A.I. proves God exists...

[James R]

The general justification for that belief comes from the Universe? Something must have created it?

I think the general justification that deists tend to give is that they have a gut feeling that there's something "more" to the universe than what we can discover with science and such. And yes, they tend to assume that a god must have created it.

Should our knowledge of physics not kill that god off the same way it killed Yhwh of (literal) Genesis?

Well, it did for me, personally, by removing the idea that a god is necessary for the universe to exist. There were other things than killed that god off for me as well. Lack of good evidence for it was really the biggest one.

Certainly, for me, deism was part of my own off-ramp from Christianity to atheism. I think that's probably true of quite a lot of atheists.

 

[James R]

Yes, insisting on a wrong idea of what religion is for certainly makes it easier to use science to attack it.

My own impression is that religion functions in many different ways in individual people's lives and in the societies we all live in.

You obviously have some fixed ideas about what religion is "for" and what it's not "for".

I try to be as objective about it as I can and just look at what people actually use it for, and what different people say it is "for". I'm not in any way discounting your point of view. Your view is shared by a lot of people. But there's no broad agreement on what is in and what is out, when it comes to the question of what religion is "for", as far as I can tell.

But it is attacking an Aunt Sally. This is exactly the Dawkins Blunder.

Perhaps I should mention that my own views are not in lock step with Dawkins' views or with all of his pronouncements about religion. Obviously, though, he's an atheist and I'm an atheist, so I think you wouldn't be surprised to discover that he and I share more views in common on the topic than I share with believers in gods.

That's not to say I entirely endorse his particular approach to trying to persuade people to come around to his point of view on the topic. Not all aspects of it, anyway.

It sounds like you think I've committed - or am committing - the "Dawkins blunder", but I'm still not entirely sure what the blunder is, exactly. I don't believe, for example, that the main source of comfort that people get from religion comes from its explanations of the natural world. The bible, for instance, doesn't include very much about such things. It is more focussed on encouraging a certain code of moral behaviour. And to a far greater extent than even that, it is focussed on encouraging a very specific attitude towards and deference to the Almighty. Basically, the number 1 message of the bible is: worship the right god in the right way, or you'll be sorry later!

 

[exchemist]

My own impression is that religion functions in many different ways in individual people's lives and in the societies we all live in.

You obviously have some fixed ideas about what religion is "for" and what it's not "for".

I try to be as objective about it as I can and just look at what people actually use it for, and what different people say it is "for". I'm not in any way discounting your point of view. Your view is shared by a lot of people. But there's no broad agreement on what is in and what is out, when it comes to the question of what religion is "for", as far as I can tell.

Perhaps I should mention that my own views are not in lock step with Dawkins' views or with all of his pronouncements about religion. Obviously, though, he's an atheist and I'm an atheist, so I think you wouldn't be surprised to discover that he and I share more views in common on the topic than I share with believers in gods.

That's not to say I entirely endorse his particular approach to trying to persuade people to come around to his point of view on the topic. Not all aspects of it, anyway.

It sounds like you think I've committed - or am committing - the "Dawkins blunder", but I'm still not entirely sure what the blunder is, exactly. I don't believe, for example, that the main source of comfort that people get from religion comes from its explanations of the natural world. The bible, for instance, doesn't include very much about such things. It is more focussed on encouraging a certain code of moral behaviour. And to a far greater extent than even that, it is focussed on encouraging a very specific attitude towards and deference to the Almighty. Basically, the number 1 message of the bible is: worship the right god in the right way, or you'll be sorry later!

OK, maybe a reference may help in understanding what I have been trying to get across about the function of religion:

Understanding Religion Through Its Social Functions • Sociology.Institute

Explore religion's role in society: Radcliffe-Brown & Malinowski's functional theories explain rituals, taboos, anxiety, & social cohesion.

sociology.institute

To quote one passage, "Science is based on observation and practical knowledge, used where outcomes are predictable. Magic is used in uncertain situations, to reduce anxiety and provide psychological comfort. Religion, meanwhile, deals with the larger questions of morality, solidarity and existential purpose."

And, a bit further on, "Religion is not just a matter of belief - it is a system of practices that serves to regulate behaviour, manage anxiety and sustain community coherence."

I find it helpful in this context to think about Buddhism as a counterexample to the Abrahamic religions, since if we are speaking about religion as a general concept we should try to avoid bias arising from our familiarity with one or more of those.

Some of what you are now saying seems to align more or less with this.

