God is not moral: Cases against the 'objective' morality of the Christian god

[whirlingmerc]

The 10 commandments reflect the character of God so one can argue the basis of law rests on the character fo God

 

Additionally I disagree with 'being self serving'  is not necessarily moral,   we are all self serving in some sense,  it just happens in our case that serving others brings more joy to one self.    In the case of God,  the greatest happiness of man comes when they glorify God best.   True Glory for God  resonates with deep hapiness for man.... hence it is more than self serving for God to desire worship,  it is for the greatest hapiness of the creature. .... but there is something inherently good in God being glorified by mercy  and also justice

[Tyler H]

God does not exist to the atheist. What are YOU comparing?

Good point. I'm comparing what people say God said to what people say God did.

[Nathan Metric]

He is judging God by the standard of logical consistency. A moral being does not contradict itself.

[junglecat]

He is judging God by the standard of logical consistency. A moral being does not contradict itself.

You believe that man invented the very concept of God. Therefore, when you say God is immoral you are actually saying man's conception is "immoral". Can you define what immorality is? Is it simply contradicting oneself?

[Nathan Metric]

"“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied.  “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land.  But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face” (Job 1:9-11).

 

The point of God testing Job is to prove a point to Satan that man is capable of being good even despite goodness causing him suffering.

 

Ah, but see if we should be good even if goodness causes us suffering then what the hell is the point of the afterlife? God has no good reason for promising us access to Heaven.

 

And if it is "good" for God to create an imperfect universe then that is yet another reason why God has no business interfering with our lives. If eternal bliss is bad then the very idea of Heaven is bad.

If the idea of Heaven is bad....then why should God intervene in our lives? If imperfection is Good then that means it is morally wrong for God to try to perfect our lives. God's existence is actually immoral.

 

So there is no way around the Problem of Evil. This idea that the universe needs to be imperfect to be good rather than saving the Christian God from the problem of evil it actually just opens up a whole new can of worms.

 

God is either indifferent; being equally responsible for both good and evil or he just plain doesn't exist. Both of which means you cannot derive morality from God.

You believe that man invented the very concept of God. Therefore, when you say God is immoral you are actually saying man's conception is "immoral". Can you define what immorality is? Is it simply contradicting oneself?

The truth is virtuous. That which is untrue or based on that which is not true is not virtuous.

The 10 commandments reflect the character of God so one can argue the basis of law rests on the character fo God

 

Additionally I disagree with 'being self serving'  is not necessarily moral,   we are all self serving in some sense,  it just happens in our case that serving others brings more joy to one self.    In the case of God,  the greatest happiness of man comes when they glorify God best.  True Glory for God  resonates with deep hapiness for man.... hence it is more than self serving for God to desire worship,  it is for the greatest hapiness of the creature. .... but there is something inherently good in God being glorified by mercy  and also justice

If we are able to reason that goodness is inherent to the character of God then there is no reason for God to give us these commandments.

 

I agree there is nothing apriori wrong with self-interest. My point is that there is no moral significance to Christ dying on the cross; no reason to celebrate Christ's glory except out of fear if we were to accept that Divine Command Theory.

[shirgall]

The truth is virtuous. That which is untrue or based on that which is not true is not virtuous.

 

I try to keep this simpler. Truth is preferable to falsehood. This is a premise necessary to objectively judge behavior.

 

When man invented God he may have been seeking virtue (just one big lie--an all-powerful God judges your behavior--that makes it easier to indoctrinate virtue) but ultimately it fails when people are routinely able to determine virtue without it. The road to Hell was paved with good intentions...

[junglecat]

"“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied.  “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land.  But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face” (Job 1:9-11).

 

The point of God testing Job is to prove a point to Satan that man is capable of being good even despite goodness causing him suffering.

 

Ah, but see if we should be good even if goodness causes us suffering then what the hell is the point of the afterlife? God has no good reason for promising us access to Heaven.

 

And if it is "good" for God to create an imperfect universe then that is yet another reason why God has no business interfering with our lives. If eternal bliss is bad then the very idea of Heaven is bad.

If the idea of Heaven is bad....then why should God intervene in our lives? If imperfection is Good then that means it is morally wrong for God to try to perfect our lives. God's existence is actually immoral.

