy or does this sound right?
1. Is the correct answer. By creating something, you create it’s opposite as well. To create choice, one must create more than one choice. In the strictest sense, Evil is not “bad things”, it is the absence of God. As soon as God created creatures that could chose, He created the ability for them to choose Evil as well as Good.
However the statement that this is “failure” of God’s goodness is incorrect. If the world was perfect and Man had no choice but to live in perfection, and could not chose Evil, it wouldn’t be “Good”. It would simply be.
When God created the universe, there was no evil – there was no “wrong.” God created it and it was “very good.” But when Adam and Eve sinned, evil entered into the world. There was no evil before “the fall.” Evil came about when Adam and Eve stepped away from God. By leaving God, evil was able to come into the picture.
Option 1 is not a failure in God’s omnipotence. God gave man a choice because He loved man. Man made the wrong choice. Evil/suffering/etc came about because of man’s choice – not because God created it or didn’t do anything about it.
Oops. My previous comment was a little out of place… Sorry.
Look guys, I know that some of these answers to the questions of good and evil have been given before. Is it possible to step outside of context and evaluate them a little bit? I don’t want to be mean – everyone’s entitled to their opinion – it just seems that sometimes if you hear the same explanations often enough you cease to be critical. I remember hearing about the trinity as a kid. I always took its sensibility for granted. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Separate but equal. I never even thought about it until an East Indian referred to Christianity as a polytheistic religion. You can’t divide something into three pieces and have each piece equal to the sum of those pieces. It doesn’t work. Saying that it ‘proves’ the divinity of God is nonsensical – it’s like saying 2 + 2 = 5 ‘proves’ pink elephants exist.
What I’m getting at here is that it seems very odd (to say the least) that God can be responsible for the creation of everything, know the entire contents of past and future, control the outcome of the universe – and yet fail to be responsible for the one thing that would cause embarassing theoretical conclusions.
Look, break it down: Say Jimmy is murderer. God is responsible for the conception of Jimmy, as well as Jimmy’s parents and his parent’s parents. God was intimately part of the process at the microphysical level. God knew all about Jimmy’s home life, about the TV he watched growing up, and about the friends he hung out with. God knew about the circumstances under which Jimmy would be exposed to religion, and knew how Jimmy would respond to those influences. After all, God endowed Jimmy with the intellectual resources he has. God created the circumstances under which the homicide would happen, down to the physical constitution of the weapon Jimmy used. God is wholely causally involved in every microphysical aspect for the homicide for every split second of its causal origin. In what way is it left for God to be NOT responsible?
Take the heat/cold analogy we’ve been using. Suppose I move into a new apartment. One day, in January, I wake up and the apartment is freezing because the furnace is not blowing any hot air. I go to the superintendant’s apartment and hammer on his door. ‘It’s too cold’, I say. ‘Sorry’, he says, ‘I’m not responsible for the cold – I just control the amount of heat.’ How many people would accept this answer?
Let me put the argument about evil a different way. If God is omnipotent AND good, anything God chooses to do would automatically make it ‘Good’. God could allow people to kill babies and have it be ‘good’. Not ‘good’ relative to a ‘greater plan’ or any of that hogwash, but good in and of itself. If you wish to say that God would never do this because he knows it would be ‘bad’, you are saying that there is a standard of good and evil independent of God. To be clear; you are saying there is a standard of good and evil outside of God that he must respect and is powerless to change. Whereupon he is not omnipotent after all.
These options aren’t made to force a choice per se, they are meant to illustrate that just about any choice leads quickly to absurdity. I honestly don’t see that there is any ‘right answer’ to give. I strongly recommend that anyone advocating any of these alternatives think through the ideological repercussions that follow from what they are endorse.
Some of the stuff that passes for evidence is just silly. If someone were introducing you to a new and different God, would you believe them based on the arguments you are offering?
You’ve obviously thought this out very well, Triple-D, and I appreciate your inquisitive spirit…
I think your furnace analogy is, in fact, an excellent one for the spiritual reality of the human condition. It is not cold in the apartment because the superintendent created the cold; it is cold because he chose to neglect the furnace. His choice brought cold into the apartment… just as man’s choice brought sin into the world.
Romans 1 explains this excellently: while man “knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.” In other words, man wanted his own way: he exerted his God-given power of choice, and chose evil. And, as per that choice, “God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts…”
In a sense, you are correct. God created CHOICE, which is responsible for evil. But He forces no one to commit evil acts (James 1: “For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.”) And on a separate note, one must realize that if there is no choice between good and evil, there is no goodness itself (one of the other commenters said this same thing).
I have indeed thought through the ideological repercussions of my Christianity, and have found them wholly reasonable. You are obviously a thinker yourself, and I challenge you: continue to ask questions about Christianity. I and others will be more than happy to help answer.
