It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Did God create evil to ensure free will?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:28 PM
I was just wondering why God created lucifer knowing he would rebel. Since he's omniscient he would have to know about lucifer's rebellion and other things like Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. Then I had a thought, maybe he allowed evil to happen and allowed sin to enter the world to ensure our free will.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:20 PM
Many beleive that there will be a war between the two with god victorious and mankind shall live in peace forever, this is also false.
If nothing but good existed we wouldnt know what is was because there would be nothing to compare it to yet we would still find something to moan about, the opposite is true if there was only evil it too would cease to exist.
I dont think either could really exist it just comes down to point of view, everything needs its opposite in order to exist and justify itself.
This could explain why the black and white chequer pattern is the symbol of the masons, god and satan if any would always have to exist.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:49 PM

I was just wondering why God created lucifer knowing he would rebel.

Leibniz proposed a swell solution to the problem.

Maybe there simply is no possible world that has beings with free will in it, where none of the beings rebel against God. So, God can choose to have no creation with autonomous beings, or he can choose which of the possible worlds with rebellion to create.

Just as a thought experiment, and with the proviso that I believe Genesis 2 and 3 to be allegorical and figurative: would any human being not have eaten of the tree of wisdom?

I could believe that the answer is no.

Maybe that ties into the thought you had.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by eight bits]

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:51 PM

Think about it this way, if it weren't for evil we would really only have one option to choose. That wouldn't really be free will would it?

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Nosred

Think about it this way, if it weren't for evil we would really only have one option to choose. That wouldn't really be free will would it?

You may be onto something friend...

more here:


posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:07 PM
It is said without the Darkness there is nothing to distinguish the Light as Light.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:23 PM
From my own personal understanding good and evil are the projections from our own mind. Hence our ego is simply the thoughts of separation, fear, hate and war with one another in a world of physicality that we created.
God then is simply the prime source of life in Spirit of Oneness, love, happiness and peace that one may experience anytime, sometimes or all the time depending on their state of Mind in life.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:26 PM
I have a theory myself I'd like to share.

Gen 1:26 "and God said let US create MAN to OUR image to OUR likeness" (more than one) lets say a creator and a catalyst.... now NOTHING would be dumb enough to try to go above the creator and the catalyst (son) is "Like the High Most" not the high most... and now people always say Satan wanted to be "Like the High Most" not "He wished himself exalted even above the creator" or anything like that. so in my theory the almighty creator has NO ADVERSARY it is the catalyst(son) who has the adversary because Satan/Lucifer/Insert nasty deragatory entity who is said to be evil hear.... and i think it was done out of jealousy because he/it wanted to be the son, and could not, so rejected the son (way to the father) to be cast into darkness and now because the catalyst(son) OWNS everything, because it was created through him, by his father, for him, and the depiction of the biblical son is that of a caring/sharing/merciful person it will all be shared with those who want to be LIKE him and not BE him, upon the return of "Son of Man" or 2nd coming of Christ. but while There is no PHYSICAL Christ figure to "Judge the Living and Dead" this evil entity tried to take what is not rightfully his, through deception, tricks, whatever but in the mean time its all speculation.... as to why anything is the way it is.... (Speculation on Christian theology at its best)

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:38 PM
I see that we are all "Sons of God" and so we can create like God.
However to say that One can betray God or be better or more special than God like in the mythological Lucifer story would be like chopping of ones own,
"Nose to spite their Face"

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 06:58 PM
Like adam and even and the garden of eden this is just another one of the fallacies of religion and christianity. Keep digging and you'll find many more that just don't add up.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by N3krostatic]

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Nosred

Think about it this way, if it weren't for evil we would really only have one option to choose. That wouldn't really be free will would it?

Just so you guys know that was supposed to be a continuation of what I was writing.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:06 PM
reply to post by Nosred

That is exactly what I believe. Good job S&F for you.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:13 PM
To address the question of why evil and its proposed personification in the devil are tollerated, we need to get into its nature a bit.

