Perfectly evil God

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

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,793
    I think he knows that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    He is simply turning a well known theist argument upon its head to show that it works (so he thinks) for Evil-God as well as for a Good-God.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,793
    I disagree.
    A more evil God would be one that merely convinces us that He does exist without actually existing.
    It must surely be a worse suffering if it as at the hands of something that doesn't actually exist?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,229
    I think you're assigning the word God to anything you like (in this case, a negative characteristic).
    Why should this character be aligned with God?

    Evil God, would do anything you asked, because Evil God is whatever you want it to be. Now you want put this character out there as a possible alternative to God. Where is the possibility of this concoction being anything like God, from a theist perspective?

    '' ...if God is good...'', what does that mean? If theists say "God is good", then that is the personal testimony of those individuals. If I say "James is good", that is because of what I have heard, or experienced. Not that it is a universal construct. The reason being my perception is not

    How is this constructive? Isn't it better to learn about God, and then ask pertinent questions?

    I take it if we were to discuss this, it would go no further than this point. Ring any bells?

    Currently you don't have a good comprehension of God, thus anything you suggest is not in the context of God.

    The point of the question is to show the reality of what your attempting.

    Because of the internet, people perform evil acts. But is the internet evil. Or is it good.
    I would argue that it is good, because it is good for me. Some may say it's evil , because that's how they see it. But the internet itself, is neither good nor bad, outside of perception.

    That's because it's true.

    People die anyway. That's not only natural, but inevitable.
    You also regard it as natural, and neither good nor evil. Don't you?

    Out of interest, what do think God is, outside of philosophical discourse, first cause, creator, etc...

    Have you ever experienced anything that is purely evil?
    My experience of evil, is always in relation to its counterpart, good.

    I think this would have been a better discussion if it were about good and evil, rather than adding the word "God"
    "What if we were all perfectly evil, would there be any difference to world we currently inhabit"
    But no, it's a perfect opportunity to be negative about God. Isn't it?

    No. Good is the basic standard.
    You mean you don't know that?

    People don't hate happiness. They love happiness, they may even they perform evil deeds to achieve that goal. Do you see how it works now?

    I've already said God is the standard.
    But to maintain that standard isn't something you simply do, It is a development.

    God is God.
    If we discuss an entity as evil, or good, that entity isn't God. There are plenty of good humans, but that doesn't mean they are God. So to ponder on God being evil, is to concoct images in your mind of a human performing evil deeds, and calling that human, God.

    Neither.
    God can only be Absolute. That's what you fail comprehend. To discuss God as a non-absolute being, is to stray from the subject of God.

    Jan.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    31,547
    Jan Ardena:

    I notice you ignored the second half of my reply to you. I made two consecutive posts, but you only replied to one. I would appreciate a reply to the rest of what I wrote.

    No, I am asking a question about the actual God you believe in. I am asking whether we can know whether that God is good or evil.

    Your answer, although typically evasive, seems to be that God is both good and evil. It follows that to say that God has a bias towards good rather than evil is to make a false claim about God.

    Is this a fair representation of your views?

    Perhaps Good God is whatever you want it to be. Now you want to put that character out there as a possible alternative to Evil God. Or am I wrong?

    My understanding of the perspective of certain particular types of theists, such as Christians, for example, is that they believe that God is Good. Do you think this is a mistake? Are they ignoring God's evil side?

    So you're saying that God is not good and not evil. Or maybe that God is both good and evil. Or maybe that the terms "good" and "evil" can't be applied to God because they are the subjective interpretations of individual human beings.

    Can you clarify what you're saying, please? You're not making yourself clear.

    I am trying to learn whether the moral nature of God is discernable. Do you think it is, or not?

    I think this is a pertinent question.

    Save it for a different thread.

    Ok. What I'm getting from you is that God is what he is, both good and evil, depending on human perception of him.

    So your conclusion is that we can't know the moral nature of God, then. We will see God as we want to see him. Interesting.

    It still puzzles me why so many religious people assert that God's nature is primarily good, and that God cares about human beings and so on. You are saying that they are misguided in making that assumption, and that this is just their own fallible perception of God. Correct?