 

So there is no way around the Problem of Evil. This idea that the universe needs to be imperfect to be good rather than saving the Christian God from the problem of evil it actually just opens up a whole new can of worms.

 

God is either indifferent; being equally responsible for both good and evil or he just plain doesn't exist. Both of which means you cannot derive morality from God.

The truth is virtuous. That which is untrue or based on that which is not true is not virtuous.

 

 

"Ah, but see if we should be good even if goodness causes us suffering then what the hell is the point of the afterlife?"

 

Job's righteousness did not cause his misfortune. Job had no conception of an afterlife.

[Nathan Metric]

"Ah, but see if we should be good even if goodness causes us suffering then what the hell is the point of the afterlife?"

 

Job's righteousness did not cause his misfortune. Job had no conception of an afterlife.

 

Yes it did. God and Satan decided to experiment on him because God bragged about him being the greatest human being on Earth.

 

And even if we accept that none of this was Job's fault are you denying that people who pursue virtue find suffering on the way? Do the heroes in war not suffer? Do women in childbirth not suffer? Does a small businessman not suffer under his ambition? Does the person who speaks truth to power not suffer? I think it is common sense that virtious behavior tends to be behavior that causes us to suffer. That is why we go out of our way to respect heroism.

 

If virtue always gave us happiness then there would be no point to morality. Morality (and God's commandments) might as well not exist if virtue always lead to happiness.

[Donnadogsoth]

When I mean by something being the "highest good" I meant to say "higher good". That was bad grammar. If ending undeserved suffering is good then ending all undeserved suffering would be the maximally good or higher good. Does that make sense?

 

Yes.

 

On your other points:

 

1. I mean that without meaning, your three goods of perfect order, ending undeserved suffering, and aeternal life are, by definition, meaningless, which means they can't be goods in any way other than as a tin of beans is a good to a dead man.

 

2. I'm saying aeternal bliss is unachievable except through obedience to God.

 

3. The fundamental emotion is love. Human willfulness and bad experiences twist this, but it remains in man, buried. The only true test of love is whether a person does good without external reward, but rather in order to get the internal reward of the heart that tells a person he is acting in accordance with his fundamental emotion. Without this Jesus died in vain.

 

4. Yes, I've read the Book of Job. I think the esoteric message is “Every man for himself.”  Just kidding! Yes, you're right. But, I would add that Job was being true to his conception of goodness, God, even if that concept was apparently at the same time raining torments upon him. God was where Job got his idea of goodness, which was why God's punishments were so baffling to him. But he refused to break faith with goodness and so he was, metaphorically, rewarded internally in his heart.

[junglecat]

Yes it did. God and Satan decided to experiment on him because God bragged about him being the greatest human being on Earth.

 

And even if we accept that none of this was Job's fault are you denying that people who pursue virtue find suffering on the way? Do the heroes in war not suffer? Do women in childbirth not suffer? Does a small businessman not suffer under his ambition? Does the person who speaks truth to power not suffer? I think it is common sense that virtious behavior tends to be behavior that causes us to suffer. That is why we go out of our way to respect heroism.

 

If virtue always gave us happiness then there would be no point to morality. Morality (and God's commandments) might as well not exist if virtue always lead to happiness.

Ah! I see what you mean. God "triggered" Satan.  I guess by that logic the God that doesn't exist is responsible for all the suffering in the world.

 

Your definition of virtue seems ambiguous from your examples. Soldiers, mothers, businessmen, 'truth speakers'??? Could you be more specifically philosophical in explaining your concept of virtue?

[Nathan Metric]

That's very different from, "Jesus stopped the sins of sacrifice and prohibition by forgiving his executors". First, sacrifice and prohibitions are not equivalent to 'sin'. Second, Jesus doesn't stop sin in a general or specific way at all.

 

Let's quote what you said earlier. 

 

"All archaic religions are about two things: prohibitions and sacrifice. Perhaps Jesus forgave his executors from the cross to show us, once and for all, that neither of these are effective for ordering society any longer."

 

If Jesus wants to show that neither prohibitions or sacrifice are effective for ordering society anymore that is implying that prohibitions and sacrifice are sins. That which is not effective at ordering society = a sin.

Am I wrong?

