If god is everything, doesn't that make him evil as well as good?

[cuppajoe_9]

I thought that God was omnipresent?

[Countess]

>I thought that God was omnipresent?


He is, and He is in Hell now - his wrath.

[fisherofmen]

I thought that God was omnipresent?

sure, why not? But couldn't there be different levels of "presence"?

I imagine he would be more "present" in his heavenly throne than in the banana im eating...

Hell is a topic I don't know much about, I've only found "weeping and gnashing of teeth" referring to it in the scriptures, got more to study though I'm sure

[cuppajoe_9]

sure, why not? But couldn't there be different levels of "presence"?

Short answer: no. I am either in my house, or I am somewhere else. When your teachers called the roll in school, you were either present or absent. Either God is present where there is evil, or he is not. There isn't a middle ground.

[fisherofmen]

Short answer: no. I am either in my house, or I am somewhere else. When your teachers called the roll in school, you were either present or absent. Either God is present where there is evil, or he is not. There isn't a middle ground.

not for us
but in assuming God is omnipresent, something none of us will ever achieve, aren't you saying that God is beyond us in abilities, or power?
If we lower God to human standards, then yes, the scenario you presented is accurate. But if God lives on human standards, he's not really God, is he?

[cuppajoe_9]

but in assuming God is omnipresent, something none of us will ever achieve, aren't you saying that God is beyond us in abilities, or power?

It has nothing to do with God's abilities or power, it is simply a question of definition of terms. One cannot be present and absent at the same time, whether one is a deity or no (discounting Shrödinger's Cat type paradoxes, which are not strictly relevant to my point). God is either present everywhere, including where evil takes place, or he is not.

[fisherofmen]

It has nothing to do with God's abilities or power, it is simply a question of definition of terms. One cannot be present and absent at the same time, whether one is a deity or no (discounting Shrödinger's Cat type paradoxes, which are not strictly relevant to my point). God is either present everywhere, including where evil takes place, or he is not.

I think it has everything to do with God's characteristics. Not sure if you saw what I added to my previous post before you posted (sorry about that) but its when we try to "humanize" God that misunderstanding like this pops up. I don't see a need for God to conform to our understanding

[cuppajoe_9]

I apologise if I am repeating myself, but it is not a question of diminishing God to human standards at all, it is simple definition of terms. If God is omnipresent, then he is present everywhere, because that's what omnipresent means. If he is present everywhere, he is absent nowhere, again because that is what the phrase means. If he is absent nowhere, then evil cannot be the absence of God, because in that case God does not have an absence. The situation is absurd as postulating that God is both invisible and pink.

[Whifflingpin]

"It has nothing to do with God's abilities or power, it is simply a question of definition of terms. ... God is either present everywhere, including where evil takes place, or he is not."

Evil is a term that requires definition as well.

I certainly don't accept the analogy that evil is the mere absence of good in the way that dark is the absence of light.

Evil is something that actively conflicts with good. Unlike dark, that merely prevails when the light goes out, evil would actually try to put the light out.

For the purpose of argument, I think there is no point in trying to justify "all the omnis" in relation to God. They may be useful description, or they may be wishful thinking, but they are not worth defending in arguments.

Evil and God cannot occupy the same space, assuming that God occupies space, say spiritual rather than physical space. If this means He is not omnipresent, so what?

Evil exists in spite of God. Does this mean He is not omnipotent? Maybe; again, so what?

Is it God's will that we should oppose evil wherever we meet it? I believe so - That belief is important to me, because it affects the way I try to live my life, whereas the question of God's omnipresence is quite meaningless to me.

Will God's goodness ultimately triumph over evil? I hope so, and I think that each human has a part to play in that victory. Of course, the good God may not be omnipotent, and evil may prevail in the universe, but nevertheless, we should live as if we can distinguish between good and evil, and that we should choose to do the good.

[fisherofmen]

I apologise if I am repeating myself, but it is not a question of diminishing God to human standards at all, it is simple definition of terms. If God is omnipresent, then he is present everywhere, because that's what omnipresent means. If he is present everywhere, he is absent nowhere, again because that is what the phrase means. If he is absent nowhere, then evil cannot be the absence of God, because in that case God does not have an absence. The situation is absurd as postulating that God is both invisible and pink.

and I hope I don't sound like I'm repeating myself either...
its not just a definition of terms. It's beyond that, you are arguing about the very characteristics of God. Omnipresent... ok so he's present everywhere. In our human experience, we have only experienced the absolute in this manner... you are either present somewhere, or you are not. My point is merely just that God doesn't have to follow our standards here, or even the way we defined words like "presence". I see no reason why we must deal in absolutes, where he is either present somewhere or not.

