Perfectly evil God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Nov 9, 2016.

  1. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,000
    You think God was made up. That is your justification for atheism.
    But you cannot show, or even give a reasonable exlanation as to how or why that is the case.

    jan.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,610
    Yes I can. You cant get past step one and until you can there is no point in me supplying more facts.

    Besides I know what I feel is the truth.

    Humans are born with and have an inbuilt rader to work out what is the truth and what is false.

    Its part of who we are Jan.
    We could not have evolved without this wonderful ability to work out what is fact and what is fiction.

    But with this inbuilt radar it enables me to work out that the scriptures and thus God was made up.
    The best thing you can do is to read and re read your bible Jan and hopefully you can work out that if the author was not present at any event he writes about the only way he can write about it is to make up a story.
    And if you try and tell yourself God guided the authors hand perhaps then ask why did God give out a story that had so many wrong bits.

    They are simple questions that you may be able to answer, then again you may not be able to face, what would be a horrible realization, and simply come back to me and say over and over as you have done repeatedly on this simple matter and say that I have not explained anything.
    Its ok Jan when you have to face the facts that I present it should test your faith.. Whichever way it ends I know you will be better for it.
    Alex
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,288
    Jan Ardena:

    You are turning to "scripture" now in an attempt to explain why God is good (or Goodness, if you insist). This, at least, seems slightly more authentic than your previous denial that the terms "good" and "evil" apply to God. However, I can see that you are still trying to run that line in parallel with your new argument. This suggests to me that you are struggling to come up with anything convincing about what God is like, in essence.

    I admitted up-front in this thread that many religious traditions claim that God is Good. The ones that say that inevitably have to cope with the Problem of Evil. In the example you give, the suggested solution to that problem is that "Evil is ignorance".

    But early in the thread I suggested that it could be the case that God is Evil. If that is the case, then we must face the Problem of Good. I am confidence that we could find a similar rationalisation in saying that some Good inevitably happens by accident or through ignorance. But a true understanding of God results in an appreciation of his utter Evilness.

    You gave an example of a particular act, the consequences of which were mixed - some good, some bad.

    Similarly, some activities might be seen as good, even though their ultimate "mode" (aim, effect, ?) is evil.

    Perhaps what you are getting at with your example is means and ends. You say that killing the turkey does not, in that example, justify the good outcomes that resulted, because a greater evil was done in the process. Presumably, it follows that a good God would not approve of the means here.

    But let's look at that from the point of view of an evil God. In that case, the means used to dispose of the turkey (giving food to the poor) were not satisfyingly evil, but we could probably approve of the actual killing involved as being consistent with God's plan, for example.

    I'm not sure how many times you need it pointed out to you that "God is not human" is not an answer to the question "Is God good or evil?" This is particularly so since you have started to argue that, according to you, God is "Goodness".

    A serious discussion about God is one where everybody agrees with your ideas about God, presumably.

    Because it is evil?

    Or "Good" is ignorance. The man who looked after the turkey didn't realise that his self-interest might be better served by killing it.

    I don't.

    Isn't "good" what humans do, too?

    Are you saying God does good, then?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The question is, if God was made up, why has the concept persisted over thousands of years? It persists because the inner radar of many people sense that there is something to this. Not everyone is tuned the same way.

    Humans are the only species of animal that exhibits the behavior called religion. You don't see animals gathering to worship a God. This unique behavior requires reacting to things, which can't be perceived by any of the fives external senses. The instruments of science have determined that these things do not show up on any of their tools, yet this behavior causes many people to react to such things. Although this behavior is unique to humans, not all humans exhibit this behavior. There are many humans, collectively called atheists, who react more like the rest of the animals, perceiving only that which can be inputted through the five senses.

    Logically, since this is based on a unique type of perception, this behavior requires a specific feature of the brain, which not all humans possess and/or not all humans are conscious of. Those who do possess it or are conscious of it, use this as part of their brain as their built in radar.

    The bible is written in symbolism, while most atheists tend to interpret symbolism in a literal way. I used the example of the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed. Depending on how your brain is wired people will see one of two things. The atheist may take this literally, and assume a nano-scale God. But those who practice religious behavior, sense something different is being said, even of they repeat the story to a child. Both are being true to themselves, based on how their brain is wired.

    The divide appears to break down relative to which side of the brain is more dominate to the conscious mind. The left brain is historically more differential and logical, while the right brain is more integral and intuitive. The left brain uses signs; literal language, while the right brain uses symbols which have spatial character. Religious people tend to be more conscious of right brain data processing, which is closer in hierarchy to the core regions of the brain; instincts and firmware. The atheist is more left brained, which is newer in evolution, but more distant from the core regions. They are less conscious of firmware output and are unconscious of its projections.

