Is the intelligent designer evil?

[GrosMinet]

Hello,

According to the old Gnostics, the Manichees and the Cathars, the Creator of the physical world is actually evil. It's not the morally perfect supreme being we are used to, but a second Principle, entirely devoted to evil, which has entrapped our souls in physical bodies to rule over us.

Some of those heretics said that the evil principle was a Fallen angel, others said it was an independent principle of being, a kind of second uncreated god, but they all agreed that the physical world was not created by the good God.

Well, I know the line of orthodox believers : evil cannot be a principle of being, because evil is actually a privation. So there can only be one supreme being, supremely good.

However, it's not very convincing. Sure, some evils are best seen as privations, but others are better seen as really existing. Especially moral evil. So I don't quite see how the concept of a morally evil can be shown to be incoherent.

Now it seems that intelligent design theorists should interact with this view, even if it's not very fashionable now.

To me, the Cathars and their friends are onto something. But it may be even truer to view the evil principle as natural selection or to hold that the world was created by an indifferent God (as was suggested by Hume).

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Hello,

According to the old Gnostics, the Manichees and the Cathars, the Creator of the physical world is actually evil. It's not the morally perfect supreme being we are used to, but a second Principle, entirely devoted to evil, which has entrapped our souls in physical bodies to rule over us.

Some of those heretics said that the evil principle was a Fallen angel, others said it was an independent principle of being, a kind of second uncreated god, but they all agreed that the physical world was not created by the good God.

Well, I know the line of orthodox believers : evil cannot be a principle of being, because evil is actually a privation. So there can only be one supreme being, supremely good.

However, it's not very convincing. Sure, some evils are best seen as privations, but others are better seen as really existing. Especially moral evil. So I don't quite see how the concept of a morally evil can be shown to be incoherent.

Now it seems that intelligent design theorists should interact with this view, even if it's not very fashionable now.

To me, the Cathars and their friends are onto something. But it may be even truer to view the evil principle as natural selection or to hold that the world was created by an indifferent God (as was suggested by Hume).

I like to think that if there is a God that it is like a guy with a billion vastly different and complex ant farms and every now and then he stops by to check things out and maybe make a minor adjustment (ie: a genetic mutation in a particular type of fly) then come back a couple billion years later to see what the result was of that adjustment and be "Oh that's neat" then be off again.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Hello,

According to the old Gnostics, the Manichees and the Cathars, the Creator of the physical world is actually evil. It's not the morally perfect supreme being we are used to, but a second Principle, entirely devoted to evil, which has entrapped our souls in physical bodies to rule over us.

Some of those heretics said that the evil principle was a Fallen angel, others said it was an independent principle of being, a kind of second uncreated god, but they all agreed that the physical world was not created by the good God.

Well, I know the line of orthodox believers : evil cannot be a principle of being, because evil is actually a privation. So there can only be one supreme being, supremely good.

However, it's not very convincing. Sure, some evils are best seen as privations, but others are better seen as really existing. Especially moral evil. So I don't quite see how the concept of a morally evil can be shown to be incoherent.

Now it seems that intelligent design theorists should interact with this view, even if it's not very fashionable now.

To me, the Cathars and their friends are onto something. But it may be even truer to view the evil principle as natural selection or to hold that the world was created by an indifferent God (as was suggested by Hume).

apparently the old gnostics, the Manichees and the Cathars weren't very convincing either, since no one believes in them today.......

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Hello,

According to the old Gnostics, the Manichees and the Cathars, the Creator of the physical world is actually evil. It's not the morally perfect supreme being we are used to, but a second Principle, entirely devoted to evil, which has entrapped our souls in physical bodies to rule over us.

Some of those heretics said that the evil principle was a Fallen angel, others said it was an independent principle of being, a kind of second uncreated god, but they all agreed that the physical world was not created by the good God.

Well, I know the line of orthodox believers : evil cannot be a principle of being, because evil is actually a privation. So there can only be one supreme being, supremely good.

However, it's not very convincing. Sure, some evils are best seen as privations, but others are better seen as really existing. Especially moral evil. So I don't quite see how the concept of a morally evil can be shown to be incoherent.

Now it seems that intelligent design theorists should interact with this view, even if it's not very fashionable now.

To me, the Cathars and their friends are onto something. But it may be even truer to view the evil principle as natural selection or to hold that the world was created by an indifferent God (as was suggested by Hume).

apparently the old gnostics, the Manichees and the Cathars weren't very convincing either, since no one believes in them today.......

And boom goes the dynamite

 

[GrosMinet]

Hello,

According to the old Gnostics, the Manichees and the Cathars, the Creator of the physical world is actually evil. It's not the morally perfect supreme being we are used to, but a second Principle, entirely devoted to evil, which has entrapped our souls in physical bodies to rule over us.