I understand more of where you come from, DDD, than I did before.
The difference, in my mind, about your analogy is that I do no believe God is directly in control of Jimmy’s life – Jimmy is. The circumstances that Jimmy grew up in were circumstances God was aware would happen, yet are not not the way God originally intended Jimmy grow up in.
It is a point in theology in which Christians differ. To make God in ultimate, direct control of the universe places all evil at God’s doorstep. If everything is His fault, then yes indeed, God is evil as well as good.
However, without getting too much into the biblical reasons why, I believe God yielded control of what happens on the planet, by giving Man choice.
This must be so, because if God was all-powerful and ultimately “good”, He must have no other option other than to fix mistakes that happen and correct behavior until Man reached perfection. As it is, God created choice and free will and through that, Man takes responsibility for what happens on the Earth. God can not “fix” evil without rendering good and love to be of no effect.
Lastly, DDD, have you ever read any of the works of C.S Lewis? Both the concept of the Trinity as well as God’s relation to time and to us, were topics he covered *very* successfully in a book called Mere Christianity. Surprisingly, most Christians fail to argue in accordance to the simple logic he produced in that volume.
He also wrote a book entitled “The Problem of Pain”, which dealt with the creation of evil and the responsibility of it – the topic we are discussion now – and I believe he summed up my views on it quite well.
The furnace analogy is just that, an analogy. It differs from the story that it illustrates in certain essential ways. The most relevant way it differs is that the super did not CREATE the apartment and the rest of reality. The story was meant to illustrate one thing: if the super controls the amount of heat he also directly controls the amount of cold. The point of telling the story in allegory form is thus: If you find yourself in a sitation such as that with a superintentant such as that, how do you react? It strikes me that most of us, in circumstances so illustrated, accord the superintendant responsibility for the cold as well as the heat. Any temptation to act differently is prompted by theoretical concerns related to the good & evil debate. Jimmy illustrates the same point. You cannot create a glass that is half-full without creating a glass that is half-empty. The idea that I could be responsible for the one while failing to be responsible for the other is absurd. You are either responsible for both, or neither. As you pointed out, if you create choice you create alternatives. If this is merely a ‘sense’, I fail to see in what ‘sense’ by creating choice you fail to create alternatives.
I do not contend your choice, my perspective is merely that Christian theology (almost ANY theology) quickly resolves into contradictions. It is merely the familiarity with such contradictions that causes many to discount their worth. If you’ve heard the story about the trinity often enough, you cease to appreciate its absurdity. Once again – I’m not trying to be mean – it’s just that theists tend to ignore contradictions in theory in a way they don’t ignore them in practice. They tell the story about the trinity, but if you give them an orange and ask it to be divided into three pieces that are individually equal to the entire orange they look at you funny.
Why this disparity? This disparity is faith. Faith is antithetical to reason, that’s why it’s faith. You cannot be both completely reason-guided and faithful. Faith means that at a certain point you cease to be persuaded by the relevant situation presented to you and rely upon the answers given to you by the thing you have faith in. This is the methodological point at which we differ. We both follow reason/physics in the case of oranges. Yet as soon as we’re talking about evil, things change. I submit that if we respect reason in the case of oranges, and all the similar mundane beliefs that guide our lives, it will similarly be accurate at a higher level. If you discount this claim, it is because you set aside that reason in order to believe a story you have been told – by Mom, a missionary, the bible – whatever. That is why you have your faith. That’s also why Moslems have their faith and Hindus have theirs.
– DD
Paradox: a statement, proposition, or situation that seems to be absurd or contradictory, but in fact is or may be true. (Encarta Wold English Dictionary, 1999)
What appears to me to be contradictory cannot be concluded by others as untrue just because I can’t make sense out of it.
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.
Jeff: Are you sure you want me agreeing that belief in God is a paradox? Typically, a paradox occurs where premises seem to indicate a conclusion other than that which is true. However, to be paradoxical that conclusion must be established independently. If you start with a conclusion and work backwards, all you have is a failure to reason. Consider this example: OK, we all saw John kill Gary, John’s fingerprints were all over the murder weapon. Moreover, we all know that John has hated Gary for a long time. Therefore the murderer is:Bob. This conclusion is paradoxical, but none of us would accept it unless we had independent reasons for believing Bob was the murderer.
The suggestion of paradox certainly seems odd. You propose that belief in God is a paradox. This, in turn, suggests that the evidence points to the conclusion that God does not exist. I, of course, agree. At this point we diverge. I continue support the conclusion indicated by the premises. The theist, finding such a conclusion distasteful, accepts the one given by the relevant authority.
DDD, you keep mentioning how Christianity (and Theology) results in contradictions. Could you please tell us about some contradictions?