Ah! I see what you mean. God "triggered" Satan.  I guess by that logic the God that doesn't exist is responsible for all the suffering in the world.

 

Your definition of virtue seems ambiguous from your examples. Soldiers, mothers, businessmen, 'truth speakers'??? Could you be more specifically philosophical in explaining your concept of virtue?

Okay first of all, I never said God doesn't exist. I am not an atheist. My point is that the Christian conception of God is wrong.

 

Second, you can either treat the stories of the Bible as absolute historical truth or you can treat them as myths that give us wisdom. The Book of Job is in my opinion a myth that has meaning even if it none of it actually happened. I am not one of those dogmatic atheists who thinks literally every single thing that comes from religion is wrong. I think there is plenty of wisdom in the Bible, but also plenty of bad in it.

 

Third, the ethic of truth being preferable to falsehood does not mean truth is the only virtue. For example, if truth is a virtue that means pursuing the truth is a virtue. If pursuing the truth is a virtue then that means maximizing the pursuit of truth is a virtue. If maximizing the pursuit of truth is a virtue then finding a way for rational beings to peacefully live with each other is a virtue. Which means universal ethical rules are a virtue. ETC ETC, etc.

 

Molyneux's UPB is an example of a treatise that deduces that there other virtues from the premise that truth is preferable to falsehood.

[junglecat]

Let's quote what you said earlier. 

 

"All archaic religions are about two things: prohibitions and sacrifice. Perhaps Jesus forgave his executors from the cross to show us, once and for all, that neither of these are effective for ordering society any longer."

 

If Jesus wants to show that neither prohibitions or sacrifice are effective for ordering society anymore that is implying that prohibitions and sacrifice are sins. That which is not effective at ordering society = a sin.

Am I wrong?

Okay first of all, I never said God doesn't exist. I am not an atheist. My point is that the Christian conception of God is wrong.

 

Second, you can either treat the stories of the Bible as absolute historical truth or you can treat them as myths that give us wisdom. The Book of Job is in my opinion a myth that has meaning even if it none of it actually happened. I am not one of those dogmatic atheists who thinks literally every single thing that comes from religion is wrong. I think there is plenty of wisdom in the Bible, but also plenty of bad in it.

 

Third, the ethic of truth being preferable to falsehood does not mean truth is the only virtue. For example, if truth is a virtue that means pursuing the truth is a virtue. If pursuing the truth is a virtue then that means maximizing the pursuit of truth is a virtue. If maximizing the pursuit of truth is a virtue then finding a way for rational beings to peacefully live with each other is a virtue. Which means universal ethical rules are a virtue. ETC ETC, etc.

 

Molyneux's UPB is an example of a treatise that deduces that there other virtues from the premise that truth is preferable to falsehood.

Prohibitions and sacrifice are the law. As Saint Paul said, "the law brings wrath. Where there is no law there is no transgression"

Jesus divinized love, not law.

 

UPB sounds reasonable at a very surface level. The question is always 'what is truth?'. Pilate asked this of Jesus. Jesus remained silent.

[Nathan Metric]

Yes.

 

On your other points:

 

1. I mean that without meaning, your three goods of perfect order, ending undeserved suffering, and aeternal life are, by definition, meaningless, which means they can't be goods in any way other than as a tin of beans is a good to a dead man.

 

2. I'm saying aeternal bliss is unachievable except through obedience to God.

 

3. The fundamental emotion is love. Human willfulness and bad experiences twist this, but it remains in man, buried. The only true test of love is whether a person does good without external reward, but rather in order to get the internal reward of the heart that tells a person he is acting in accordance with his fundamental emotion. Without this Jesus died in vain.

 

4. Yes, I've read the Book of Job. I think the esoteric message is “Every man for himself.”  Just kidding! Yes, you're right. But, I would add that Job was being true to his conception of goodness, God, even if that concept was apparently at the same time raining torments upon him. God was where Job got his idea of goodness, which was why God's punishments were so baffling to him. But he refused to break faith with goodness and so he was, metaphorically, rewarded internally in his heart.

 

1)Are you saying those three values are only good if God saids they are good or are you saying they have no moral significance at all?