What I call the "Dawkins Blunder" is to imagine the function of religion is to provide an explanation of the natural world, thereby immediately presenting religion as at odds with natural science - and then to go on to attack it on that basis.

It feels like a hangover from the long-discredited "Conflict Thesis" of Draper and Andrew Dixon White, at the turn of the last century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis . Although this notion is fairly illiterate historically, it still exerts a powerful hold on quite a number of people. The existence of creationist strands of belief in a number of the Abrahamic religions does not help of course, as they really do see their scripture as providing an account of the natural world. But one cannot tar all religion, not even all Abrahamic religion, with that brush.

Maybe Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA is a bit extreme, but he I suggest is far closer to the mark. I would contend that religion and natural science are close to being orthogonal to one another.

 

[Sarkus]

Well, it did for me, personally, by removing the idea that a god is necessary for the universe to exist.

Except physics doesn't do that, does it? Does the universe have a physical explanation? Not as far as we know, and philosophically it is, afaik, simply outside the scope of physics to answer. How do you think it removes the idea that a god is necessary? How does physics, for example, show that there is not a necessity at the root of existence? Answer: it doesn't.

There were other things than killed that god off for me as well. Lack of good evidence for it was really the biggest one.

Okay. That's familiar.

Certainly, for me, deism was part of my own off-ramp from Christianity to atheism. I think that's probably true of quite a lot of atheists.

It wasn't for me. For me the break was realising the question of God/god's existence was a matter outside the scope of science. So it was not so much "lack of good evidence" (although that's where I started) as "there surely can be no evidence". So the deistic varieties went the same way as the Abrahamic God: into the drawer labelled "unknowable". People have tried to explain how adherence to a religion can be its own path to verification, but noone could tell me the difference between that and indoctrination, a cycle of believing to believe, or question-begging, or simply a bad argument. Noone could (or at least has) provide an argument that is ultimately not just a matter of faith. And I don't have that.

 

[TheVat]

There is a difference between metaphysical and supernatural, though, that even logical positivists would accept, even if ultimately both are untestable. Metaphysics are claims that puport to describe reality, whereas the supernatural is a claim that describes an entity, or force, that exists outside of the natural world.
So it's wrong to say that the metaphysical is "something outside of the physical universe" when it is a description about the very nature of that physical universe, albeit one that can not be tested:

Thanks. Yes I admit I was speaking of metaphysics only as it pertains to the physical status of a deity, not its broader defined meaning. I guess I was addressing claims that I often hear, where supernatural and metaphysical are conflated. But yes, one sort of believer could certainly say something like "God is a physical phenomenon entirely of the physicalist view of our universe (akin to some unthinkably advanced alien who can now run all of spacetime) and in no way supernatural." This would be a metaphysical (monist and physicalist) claim, while rejecting any supernatural one.

 

[gmilam]

Yes, insisting on a wrong idea of what religion is for certainly makes it easier to use science to attack it. But it is attacking an Aunt Sally. This is exactly the Dawkins Blunder.

Sounds like the Baptists are making the same blunder. They seem to think the bible explains the natural world. You seem to think they are a minority, but they are the second largest Christian organization in the US.

 

[exchemist]

Sounds like the Baptists are making the same blunder. They seem to think the bible explains the natural world. You seem to think they are a minority, but they are the second largest Christian organization in the US.

We had the numbers earlier on in the thread: 12 million Southern Baptists; 2.7 billion Christians. So those guys are 0.05% of Christianity.

 

[DaveC426913]

The biomes did just fine for the 2.5 billion years or so without any human beings to shepherd them.

1. Times have changed. The reason biomes need to be sheperded now is because of human encroachment and habitat attrition.

2. Biomes didn't do just fine for 2.5by. The default state for nature is extinction. If we abandoned shepherding and let nature take its course, deer would overpopulate, denude the forests, and die of disease and starvation, taking the wolf population with it, ultimately to be replaced by the next shiny species.

Do you mean the deer are morally inferior to humans and so not allowed to judge motives, or that the deer lack the capacity to judge motives?

The latter, of course. Im talking about the capacity to comprehend the abilities and perspective of an entity vastly more sophisticated.

Do you think that human beings are morally inferior to God?

No. See above.

More nuanced: I am pretty sure that morality is a human invention. There was no morality for dinosaurs.

I would say that the ostensible creator of the universe is beyond morality. If I made a sand castle on the beach, it only exists by my hand. It does not escape the confines of being my creation simply by continuing to exist after I have created it.

