God does define good and evil.
But more sophisticated knowledgable people know , what really is going on .
Perfectly evil God
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
God does define good and evil.
But more sophisticated knowledgable people know , what really is going on .
Knowledge of Good and Evil; tree of knowledge, has another practical problem. There are objective laws of good and evil; from God. But there are also subjective laws of good and evil, usually created by humans.
Let me give an example, where these two clash. One law of God says, you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. In politics, bearing false witness is considered good strategy, if it causes your opponent to lose votes. This is defined as good and not evil. If this case, if human decided to impose this law of good and evil onto God, they may logically conclude God is fallible, since he doesn't know how to run a campaign. The laws of PC language taboos, is subjective law. If God behaves like an old fashion man who is not sufficiently feminized, he is considered a sinner, based on PC laws of good and evil. Liberals believe in relative morality which are subjective laws.
This was the problem at the time of Jesus. There were a smaller number of God's objective laws; for the group, with humans making more laws, at an accelerating rate, usually to give themselves advantages. Since laws begin at the top, such people would say this new law was infallible; like from God, so they could use this for an advantage.
Jesus pushed backed and said there were only two laws from God, love your neighbor and love God. On these two, the rest of the commandments are based. He gave a litmus test, which did not sit well with all the schemas and gamers of the legal system.
Let me give an example, where these two clash. One law of God says, you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. In politics, bearing false witness is considered good strategy, if it causes your opponent to lose votes. This is defined as good and not evil. If this case, if human decided to impose this law of good and evil onto God, they may logically conclude God is fallible, since he doesn't know how to run a campaign. The laws of PC language taboos, is subjective law. If God behaves like an old fashion man who is not sufficiently feminized, he is considered a sinner, based on PC laws of good and evil. Liberals believe in relative morality which are subjective laws.
This was the problem at the time of Jesus. There were a smaller number of God's objective laws; for the group, with humans making more laws, at an accelerating rate, usually to give themselves advantages. Since laws begin at the top, such people would say this new law was infallible; like from God, so they could use this for an advantage.
Jesus pushed backed and said there were only two laws from God, love your neighbor and love God. On these two, the rest of the commandments are based. He gave a litmus test, which did not sit well with all the schemas and gamers of the legal system.
Last edited:
There are??? What are they, please? And how do you know that they are objective?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. Because (were he to exist) he created us and the entire universe we live in. We would not exist at all without that.
So, we were created for whatever purpose he saw fit.
This is one of the issues with the God concept in general. God is not merely quantitatively - or even infinitely - superior; it is qualitatively a different thing. He made all that there is, his actions are not bound by judgment.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I disagree. Bearing false witness - otherwise known as lying - is not defined as good.
At best, anyone would label it a "necessary evil".
This thread reminds me of the religious concept of suicide as being a sin and what i always found to be a sinister reason behind it. The idea that one be threatened to opt out of the 'game' or because they are suffering so much. How can you have victims if they have a way out, however drastic that is? It's like those situations where a slave, rape victim or whatever chooses suicide rather than continually existing as a victim at the hands of another etc. Just as equally, one could say those who judge suicide victims are the ones who are just as selfish because no one takes their life unless they feel it is unbearable or even unethical to exist. Unethical could mean simply being used for such purposes, thereby being an unwilling party to it's continuation etc.
The logic being its okay to be killed or oppressed because its god's plan or design but its not okay to choose. Yeah, easy for a god where there are no consequences to itself and i say a big 'go fuck yourself' to that bs. When you love or care, no way would you want them to suffer.
The logic being its okay to be killed or oppressed because its god's plan or design but its not okay to choose. Yeah, easy for a god where there are no consequences to itself and i say a big 'go fuck yourself' to that bs. When you love or care, no way would you want them to suffer.
Last edited:
So? Stockholm syndrome. My, my. So hypothetically if all this was intentional, we should be thankful god created us for his whims even though we never asked for that in the first place as well as be thankful or not judge any cruelty or evil because he allows some good at times or survive, though even that is iffy. Wow. Uh ok.
Again, because of absolute power. In other words, there is nothing we can do but work with it as best we can.
But it can be judged, it just cant be inherently changed. Thats the difference.
We manipulate or try to for our survival all the time. How do you know it's god's will? Why do we care about the welfare of even how we raise and slaughter animals? Nature doesnt. Its because we understand we are all in this together with the consequences and so the compassion, not god. We are trying to develop technology to deflect large asteroids getting past our atmosphere which could make us extinct. How do you know it just isnt our time to go according to nature or god's will? How do you know if god's plan may have had little to do with us? That we can realize our own destiny or carry the 'torch' if you will where he did not have any care or plan for us beyond a certain point?