 

2)But that is assuming that we ought to achieve eternal bliss. If eternal bliss is good then how can God be all-good for not giving us eternal bliss right from the get go?

 

3)Even if Christ's motivation was Love, it doesn't change the fact he has no right to die for our sins. Love is an emotion. Emotions have no automatic moral significance. There are no "good" or "bad" emotions without relation to the truth. The only good emotion is one that is based on the truth and the only bad emotion is one that is based on lies.

 

4)See this why I like Christians better than relativists. They actually understand what I'm saying. They understand the more sophisticated drives and emotions that man is capable of.

 

Prohibitions and sacrifice are the law. As Saint Paul said, "the law brings wrath. Where there is no law there is no transgression"

Jesus divinized love, not law.

 

UPB sounds reasonable at a very surface level. The question is always 'what is truth?'. Pilate asked this of Jesus. Jesus remained silent.

Jesus does not have to die for other people's sin to prove that love (care) is a virtue.

 

UPB does not assume to know the ultimate nature of reality. It is merely based on the inherent virtue of the truth. There will always be a debate about what the ultimate nature of reality is, but that has no bearing on the virtue of the truth.

[junglecat]

1)Are you saying those three values are only good if God saids they are good or are you saying they have no moral significance at all?

 

2)But that is assuming that we ought to achieve eternal bliss. If eternal bliss is good then how can God be all-good for not giving us eternal bliss right from the get go?

 

3)Even if Christ's motivation was Love, it doesn't change the fact he has no right to die for our sins. Love is an emotion. Emotions have no automatic moral significance. There are no "good" or "bad" emotions without relation to the truth. The only good emotion is one that is based on the truth and the only bad emotion is one that is based on lies.

 

4)See this why I like Christians better than relativists. They actually understand what I'm saying. They understand the more sophisticated drives and emotions that man is capable of.

 

Jesus does not have to die for other people's sin to prove that love (care) is a virtue.

 

UPB does not assume to know the ultimate nature of reality. It is merely based on the inherent virtue of the truth. There will always be a debate about what the ultimate nature of reality is, but that has no bearing on the virtue of the truth.

Forget the "for other people's sin" part for the moment. How would Jesus (or anyone) prove that love is superior to the law. Can you substantiate your assertion?

[Tyler H]

You believe that man invented the very concept of God. Therefore, when you say God is immoral you are actually saying man's conception is "immoral". Can you define what immorality is? Is it simply contradicting oneself?

What I am saying is that the concept of God described in the bible violates the moral rules set by that very same God. If you believe that the bible is true then God is immoral by God's own standards. I don't need to define morality to observe the fact that someone has violated their own standard of morality as they have defined it. However I do think man's conception of God is immoral since it is used to bully, control and defraud people; at the very least it is in the aesthetically negative category of UPB (which is what I accept as the definition of morality).

[Donnadogsoth]

1)Are you saying those three values are only good if God saids they are good or are you saying they have no moral significance at all?

 

2)But that is assuming that we ought to achieve eternal bliss. If eternal bliss is good then how can God be all-good for not giving us eternal bliss right from the get go?

 

3)Even if Christ's motivation was Love, it doesn't change the fact he has no right to die for our sins. Love is an emotion. Emotions have no automatic moral significance. There are no "good" or "bad" emotions without relation to the truth. The only good emotion is one that is based on the truth and the only bad emotion is one that is based on lies.

 

4)See this why I like Christians better than relativists. They actually understand what I'm saying. They understand the more sophisticated drives and emotions that man is capable of.

 

 

1. I'm saying they are meaningless, and therefore worthless, without reference to God.

 

2. God can't give us aeternal bliss from the get-go, for the same reason that a human can't be born knowing calculus, or an acorn can't start out being an oak tree.  Things must grow and develop in good time.  So must the human soul grow and develop into a form needed to appreciate God as the source of all meaning.  Such would be bliss, no?

 

3. Christ showed us the definition of what a human being should be:  love based on the truth.  The dual nature of his sacrifice was the salvation game and the progress game, which both have the same winning moves.  Salvation:  if you align yourself with his sacrifice, you too will be justified before God; and progress:  if you align yourself with his sacrifice, you too will be an immortal boon to mankind.  So yes, Christ had the right to show us the way.

