Creation implies an evil God

God supposedly made all things just by telling them to exist. He did not make the universe from his power or out of anything. That is Christianity's most sacred doctrine.

There could be nothing. There should be for it is easier for there to be nothing than something. So if God exists, he was able to go against what should be. This would mean that God is evil. A God that is evil is defective. It does not deserve to be called God. It has no right to be worshipped.

The idea of creation out of nothing is plainly a contradiction. Even if it happened we don't understand it. We should have the humility to leave it at that instead of trying to trick people into thinking God explains it for if it cannot be understood it cannot be explained. If God has spoken and said we must believe the doctrine then God is evil. We share in his evil by responding to his call.

If it turned out that something contradictory was true, it would be that we can't make any meaning of it. It would mean that if creation happened though impossible, anything is possible. Perhaps your dog made all things. Perhaps God is pure evil. Perhaps God both exists and does not exist meaning that there is no error in saying Atheism is true. Creation would not prove God at all. At best, it would prove he was evil for a God who makes no sense is not a good God. It would prove that the creator should not be honoured as God.

 

If God creates something out of nothing does it follow that whatever creation does is what he does and he does what creation does? Yes. He has more to do with a murder than the murderer has for without him there would be no murderer.  People argue that free will to kill has God sacrificing the free will of the victim for the sake of the murderer.  Believers answer that as long as God is controlling things to guarantee a good enough outcome to justify letting it happen it is fine.  But the fact remains that there are two "good" purposes.  One God thinks it is good in itself to let the murderer kill.  Second it is good as in having good consequences.  It does not get God off the hook.  In fact it is bad in itself to enable somebody to kill.  That is a stand-alone fact and the consequences however good are not be considered.  If they are to be considered they are to be considered separately and are not important enough. It matters more what an act is in moral terms than what it results in.

 

Despite lies that God only permits evil and does not directly send it, the Bible says he does send it.  He is the agent.

 

Deuteronomy 32,

 

39 See now that I myself am he!  There is no god besides me.  I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand.

40 I lift my hand to heaven and solemnly swear: As surely as I live forever,

 

41 when I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me.

42 I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh: the blood of the slain and the captives, the heads of the enemy leaders.”

43 Rejoice, you nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people.

 

When you unpack Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus you see it is accusing ordinary people – as represented by the rich man’s brothers – of being unable to believe in a resurrection and warning about retribution in the afterlife simply because they won’t listen to Moses and the Prophets. This settles the case for interpreting the Bible as it is without letting theologians come along and distort things. When the Bible then says God creates evil it means it. Ordinary people don't have time or energy for running to theologians. The rich man's brothers were distracted by the cares of this world but there is no excuse.