Do humans lack the capacity to judge God's motives?

It's a good bet. That's why I offer the deer example. We can't see the deepest past or the farthest corners of the universe. How do we know what the plan is?

What if humans are God's progenitors? Perhaps we need to go through a billion years of strife to become god so we can go back to the beginning and create the universe. Now the question becomes: is God all loving because he chose existence over oblivion?

A fanciful idea to be sure, the point is: it is folly to pretend to judge the motives of a vastly superior entity.

No. It speaks to God's capabilities.

No it doesnt. Ostensibly, he created life and allows it to feed upon itself. There's motive for that.

If he is capable and chooses not to use his powers to do good, that speaks to his motives.

So you arrive at the same result.

He could have created a paradise on Earth for all, could he not?

Yes. But he didn't. Because motives.

Are you saying we can't know whether that would have been a good thing or a bad thing (for us and other life on Earth)?

Good and bad to a god are likely unavailable to mere man. We simply cannot arrivec at the same conclusions as an entity who is omnipotent and eternal. Likewise deer can't adequately judge what goes and bad for their population or their biome.

Only for gods, or for regular humans, too? If only for gods, why are they excepted?

Sorry? Can we apply "all-loving" or "loving versus not loving" to humans? We can try, but city will be pretty short lived for the same reason: its a false dichotomy.

To be clear: if the God is supposed to be both all-powerful (or even just immensely powerful) and all-loving, then it seems to me that he/she/it would do no harm. It could do harm (because immensely powerful), but it would choose not to (because all-loving).

I disagree on that constraint. I do not interpret "all loving" to mean "virtual stasis, immortality and zoo-paradise for all individuals".

Imagine if human shepherds had godlike powers/technology. Would we choose to keep deer perfectly fed, perfectly away from all danger, no hormones, no rutting, no competition, no normal lives? Would that be loving for the deer? They wouldn't be deer anymore, they'd be living museum artifacts.

If God gave us free will, would he then ensure we have no reason for it? Essentially a bunch of us running naked in a planetary Eden?

No. All loving does not mean we become living museum artifacts.

I think you are putting too much stock in the literaltily of "all-loving" as believers purport.

If, on the other hand, God is not all-powerful, then it is conceivable that the God could have the best of intentions and yet still fail to prevent some harms.

It is also conceivable that he wants more than a living museum.

And, of course, if the God is not all-loving then that leaves it open to the God to do harm if he/she/it wants to - at least in some circumstances.

Or let his creations run their course.

Yes. All-loving is pretty constraining on a god. But this is how many people describe the Christian god (to name one). Surely you've heard?

You should ask them. I think it is possible that you are making a literal, simplistic, black and white interpretation of what they mean.

As rational analysts, we should not fall prey to the same error that believers too often make about science: a simplistic, black and white interpretation of what is really a nuanced issue.

More objectively, God probably isn't real. So, no all-powerful and no all-loving.

Sure, butvthats a conclusion, not an argument. Were we to raise it as an arguement we would be guilty of inserting our premise into our conclusion.

And that's pretty much what we observe in the world - no obvious actions by all-powerful beings and no obvious evidence that any all-loving thing exists.

Yes.

That torpedos the notion of a god so powerful that it can defy logic. But I doubt that many sensible believers who have thought the matter through will insist that God can defy logic.

Why do you doubt this? Above, you were prepared to accept an equally implausible notion from believers about an "all-loving" God. Now, for someone reason, you've decided to push back on what believers might reasonably think.

The question I actually asked you was:
"Allowing suffering is certainly inconsistent with the notion of a loving omnipotent god. Isn't it?"
You have yet to convince me that there is consistency. Keep trying if you like.

Wellthat's on you. All I can do is present my case.

I harken back to my scenario of humans with fabulous technology to protect a deer population from all discomfort, including itself and its own nature. Would we? I dontvthink we would for the simple reason that they would cease to be deer.

So I strive form a new conundrum, alongside the one about the unliftable rock.

Can an omnipotent and all-loving god logically create a species so protected from all harm while still allowing to any agency at all? Or would such a paradise remove the very thing that makes humans human?

It needs work. The sticjing point is that a literal all-loving notive is seen to be a self-defeating process.

My proposal is that believers are capable of seeing that "all loving" is a nuanced concept, and therefore not incompatible with the world as we see it. IOW, believers very likely accept that all-loving doesn't mean no death and no suffering.

