Does Evil Exist?
Published on September 8, 2007 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Religion
Got this story from a friend and thought it was quite thought provoking. Does evil exist or is it better stated that evil is just the absence of something good?



Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"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 (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example 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.


"

Comments (Page 3)
7 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Sep 10, 2007
the Church does itself no favours trying to define everything down the last degree - it cant


the Church does make it harder for those looking in to understand what Catholicism really is when it contradicts itself in this way.


Zydor. These two statements say it all.

What you have to keep in mind is this: The Church, The Synagogues or the Mosques are institutions for explaining and teaching God's words. The problem is those who are in charge are humans and they have their own faults, biases and agendas. Humans are required to think for themselves after reading GOD's words themselves. they should seek help from more learned people whenever they need it. BUT, their brains should be used to make sense of what they read and what they are told. No one can go and say to God on the day of judgement: i did that or believed that because so and so told me that is the right way. That is not acceptable. each one is on his/her own. That is why God gave us brains and free will and guidance (i.e. His own words through His messengers). We are supposed to use the first two to understand the third.

The Church in particular is not giving Christians any help by using a Bible that in effect are a mixed bag of : Some of God's words, Some of the messengers's own words, some of the scholars'opinions, some of the historians' recollection and some of the philosophers' utopian thinking.

I know full well that it is hard, but you have to separate all of that for yourself to extract what God actually said. The church should do that but they dont want to for some reason. Christians are left to figure out what is what on their own . The church says it is all sacred and divine. while the text itself does not claim that. Moreover, the problem of translation and inaccuracies in recording make the whole thing even more problematic.

In short, God's words come only from His LIVE messengers. Others' writings are mere opinions and history. try to do the sorting yourself. The picture will be less confusing and less contradictory.

KFC, Lula. I believe Zydor comments is a clear indication of the result of treating everything you read in the Bible as sacred or divine. Only Jesus's words BEFORE he was raised are the words that are coming from God. Everything else is just opinions and history and should be judged based on what jesus said not as a complement and additions to it. That is my own look at the whole thing anyway.



on Sep 10, 2007
The immortality of the soul is taught in Genesis, Wisdom, Eccles. Proverbs, Isaias and Daniel.


that's just the tip of the iceburg Lula. I'd venture to say it's taught in every book of the bible.

I think KFC referred to everlasting punishment as eternal death.


yes, when I was referring to death as a separation. That's what death really is. A separation first from the body and then from God (if not born twice).

on Sep 10, 2007
Scripture tells us that He chooses all


Lula can you tell me what verse or scripture you're referring to here?


1Tim. 2:4 "This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knoweldge of truth."

2StPeter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about His promise as some count slowness, but is forebearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."
The death of the soul took place the instant the sin was committed. That is, because the soul is immortal, the moment it commits a grevious sin, it loses its supernatural life, founded on grace and friendship with God. The loss of grace is the soul's spiritual death, and leads to its eternal death. This is why Catholics call grevious sins "mortal" or "deadly" sins.


..... As far as i know our souls never die. It is in our bodies while we are alive, when God takes it back we physically die. It is restored to our bodies on the Day of Judgement and then we either go, with it, to hell or to heaven.


This is what I am saying too...it's just that I add the concept of sin and what sin does on the soul and everybody goes haywire with the mention of that.
on Sep 10, 2007
Sorry, this was double post
on Sep 11, 2007
the Church does itself no favours trying to define everything down the last degree - it cant


I don't think that the Church has defined everything Catholic to the last degree.

It has been around for 2,000 years and has kept copious notes, records, writings etc. and has papal documents and encyclicals that define the doctrines, etc.

What you have to keep in mind is this: The Church, The Synagogues or the Mosques are institutions for explaining and teaching God's words. The problem is those who are in charge are humans and they have their own faults, biases and agendas.


I tend to agree here.

The only exception I have is in the case of the Church, Christ gave the Church the task of proclaiming His teachings to all nations until the end of the world. In order to accomplish this, He gave His own authority to teach in His name, and also promised us His Spirit, who guides us "to all truth". He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in teachings of matters of doctrines and morals. When the Church teaches under the guidelines of ex cathedra, the Spirit of truth guarantees the Chruch has not been led into error.
on Sep 11, 2007
There are two deaths. One is when our spirit is separated from the body (the physical) and the other is when our spirit is separated from God (eternal).


I really dont understand the tenedency to using terms like "separation from God" "Absence of God", or "God did not create Satan" as Lula says. These terms and the thinking behind it is treating God as if He is a human being and as if you know how and what He is.

According to what He say, He is present everywhere, He can never be absent, He created everything including Satan, good, evil, bad, ugly, beautiful, ...etc.

How can you make Him absent, or how can something exist without Him Creating it.

You take some theologian's ideas and make it God's words?

All this sounds to me as something that a Greek philosopher might say. May be that is what it is.
on Sep 11, 2007
Thomas teaches in Summa Theologica, that evil is a "deficiency of some good which ought to be present". It's a real privation


Therefore, God cannot be the cause of evil for evil being something privative, cannot be the term of a postive creative act.