Who cares about god and what he wants or wishes? Where is he/she/it? It sure doesnt seem to care about us. God may also be insane or an idiot as far as god's go. Maybe there are other gods. How do you know this one is right, better or less or in what ways?
Last edited:
The way I see it all God/s are just an illusion and are just the manifestation of the laws of physics at work and how the universe, or the multiverse for that matter, works.
Anyone who studied string theory and fundamental physics knows that Gods are not really necessary to explain anything.
In the past people thought that certain phenomena were caused by God/s but today we know that these phenomena are completely explained by physics and the laws of physics at work.
The way I see it religion is a natural phenomena, nothing more and nothing less and a mass delusion too.
Religion was always used by leaders as a powerful tool to keep the people in line and do what the leaders wanted them to do. So religion is nothing more than a tool for control and the sooner people realize that religion isn't real and is just a tool for controlling the masses, the better the world will be I believe.
Last edited:
Think of it this way. Animals have evolved their current optimizations, based on using their sensory systems to interact with the changing environment, via internal instinctive programming. Since God is not considered real and tangible by science, God cannot come into the brain/mind, via the sensory systems of the animal. It needs to be based on internal inductions within the brain. If the god does not exists, where did the concept come from? You can't prove the existence of God, because you can't see God with the eyes or tools. However, many people believe in God, because they internally sense something, via faith. Faith is the belief in things not seen. It is not about the sensory based reality of an animal. God is about an internal reality.
God is not connected to physical reality, except via unconscious projection. God is connected to an advance feature of the brain and consciousness, which is able to create a reality of its own, apart from the external physical reality connected to the senses. Some people can see global warming and other don't see this, even with the same data, because internal reality is different.
Science does not have a good consensus theory for consciousness. This is beyond its scope. It projects God as an external physical affect it can't see, therefore it concludes it does not exist. This is not the proper way to define the problem.
As an analogy, we can build modern computers and robots that can interact with the environment. They can be programmed to do a certain task; clean the floor, while learning by collecting data and comparing this to internal program, leading to output. This is very similar to the animals and instincts.
Humans have a wildcard similar to the concept of AI, where the computer internally extrapolates its factory programming, to beyond the expected output, so the output does not have to logically extrapolate from data and the programming. This is quite new to evolution, with the bible suggesting this appears less than 10,000 years ago. Our prehuman ancestors, before 10,000 years or so, were closer to the programming of animals. This is why change was very slow. You get fire and some stone tools, but this takes 50,000 years. The floor sweeper robot can do this that slow. When the AI layer of the brain appears, things change really fast; civilization, because of internal AI superseding animal external sensory.
God is connected to the AI aspects of the human brain, whatever that may be. We have no clue about the physics of the AI, so I leave this open. For example, if we plan a future vacation, we sort of step out of time and project ourselves into the future. Our bodies remain in the here and now, but the AI aspect of consciousness goes to Maui deciding between scuba diving or surfing. At some level, consciousness of time and space is altered, internally, by the AI operating system. Whether this is based on physics is not exactly clear. Quantum affects can sort of extrapolate to this; Proton tunneling is very common in water.
Water, one of the most common substances on Earth, has served up yet another scientific surprise. In its liquid state, water molecules cling to one another through so-called hydrogen bonding, constantly making and breaking bonds as they jumble about. And within the smallest possible 3D droplet of water, which consists of just six molecules, those molecules can rearrange themselves not just one at a time, but in sets of two, as shown in the video above. Two molecules can simultaneously break their hydrogen bonds with their neighbors and rotate off one another like gears. The reconfiguration takes place through a subtle effect called quantum tunneling, in which the droplet does not have enough energy to wriggle from one configuration to the other, but simply pops from one to the other as if burrowing through an energy barrier, a team of chemists reports today in Science.
One theory is the human brain reached an energy level, about 10,000 years ago, where aqueous quantum tunneling becomes part of the brain internal feedback, causing changes to organic wiring with very subtle changes of aqueous proton energy; Chi.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
(No need to get sarcastic; it doesn't help your case.)
We've not talking about being grateful here. This doesn't ultimately come back to whether we like it or not.
What I'm trying to get at is: when one is talking about the actual creation of all that there is, how does a comparative label such as good versus evil even apply? There is nothing to compare it to - let alone a larger context within which to apply any standards.