    No. God could make people immortal if that was his will.

    Death? Well, death has its definite minuses, but there are probably some benefits too, though on the whole not for the individuals who die.

    I agree that death is a "natural" process, in that it happens to all of us at some point. On the other hand, causing the death of another person could potentially be construed as either an evil or (more rarely) a good act, depending on the circumstances.

    Take it to another thread. That's off topic for this one.

    I don't see how my personal experiences are relevant to the thread topic.

    I have no problem with your comparing good to evil.

    What does God have to say about good and evil, if anything? Does God prefer one over the other, do you think? Or is he neutral on the matter?

    What have I said that is negative about God?

    I'm asking whether we can know whether God is good or evil. It seems to me a reasonable question to ask.

    No, I don't know that. Hence this thread.

    Whose basic standard are you referring to? God's? Does that mean that God is good? How do you know that God's basic standard is not evil?

    As far as I can see, we agree on this point.

    What is God the standard of? Are you saying we should act in particular ways because God prefers us to act in one way over the other? Does God have a preference for whether we do good or evil?

    So, which is it:

    (1) God is both good and evil, rolled into one (and has no preference one way or the other); or
    (2) God is neither good nor evil, but is morally neutral.

    ?

    So, the world we live in is equally consistent with God being good as it is with God being evil. Which is kind of where I started with this thread.

    It took you a long time to get to an answer, but I think we have it. Thanks, Jan.
     
  8. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Incorrect logic and detached, meaningless word salad. If that were true, i should be in agreement or happy to please god by own suffering.

    The logic is really about power. An analogy would be a human torturing an amimal. They may take pleasure in it. The animal may have no power, whatsoever, in comparison, to stop or alleviate it, totally dependent on the will of that person which in essence renders the human omnipotent in comparison. Even still, the very act and dynamic taking place is not magically neutralized/dismissable or not evil because of this complete power. This is false logic. The infliction of suffering is still a reality (taking place) and so therefore the definition of evil, especially when consciously done but even if not, the dynamic itself is still evil, just not accountable. We also know this because it most likely would not want the reverse or tables turned where its well-being is threatened.

    This is exactly how the heirarchy is justified in nature through predation and the food chain. Even today, there still exists people who treat lower animals with no regard because of this greater power. Its basically might is right but to who? Only to the one who has the might. Does this negate the reality of the other's existence, experience, feelings and thoughts? No.

    I think the true realization and enlightenment is in the awareness it is wrong itself even if there is little to nothing to change it because of circumstances and regardless of god.

    We have the ability to observe, analyze and even judge/criticize the 'system' for what it is and even God itself.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2016
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,547
    Capracus:

    So you would say that all the things we consider good are good because God thinks they are good, and similarly for evil.

    Can we draw a conclusion from this as to God's nature - i.e. whether God is good or evil?
     
  10. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    There is a hole in this logic. Why would one care about god's pleasure at its own expense, demise or damages? Why would one be honored? Just because its 'god' or omnipotent is actually not a true or real answer or reason. Stockholm syndrome would be the only applicable analogy. The unrecognition of self or mistaking another's needs as your own.
     
  11. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,322
    Why do you think this one has no substance?
    At the moment it merely seems that you do not wish to engage in it honestly, so are making excuses, looking to trash it.
    Yes it does: the premise has been set and subsequent arguments must stem from that.
    If the God described / premised is not as you recognise God then keep your understanding of God OUT of the experiment, and go with what is premised only.
    It's not rocket science, Jan.
    The thought experiment clearly sets out what God is, what God's intention is, within the remit of this discussion.
    It's clear you can't limit yourself to that, you know that you can't, so it's clear you have no intention of honestly engaging in the discussion.
    It may, it may not.
    Let's not second guess it, Jan.
    For those wishing to explore differences, it is necessary.
    If you don't think it is then you do not understand the enquiry of atheists.
    No, it's not enough when people are trying to understand why people believe.
    You want to close of any enquiry at that point.
    Why?
    You don't have to, Jan, but if you have no intention of it then don't merely try to derail threads and discussions that aim to understand that belief.
    It is one thing to not want to justify your belief, but an entirely other thing to try to strangle any enquiry whatsoever, which is what you do.
    Let those that want to discuss have the discussion.
    Let those that simply want to trash it, for whatever reason (fear, embarassment, or anything else it may be), keep away or at least keep quiet.
     