So Thomas's philosophy becomes Divine?

Thomas' s thinking is all missed up in my opinion. let's see:

If someone rapes (i.e. evil), that is not a creative act? what is the "good" that was supposed to be present there? Not rape? that is not a creative act, that is an absence of an act.

good And evil are both creative acts. God created both types of acts. we choose which one we do. God judges us accordingly. What could be more straight forward logical and fair? why confuse it and make it GREEK ?

Dont confuse "Creating" with "Causing". God created everything, but we also DO things. Some of it is evil and some are good. He Created evil but He doesnt DO evil things, some of His creations do.
on Sep 11, 2007
He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in teachings of matters of doctrines and morals. When the Church teaches under the guidelines of ex cathedra, the Spirit of truth guarantees the Chruch has not been led into error.


All that also applies to Jews and Muslims. However, what you call HS is in reality a mere inspiration of good-intentioned religious scholars. That doesnt make them divine. they still subject to human error. Only messengers are immune from that. because the messege is delivered in specific words to a specific messenger. The text of what each messenger recieved ends by his death (rise to heaven in case of Jesus). That text is the reference by which all opinions, inspirations and expalnation to be judged. getting the two mixed up is a major mistake. what you call HS is not a message from God, it is an inspiration that someone gets like any scientist who get an idea. Is that a message from God? it is an inspiration from God, not a message. The way the scholar or the scientist expresses that idea is his own and not God's.

God is not the auther of Newton's laws, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Wave theory ...etc even though each one of them was an inspiration from God to someone. Still they are not divine. in fact they all have errors and incomplete and may be wrong. The same applies to the Church and all the rest.
on Sep 11, 2007
Evil is simply the absence of God

ZYDOR POSTS: If so, you can legitimately say, therefore if God exists, and is always present in our lives, why does Evil still exist in the world?

Again, all that of course, is verbal gymnastics, and any rebuttal would in a similar way be based on unverifiable evidence. So we are back to Faith again, and I see no problem with that, if an individual has that Faith, why worry or complain if others dont? If an individual does not, why worry or complain if others do?


Reconciling evil in the world with an ALmighty and All-loving God has got to be one of the most profound questions of all time.

Again, Scripture tells us that Lucifer and the other angels he seduced committed the first evil of sin against God. For this evil, God's Infinite Justice condemned them to Hell for eternity.

Thinking this through, IF God had been forced to change His Divine Plan becasue of the evil conduct of one of His creatures (say, by destroying the Devil), He would in essence have submitted to the will of the a creature and and His action would have been dependent upon the action of the creature. That would imply that God would have no longer been God.

St.Paul teaches that God's Infinite Mercy made it such that we can handle any physical or moral evil that comes our way. Satan's "power" to tempt us is great, "And God is faithful who will not suffer you to be tempted above which you are able; but make also with the temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it." 1Cor.10:13.


Once we believe in God's All-Wise providence, the problem of evil need not disturb us, for we know that God's ruling reaches from end to end and orders all things for the ultimate good. Wisdom 8:1.

Infinitely Good God loves His own Goodness and hates sin which implies a deliberate refusal of a creature (angel or man) to obey His Creature and Lord GOd. Our belief, love and service of Him is a free one; that is we aren't forced slaves. The freedom of the will we possess involves the possibility of sin.

Of this, E.I. Watkin, in his "GOd and the Supernatural" , wrote, " Creatures by their very existence involve evil, as shadows are involved by the existence of objects that intercept the sunlight. Therefore, an Omnipotent God could not exclude evil from creation. Otherwise Creation would itself be the Creator."

We've heard the argument adnauseum (excuses) that men have no fair moral chance, because of bad upbringing, genes, or weak temperment
make their wickedness inevitable. This is simply untrue. God takes into account every possible factor that might palliate a man's guilt and He gives to all sufficient grace to conquer sin in every temptation. "When sin abounded, grace did more abound." In other words, no man is forced to sin. He must account on the Last Day, Judgment Day, only for his free, deliberate evil deeds.

One priest put it this way. The supreme value of our spiritual struggle for Heaven is the real purpose of GOd's permission of evil. IN the solidarity of Christ's Mystical BOdy, in union with Christ's infinite merits, we may, by the grace of GOd, make light of trials and sufferings of this life, and conquer, as Christ did, the power of Satan and his hosts of evil.
on Sep 11, 2007
I really dont understand the tenedency to using terms like "separation from God" "Absence of God", or "God did not create Satan" as Lula says. These terms and the thinking behind it is treating God as if He is a human being and as if you know how and what He is.


Think ALoud,

Let's go over this.

First of all, for me, using these terms and describing their meaning or teaching behind them comes from the Church. God's word of Revelation come to us through words spoken and written by human beings inspired by God. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture together make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God which is entrusted to the Church. It is the way the Church during its pilgrim journey on earth contemplates God.

We get to "know" God through His written and oral Revelation. That's why He gave it to us. Can we ever "know" everything about Him? NO, He's incomprehensible, so we can't.