To change from the “furnace example:”
Another way to look at that is this: I give you a gun. With that gun you can go protect people for good – or you can go murder people. I give you the choice. My intent is for you to do good. But if you go murder people with that gun, then you do wrong. It is not my fault that you chose to do wrong. I intended for you to do good.
You can look at God and good/evil the same way. God gave man ‘choice’ (the gun). He intended for all of mankind to do good with the ability to choose. However mankind has taken choice (the gun) and has done much evil through that. God intended for us to do good – but we have done evil. It isn’t God’s fault that we are committing evil.
As for the Trinity:
We can take that orange and cut it into three pieces that are individually equal. We cut the orange into thirds. They are all one – but different. They can be joined into one – but they are three. They all are ‘orange,’ but all have different qualities but are still the same.
We all have faith. By pushing squares on this thing we call a ‘keyboard,’ I have faith that letters will appear on a screen in front of me. By sitting in this chair, I have faith that it will hold my weight. By living in the United States of America, I have faith that the US Armed Forces are keeping me safe by destroying the US’s enemies. By the simple and instinctive act of breathing, I have faith that air will enter into my lungs and keep me alive.
Life requires faith. Everything requires faith. We all have faith.
I believe Jeff was saying that belief in God could be looked at as a paradox by some people. I believe that the belief in God is not a paradox – that it is indeed, fact. (of course)
I also believe Jeff was pointing out that you were saying that belief in God is a paradox and that paradoxes could and could not be true. It has not been clarified as fact.
I like the gun example…
Also, DDD, if you want a really good explanation on the good/evil debate, I would suggest reading the first part of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. I was just reading it today and it is very simple and easy to read and when he’s talking about morality, he barely even mentions God, much less Christianity. Just so you know, C.S. Lewis was a devoted athiest for a long time, so he knows exactly where you are coming from.
Oh, btw, Christians see reason as a support to faith. We have reasonable faith, based off of reality.
Hope that helps… 🙂
Is. 45:6 That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun
That there is no one besides Me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other,
Is. 45:7 The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.
This is the contradiction we have been discussing:
P. You cannot be wholely responsible for the presense of anything without being responsible for the absense of its inverse. If there are 10 apples on the table and you take 8, you are responsible for the fact there are 2 remaining.
I submit (again) that we all believe the above 98% of the time. How would you respond to the superintendent in my example? Suppose someone bakes a doughnut and tells you they are responsible for the dough, but not the hole in the middle. It’s silly. This is the contradiction I’m talking about.
Gun example: I would respectfully disagree with you here. If you freely give someone a gun that is subsequently used for murder, the law will apportion you some guilt for that act. More to the point: God is aware of the consequences of his actions. Are you still guilt-free if you give me the gun knowing with absolute certainty which choice I will make?
The point is, (..and I don’t think this point has been addressed) if God is omniscient and omnipotent, there is really no choice to make. If the outcome is known (by God) it cannot be ‘free’. It is simply a contradiction, and insisting he has a choice does not change that fact. Suppose I offer you the ‘choice’ of pizza or chinese food, knowing full well that I ordered a pizza 20 minutes ago. When you choose pizza, you may THINK your choice is freely made. Your choice does not affect the arrival of the pizza at the door. This is not a real choice, but an apparent choice. There is no correlation between the choice and the outcome.
As for the orange, I agree with you 100%. The purpose of that metaphor was that most Christians tell me that you cannot split God into thirds. They wish to say that Jesus (for instance) is not 1/3 of God but 100% God. I find this contradictory, for surely the three of them together would be three times as large, or powerful, or something. On this matter, we seem to agree. (though I’m thinking you may backtrack a little now…)
Your definition of ‘faith’ is not that which most people use. Although there is nothing strictly wrong with describing everyday mundane acts as involving ‘faith’, it minimizes the amount of confidence we have in the outcome. For example, you and I both have ‘faith’ (by this odd definition) that the chair will hold your weight but only one of us has faith in God. I submit to you that my reasons for believing in the case of the chair are not really a matter of faith. Typically, we use the word ‘faith’ to describe conclusions that we desire despite the fact we have little reasons to suppose they will occur. Sally has ‘faith’ it will not rain on her wedding day in March. I suggest that most theists accept the fact that everyday mundane acts are not a matter of faith. Experiment: The next time a stranger sits in a chair, ask them if they are happy their faith was rewarded. I believe they will not understand what you are talking about.
P.S: Allison. I did have that C.S. Lewis book once, but it’s probably buried. Can you give me the gist of the argument or point me to a link?
Ok, let’s re-examine the gun example. If I’m a police officer and you have just joined the force. I give you a handgun. You are supposed to uphold justice with that handgun. But, lets say you go murder somone with that handgun. You did not use the handgun for the intended purpose. You were supposed to inforce the law – instead you broke the law. I have no responsibility for the murder.