  12. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    991
    James assumed God to be evil by virtue of the pain and suffering experienced by humanity. He then asked for an argument to counter this assertion. My argument essentially states that an omnipotent god is the ultimate authority on everything, which includes the quality of good and evil. In this context, humanity would not have the necessary capacity to asses God’s intent regarding matters of universal good and evil. But one could assume for the sake of argument that the suffering that God imposes on humanity is for some greater good, or even just to give God a laugh, because ultimately everything in such a universe may be intended solely to satisfy the needs of God, whatever they may be.

    Comparisons between the omnipotent and the relative insignificance of humanity seem rather pointless, but we can show the acceptance of moral torture practiced by humans and other life forms within our limited sphere of existence. We and other organisms kill and eat each other for sustenance, and commonly derive pleasure in doing so. Humans without any regard for sanctity routinely destroy insect and microbial life for the perceived betterment of their own existence. It’s plainly obvious that the perception of good and evil is always a matter of perspective, and that there would be no greater perspective than that of the omnipotent.

    We consider things to be good because of their perceived value to our existence. We don’t have the capacity to know how a god would value such things, but we speculate nonetheless.

    We might conclude that all of God’s actions regardless of our perception are integral to the function of the universe as a whole and therefore inherently good.

    If one considers God to be part of the same determinant process that governs our existence, then one could appreciate the roles of God and man in the execution of that process.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,547
    This thread is not actually about atheism or theism. It is not concerned with the existence of God. I assumed at the start that God exists. Let us assume that Jan's God exists. Or any other believer's God.

    My question is: can we tell from what we see in the world, whether God is good or evil? Or is the world equally consistent God being evil it is with God being good?

    It is amazing how much ducking and weaving Jan, in particular, is prepared to do to avoid answering the question.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,547
    Capracus:

    Suppose an earthquake kills 10,000 people. God, being omnipotent, could have prevented that, but chose not to.

    Would you call God's actions good? You suggest that all of God's actions regardless of our perception are inherently good. By that definition, all the death from the earthquake must be good. But I think that you'd be hard pressed to find any human being who would describe the human tragedy of that earthquake "good".

    It therefore seems that in order to say that God is good in such an instance, it is necessary to redefine what is meant by "good", and that seems a desperate attempt to justify the "goodness" of God.

    On the other hand, the earthquake might be good evidence for the evil of God. God could have saved all the people, but he didn't - he let them all die, thus causing pain and suffering and death. And what of the people who managed to escape the earthquake - the survivors? This would seem to speak against the evil of God. But by your argument, we could redefine "evil" to include those who God allowed to survive. Maybe evil God decided to spare the lives of those people, knowing that by doing so they would be alive to go on to commit further evil acts of their own, so that sparing them was, in the end, evil after all.

    As with the argument about redefining God's apparently-evil actions as good, this argument seems a stretch in establishing the evil of God (by redefining apparently-good actions as evil).
     
  15. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,229
    It's not about God, despite using the word ''God''.

    It is a portion or division of a whole that is separate or distinct.

    I mean you can presume what you like.
    This thread for example.

    Thanks for the info.

    That's your problem. You're just making stuff up, and inserting the word God.

    Your question makes no sense.
    You're right though, this thread is just another atheist wet dream.

    You can't.
    Can you?

    This thread is nonsensical to me.

    Nonsensical statement.

    How can God be evil?

    ''If some lamposts wore specially fitted lingerie (designed by orbiting teapots), would aeroplanes want to have sex with them"

    I've never complained.
    Part of the fun is reading atheists notion of God.

    No it's not.
    You believe there is no substance to theism, because you believe God doesn't exist. Therefore you can say anything you like about God.