The free-will based decision to eat from the Tree of Knowledge pretty much kills the idea that the Tree of Knowledge itself imparted free will. In fact Adam was presented with decisions to make from the very moment of his creation according to Genesis: specifically the choice of a companion from among the options presented by God. So it would appear that free will is in the very nature of man; an essential component of the life that God is said to have breathed into man. One might go so far as to say that free will defines life, especially if one delves into the question of whether mechanics alone can count as life, as is a sticking point in debate over whether a one celled organism or Artificial Intelligence could be considered life.

This also offers us an idea of the nature of whatever other beings are proposed to exist as a compliment to God.

We are also told early in Genesis that God said that if man were also to eat from the Tree of Life that they would become "like us". So the chracteristics of "us"- so the essential characteristics of "us" would seem to be three things, two of which man has obtained:
1. The ability to willfully exercise influence.
2. Knowledge of the rammifications of exercising that will (not specific knowledge, which opens the question of omniscience, but merely the understanding that unknown and uncontrollable consequences may ensue).
3. Permanence.

The final item, permanence, being obtainable by humans, combined with the fact that nothing that would grant omnipotence or omniscience is mentioned, would seem to indicate that "us" refers not only to God but to other beings which are not omnipotent or omniscient as well, which for lack of any other known entities, would seem to mean angels, and by extention, Satan. For the moment I will set aside the fact that permanence raises the "rock so big he can't move it" paradox with respect to even God's omnipotence.

So, Satan might be expected to have the 3 traits I have listed. Many Christian theologians will tell you that the closest thing to a definition of sin offered in the Bible is "Sin was found in Satan", and sin took root in man as well when man ate from the Tree of Knowledge.

So we can induce that having the ability to willfully assert influence and to know the rammifications is a major component of having sin.

But God is said not to have sin. Why? Well, he is claimed to have omniscience as well. Interesting since the Greek word used for Sin throughout most of the New Testament is hamartano, meaning to miss the mark, in the sense of a stray projectile.

So we might conclude that the nature of evil and sin is error- unintended and uncontrolled consequence- chaos- and with it the risk of material harm. The argument would essentially go that only God is perfect and so only God can do things without unintended and possibly negative consequences. Thus the historically more traditional model of a God who owns his people by virtue of having created them or who commands devotion by his might (while certainly not absent from certain Christian sects) is fundamentally replaced, particularly in the New Testament, by the wise and protective divine father figure.

So the struggle between good and evil for me is not one moral struggle between God and an adversary, but many separate struggles between the will of the individual and the good of the whole (with the interests of the whole being represented by the one being supposedly responsible for it and able to protect it from consequence by his omniscience- God, whose very nature requires him to meet this responsibility). So morality would boil down to a universal accounting of material consequence, and utilitarianism can be considered correct yet moot, since supposedly only God can guide the proper exercise thereof.

That brings us back to the fact that permanence can be obtained by beings other than God however. God can apparently create something that he can't destroy. This leaves God's perfection dependent upon omniscience, not omnipotence, since some things can't be taken back (and even if he can take it all back, that would seem to indicate that he'd made a mistake at some point if he had to). But as long as God still knows everything, and is never confronted by anything more powerful than him, the proverbial djinni won't get out of the bottle and he can still control all of the consequences. In other words, there is no such thing as evil. No evil is taking place. There is only the will to do evil, manifested in the attempt to choose one's own will over the will of God- the very thing that caused both Satan and Man to fall- but god always prevents it ultimately. Though this would seem to run contrary to what we can see in the world around us, it is reinforced in a much clearer way in the Bible. Romans 8:28 does say "All things work together for the good of those that love the Lord and are called according to his purpose." (and who gives a dang about those who aren't called according to his purpose because they are part of the problem and good thing for God to do with them is to get rid of them).