 

[TheVat]

Maybe Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA is a bit extreme, but he I suggest is far closer to the mark. I would contend that religion and natural science are close to being orthogonal to one another.

I've been taking your posts as leaning towards NOMA. I guess it is a bit extreme in the way that all such flat pronouncements are. After all, one can't credibly rule out absolutely some scientific finding of a sentient signature on the universe. Nor, going the other way, rule out some yogi lifting an SUV with benevolent antigravity, improbable as that would seem to be.

For me, the Dawkins blunder might be more a fixation on literalism. I can at least see his point that any belief system than can lead some adherents to blatant nonsense deserves critical scrutiny. Hopefully without tossing the baby out with the bathwater. I.e. the moral search for meaning retained, the search for compassion still on.

 

[gmilam]

We had the numbers earlier on in the thread: 12 million Southern Baptists; 2.7 billion Christians. So those guys are 0.05% of Christianity.

Second largest in the US, and that doesn't count the more radical flavors. May be minor to you - but it's very major here.

 

[exchemist]

Second largest in the US, and that doesn't count the more radical flavors. May be minor to you - but it's very major here.

I suppose in fairness I ought to look up the numbers of other flavours of Baptists around the world. Maybe I’ll do that when I have time. But just over 50% of Christendom is Catholic, which does not teach that evolution conflicts with the faith.

 

[exchemist]

I've been taking your posts as leaning towards NOMA. I guess it is a bit extreme in the way that all such flat pronouncements are. After all, one can't credibly rule out absolutely some scientific finding of a sentient signature on the universe. Nor, going the other way, rule out some yogi lifting an SUV with benevolent antigravity, improbable as that would seem to be.

For me, the Dawkins blunder might be more a fixation on literalism. I can at least see his point that any belief system than can lead some adherents to blatant nonsense deserves critical scrutiny. Hopefully without tossing the baby out with the bathwater. I.e. the moral search for meaning retained, the search for compassion still on.

Yes I am NOMA-adjacent, I suppose.

Dawkins seemed mainly to attack creationism, which is indeed one of the principal consequences of biblical literalism. But literalism seems pretty daft for other reasons too, unrelated to science. Origen could see that, back in 250AD.

 

[Pinball1970]

I suppose in fairness I ought to look up the numbers of other flavours of Baptists around the world. Maybe I’ll do that when I have time. But just over 50% of Christendom is Catholic, which does not teach that evolution conflicts with the faith.

Can I bring you back to the "Adam and Eve" thing in the US? Also "Noah's arc?"
40-60% of Americans with a population of 320 million. That's a lot more than 12million.

 

[Pinball1970]

Perhaps Africa has the monopoly on the thinking man's Christian? Rwanda is very Christian, any polls there?

 

[gmilam]

Can I bring you back to the "Adam and Eve" thing in the US? Also "Noah's arc?"
40-60% of Americans with a population of 320 million. That's a lot more than 12million.

Some of them are even Catholics.

 

[Pinball1970]

We had the numbers earlier on in the thread: 12 million Southern Baptists; 2.7 billion Christians. So those guys are 0.05% of Christianity.

Why don't I ever come across these majority Christians who accept Evolution, BBT, contradictions in the Bible they accept it, historical inaccuracies in the Bible the accept it?
JW in town Manchester, watchtower creationist garbage, ranting megaphone Christians handing out creationist garbage, YouTube science channels bombarded by creationist nonsense posters, DI and AIG garbage,19 years of it for me! Even on here who did we get? Kermos, Trek Lucito and Olga........and you.
I think you deserve some sort of prize as do I, against all the odds I stumble on the Bible literalists again and again.
Once in a blue moon we get a you, despite the odds.

 

[Pinball1970]

Dawkins seemed mainly to attack creationism,

And the morals of the Bible that are taught as truth.

I watched this live. Dawkins does not mention science till it is brought up by a Manchester Humanist.

 

[James R]

exchemist:

OK, maybe a reference may help in understanding what I have been trying to get across about the function of religion:

Understanding Religion Through Its Social Functions • Sociology.Institute

Explore religion's role in society: Radcliffe-Brown & Malinowski's functional theories explain rituals, taboos, anxiety, & social cohesion.

sociology.institute

To quote one passage, "Science is based on observation and practical knowledge, used where outcomes are predictable. Magic is used in uncertain situations, to reduce anxiety and provide psychological comfort. Religion, meanwhile, deals with the larger questions of morality, solidarity and existential purpose."