    I don't require anything. You can presume what you like.

    Yes.
    Then I began to learn more about what God is.

    I think I'll bow out of the wet dream now.
    I'm don't want to be a third wheel.

    I don't mind.
    Let's discuss God's nature. That would be a good start.

    I don't know what this means.

    jan.
     
  16. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,229
    What is the point of that?

    LOL!!!

    I'm not derailing the thread Baldeee. I'm exposing the intent, and shallowness of the proposal.
    Don't worry, this thread is a joke. I will try my best to stay out of it. It is just too tempting when I read the nonsense that is being put forward. I will try my best to stay away.

    jan.
     
  17. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,322
    Of you keeping your understanding of God out of the experiment and limiting it to the premise as set up in the OP?
    That should be obvious, Jan.
    It's called a thought experiment.
    If X then...
    One does not discuss what follows by saying that X is not Y and therefore is meaningless.
    If that is the way you wish to go, Jan, the exit is clearly marked.
    Your responses to date suggest otherwise.
    You are certainly trying to expose your view of the thought experiment, and in doing so not actually partake but derail.
    Try harder.
    Or engage in the thought experiment itself.
    One does not engage in it by trying to tear it down as meaningless.
    That you think it is, great, we understand that, thanks.
    Anything else?
     
  18. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Yes, and I am saying that 'system', even if we have no choice is inherently evil. I dont think that is revolutionary or a leap to realize. Its a conundrum between a rock and a hard place that others be sacrificed or vice versa; an existential, moral and physical dilemma when you realize that we are in many ways forced to turn on eachother. In essence, it is cruelty.

    I remember this documentary of this very poorly run animal shelter in a third world country where the dogs ended up turning on eachother to eat: cannibalism. Essentially, metaphorically and physically is what we do or in some cases have to do.

    We are talking about a hypothetical conceptual design, not what we have to do or the fact of the matter.

    Would a good god design such or an evil one?
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,428
    Yes.
    Good and evil apply to humans. And God (if he were to exist) can declare Good and Evil for humans.
    But, it seems to me that, by the very definition of God, good or evil do not apply.
    Now, we humans can complain that we do or don't like what he's doing - but God doesn't answer to anyone. He defines what is good and evil.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,428
    Attempting to reduce something to a joke is a logical fallacy - the poo-poo fallacy.
    "...dismissing an argument as being unworthy of serious consideration"

    This speaks to your unwillingness to have a mind open enough to discuss things born of logical deliberation, even if you don't agree with the conclusions.
    It is not a valid counter-argument.
     
  21. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    991
    Suppose God had stopped an asteroid from hitting the planet 65 million years ago, thus avoiding the mass extinction that allowed mammals to thrive and evolve into human beings, would the suspension of that tragedy have been good for us? Cosmologically speaking, destruction and creation go hand in hand, and we exist today because that process has favored our existence over that of our traditional competitors. If and when the evolutionary process produces a superior species that relegates us to the scrap heap, should we not appreciate the potential improvements born of God’s handy work?
    Of course we’re talking about hypothetical concepts. Take omnipotence for example, is it exempt from its own inherent qualities, such as what you know determines how you act? Are an omnipotent being’s actions determined by its conditional existence? It could be that God has no choice but act as he does, and neither does the entirety of his creation. So is God evil for doing what he must?
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    11,155
    Of course a perfectly evil god could never exist .

    Since this god would wipe out all life in the Universe .

    Hence would consequently end this gods existence .
     
  23. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    Really, just because of power? That does not make sense. Thats like saying whatever i do, i can justify as good or evil no matter what just because i can. No, it doesnt work that way. You are forgetting actual effects of those actions. I can pretend or declare the sun is purple, doesnt make it so just as any damage i do is still damage, even if i justify it or use the excuse no one can do shit about it. Same applies to a creator.

    Lmao. Its like saying a crazy person is not responsible. You know dictators use the same logic about absolute power. Just because those under them may have no power to stop it, doesnt automatically transform the reality of either good or evil actions or to be dishonest to call white is black or vice versa.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2016

Share This Page