[fisherofmen]

I certainly don't accept the analogy that evil is the mere absence of good in the way that dark is the absence of light.s

I'm not saying I do either
It was something I read a while back, perhaps CS Lewis? Maybe something else, I thought it was an idea worth pondering

[otis trench]

>If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?

This is an age old question - if God is just everything then you're a Buddhist and God is both good and evil (but then neither exists in this system, only choices, which are good or bad).

If God is more than everything - for from him and through him and to him are all things - then you're probably a Jew or Christian. The general mindset here is that "good" is defined by God himself; thus, God is good/everything He does is good, for God works all things to His own good/His glory.

It's a very difficult concept to grasp, but evil is necessary for the existence of "good", just as darkness is the concept by which we measure light.

Read the book of Romans for further questions. I'm tired and depressed and can't really shape ideas anymore...

All the Way Home

There’s a guy in a church wearing three pairs of socks
Kneeling by the window stealing coins from the box
There’s a guy on TV wearing three diamond rings
Stealing from the faithful while a gospel group sings
You can label a man, but I swear
It just goes to show you
Don’t care how far you fall
Someone’s always a step below you

So let’s sing through the starving time
Sing the chorus to a nursery rhyme
Let’s sing till the church bells chime
All the way, all the way home

There’s a hush running deep through the wintertime woods
Gotta cup your ear to hear the oughts and the shoulds
There’s a nail through a board and it’s covered in snow
Lying on the trail between the stop and the go
It’s the same song and dance, for I swear
There’s a strong connection
You can follow the signs
And be led in the wrong direction

But let’s sing not of our distress
As we wander through the wilderness
Let’s sing more and grumble less
All the way, all the way home

[Nightshade]

The more I think of this.... well anyway I dont belive Go is absent, but then again evil is pretty much only possible to those who have will isnt it?

Free will being given only to tne humans and the Jinn or I think they reffered to as the fallen Angels by christianity only we consider them acompletly differant species.

[Redzeppelin]

Two points:

1) In terms of cuppajoe and fisherofmen's discussion about "presence": "presence" is a word that has a specific meaning dealing with a location in both space and time (at least in my caveman knowledge of physics). When we say "God is present," what exactly do we mean? I think "present" means one thing if you inhabit 3-4 dimension, but what if you're a being not confined by such a limited number of dimensions? What implications does that hold for God and His "omnipresence"? I believe half of our struggle with understanding God deals with the limits of language - trying to explain/define God with human language is - to me - like trying to explain quantum mechanics in a Dr. Suess-style narrative. Good luck. When you say "God is either present everywhere, including where evil takes place, or he is not" you are using language that places God in some sort of space/time relationship with evil that is postulated on human terms (3-4 dimensions). You may accuse me of "copping out" with this explanation, but fisher's right: God is unimpressive to us largely because we define him in terms of humanity - so rather than the Divine Creator of the Universe, He's just some magnified version of the nicest person we know.

2) In terms of the evil question - the Bible tells us God is good. It doesn't qualify that terminology to suggest that He is anything but that. Evil exists because disobedience had to exist; disobedience had to be an option so that true love could exist; love can only exist in the presence of two valid choices. The possibility of evil was a consequence of God's choice to give us freewill so that we could freely choose Him - not out of fear, but love. God did not create the consequence - He created the choice that could lead to that consequence. If I tell my child that driving recklessly on the freeway could get him killed and then give him the keys to the car, I did not create the consequence just by giving him the freedom. The consequence already existed.

Evil is that which is inconsistent with God's character. It is not created by Him - but the capacities He endowed us with created the evil - because we had to have the freedom to reject Him and choose that which is not Him (evil). It's kind of like blaming computers for viruses: computers and their developers did not create viruses - hackers came along and did that.

[Whifflingpin]

"[Evil] is not created by Him - but the capacities He endowed us with created the evil - because we had to have the freedom to reject Him and choose that which is not Him (evil)."

The problem I have with this is that it is totally anthropocentric in its definition of evil.

The pain suffered by the antelope as it is torn apart by lions is, to me, an example of evil. This evil is not down to any choice by the antelope, or any sin of the first-born antelope, and would be present even if no humans existed.

Evil is a feature of the universe, pre-dating humanity. Humanity's choices are to support it, ignore it or fight it.

It is probably only the origin of evil that we differ on. In practice, the choice you describe is the same a the one I describe, and I think that human responsibility is mainly to oppose the evil engendered by humans - after all, there is not much that humans can do to reduce the pain of the antelope.

But, the free-will-to-love-God-or-not argument still puts on God the responsibility for evil - it implies in Him a need to be loved, with its evil alternative - otherwise there would be no need for creating free-will beings at all. Even if we avoid implying that God has needs, and say that creation is just a consequence of God's overflowing love, it remains an absurdity that God's love would be the direct or indirect cause of evil that was not previously present.

OK-arguing on the fly her, i'll go away and think.