And, a bit further on, "Religion is not just a matter of belief - it is a system of practices that serves to regulate behaviour, manage anxiety and sustain community coherence."

I'm on board with all of that, but I would point out that the three categories given there are not mutually exclusive. For instance, religion claims to have practical knowledge and predictable outcomes about quite a lot of things. Religion reduces anxiety and provides psychological comfort. Science deals with larger questions of existential purpose and even morality (to some degree). And community coherence is sustained by many different things. Not to mention that conflict between religions tends to disrupt community coherence in the broader sense, by dividing people into sub-communities that often disagree vehemently with one another.

I find it helpful in this context to think about Buddhism as a counterexample to the Abrahamic religions, since if we are speaking about religion as a general concept we should try to avoid bias arising from our familiarity with one or more of those.

Yes. Sure. Most westerners aren't very familiar with Yoruba religion, for instance, despite the fact that it's one of the world largest and most influential indigenous African religions. We should certainly be wary of assuming that Christianity represents some kind of standard against which all other religions should be judged.

What I call the "Dawkins Blunder" is to imagine the function of religion is to provide an explanation of the natural world, thereby immediately presenting religion as at odds with natural science - and then to go on to attack it on that basis.

One hypothesis is that when religious beliefs originated, a large part of what they were "for" was to provide explanations of the natural world, which was a large confusing place filled with mysterious effects and occurrences. As science has advanced, that function of religion - at least in scientifically literate societies - has diminished significantly, because science disproves a lot of the ancient mythological "explanations".

There are still plenty of significant remnants of the old superstitions that religious people cling onto in the face of science, however. They do so because they believe - rightly or wrongly - that if the science is true then their religion must be false, and they don't want to give up the comfort and security of the religious "security blanket" to deal with inconvenient facts. This is why there are still plenty of Creationists (evolution deniers), for instance. And, apparently, a growing number of flat earthers who are loath to give up their cosy biblical firmament to embrace a universe that is 90+ billion light years wide and 13.8 billion years old.

The existence of creationist strands of belief in a number of the Abrahamic religions does not help of course, as they really do see their scripture as providing an account of the natural world. But one cannot tar all religion, not even all Abrahamic religion, with that brush.

Most religions, though, have their own creation myths, and not all of their believers recognise those stories as mythological.

Maybe Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA is a bit extreme, but he I suggest is far closer to the mark. I would contend that religion and natural science are close to being orthogonal to one another.

I've never been much of a fan of SJG's NOMA, mainly because (some) religious people are in the habit of making pronouncements that are directly within the purview of science (i.e. testable, falsifiable, falsified, etc.)

If the religious would agree to keep their noses out of the business of science, I'd be more amenable to keeping scientific noses out of the business of religion. But I can't see that happening any time soon. Besides, from a scientific perspective, studying why religion exists and why so many people believe its claims is fascinating.

Dawkins seemed mainly to attack creationism, which is indeed one of the principal consequences of biblical literalism.

Dawkins is, first and foremost, a trained zoologist. I don't think you'll meet many actual biologists who don't think that creationism is a dishonest and nutty fringe belief system pushed onto people who don't know any better by people who are often in it to make a buck.

More broadly, scientists tend to be against pseudosciences of all types, for reasons I'm sure are obvious to you.

 

[James R]

Except physics doesn't do that, does it?

It more or less does. There are plausible naturalistic explanations of how the universe could have originated.

Does the universe have a physical explanation?

It's a work in progress. It's okay not to know everything right now. Better to admit you don't know than to pretend you do, if you ask me.

Not as far as we know, and philosophically it is, afaik, simply outside the scope of physics to answer.

I doubt that your philosophy is in a position to tell physics what is outside its scope, as far as the origins of the universe are concerned. Perhaps you can explain.

How do you think it removes the idea that a god is necessary?

It provides plausible naturalistic mechanisms that obviate the need for a supernatural creator.

How does physics, for example, show that there is not a necessity at the root of existence?

It doesn't do that - yet.

How does religion show that there is a necessity at the root of existence?

Answer: it doesn't.

Right on!

It wasn't for me. For me the break was realising the question of God/god's existence was a matter outside the scope of science.

I'm not so sure. An unevidenced god doesn't seem like something I should spend any time worrying about. YMMV.

So it was not so much "lack of good evidence" (although that's where I started) as "there surely can be no evidence".

