I think he knows that.That's not any kind of logical reasoning. Obviously a God can't be even a little bad if it doesn't exist. The worst evil God is one that both exists and is responsible for evil, but that doesn't mean it does exist.
I think he knows that.That's not any kind of logical reasoning. Obviously a God can't be even a little bad if it doesn't exist. The worst evil God is one that both exists and is responsible for evil, but that doesn't mean it does exist.
I disagree.Define God is the most evil being that can possibly be conceived. We can imagine an evil God that only exists in man's understanding. But obviously an evil God that exists in both our understanding and in reality would be worse than an evil God that only exists in our understanding. So the most evil being that can be conceived must exist in both our understanding and reality.
Yes. What do you think?
I think he'd agree with me!
Clearly we don't currently live eternally, so if God is good then, for whatever reason, he has decided that he prefers us being mortal. Some theists would say that God has an eternity in store for us after death - you know, heaven and what not.
So, I assume that if God is evil, he'll operate the same way. We don't need to be immortal to suffer. God can make us all suffer for an eternity in Hell after we die.
No. What you hear from atheists is that God (probably) doesn't exist.
So you agree that a world created and run by a good God would look no different to one created an run by an evil one? Are you saying that the world we live in is consistent with one created and presided over by an evil God?
You don't need to tell me that. It's a constant theme of yours.
Lots of ways. He can cause people to come to harm and/or die unnecessarily. He can allow
None
Yes. And "Good", too, as I'm sure you'll agree.
Why don't people hate happiness? If we are part and parcel of evil God, we would accept whatever the standard of God is. Or would we? What happened to that free will thing?
So you think that being good amounts to simply following God's rules and preferences, then?
No. Atheists lack a belief in God. But that is a tired debate that can be had elsewhere. This thread assumes that God exists.
My question is: is this current world we live in more consistent with God being good, or with God being evil? Is there some way we can discern God's nature from looking at this world in which we live? Or not?
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.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?
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?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?
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.'' ...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
I am trying to learn whether the moral nature of God is discernable. Do you think it is, or not?How is this constructive? Isn't it better to learn about God, and then ask pertinent questions?
Save it for a different thread.I take it if we were to discuss this, it would go no further than this point. Ring any bells?
Ok. What I'm getting from you is that God is what he is, both good and evil, depending on human perception of him.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.
No. God could make people immortal if that was his will.People die anyway. That's not only natural, but inevitable.
Death? Well, death has its definite minuses, but there are probably some benefits too, though on the whole not for the individuals who die.You also regard it as natural, and neither good nor evil. Don't you?
Take it to another thread. That's off topic for this one.Out of interest, what do think God is, outside of philosophical discourse, first cause, creator, etc...
I don't see how my personal experiences are relevant to the thread topic.Have you ever experienced anything that is purely evil?
My experience of evil, is always in relation to its counterpart, good.
What have I said that is negative about God?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, I don't know that. Hence this thread.No. Good is the basic standard.
You mean you don't know that?
As far as I can see, we agree on this point.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?
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?I've already said God is the standard.
But to maintain that standard isn't something you simply do, It is a development.
So, which is it: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.
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.Jan Ardena said:James R said:My question is: is this current world we live in more consistent with God being good, or with God being evil?
Neither.
James:
It was the only aspect of your presentation that could be used to effectively address the question you posed. Stating God to be omnipotent, he essentially becomes the basis for any standard of good and evil. In this case there is no standard outside of God. So the best answer is: if it pleases God, it must be good.
So you would say that all the things we consider good are good because God thinks they are good, and similarly for evil.It was the only aspect of your presentation that could be used to effectively address the question you posed. Stating God to be omnipotent, he essentially becomes the basis for any standard of good and evil. In this case there is no standard outside of God. So the best answer is: if it pleases God, it must be good.
The god of your model appears to value and take pleasure in orchestrating human suffering, which would make that activity good in eyes of said god. Shouldn’t God pleasuring himself be considered the ultimate example of good, and the antithesis of evil? Humanity should be honored to be instrumental in God’s pleasure; therefore I see no evil in the god you portray.
Why do you think this one has no substance?A thought experiment must have substance, otherwise a satisfactory outcome can not be possible.