    Both sides of the brain work at the same time, but we can only be conscious of one side at a time. The less dominate side will be operated by the unconscious mind, simultaneously. The atheists will reason consciously; left side, while having an unconscious intuition which appear to overlap. Even though they can't reason God away, they sense conviction that this is correct. However, since the right brain is unconscious and is generating the conviction, they are not fully aware what the conviction is connected to. The religious person has spatial perception and will intuit the integral connections of things, implicit of the concert of God, but since the differential side of the brain; left, is unconscious explanation become dogmatic or irrational. They can't as easily see logical inconsistency since that part of the brain is not fully conscious.

    In this sense, they orientations are both parts of the whole, but like stereo-isomers, they can't overlap in space and time. What would need to happen is consciousness would need to move into the corpus callosum, which integrates the two sides of the brain.
     
  8. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,121
    This is bs. The brain isn't actually as differentiated as you suggest for one. Religion isn't something that only some people are able to appreciate because of left brain/right brain issues.

    Religion has existed for so long because Man seems to need religion or something like religion. This need seems to be greater when the individual is less knowledgeable and more adverse to change.

    Man made up God after all so why wouldn't Man continue to make up God?

    People seem to like to do thought experiments to help explain things. Imagine the characteristics of your God and then imagine what a world should look like created by that God.

    Then imagine what a world would look like with no God. Which world looks more like the world in which we actually live? It's the latter of course.

    The only "evidence" for God is thinking that there might/must be a God. That's it.

    When I was a kid I had more evidence for Santa Claus than that.
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  9. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,000
    You have to show something before I can show you to be mistaken.


    jan.
    But it is James. It shows that to apply ''good and/or evil'' to God is purely a human perception, so it is up to the individual person who decides if God is, or isn't evil, or if God does or does not exist. It has no bearing on the nature of God, anymore than me thinking you're evil, has any bearing on your nature.

    It certainly isn't one where one party is prone to emotional outbursts like this one.

    I think needless torturing, and killing for pleasure is.

    What might his self interest be?

    Yes.

    If ''God does good'' implies God has to act in a specific way that can be called good. If God doesn't act that way, then He is not good. It means God, like humans have a dual nature. But God isn't human, so all speculation as to whether or not God is good or evil, has no bearing on the nature of God.

    jan.
     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,610
    This is an interesting question.
    But I think before we attempt to answer that question perhaps we should add a number of things that presumably have been believed for thousand of years.
    How long has the concept of multiple Gods existed.
    How long has the concept of ghosts been around for?
    How long have humans believed in the notion of good and bad luck?
    How long have humans believed in sorcery and whitch craft.
    How long have humans believed in superstitions.

    Moreover religion is but one of the make believe concepts that has been part of humanity for as long as we can tell.
    It would be interesting to research as to how long humans have been believing in made up stuff.
    But clearly as you point out it is puzzling why humans have persisted to believe in strange things with no proof whatsoever.
    I dont read fiction and I cant see the point. I dont understand the fascination to happily read a lie and ingulge a made up reality.
    I will watch a fiction movie but much prefer something that deals with reality.
    Yet most humans love fiction and have done so for thousands of years.
    It is so strange, stranger still because few think of it as strange.
    I am with the animals.
    So you alude to six sences or five in any event what are they.
    You think I dont understand symbolism ?
    I do and I say there is no need for it.
    Well the need is to be wishy washy and avoid specifics so you dont have to be strickly factual.
    Lets write a science paper using symbolism, lets present the laws of the land using symbolism lets write our mortgages and land deeds in symbolism... No and why not?
    You must know why not.


    Forget symbolism it is not mystical it is a nonsence way to present any idea or concept.

    Even if your statement is valid it does not explain why things are made up.

    Absolute rubbish, a fabricated unrealistic projection with no basis in fact whatsoever and frankly poor form.

    I dont understand what you are talking about so perhaps you may care to present something that makes sence... to me.
    I really find nothing compelling in anything you have said but that may just be me.
    Now doubt others may understand what you are talking about and engage your arguement.. Unfortunately most of what you say I simply do not understand.

    Alex
     
  11. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,000
    Lol! Your reaction proves he is correct. You can't reason God away.

    This is my summation. You are simply in denial of God. No different to a child who disown their parent, by pretending they don't exist as a parent.

    jan.
     
  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,610
    There is nothing that I could show you that will show that I am mistaken.
    Alex
     
  13. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,000
    That is so true.

    jan.
     