Let’s look at hot/cold again. Let’s say I own a house that I invite you to live in. I set the heater to 70o. I then give you the freedom to choose the temperature but tell you it needs to say at 70o. Then once you have the freedom to choose the temperature, you choose to set it at 50o. I originaly set it at the ideal temperature – 70o. You choose to change the temperature from the ideal temperature. I know your ‘instinct’ is to do what ever you want no matter what the consequenses. But I do not want to be a dictator and not allow you the free will to choose – so I give you the option to choose. You choose to lower the temperature and problems ensue. It is not my fault that you lowered the temperature.
How can my definition of faith be different from what ‘most people’ use? I got the real definition from the dictionary. If that is not the ‘definition everyone uses,’ then ‘everyone’ is using the word faith wrongly.
I will finish my comment later – but I’ve gotta run.
Sure. I have no problem with either of your examples. What they illustrate is choice.
What you need is an argument that combines omniscience and omnipotence with choice, for this is what I say is impossible. There is no mention made of omnipotence or omniscience in either of your examples. You need a police officer that KNOWS I will committ murder before he gives me the gun, yet still escapes responsibility. You need a police officer that has the power to prevent the murder by not giving me the gun, yet still escapes responsibility. This is what I suggest is impossible. In my pizza example, you may THINK you have a choice, although plainly you do not.
There is a primae facie imcompatibility between knowing an outcome and offering real choice, and this is what I wish to make clear.
I suggest your use of ‘faith’ differs because – as per the example I give – most people would not recognize that use as an instance of faith. Let’s be clear – dictionaries reflect the way words are used in language and not the other way around. When a new word joins the language (just ‘google’ it) – it appears in use before it appears in the dictionary. Dictionaries catalogue the way words are used. Perhaps everyone is using the word ‘faith’ wrongly, but that seems really strange.
Do you say this:’My socks are in the wash’ or this ‘I have faith my socks are in the wash’
Do you say this:’We’re having pizza, I love pizza’ or this ‘I have faith that my desire for pizza remains unchanged’
Do you say this:’The knicks ROCK!’ or this ‘I have faith in the ability of the Knicks to..blah blah’
Come on.
– DD
My quote of the definition of paradox merely refers to this statement by DDD: “my perspective is merely that Christian theology (almost ANY theology) quickly resolves into contradictions.” Examples: good vs. evil, truth vs. grace, the Trinity existance.
This entire series of comments sounds like a great debate club transcript. And I’ll bet DDD could be effective in debating either side of the argument; he’d be just as good debating on behalf of Christianity as he is against it. He’s just a good debator. For all we know, he may be a Christian just challenging his fellow believers to know what they know.
Maybe we can conclude with this … and you can agrue this if you want DDD … but “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him” (Proverbs 26:4).
The believers are secure in their faith. They can generally explain the hope they have in their faith. Foolish debate becomes rambling argument. I’ve lost interest.
Jeff: Hmmm. I’m afraid that this is not the first time I’ve heard that particular quote before. Do I really strike you as a fool? Look, I understand if you want to give up on a ‘rambling argument’, but then what is all this business about ‘taking culture head on’?
Quote: “Jeff: Hmmm. I’m afraid …”
Nice touch. Another debate tactic. It even worked. You got another reply from me.
But I’m not interested in debate tactics … and I only find “tactics” in your debate style. Not an effort to truly understand the issues.
I’m all about “Taking Culture Head On.” I’m not interested in playing your debate game. You truly appear to be entertained and tend to take us on rabbit chases.
Again, you’ve lost my interest.
Whoa. Sorry if I offended. See you guys later.
-DD
DD,
I sincerely apologize for Jeff S2K’s words.
He acted wrongly and did not handle the situation the right way nor as a Christian should handle situations like this. I am very sorry. None of us are perfect – we’re not even close. Please do not take one man’s words and turn it against the whole of Christianity.
-Brian
Hey, DDD, I can’t summarize the Mere Christianity- I’m nowhere near as smart as C.S. Lewis and I would probably confuse everybody by trying, lol
I found a used copy on Amazon.com for around 5 dollars, I think its worth the investment.
I hope you continue this discussion, we are all learning alot; I think one of the points Jeff S2K was trying to make is that its useless if you are arguing with someone who won’t even think about your answer to their question. We just all need to continue to think critically about what is being said on each side of the argument. Anyway, thanks for taking time to discuss these issues with us and I hope we can answer some more of your questions about Christianity in the future.
~Allison
DDD,
Don’t worry, you didn’t offend. I’ll parrot what Andrew said earlier … I appreciate your inquisitive spirit. I was quite abrupt with the point I was trying to make, and I apologize.
We Christians feel under attack and feel the need to defend our faith. But even more important, we want to share our faith. So the spirit of debate is purposed for understanding, not winning.
I think all involved would appreciate continued commentary from you here at Supernatural Warfare. You said, “See you guys later.” Don’t be gone too long.