Yes it does: the premise has been set and subsequent arguments must stem from that.To ask ''what if God were the sum total of all the birds in the world'', without understanding what God, and God's purpose is supposed to be, the question has no substance.
The thought experiment clearly sets out what God is, what God's intention is, within the remit of this discussion.James, and yourself, may believe that there is no substance in the concept of God, and proceed from that standpoint. But if you're going to present a thought experiment about God, and aim it at theists, have something of substance regarding God, that theists can recognise.
It may, it may not.If I am to go with your line of questioning, it will eventually lead to the topic of existence, because you have nothing else to go on.
For those wishing to explore differences, it is necessary.You can't comprehend theism, and can only respond to it by trying to prove it, or find evidence for it. Your whole line of questioning always leads to that, and it becomes tedious, especially when it isn't necessary.
No, it's not enough when people are trying to understand why people believe.You insist on asking how people know that God is the standard. Why?
Isn't it enough that people believe in God.
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.Why should I have to justify my belief to you?
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.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.
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.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?
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.
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.Baldeee said:For those wishing to explore differences, it is necessary.Jan Ardena said:You can't comprehend theism, and can only respond to it by trying to prove it, or find evidence for it. Your whole line of questioning always leads to that, and it becomes tedious, especially when it isn't necessary.
If you don't think it is then you do not understand the enquiry of atheists.
How it is nonsensical? Please explain. I think you'd just rather not think about it, so you're looking for an easy way to avoid facing the problem.
What does it mean to be "part and parcel" of God? Is that different from being free beings who have an independent will? Are you saying we're all puppets of God? Or that we all are the same as God (your vague pantheism again)?
We wouldn't have to guess at what you think if you'd only be kind enough to tell us.
If you're not interested in discussing the thread topic, you don't have to, Jan. Nobody has you tied to your chair, forcing you to answer questions.
Sorry, but I'm not going off on that tangent again here. You can assume that "God" in this thread means the Ultimate Creator of the Universe, First Cause, blah blah blah, whatever it is you want him to be.
My question is a simple one: can we know whether this God is good or evil? If your answer is that God is all things, then your answer is that God is both good and evil, and you're probably done for this thread. It is interesting, though, that so many religious people claim that God is good, don't you think?
Similarly, you would regard "good" as actions devoid of evil. Or without evilness. I can't see that how helps us decide whether God is good or evil.
So the idea of a God who is good is nonsensical to you?
You may be getting the wrong end of the stick. Let us assume that your God, right now, right here in this world, exists in exactly the way you believe he does.
My question is simple: can we know whether your God, right here and now, is good or evil? Is there some way we can tell the difference?
We don't need to accept your particular conception of God to hear your answer to that, though if you want to draw on your conception of God to answer that's quite acceptable, of course.
You complain that we don't understand God's purpose etc. Wouldn't a good start to gaining that understanding be working out whether has a good purpose or an evil one? If you believe that question is unanswerable, that's fine, as I said.
My beliefs on that are irrelevant to the topic of the thread.
What would you require before you can address the question of whether God is good or evil?
Have you never thought about that question yourself?
If you prefer not to face the question that has been raised, you are free to bow out of the discussion. You chose to insert yourself into it. Was there some reason for that, or did you just post to whine about atheists?
Do you not consider it important to know God's nature? Aren't you at all curious?
Wouldn't it be a waste to pray to an evil God?
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.
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.
Of you keeping your understanding of God out of the experiment and limiting it to the premise as set up in the OP?What is the point of that?
Your responses to date suggest otherwise.I'm not derailing the thread Baldeee.
You are certainly trying to expose your view of the thought experiment, and in doing so not actually partake but derail.I'm exposing the intent, and shallowness of the proposal.
Try harder.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.
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.
Yes.James:
It was the only aspect of your presentation that could be used to effectively address the question you posed. Stating God to be omnipotent, he essentially becomes the basis for any standard of good and evil. In this case there is no standard outside of God. So the best answer is: if it pleases God, it must be good.
Attempting to reduce something to a joke is a logical fallacy - the poo-poo fallacy.Don't worry, this thread is a joke.
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?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).
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?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?
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.