CREATION OUT OF NOTHING AND THE IDEA THAT EVIL IS NOT A POWER

 
How can an all-good God make evil? Christians say he cannot. They say what evil does not really exist - it is just good in the wrong place or a lack of good. Christians say that if evil is a real thing and a power and God makes it then God is at least partly evil.
 
Even if God and the creation is good their existence is evil. In that case, it is meaningless to try and defend God by saying that when he lets evil happen he is still all good for evil is merely misplaced good.
 
We will learn that existence is evil so it is totally meaningless to say that there is any point in believing that evil is the mere absence of good.
 
There should be nothing at all for it is easier for there to be nothing than for anything to exist. Yet against what should be, things exist. It follows then that existence is evil in the sense that it shouldn’t be. If God exists he is evil for he is the reason for his own existence and brings things into existence from nothing. To adore God is really to adore Satan. Philosophers assume that there are entities such as God that necessarily exist - in other words, it was impossible for beings that necessarily exist not to exist. But all that can necessarily exist is nothing. Yet there is something. Everything else including God cannot then necessarily exist. They are not necessary beings, none of them is the ground of all being, the entity that cannot not exist or not have existed
 
If all things including God came from nothing then nothing is the best thing and nothing should exist but nothing so it is unintelligible to say that God’s existence is good so God is not entitled to be defended. If God existing is bad his making other things to exist is worse.
 
If evil is just a falling short and not a real thing then God cannot sin because God is perfect and too powerful to miss the mark. It follows then that it is better for God to exist than not to exist for if nothing existed there would not be as much good. But this contradicts the fact that if nothing is so good that a God can come from it then nothing doesn't need to make a God to be so good. The notion that God always existed does not mean he doesn't come from nothing. The doctrine that he is the reason for his own existence means that he does come from nothing. If a stone came from nothing and is now 1000 years old, it is still coming from nothing now. It would be the same if it never had a beginning.

Even if God never had a beginning, he makes himself from nothing just like the Church says he holds himself in existence and makes himself from nothing for to exist a thing must be caused by something else or it causes itself and God is its own cause. If God makes himself from nothing then nothing is what God made himself from. Some in the Church will object that God made himself from nothing but it was his own power that made him out of nothing but that is no reply for nothing gave him that power so he still came out of nothing. Nothing then must have the power to produce God. Nothing must be better than God when it can do that for there is said to be no existing thing greater than he. To say that nothing created God but that he creates himself is to say that nothing is what made God or caused him. If I make a wig from my hair then the hair creates the wig in a sense for it is the existence of the hair that makes the wig. The same thing as with God. To say that God causes his own existence or is the reason for his own existence is to say he is made of "something" and that this "something" is nothing. This nothing is better than God when it can make such a wonderful being and it follows that the inferior, God, is evil.
 
If you deny that God could be inferior to nothing, that is if you say God is better than what nothing is, then if nothing did not make God, nothing would be falling short of good by not making God. But it is mistaken to say that nothing could fall short of good by not making God for nothing by definition cannot make anything and has nothing to do with it if something appears out of nowhere and if it could make then there was as much a chance of it doing nothing as making God. So nothing’s falling short of good would not make it deliberately evil for it cannot help it. But something doesn't have to do deliberate evil to be evil. If nothing falls short by not making God, if it could have not made him, then clearly the idea of evil being the mere absence of good is wrong for nothing knows nothing about good and evil. Nothing is nothing. It's absolutely nothing.

If you say nothing is evil in the sense that it is good for things to exist, you seem to contradict this by saying that nothing is good for it can produce God. But it may be good for God to exist and it may be good for us to exist. But it is only good for him and us and is not good in itself. It is good in the sense that it is good to feel good after doing something wrong. It is bad good, it is evil. The solution then is that as good as existence may be for us and God it is evil to exist and to maintain that existence. It is evil for the murderer to exist as he commits his crimes though it is good for him personally to exist. It is good one way and bad the other but the good is really bad.
 