[junglecat]

What I am saying is that the concept of God described in the bible violates the moral rules set by that very same God. If you believe that the bible is true then God is immoral by God's own standards. I don't need to define morality to observe the fact that someone has violated their own standard of morality as they have defined it. However I do think man's conception of God is immoral since it is used to bully, control and defraud people; at the very least it is in the aesthetically negative category of UPB (which is what I accept as the definition of morality).

Give me your best contradiction of God.

[Tyler H]

Give me your best contradiction of God.

I'm not sure what you mean.... If you're asking for an example in which the aforementioned "God" violates his own standard for morality then I put forward the fact that the bible says God commands man not to murder, yet He murders men, women and children en masse for some pretty inconsequential actions. He turned Lot's wife to salt for looking back at the destruction of her home and the brutal conflagration of all her friends.

[junglecat]

Give me your best contradiction of God.

and can the contradiction of thought also be thought of as an evolution of thought? The world is dynamic. Culture is growing and changing. The same can be said of mankind's conception of God. I should hope there are contradictions otherwise we might be still performing human sacrifice as religious rite.

[Donnadogsoth]

and can the contradiction of thought also be thought of as an evolution of thought? The world is dynamic. Culture is growing and changing. The same can be said of mankind's conception of God. I should hope there are contradictions otherwise we might be still performing human sacrifice as religious rite.

 

Paradox is the gateway to discoveries of principle.  If it works in science why can it not work in theology?

[junglecat]

Paradox is the gateway to discoveries of principle.  If it works in science why can it not work in theology?

I think a big reason that snags theologians is the concept of the inerrancy of the Biblical text. On one level it is true, there are universal truths in Job and Genesis, etc. On another level we see a progression. The same in modern science and cosmology. Newtonian physics works fine. Quantum theory seems to contradict the macro-level physics. Thomas Kuhn coined the term paradigm shift in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Theology and science get stuck in the idea that we know how the world works. Now it's just a matter of filling in the details. This cuts us off from the 'eureka' that takes us to the next level, the 'conversion'. 

[Donnadogsoth]

I think a big reason that snags theologians is the concept of the inerrancy of the Biblical text. On one level it is true, there are universal truths in Job and Genesis, etc. On another level we see a progression. The same in modern science and cosmology. Newtonian physics works fine. Quantum theory seems to contradict the macro-level physics. Thomas Kuhn coined the term paradigm shift in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Theology and science get stuck in the idea that we know how the world works. Now it's just a matter of filling in the details. This cuts us off from the 'eureka' that takes us to the next level, the 'conversion'. 

 

I think the primary reason for this recalcitrance is a fear of throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.  Christianity has to be careful about watering itself down to nothing, whether in aid of paradigm shift or of being seen as being as  "accepting" as possible.

 

On Biblical inerrancy itself, we are dealing with a God here are we not?  Just as Christianity has supplied many generations of artists with inexhaustible wealth of inspiration, so it does not seem impossible that the Bible could have multiple plies of meaning, multiple principles at work.  Unfortunately religion, both public and private, in my experience seems so...unintellectual, as to resist proper explication like film beads water.  It all seems so going-through-the-motions...ersatz...compared with what I have read about the original Christians like Paul, who really had the fire of internal reward, rather than the impotent and inertia-bound guilt and greed complex we seem to have today.

[junglecat]

I think the primary reason for this recalcitrance is a fear of throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.  Christianity has to be careful about watering itself down to nothing, whether in aid of paradigm shift or of being seen as being as  "accepting" as possible.

 

On Biblical inerrancy itself, we are dealing with a God here are we not?  Just as Christianity has supplied many generations of artists with inexhaustible wealth of inspiration, so it does not seem impossible that the Bible could have multiple plies of meaning, multiple principles at work.  Unfortunately religion, both public and private, in my experience seems so...unintellectual, as to resist proper explication like film beads water.  It all seems so going-through-the-motions...ersatz...compared with what I have read about the original Christians like Paul, who really had the fire of internal reward, rather than the impotent and inertia-bound guilt and greed complex we seem to have today.

Aiding the paradigm shift is like forcing a flower to bloom or shaping water. It seeks it's own level.  (I hope you don't think I am suggesting watering anything down)  A baby is born through the mother's work, not the baby's. If it seems stagnant, never fear. Parturition is just around the corner. Conversion can happen even for the 'elect'. It certainly happened for me with Girard's work.