I imagine that there could be evidence that would convince me there is a powerful god (or gods). Not sure what it might be, but the onus is not on me to provide it, is it? I'm open minded on the question.

So the deistic varieties went the same way as the Abrahamic God: into the drawer labelled "unknowable".

The whole point of deism is that the god is "unknowable". The problem with it, from our point of view as lowly human beings, is that the deist god is indistinguishable from no god, as far as I can tell.

People have tried to explain how adherence to a religion can be its own path to verification, but noone could tell me the difference between that and indoctrination, a cycle of believing to believe, or question-begging, or simply a bad argument. Noone could (or at least has) provide an argument that is ultimately not just a matter of faith. And I don't have that.

Same with me.

 

[James R]

DaveC:

I think I've lost the thread of our conversation.

1. Times have changed. The reason biomes need to be sheperded now is because of human encroachment and habitat attrition.

It might be beneficial for us humans to preserve the current biome, but if we were to go extinct I'm sure the biome will go on just fine without our help.

2. Biomes didn't do just fine for 2.5by. The default state for nature is extinction.

Why is extinction bad, objectively?

If we abandoned shepherding and let nature take its course, deer would overpopulate, denude the forests, and die of disease and starvation, taking the wolf population with it, ultimately to be replaced by the next shiny species.

Okay. And so...? (You seem to be trying to argue a point, but I'm not sure what it is.)

More nuanced: I am pretty sure that morality is a human invention. There was no morality for dinosaurs.

I don't think we can know much about any dinosaur morality that might have existed (or not).

I would say that the ostensible creator of the universe is beyond morality.

That kind of ostensible creator is very different from the Abrahamic god, then. That god has a lot to say, reportedly, about what is moral and what isn't.

It's a good bet. That's why I offer the deer example. We can't see the deepest past or the farthest corners of the universe. How do we know what the plan is?

If the plan - whatever is it - includes a lot of arbitrary and useless pain and suffering, then it doesn't strike me as the plan a loving god would implement.

What if humans are God's progenitors? Perhaps we need to go through a billion years of strife to become god so we can go back to the beginning and create the universe. Now the question becomes: is God all loving because he chose existence over oblivion?

I think introducing time travel scenarios and the like is taking us quite far away from whatever point it is that we are disagreeing about. Pardon me if I skip this particular hypothetical for the time being.

A fanciful idea to be sure, the point is: it is folly to pretend to judge the motives of a vastly superior entity.

When you say "superior entity", are you envisaging moral superiority, or just greater capacity to implement its will?

None of the major religions portray gods who consistently demonstrate moral superiority to human beings, as far as I am aware.

Ostensibly, he created life and allows it to feed upon itself. There's motive for that.

What motive would a loving god have for making a world in which pain and suffering occur regularly, extinction happens as a matter of course, and sentient beings are in a constant struggle for life, often in direct competition for resources with other sentient beings?

The best you seem to be able to come up with is "God works in mysterious ways. Who are we to question?"

So you arrive at the same result.

No. This is our point of disagreement, as I understand it. The result I arrive at is that if there's a god that runs this world, it can't be a loving god. The result you arrive at, apparently, is that there could be a loving god that allows death, destruction, suffering, and pain. Holocausts. Wars. Rape. Child abuse. People dying over and over from disease, hunger, disaster, etc., many times through no fault of their own.

Yes. But he didn't. Because motives.

You still want to argue that a god that allows all of the aforementioned evils could be a loving god, at the end of the day?

What motives would justify all the suffering?

Good and bad to a god are likely unavailable to mere man.

That idea, too, is very far removed from what the most popular mainstream religions have to say on the matter. They claim that their gods have told us humans, in no uncertain terms, exactly what is good and what is bad. But a double standard applies when it comes to actions of the gods themselves. They get to behave badly. Do what I say, not what I do.

We simply cannot arrivec at the same conclusions as an entity who is omnipotent and eternal.

Clearly, I can't. You seem to be arguing (and I appreciate that you might be playing devil's advocate) that some ultimate end justifies the morally questionable means that lead (eventually) to it.

Sorry? Can we apply "all-loving" or "loving versus not loving" to humans?

All humans are self-interested, to some extent, so none are "all-loving". But humans have to be self-interested because we all have needs that cannot be satisfied from within. The same cannot be said of a powerful god, let alone an all-powerful one.

BTW, deer have needs they cannot satisfy purely from within, as well. Their capacities, like ours, are limited. Gods' capacities, I am told, are not.