Unfortunately that's little better than a homonculus fallacy that shrinks but does not eliminate the mystery of inequity, because we are left with a God who is not all powerful, could do nothing about the fact that he could not create the world without having to separate out a few bad seeds and protect the rest of the world from them. They are an unintended consequence and in order to control their harmful effects, they themselves must be harmed. So God has missed the mark. An effect beyond what was desired occurred and people got hurt. God is sinful. The Matrix can be viewed as an allegory for this, wherein the creator himself is just a creation and in fact a symbiote to his creators/creations, who has been able to do no better than to consolidate the inevitability of chaos into a single conflict.

But then again I'm not a Christian and I don't necessarily believe or disbelieve in the entities involved in the Christian faith. Personally I prefer to think of the entirety of all existence as a single entity. The universe consists of matter exchanging energy within certain parameters, with multiple localized parts which have distinct agendas suited to their function within the whole- not unlike our brains.

So the universe is schizophenic, and any Gods, devils, and mortals might be viewed as divergent personalities within a single brain. We just do what we do, and what else could possibly be expected of us?

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:27 PM
The way I see it is we don't have enough information. The first question is the question of the degree of God's omnipotence. If God is truly omnipotent, in that he can do anything, then he should be able to give us free will without the existence of evil. That should answer your original question right there, evil should not be necessary for God to give us free will if God is truly omnipotent as most would have you think he is. That kind of God could give us free will to his heart's content without the necessity for evil.

So if God is an all-powerful omnipotent being then he must want evil for one reason or another. I'll leave that up to your imagination. It's not necessary so it must be wanted or serve a useful purpose or something.

But if God is not all-powerful omnipotent then it may just be a matter of circumstances. He can't fulfill his plans if evil doesn't exist. He can't display his true power and glory if evil doesn't exist. He couldn't have given us a "perfect" world if evil doesn't exist. He can't give us free will if evil doesn't exist. He can't test our hearts if evil doesn't exist. There must be something God could not do if he were to prevent evil. Of course, the above reasons still apply. It might be useful to him in some way or he might want evil for some reason. Once again, I'll leave that up to your imagination.

Some would say that God merely "allows" evil. But that really means God has weighed the options and chosen to allow it. So once again, there must be a reason for allowing it. Either he couldn't prevent it while fulfilling his plans, or it served a greater purpose to allow it than to disallow it.

The second question I think one would have to ask is if God created evil. The King James Version Old Testament says God creates evil. However, other translations have changed the word "evil" to words like "calamities" or "discords" and other less helpful words. So it really comes down to your own interpretation.

In my opinion I would say that due to our lack of information it really can't be known why evil exists.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by theyreadmymind]

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:35 PM
Evil is not a thing but rather a lack of good.

Rust is to metal as evil is to good in that without metal there is no rust. Without a shirt there can be no hole. It can be seen as a mold, mildew or a cancer. In order for cancer to be it needs a host whether it be an organ or limb. Mildew can grow only when the situation allows.

So when there is a lack of good we then have evil or an absence of good.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:33 PM

Originally posted by TangoVooDoo
Evil is not a thing but rather a lack of good.

This view is self-contradictory, unless one argues that there are moral absolutes which can never be altered by circumstance and which can never be mutually exclusive in their practice.

For instance, you can not be at work supporting your family and also be at home raising your kids (even if you work from home- I know because my mom operated a home business when I was younger).
So if one grants that both supporting your family and actively raising your kids are good things, the fact that you can't do both at the same time goes to show that at any given moment, doing one good thing is causing another good thing to be absent, and thus the first good thing meets the definition of evil.

Granted you trade off between the two, so that on the whole both needs are met, but this is like drawing an uneven line which errs in each direction equally at different times, and claiming that it is straight because of the average.

In practice there is a competition between good things which are also evil in their extremes (and arguably when moderated only become moderately evil). So two opposites are one in the same, and when there is no distinction between different descriptions, there is effectively no meaning.

So when you label things good or evil you are really just saying.
This is good or This is evil
This is.