Some of those heretics said that the evil principle was a Fallen angel, others said it was an independent principle of being, a kind of second uncreated god, but they all agreed that the physical world was not created by the good God.

Well, I know the line of orthodox believers : evil cannot be a principle of being, because evil is actually a privation. So there can only be one supreme being, supremely good.

However, it's not very convincing. Sure, some evils are best seen as privations, but others are better seen as really existing. Especially moral evil. So I don't quite see how the concept of a morally evil can be shown to be incoherent.

Now it seems that intelligent design theorists should interact with this view, even if it's not very fashionable now.

To me, the Cathars and their friends are onto something. But it may be even truer to view the evil principle as natural selection or to hold that the world was created by an indifferent God (as was suggested by Hume).

apparently the old gnostics, the Manichees and the Cathars weren't very convincing either, since no one believes in them today.......

Sure, or maybe it has to do with the ruthless opposition they had to face, including physical violence, killings and the hounds of the Inquisition chasing them. Remember that in those times there was no concept of free speech or religious toleration...

Anyway, the basic idea that the physical world was created by an evil god is as plausible as the idea that it was created by a good god. It's less popular for psychological reasons, but philosophically, it's equally logical.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Hello,

According to the old Gnostics, the Manichees and the Cathars, the Creator of the physical world is actually evil. It's not the morally perfect supreme being we are used to, but a second Principle, entirely devoted to evil, which has entrapped our souls in physical bodies to rule over us.

Some of those heretics said that the evil principle was a Fallen angel, others said it was an independent principle of being, a kind of second uncreated god, but they all agreed that the physical world was not created by the good God.

Well, I know the line of orthodox believers : evil cannot be a principle of being, because evil is actually a privation. So there can only be one supreme being, supremely good.

However, it's not very convincing. Sure, some evils are best seen as privations, but others are better seen as really existing. Especially moral evil. So I don't quite see how the concept of a morally evil can be shown to be incoherent.

Now it seems that intelligent design theorists should interact with this view, even if it's not very fashionable now.

To me, the Cathars and their friends are onto something. But it may be even truer to view the evil principle as natural selection or to hold that the world was created by an indifferent God (as was suggested by Hume).

apparently the old gnostics, the Manichees and the Cathars weren't very convincing either, since no one believes in them today.......

Sure, or maybe it has to do with the ruthless opposition they had to face, including physical violence, killings and the hounds of the Inquisition chasing them. Remember that in those times there was no concept of free speech or religious toleration...

Anyway, the basic idea that the physical world was created by an evil god is as plausible as the idea that it was created by a good god. It's less popular for psychological reasons, but philosophically, it's equally logical.

dude, the Inquisition was a thousand years later....lets be honest, the reason the Manicheans died out was their requirement that all believers be celibate......

 

[Mr. H.]

Physics, geology, chemistry, biology. There's no "intelligence" about it. It just is what it is.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Hello,

According to the old Gnostics, the Manichees and the Cathars, the Creator of the physical world is actually evil. It's not the morally perfect supreme being we are used to, but a second Principle, entirely devoted to evil, which has entrapped our souls in physical bodies to rule over us.

Some of those heretics said that the evil principle was a Fallen angel, others said it was an independent principle of being, a kind of second uncreated god, but they all agreed that the physical world was not created by the good God.

Well, I know the line of orthodox believers : evil cannot be a principle of being, because evil is actually a privation. So there can only be one supreme being, supremely good.

However, it's not very convincing. Sure, some evils are best seen as privations, but others are better seen as really existing. Especially moral evil. So I don't quite see how the concept of a morally evil can be shown to be incoherent.

Now it seems that intelligent design theorists should interact with this view, even if it's not very fashionable now.

To me, the Cathars and their friends are onto something. But it may be even truer to view the evil principle as natural selection or to hold that the world was created by an indifferent God (as was suggested by Hume).

Much as I hate the source of this quote, I'm inclined to agree.

"There is no good or evil..." - Emperor Palpatine aka the Sith

I think instead there's just actions and consequences. But when identical actions can be said to be good or evil depending on the speaker, it really just reveals how good and evil don't objectively exist.

- A lion that catches then plays with a baby gazelle before killing and eating it isn't an evil lion for instances. Yet that very same action, if done by a human being (which is just another animal) might be said to be an act of evil.

- A soldier who goes overseas to fight some war their government says is justified isn't called a terrorist or evil person. Yet the native inhabitants who're being invaded and resist violently might well be said to be terrorists simply because they're not proper members of a military.

So if designations of good and evil and totally arbitrary, how can they be real?