If you say that nothing is the origin of God and nothing is both good for it lets things exist and evil for letting itself be defied then how could it be true to say that God is perfect and has no evil in him at all? His "raw material", nothing, is good and evil so he must be the same. Even if evil is a falling short of good and nothing more, it has no relevance to proving that God could allow evil for his purpose is justifiable. If everything must fall short of good in some aspects then you can only guess what purpose is justifiable and what one is not. And if God has evil in him is he telling the truth when he says he is right to let certain terrible things happen? You would be mad to trust.
 
Many philosophers say that if God is not perfect, he loses any entitlement to use the excuse that when he makes things less good than they could be he is entitled to do that for he owes nothing to anyone. It would seem he should fix his own imperfection or try to compensate by making creatures that are as perfect as possible. Believers say that God being perfect is entitled to make imperfect things but an imperfect father on earth has no right to deliberately father a sick baby say by passing on a disease to the child for the father is imperfect. But surely if you are imperfect you have more right to pass on imperfection than a perfect being that can stop imperfection but won't does?
 
If we reason that nothing is bad for making us and bad if it doesn't how do we solve the contradiction? If nothing hadn't made us it wouldn't be doing us any wrong. It has the right to make nothing to use analogical language. You don't owe a being that doesn't exist its existence. So nothing is bad for making us even if we like it being bad for we like existing.
 
When there is something when there could have been nothing it follows that it would be better if there were nothing for that is simpler. It follows then that if God exists then he is evil. If he is then there is no point in trying to explain away God letting evil happen though he has the power to stop it and not using it and still being good by saying that evil is the mere absence of good.
 
Is it really good for useless things that do harm to exist? We don't need the AIDS virus for example. The claim that God uses evil for a greater good says it is good for the virus to exist which unmasks the malice in the idea that evil is a mere negation. There is a coldness in its supporters.
 
Proves God the Creator of All?
 
Some make the outrageous claim that there is no problem of evil for evil is just good that is faulty. They say that there is the problem of good and this can only be solved by saying that there is an all-good source of all things: God. The problem is that if there is no all-good creator then we have no explanation for where good came from.  It would imply good is only in our heads. 

 

It is not obvious how we need a good God to account for good.  But the concept of God says we do.  It says that if God is really good then we cannot understand or have good without him.  The concept of God as that or who alone ultimately alone matters says all that.  When you say there is a God you are inferring that all that is true even if you don't realise you are.

 

God and good are somehow so connected that all good is a mirror of God and connect to him.  It is his presence.
 
The notion that God and goodness are somehow one so that there is no good unless there is a God is nonsense. If there is nothing and no creator it is good that there are no little kittens to suffer and die. Making good things does not mean that good needs to be made. Things are good simply because good does not need to be made. Good just is.

 

You will be told that goodness is originative not derivative. Badness is derivative - it is derived from good.  It is not originative.  But that is arguing in circles and all things originate something.  It sneaks in the notion that good is the creator and so the creator is God!
 
So to believe in God you have to believe in nonsense. That by itself is evil. And if you fail to see that good just is and you feel you need a God to bring goodness as a principle into being then you have something that looks like goodness but which is a fraud. You do not really understand what goodness is. That is evil.
 
It is not true that you need faith in God to be able to be moral or good. It is true that you need atheism to be good.

 

The notion that evil is the negation or absence of good is interesting but it is also said that not every absence of good is evil.  For example, a baby has the absence of the power to fly.  We are told this is not evil for the baby is not meant to fly. But that assumes things about God having a wise and good plan.  The implication is that if wings are not due to you then there is no evil in you not having them.

Finally
 
Existence is evil for rationally there should be nothing so existence contradicts reason.
 
If goodness requires the freedom to be bad, then God cannot be good. Evil is strongest perhaps in its subtle form if there is a God. If you want to reinforce morality then drop God.