According to what He say, He is present everywhere, He can never be absent, He created everything including Satan, good, evil, bad, ugly, beautiful, ...etc.


According to Scripture, God created a pure angelic spirit, named Lucifer, who became Satan, and God didn't create evil. Bad, ugly, beautiful is in the eye of the beholder.

Read Genesis 1: 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31. It says over and over again everything God created was "good". V.31, sums it up, "And God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning of the sixth day."


on Sep 11, 2007
Lula posts:
Thomas teaches in Summa Theologica, that evil is a "deficiency of some good which ought to be present". It's a real privation

Therefore, God cannot be the cause of evil for evil being something privative, cannot be the term of a postive creative act.


ThinkALoud posts:

So Thomas's philosophy becomes Divine?


ThinkALoud,

Why do you make this leap? It seems foolish coming from you.

We've been discussing that "evil is an absence of God". On this, I think along the same line as St.Thomas. I tend not to associate evil with God, rather, like St.Thomas, I associate evil with the deficiency of some good which ought to be present in man.

So, No, absolutely not, St. Thomas' philosophical and theological writings are not Divine. Don't even go there. I, along with countless others, regard his writings as trustworthy and true, but certainly not in an infallible sense. They've been analyzed for centuries by great minds from all over the world. Some agree and some disagree.


Thomas' s thinking is all missed up in my opinion. let's see:

If someone rapes (i.e. evil), that is not a creative act? what is the "good" that was supposed to be present there? Not rape? that is not a creative act, that is an absence of an act.

good And evil are both creative acts. God created both types of acts. we choose which one we do. God judges us accordingly.


You are not representing St.Thomas' writings fairly.

Rape is an evil act. In your example and applied it to St. Thomas' definition of evil, then rape would be the defiency of a good.

now, pulling this through, rape is an evil act, evil being something privative, cannot be the term of a postive creative act; therefore rape cannot be a positive creative act.

Rape is neither a positive nor creative act. Evil is neither a positive nor creative act.

on Sep 11, 2007
Think aloud posts:
Dont confuse "Creating" with "Causing". God created everything, but we also DO things. Some of it is evil and some are good. He Created evil but He doesnt DO evil things, some of His creations do.


I can't agree with you when you cay God created EVERYTHING. God didn't create Satan and He didn't create evil. God did not create or cause the evil things we humans DO either.
on Sep 11, 2007
He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in teachings of matters of doctrines and morals. When the Church teaches under the guidelines of ex cathedra, the Spirit of truth guarantees the Chruch has not been led into error.


All that also applies to Jews and Muslims.


How does the way the Holy Spirit guides the Church apply to Jews and Muslims?
on Sep 11, 2007
Think ALoud posts:
However, what you call HS is in reality a mere inspiration of good-intentioned religious scholars. That doesnt make them divine. they still subject to human error. Only messengers are immune from that. because the messege is delivered in specific words to a specific messenger. The text of what each messenger recieved ends by his death (rise to heaven in case of Jesus). That text is the reference by which all opinions, inspirations and expalnation to be judged. getting the two mixed up is a major mistake. what you call HS is not a message from God, it is an inspiration that someone gets like any scientist who get an idea. Is that a message from God? it is an inspiration from God, not a message. The way the scholar or the scientist expresses that idea is his own and not God's.


I agree 100% that no one in the Church or no one on this entire earth for that matter is Divine. So let's take that right off the discussion board.

The Chruch's charism of speaking ex cathedra (guided to truth by the Holy SPirit) in matters of doctrine and morals is also not to be confused with inspiration either. Ex cathedra is not Divine inspiration and shouldn't be confused as such. When the Pope and bishops in union with him speak ex cathedra on a doctrinal or moral matter, they are not inspired by the Holy SPirit, rather they are guided or by the Holy Spirit and therefore we can be sure that whatever is spoken or written is free from docrinal or moral error.

An example of an ex cathedra decision was at the first council of Jerusalem. Acts 15:22-29 tell us that the decree containing the decisions made at the Council of Jerusalem by the Apostles and first disciples were being guided to their conclusions by the Holy Spirit and that in the last analysis it was God Himself who made the decision.
Another example of an ex cathedra decision was during the Councils in which the bishops decided exactly which books of Sacred Scripture will be included in the final OT and NT Canons. They were led or guided by the Holy Spirit in deciding which books would become what we know today as Sacred Scripture.



on Sep 11, 2007
Think ALoud posts:
they still subject to human error. Only messengers are immune from that. because the messege is delivered in specific words to a specific messenger. The text of what each messenger recieved ends by his death (rise to heaven in case of Jesus).


I take it these messengers that you speak of here are God's prophets. In this case, yes, I agree the message is from God, therefore inspired and that it contains no error whatsoever. (btw, although every writer of Sacred Scripture was not a prophet per se, Christians believe every writer was inspired and that's why we believe the whole of Sacred Scripture is inspired, not just the words that Christ spoke directly.)

Sacred Scripture tells us that Christ warned repeatedly that we should be super careful of false messengers or false prophets..this is where apostasy from the true faith comes in.

7 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last