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,610
    This is an excellent example Jan to prove my point. A child has parents they are real and absolutely necessary for the child to be born and exist thereafter whereas God is not needed, does not figure in the childs life an is the opposite to real, that is made up.
    Jan once you understand its all made up you will stop using these silly annologies.
    Alex
     
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,610
    Wow that was easy.
    Alex
     
  16. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,000
    You've totally missed the point. Again.
    Analogies are good.
    Sometimes children go through phases (depending on their up bringing), where they disown their parents, or claim they hate their parents and don't need them, etc... As they grow up, and have children of their own, they sometimes realise that they were being unreasonable.

    jan.
     
  17. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,610
    I don't know how you could think that Jan.
    Not ever.

    No their use reflects an inability to avoid making stuff up.
    Heaven is not like a mustard seed just step outside in a dark site and enjoy the wonderful spectical we call heaven.. Nothing to do with tiny seeds..

    Well I can understand that children who are indoctrinated would turn on their parents but if you are honest with kids and dont fill them with guilt and fear of hell they will never disown you. They will grow up well adjusted free of superstition.

    Well its good that kids who have been indoctrinated can grow up, have their own children and somehow understand why their parents were unreasonable and made them follow make believe and then not bring their kids up on make believe and superstition.

    Unfortunately some children are permantently damaged and wont see where stuff was made up even when some caring person presents the facts over and over.

    Alex
     
  18. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,000
    I hope this does not come across as preaching or evangelising, because to do so, to you, would be a disservice. But I think it is important nonetheless.

    ...And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

    He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

    Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

    14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:..
    .

    This is why scripture is so important, and cool.

    jan.
     
  19. Great Old One Registered Member

    Messages:
    88
    I don't think that is a common point of agreement. We can know that God is probably evil. You might hope that God could be good, but if you did then you couldn't fathom how God could be good.

    People who believe in God typically don't want to entertain the notion that God is actually a horrible monster. However, when you consider the traditional proofs of God and the inductive argument of evil together...you might reasonably question whether you should conclude that God probably doesn't exist in favor of God exists and is probably evil.

    The premise that God is wholly good is very suspect. There's obviously no evidence for it, specifically...and there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

    To me...it is flatly ridiculous.

    The world abounds with gratuitous, unjustifiable-in-human-terms...evil.

    It would be far more reasonable to conclude that God is evil than that this apparent evil is somehow justified in a way you can't possibly comprehend. Any attempt to do so will be question begging.
     
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,610
    Hi Jan I thought you could not find your bible? I know you did not say such I just thought we could have used it when I wascpointing out why we could only conclude certain things were made up.
    Whilst you have it handy check out that first page as I suggested.

    And thank you for taking the time to post those words for me.
    Would it not be nice if those were the words of Jesus but I wonder because dso much of what he said was not recorded for many many years after he died and one wonders given the author was not present when Jesus was supposed to have said many things if we are again not the victims of being presented something that was made up.

    In any event I still find the use of parables rather odd, I mean its not really hiding a message that is somehow secret, if those others read the parable I expect they could still work out what Jesus said.
    Do you have the reference for the passage you quoted and do you know how long after Jesus died those words were written.?
    Alex
     
  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,610
    I dont think I care.

    I dont hope about God being good I dont waste time giving attributes to a story character invented by someone else. Their story so let them describe their character. So far all I find about our character is he is unknowable and works in mysterious ways.

    I am not aware of these traditional proofs you casualy mention. What are they?
    Let me be clear I will not conclude God exists and probably evil. I can not understand why you could think that I would even for one moment.

    You may not be able to grasp my position so I will state it again.
    There is no evidence for God so discussing attributes is meaningless.

    It would be far more reasonable to establish that there is indeed a God and not to be hasty to move past such an important step in the process.

    Alex
     
  22. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,000
    Why did I need to find my Bible for you to write what you claim to know?
    Also as you are on Sciforums, you are on the internet, where you will find just about any Bible you care to mention.

    Why focus on that?

    I think you are a good example of what Jesus said. It's right there in front of you eyes, and you can't see it. You think because they are words, and words convey meanings, you can simply read the words and comprehend the intended message. It doesn't work like that.

    The message contained in the words themselves are a good enough reference.
    Why does it matter how long after his passing, the words were written?

    jan.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,288
    Out of interest: what's the cool bit?

    The sentiment that people sometimes don't understand stuff, so it can be good to explain it in multiple ways?

    Or the bit about the prophecy being fulfilled?
     

Share This Page