Don't you mean 'All Good' or 'Wholly Good', which is the same as Goodness. I didn“t say God is not good. I said God is not human. Then I said God IS Goodness. I assume you've leaped to Christians (who are humans), and not "Religions such as Christianity", as I don't think there are more than 5000 religion in the world. Certainly not millions. You have just described your tactics and position. I've addressed it in detail also. You seem hell bent on getting me say what you want me to say. So much so that you cannot argue against the position I hold. Do you have control issues James? Challenge #1: Can anybody produce a convincing argument that the God I have described does not exist? Yes. Evil is a human perception, and a human term. It is only relative to humans. God is not human. Hence the God you describe cannot be God. Challenge #2: If you're religious, you might have been brought up to believe that God is perfectly Good rather than perfectly Evil. My claim is that this is a mistake. Can you show that I am wrong and you are right? Just did. My aim is to complete your challenge, and I've done that. Show me the link. Or are you making it up as you go? God is not human. Are you incapable of arguing against that? What? We can't use dictionary definitions? It's not my definition, it is a dictionary definition. Where did your definition of evilness come from? jan.
In the opening post, I suggested that God's ultimate aim for human beings is to maximise their suffering and pain. This I described as God being evil. On the other hand, if God's ultimate aim is to maximise human wellbeing and happiness, then God could be described as good. Actually, I'd be content if somebody could just show that God has a preference for good over evil, for example. That could avoid the inevitable arguments about ultimate aims. You said that the concepts of good and evil are human concepts that do not apply to God. Now you are flip-flopping again, to claim that God is good, after all. Some consistency would be nice to see, Jan, but I have no expectation I'll see any of that from you in this thread. Regarding the the phantom distinction between "good" and "Goodness" that you are attempting to use to define your way out of committing to an answer, I have addressed that above. "Evil" is, of course, one antonym for "good". Another antonym for "good" is "bad". If you can't find "Evilness" in the dictionary, you might try "badness". But, in the sense that I am using the terms in this thread to describe God, "good" and "goodness" are effectively synonyms anyway. To claim that God is Goodness and to simultaneously claim that God is not good is to argue inconsistently. But perhaps this point, at least, has got through to you finally. So let's get it straight. Your position now is that God is good? Or are you going to flip-flop away from that again? It's not hard to work out that I meant the millions of Christians there. You refuse to commit yourself to a definite position. Unless and until you explain your position, I can only guess at what you might mean, based on the scant evidence available from your posts. I seeking to control you by asking for logical consistency, and for you to explain yourself? Are you feeling sorry for yourself? Poor you. Or maybe my control issue lies in expecting you to answer the question posed in a thread that you freely chose to participate in? Why is Good not a human perception? Oh wait, you said it is a human perception, and that it is only relative to humans too. So, according to your own statements, a good God cannot be God any more than an evil God can be God. But, just above, you said that "I didn't say God is not good." So which is it, Jan? Is God good, or is good a term that doesn't apply to God? Where? It's irrelevant. I accept that God is not human. So, given that, is God good or evil? "God is not human" is not an answer to the question "Is God good or evil?" See? From your dictionary.
So you're not going to accept the dictionary definition of 'Goodness'? Phantom distinction? What does that mean? Okay. I want to go somewhere else with this now. Why do you consider the maximising of suffering and pain, evil? jan.
Goodness is a synonym for good and a euphemism for God. That's what your dictionary tells us. It means there's no important distinction between "goodness" and "good". Because causing other people to suffer or experience pain, when you have the power to do otherwise, is an evil act. Do you think that maximimising suffering and pain could be a good act?
Either you're lazy or this is just yet more dishonesty on your part. A quick Google of the word "evilness" provides many sources for a definition, including Wikipedia. Furthermore, regardless of that, you seem to lack the logical capability to infer that since "goodness" is the state or quality of being good, "evilness" can be assumed to be the state or quality of being evil. Now I may be mistaken (even if it is a belief honestly held) but I don't think you're actually that unintelligent, therefore i can only assume your tactics were borne of dishonesty.