[Donnadogsoth]

Aiding the paradigm shift is like forcing a flower to bloom or shaping water. It seeks it's own level.  (I hope you don't think I am suggesting watering anything down)  A baby is born through the mother's work, not the baby's. If it seems stagnant, never fear. Parturition is just around the corner. Conversion can happen even for the 'elect'. It certainly happened for me with Girard's work.

 

Why not, Socratically speaking, a midwife?

[junglecat]

Why not, Socratically speaking, a midwife?

Can you elaborate? I'm stuck in a quagmire of metaphor here.

[Donnadogsoth]

Can you elaborate? I'm stuck in a quagmire of metaphor here.

 

I mean what exactly is the role of the potent individual in society, to merely act on the wisdom of his time, or to help discover new wisdom?

[junglecat]

Yes it did. God and Satan decided to experiment on him because God bragged about him being the greatest human being on Earth.

 

And even if we accept that none of this was Job's fault are you denying that people who pursue virtue find suffering on the way? Do the heroes in war not suffer? Do women in childbirth not suffer? Does a small businessman not suffer under his ambition? Does the person who speaks truth to power not suffer? I think it is common sense that virtious behavior tends to be behavior that causes us to suffer. That is why we go out of our way to respect heroism.

 

If virtue always gave us happiness then there would be no point to morality. Morality (and God's commandments) might as well not exist if virtue always lead to happiness.

 

Yes it did. God and Satan decided to experiment on him because God bragged about him being the greatest human being on Earth.

 

And even if we accept that none of this was Job's fault are you denying that people who pursue virtue find suffering on the way? Do the heroes in war not suffer? Do women in childbirth not suffer? Does a small businessman not suffer under his ambition? Does the person who speaks truth to power not suffer? I think it is common sense that virtious behavior tends to be behavior that causes us to suffer. That is why we go out of our way to respect heroism.

 

If virtue always gave us happiness then there would be no point to morality. Morality (and God's commandments) might as well not exist if virtue always lead to happiness.

Still trying to figure out your reasoning on this one. You say Job is guilty because he was righteous. He's guilty because, being righteous, God bragged about him and the deal with Satan ensued. It's strange that you don't throw God or Satan under the bus but blame Job. What about Job's so-called friends? Are they right in their accusations?

[Brainwright]

Sorry for coming in late to the conversation, but I have a few things that might be relevant.

 

The powerful debate between David Silverman and Frank Turek spurred me to think about how immoral the god of the Bible is. I encourage people to give their ideas, and discuss them.

 

I'll start with my favorite: Silverman's argument was this:

 

1. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and controls everything.

2. God knows the outcome of any action he may ever take.

3. God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with knowledge that they would become sinners after eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

4. God put the Tree of Knowledge in its location, knowing full well that Eve and eventually Adam would be tempted, and fall.

5. God could have put the Tree anywhere, or not created it at all, and made a world without pain, death or sin, but chose to, knowing the consequences.

    Thus, God is malicious, and purposefully created a reality where there is pain and suffering.

 

To be intellectually honest, one either has to accept that God is evil, or they have to say that God doesn't exist! Perfect argument.

 

What are some of people's favorite argumentum contra Deum?

Sorry for coming in late to the conversation, but I have a few things that might be relevant.

 

1. Okay, let's assume we know the consequences of that.

 

2. Okay, I'll give you that one, too.

 

3. This suggests that God created the universe to be without sin, which is false straight out. God created the universe and His children out of love. He would not care if His children sinned, he would only care for their well-being.

 

4. This suggests that Adam and Eve could not sin in some other way, which we know to be false. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is not a magical tree with magical fruit. It's a normal, fruiting tree with two components : a fruiting tree and the law, "He whosoever eats from this tree shall surely die." The tree itself is knowledge of good from evil, as to give up an entire garden for the sake of the fruit of one tree is a pretty good example of evil. Adam and Eve sinned when they, knowing full well of good and evil, ate from the tree to escape Satan's temptation.

 

5. God did make a world without pain or sin. It is man who introduced pain and death by choosing death over life.