Then explain how we can step back, observe and judge, disagree or conceptually think of alternatives? Just like with government. Its like saying we have to have another government to compare to in order to realize this one is crappy or got issues. We may not be able to change forces at work but we can see it for what it is.
All the examples you give are where comparatives exist of that which you are trying to judge.
DaveC's point is that with God there is no such comparative. There is no ability to step outside, to take a different perspective, other than perhaps following logic. But logic, when applied to subjective matters such as good and evil, doesn't fare too well and gets "fuzzy".
For example, if you and everyone else had lived their lives in the same vast closed empty room, save for sufficient resources with which to survive, how can you know what is outside the room to be able to compare? One has subjective views based on how things are within the room, but how relevant are they to what lies outside?
DaveC's point is that with God there is no such comparative. There is no ability to step outside, to take a different perspective, other than perhaps following logic. But logic, when applied to subjective matters such as good and evil, doesn't fare too well and gets "fuzzy".
For example, if you and everyone else had lived their lives in the same vast closed empty room, save for sufficient resources with which to survive, how can you know what is outside the room to be able to compare? One has subjective views based on how things are within the room, but how relevant are they to what lies outside?
The original number of laws of good and evil were small because they were objective. The problem was, humans increased the number of laws of good and evil, due to making laws based on subjectivity. If you look at the ten commandments, there is way to test these laws, against manmade laws, to show the ten commandments have a basis in objectivity.
The ten commandments were designed with the group in mind. They were not designed with the individual in mind. This approach was used, since it needs the least amount of resources to benefit all. This is closest to how nature works; integrated and resource efficient.
One analogy for this contrast is say we are going to have party. What will be more efficient, a few dishes that will be cooked for everyone or everyone having a tailored dish? The fewer choices of the group allows economies of scale; less human and material resource for good quality for all.
As a working example, consider the commandment, thou shall not steal. If we allowed everyone to steal, people in the group will stop trusting strangers and friends, they will need to expend time and resources protecting and defending property. While many hard working people will decide it is pointless to work all summer, if others can steal your harvest in one day. The result will be that stealing will compound costs, inefficiency, and division. If stealing is not allowed, and everyone goes along, people remain open to strangers, there is no need to buy locks or be greedy, and it still pays to work hard. This is good for the group in all ways. However, if stealing is not allowed, a few thieves may not be optimized.
Say we make a law that requires all public facilities and private businesses build cross gender bathrooms. This may satisfy the needs of a tiny minority of people, but the cost is huge to the group. This is man made and subjective law based on resource allocation and bad feelings. If we use the ten commandments, we might use love your neighbor. Love is a two way street. It would means the majority has to be patient of their neighbors in the minority. It also means the minority has to realize deep feelings are not just for the cross gender. The solution is would be don't ask, and don't tell; little extra expense is needed. All we need to do is compare the resource outlay and how well the group is integrated. Objective law does the best, while subjective is wasteful.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Er. In one interpretation of events, yes.
??? Please can you tell me what you consider these original objective laws of good and evil to be?
1I mean that God's ultimate aim for human beings is to maximise their suffering and pain. First you have to establish what kind of suffering and due to what causes the pain, According to the bible God wands to save the world ( men ) man rejects God . So you tell me why men suffers.
In your challenge one you are jumping to the atheistic conclusion to the nonexistence of God.
# 2 : As to me God is good, I have caused my own injury , due to my greediness , covetousness I have caused my own hard times. I can not blame God for my problem, Spiritually he uplifts me . So what do you think would be my answer.
I am not asking about what it says in the bible. I am asking what, if anything, we can know about the nature of God by looking at the world in which we live, the human experience etc. But regarding the bible, if we assume that the bible was written or inspired by God, an evil God would have little compunction about telling lies to give people hope, only to dash them by real-life occurrences.
Assuming God is evil, the problem is not why people suffer - that is what an evil God would want - but why people don't suffer all the time, and why sometimes people are happy.
No. I have clearly stated, several times now, that I am assuming for the purposes of this thread that God exists.
If God is evil, then maybe God caused your injury, and you have been responsible for the good times. Spiritually, God is there to put you down, but you have free will so you don't always have to do what God wants.
Lol! This is classic.
You don't have an idea of what God existing, is. As far you're concerned God does not exist.
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'm beginning to see why logical thinking rubs you the wrong way.
Do you think people cannot hold, and discuss, a stance unless they believe it to be true?
Next you'll be telling James R he can't discuss plot of The Avengers movie unless he thinks it's real.