You would really lie just so that you can appear to be on top? That's disgusting. Goodness is the quality of being good. It is the standard by which one measures being good. Here it is again. The first definition: the state or quality of being good. Seeing as you lack the capacity to comprehend what that means, let me give you an example. A man rears a turkey in his garden, giving it lots of food, making sure its habitat is secure, making sure no person or animal harms it. Come Thanks Giving morning, he chops off the turkey's head, eventually as his saw was blunt. He cooks the dead bird by the afternoon, and his family and friends who came to dinner commented on what a lovely dinner. The next day he still has more than enought for him to eat, so he bags some of the meat, and bones, and goes down to where the homeless people are, and distributes the meat, puts some of the bones down for any dog that may come by. So here the man does some good acts, but it was not done in goodness, because he slaughtered an innocent being, for nothing other than his pleasure. Do you see how it works yet? Or are you going to continue with you ignorance? God is goodness, it is the quality or essense of what is good. There is no ''evilness'', only evil, wrong, or bad. Even if there is a quality of badness, it is only in relation to being good. You can breath fresh air, or breath contaminated air, but it doesn't change what air is. Yes I do. But the difference is that I have a standard by which I can justify evil, and that standard is God, who is Goodness. By what criterea do you justify such acts as evil? Baldeee, you can respond to this too, as your post is nothing but a repitition of everything you both said before. jan.
The Problem of Good doesn't affect Evil God in the way the Problem of Evil affects Good God. This extends far beyond the concept of surprise and alarm from a violation of a standard of good living by the happenings of evil occurences. For Evil God, having goods in the world is just fine so long as they all end at some point. If there would be no limit to how good these things might be then you can understand that their privation constitutes an additional evil. Not only do we have the obvious evil in the world but with Evil God we see His Darkness collecting the end of all good things as part of His diabolical and unholy plan. Evil is always one step ahead. With Evil God, evil might be right in your face showing it's horror to you. You might be in a war. You might be grieving. You could be sick and dying. Maybe you're on fire. If evil is currently hiding its face from you, then it's only around the corner waiting to jump out and give you cancer later. If you die happy that isn't a problem for Evil God. For Him, that's a perk. He's put an end to your happiness. If you die in misery then even better. So for all possible worlds where there are goods so long as they eventually come to an end you see only that much more evil. People discount Evil God because they say He would be too selfish. He would never create anything. Who says He did? Perhaps you're a figment in the mind of an Evil God forever torturing Himself. Not only is there a Cartesian Evil Genius...but it's you! Everything is your fault and your very existence is nothing but the deliberate confusion of an Evil God. “The human phenomenon is but the sum Of densely coiled layers of illusion Each of which winds itself on the supreme insanity That there are persons of any kind When all there can be is mindless mirrors Laughing and screaming as they parade about in an endless dream ” - Thomas Ligotti
Given what we know, the universe is probably bound for heat death. The last star will eventually expire and then the last warm place in the universe will be gone. Things will become so cold that it is impossible for any communication, life, mind itself. Everything in the universe, living or not, will be lain waste. I would argue that it's fine for Evil God to create as much as He wishes so long as He eventually destroys whatever He creates. Whatever evil becomes created glorifies His Darkness. Whatever good becomes created is reaped in the evil of it's ultimate privation. Again, glory to His Darkness.
Doing something nasty to an inoccent and enjoying the fact. It would be a shame to throw cold water on this thread but it assumes there is s God, which is a huge assumption without any evidence in support. If he/it (God) is made up the determination of whether God be good or evil must rest with the original author who created the character. For example let's ask is Sherlock Holmes good or evil...can that question be answered by the readership ... it would seem that only the author can answer. But the thread is great because Jan gets to discuss God on the basis that others accept the existence of same as real and any energy goes only to talking about the finer points. But there is one point all seem to agree upon and it is this... God is unknowable.. So who is a believer or not this point suggests to me any discussion is pointless other than giving a feeling that God is real to the folk who already believe God is real. Those who don't accept God are drawn in to give an unwitting acceptance of the premise they ordinarily reject. Something that does not exist does not have moral characteristics. Alex
" I don't think anyone doubts that it is assumed for the sake of argument. Even Jan, despite all his contributions, has not made that mistake. In fairness to the defense, it would be more accurate to say without sufficient, generally-accepted evidence. Again, for the sake of argument. I can argue about Superman's decision to trash New York without anyone foolishly thinking I accept Superman to be real. The story teller has provided specific cues for us to relate to. The concept exists. We can discuss accounts of God's behavior and assign it characteristics. It doesn't have to be extant to be examinable. For some, the evidence is sufficient to believe it to be true. That is enough to examine it*. (By 'it' I mean that person's account(s) of it.) All we're really doing here is letting someone (mostly Jan, in this case) provide accounts of God he submits as evidence, and finding logical inconsistencies in them.
I can not disagree with anything you say. A discussion is what we have but I can not add to it but I am damn sure I will say something. I have defined my position which I can not argue but its this...there is no God but he is indeed perfectly evil. Continue please I have yet to grasp how these discussions work, I am shackled by different tactics. Using logical fallacies is generally my tool in trade, repetition, the simplest of language to take wider appeal, poor grammar to annoy and side track, let opponents present a logic to use against them... I appreciate what I see however. Alex