 

[GrosMinet]

Hello,

According to the old Gnostics, the Manichees and the Cathars, the Creator of the physical world is actually evil. It's not the morally perfect supreme being we are used to, but a second Principle, entirely devoted to evil, which has entrapped our souls in physical bodies to rule over us.

Some of those heretics said that the evil principle was a Fallen angel, others said it was an independent principle of being, a kind of second uncreated god, but they all agreed that the physical world was not created by the good God.

Well, I know the line of orthodox believers : evil cannot be a principle of being, because evil is actually a privation. So there can only be one supreme being, supremely good.

However, it's not very convincing. Sure, some evils are best seen as privations, but others are better seen as really existing. Especially moral evil. So I don't quite see how the concept of a morally evil can be shown to be incoherent.

Now it seems that intelligent design theorists should interact with this view, even if it's not very fashionable now.

To me, the Cathars and their friends are onto something. But it may be even truer to view the evil principle as natural selection or to hold that the world was created by an indifferent God (as was suggested by Hume).

Much as I hate the source of this quote, I'm inclined to agree.

"There is no good or evil..." - Emperor Palpatine aka the Sith

I think instead there's just actions and consequences. But when identical actions can be said to be good or evil depending on the speaker, it really just reveals how good and evil don't objectively exist.

- A lion that catches then plays with a baby gazelle before killing and eating it isn't an evil lion for instances. Yet that very same action, if done by a human being (which is just another animal) might be said to be an act of evil.

- A soldier who goes overseas to fight some war their government says is justified isn't called a terrorist or evil person. Yet the native inhabitants who're being invaded and resist violently might well be said to be terrorists simply because they're not proper members of a military.

So if designations of good and evil and totally arbitrary, how can they be real?

So... does it mean that paedophilia is not "objectively evil"???

 

[GrosMinet]

dude, the Inquisition was a thousand years later....lets be honest, the reason the Manicheans died out was their requirement that all believers be celibate......

Wherever the Manicheans went, their religion ended up being outlawed by the authorities.

As for the Inquisition, it was originally set up to eliminate the Cathar heresy.

 

[September]

Much as I hate the source of this quote, I'm inclined to agree.

"There is no good or evil..." - Emperor Palpatine aka the Sith

Dude. Palpatine was a badass, yo, wtf. I got mad respect for the Dark Lord of of the Sith

 

[GrosMinet]

What we need is only a proof that God and evil are compatible, but also a proof that the ultimate cause of the world IS good, so that whatever evil there is must not be final.

 

[The Irish Ram]

According to the old Gnostics, the Manichees and the Cathars, the Creator of the physical world is actually evil. It's not the morally perfect supreme being we are used to, but a second Principle, entirely devoted to evil, which has entrapped our souls in physical bodies to rule over us.

You have a body. Is it being ruled over by any one other than you?

 

[The Irish Ram]

What we need is only a proof that God and evil are compatible, but also a proof that the ultimate cause of the world IS good, so that whatever evil there is must not be final.

Really? Let your kids out to play. Don't lock your doors. Leave the keys in your car. Tell someone you have a safe in your house. Good luck finding the good. Evil is lurking around every corner.

God is not compatible with evil. Not even remotely. They are polar opposites. If He was, then evil would never be finalized. But it will be. Jesus Christ is coming back to take control over His inheritance. He is the ultimate cause of good. We are the recipients. Then you'll be able to let your kids out to play, and remove the locks from your door. Love trumps hate, and goodness replaces evil when Christ takes charge. Because they really are not compatible. Darkness flees when light is introduced. ( Turn a light on in a dark room. ) They cannot occupy the same place at the same time. Christ is the Light of the World.

Other than that, welcome and here's some pos rep to get you going. I have a feeling we're going to end up friends....

 

[GrosMinet]

What we need is only a proof that God and evil are compatible, but also a proof that the ultimate cause of the world IS good, so that whatever evil there is must not be final.

Really? Let your kids out to play. Don't lock your doors. Leave the keys in your car. Tell someone you have a safe in your house. Good luck finding the good. Evil is lurking around every corner.

God is not compatible with evil. Not even remotely. They are polar opposites. If He was, then evil would never be finalized. But it will be. Jesus Christ is coming back to take control over His inheritance. He is the ultimate cause of good. We are the recipients. Then you'll be able to let your kids out to play, and remove the locks from your door. Love trumps hate, and goodness replaces evil when Christ takes charge. Because they really are not compatible. Darkness flees when light is introduced. ( Turn a light on in a dark room. ) They cannot occupy the same place at the same time. Christ is the Light of the World.

Other than that, welcome and here's some pos rep to get you going. I have a feeling we're going to end up friends....

Sure, you may have a Christian stance on the issue, but it's still a problem for the Christian why undeserved evil exists. And it's an even bigger problem to come up with a proof that the ultimate cause of the world is good (a proof apart from a revelation).