Grammar experts, what does this become in the first person?
I am. God's own description for himself.

[edit on Thu 24 Sep 2009 by The Vagabond]

[edit on Thu 24 Sep 2009 by The Vagabond]

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:09 PM
reply to post by Nosred

i think you might be on to something ...

if god wanted the same relationship with everyone, then why create diversity?

if we all started in a state of "perfection", who would want to leave a place that is perfect?

we are here
we are diverse
diversity came from creation
creation = reality
if reality is wrong, then creation is wrong

if reality and creation are wrong
then whoever is telling you this must believe in their hearts that:
their creator was wrong

god didn't want the same relationship with eveyone
if god wanted an identical friendship in everyone
then everyone would be an identical friend
and that is just not the case, i submit reality as my proof

something of perfection has made us more perfect ....

the greater the divesity of the group, the more accurate their collective consciousness is

test this above stated logic in an experiment

1) get a heavy object, a cow, a car, or a truck, something that weighs a few hundred pounds or more

2) get a group of 10 people to guess the weight
add their guesses together and divide by 10

3) get a group of 50 people to guess the weight
add their guesses together and divide by 50

4) get a group of 100 people to guess the weight
add their guesses together and divide by 100

***please note no one individual guessed the correct weight, but the averages of all who were guessing gets closer and closer to the exact weight of the object.

this was done sometime in the middle ages when a nobleman at a festival was trying to prove how dumb commoners were.
he had a cow or a pig sow or something like that.
none of the commoners guessed the correct weight which was some odd number in the 600+ lb range. he had more than 900 commoners guess.
when they added up all the guesses together and divided by the number of guesses....

they collectively were less than 1 pound away from the exact weight.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:54 PM
According to your above example my post might be wrong, good thing it has nothing to do with your above example.

Evil is not a substance even though evil is real but it is a lack of good, it's a privation of a substance. A person who is deaf is absent of something, namely hearing, which should or ought to be there so the deaf person is deprived of hearing. In your example above you equate an act and not being able to accomplish it as evil or a lack of good but this has nothing to do with my explanation of evil is a corruption or contamination of good....or a good substance. If I mean to go and help feed the homeless on Friday night but I am unable to make it does not qualify as "evil". That would be a lack of ability but not a lack of good because my intentions are not a substance.

As I explained there can be no rust without metal, no holes without cloth or sunburn without skin. The car should or ought to be whole and without rust and while the car can be totally whole the car can never be totally consumed by rust for it would then not exist as a car. Evil is a deprivation then of something that should or ought to be there.

A child molester as a person is not evil although we may claim him or her as such. The act or relation of molestation to others is the evil.

Thanks for the reply

[edit on 24-9-2009 by TangoVooDoo]

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:21 PM

Originally posted by TangoVooDoo
According to your above example my post might be wrong, good thing it has nothing to do with your above example.

if you are referring to my contribution, the experiment proves that the more individuals with differing points of view will result in more accurate information, more accurate = more perfect

why would god create anything if it likes being alone?

that would be contradiction.
when you approach any animal that you are curious about, or want to get to know better, do you want it to fear you?
fear results in fight or flight
perhaps god doesn't want us to run away from god
perhaps god doesn't want us to fight god
perhaps god doesn't want us to fear god

a 3 year old little girl:
"look mommy, chipmunk!"
the chipmunk runs away
the litte girl is upset

god wanted the 3 year old girl to be upset?
free will
the chipmunk was scared
the chipmunk reacts by running away

god doesn't want you to fear god
god created fear as a tool for providing a means for diverisity

these are just some of my thoughts.
but i'd like to see that 3 year old girl be just as happy as i'd like god to be.

i think fear, byproduct of "self peservation" is keeping the 3 year old girl from happier

i think fear, byproduct of "self preservation" is keeping god from happier

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by soul of integrity

My apologies for the confusion. I was replying to The Vagabond.

I screwed up on the whole quote deal

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in