 

[The Irish Ram]

This is earth. The rain falls on the just and the unjust.

I don't think many Christians question why evil exists. Until Christ returns Satan goes to and fro.
As for the problem of the world cause being good. That's not a problem. Turn on the news.

Man has never made a weapon that he hasn't used.

 

[sealybobo]

This is earth. The rain falls on the just and the unjust.

I don't think many Christians question why evil exists. Until Christ returns Satan goes to and fro.
As for the problem of the world cause being good. That's not a problem. Turn on the news.

Man has never made a weapon that he hasn't used.

Is god a fuck up? He created adam and eve and they disappointed him. Then they populated the earth and god wasn't pleased so he flooded the earth to cleanse it and start over all to have the earth re populated with the same type of assholes so he sent his son to be a human sacrifice and we killed his son but it was to "save us" but still we are bad human's who are evil and sin and so jesus has to come back again?

And we call this intelligent design? Seems like god is just an artist who doesn't know what to do with a lump of clay.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hello,

According to the old Gnostics, the Manichees and the Cathars, the Creator of the physical world is actually evil. It's not the morally perfect supreme being we are used to, but a second Principle, entirely devoted to evil, which has entrapped our souls in physical bodies to rule over us.

Some of those heretics said that the evil principle was a Fallen angel, others said it was an independent principle of being, a kind of second uncreated god, but they all agreed that the physical world was not created by the good God.

Well, I know the line of orthodox believers : evil cannot be a principle of being, because evil is actually a privation. So there can only be one supreme being, supremely good.

However, it's not very convincing. Sure, some evils are best seen as privations, but others are better seen as really existing. Especially moral evil. So I don't quite see how the concept of a morally evil can be shown to be incoherent.

Now it seems that intelligent design theorists should interact with this view, even if it's not very fashionable now.

To me, the Cathars and their friends are onto something. But it may be even truer to view the evil principle as natural selection or to hold that the world was created by an indifferent God (as was suggested by Hume).

Much as I hate the source of this quote, I'm inclined to agree.

"There is no good or evil..." - Emperor Palpatine aka the Sith

I think instead there's just actions and consequences. But when identical actions can be said to be good or evil depending on the speaker, it really just reveals how good and evil don't objectively exist.

- A lion that catches then plays with a baby gazelle before killing and eating it isn't an evil lion for instances. Yet that very same action, if done by a human being (which is just another animal) might be said to be an act of evil.

- A soldier who goes overseas to fight some war their government says is justified isn't called a terrorist or evil person. Yet the native inhabitants who're being invaded and resist violently might well be said to be terrorists simply because they're not proper members of a military.

So if designations of good and evil and totally arbitrary, how can they be real?

So... does it mean that paedophilia is not "objectively evil"???

It is objectively criminal. Evil is a theist term and therefore not applicable to secular law. As humans we can have more than one set of values. You can be a "good theist" and yet still be speeding and/or drunk driving without being inherently "evil" in the theist view.

 

[GrosMinet]

This is earth. The rain falls on the just and the unjust.

I don't think many Christians question why evil exists. Until Christ returns Satan goes to and fro.
As for the problem of the world cause being good. That's not a problem. Turn on the news.

Man has never made a weapon that he hasn't used.

Exactly, this is earth, and it doesn't look designed by a good God. It's a random blend of goods and evils without much regard for individual desert... So the cause of the world, whatever it is, appears to be indifferent. Here deists and atheists can agree.

That's why evidence for God's goodness is in order. To defeat such a skeptical objection.

 

[GrosMinet]

Much as I hate the source of this quote, I'm inclined to agree.

"There is no good or evil..." - Emperor Palpatine aka the Sith

I think instead there's just actions and consequences. But when identical actions can be said to be good or evil depending on the speaker, it really just reveals how good and evil don't objectively exist.

- A lion that catches then plays with a baby gazelle before killing and eating it isn't an evil lion for instances. Yet that very same action, if done by a human being (which is just another animal) might be said to be an act of evil.

- A soldier who goes overseas to fight some war their government says is justified isn't called a terrorist or evil person. Yet the native inhabitants who're being invaded and resist violently might well be said to be terrorists simply because they're not proper members of a military.

So if designations of good and evil and totally arbitrary, how can they be real?

So... does it mean that paedophilia is not "objectively evil"???

It is objectively criminal. Evil is a theist term and therefore not applicable to secular law. As humans we can have more than one set of values. You can be a "good theist" and yet still be speeding and/or drunk driving without being inherently "evil" in the theist view.

In ancient Greece, paedophilia was not criminal. Does it mean it was not evil back then? What about slavery in pre-civil war America?

To me it's inescapable that there are objective moral truths. Whether they are grounded in God's nature is another question.