Is God evil or Good

[spidergoat]

The argument isn't that death makes God evil. I understand that death is necessary and makes life possible. What I cannot understand is preventable unnecessary suffering like natural disaster. You cannot argue that the Christmas tsunami was necessary in order to give room for more life. You cannot argue that parasites specific to humans are necessary for our survival. You cannot argue that down's syndrome or MS are good for life.

 

[Light Travelling]

You cannot argue that the Christmas tsunami was necessary in order to give room for more life.

I would never argue that a specific event was necessary, but I would say that disasters, diseases, accidents etc do control the population to some extent; as they do in the animal kingdom. When they happen we consider them bad things (I know I do),but we must realise that objectively they are neither bad nor good and it is only our thought process and perception that label them as such.

You cannot argue that parasites specific to humans are necessary for our survival. You cannot argue that down's syndrome or MS are good for life.

Again I would not specifically argue these but I would say there is a natural order to the universe and there seems to be little that can be observed in nature that does not happen for a reason. Maybe there are reasons for things that at present seem unreasonable, maybe they help society or evolution in ways we do not yet comprehend?

 

[spidergoat]

I would never argue that a specific event was necessary, but I would say that disasters, diseases, accidents etc do control the population to some extent; as they do in the animal kingdom. When they happen we consider them bad things (I know I do),but we must realise that objectively they are neither bad nor good and it is only our thought process and perception that label them as such.

But we aren't talking about things objectively, we are talking about them in the context of a loving God that created the Earth for human beings.

Again I would not specifically argue these but I would say there is a natural order to the universe and there seems to be little that can be observed in nature that does not happen for a reason. Maybe there are reasons for things that at present seem unreasonable, maybe they help society or evolution in ways we do not yet comprehend?

Yes, the reasons are understandable from a non-theistic perspective, natural disasters happen for geological reasons. Genetic deformities happen because the genes pool was never created perfectly. Parasites occur because the human body is just another environment to them.

"God works in mysterious ways" just avoids the question. By that standard, the existence of God cannot be distinguished from the absense of God, and it becomes a useless hypothesis.

 

[Light Travelling]

But we aren't talking about things objectively, we are talking about them in the context of a loving God that created the Earth for human beings.

The argument is usually that it is akin to taking a child to the dentist or to have a vaccination. The child feels pain and does not understand why he is suffering, but the parent knows it is for the greater good in the long run. God is like the parent and mankind is the child not knowing why it is suffering.

"God works in mysterious ways" just avoids the question. By that standard, the existence of God cannot be distinguished from the absence of God, and it becomes a useless hypothesis.

Well, we come down to definitions of God here. To what extent is God removed from or entwined in the universe. To what extent does God micromanage things or to what extent does he allow a free flowing creation to naturally evolve?

 

[spidergoat]

The argument is usually that it is akin to taking a child to the dentist or to have a vaccination. The child feels pain and does not understand why he is suffering, but the parent knows it is for the greater good in the long run. God is like the parent and mankind is the child not knowing why it is suffering.

We are talking about gratuitious suffering. If God cannot prevent it, he is not omnipotent, if he can and doesn't he is evil or indifferent. It's not like all gratuitious suffering brings positive results, most of the time it's just bad.

Well, we come down to definitions of God here. To what extent is God removed from or entwined in the universe. To what extent does God micromanage things or to what extent does he allow a free flowing creation to naturally evolve?

I'm talking about the concepts of God as portrayed in the Judaic/Christian/Islamic traditions. He is said to micromanage things. Of course, one can always define it so as to avoid logical criticism, but that makes it unscientific.

 

[jpappl]

Is God evil or Good

Neither

 

[Light Travelling]

We are talking about gratuitious suffering. If God cannot prevent it, he is not omnipotent, if he can and doesn't he is evil or indifferent. It's not like all gratuitious suffering brings positive results, most of the time it's just bad. .

What is gratuitous suffering and what is deserved suffering? surely under your definitions all suffering would be gratuitous. A world with no suffering at all would be illogical, how would one know joy without its opposite.

Of course, one can always define it so as to avoid logical criticism, but that makes it unscientific.

When one defines a god that is illogical, he will be held as delusional for defying logic. When one defines a god that can logically exist, that theist is then held to be somehow cheating?

When one clings to outdated dogma they are ridiculed for that . When one updates theological ideas in line with our current world view, he is again somehow cheating?

but that makes it unscientific.

Surely god is unscientific under any definition?

 

[spidergoat]

What is gratuitous suffering and what is deserved suffering?

Surely babies do not deserve suffering. Surely poor people in third world countries do not deserve horrendous parasites that prey only on people. These facts are inconsistent with a loving God.

surely under your definitions all suffering would be gratuitous. A world with no suffering at all would be illogical, how would one know joy without its opposite.

No, I'm not saying all suffering is, but much of it is, for instance victims of tsunamis, volcanos, earthquakes. Surely the residents of Haiti aren't better off for their experiences. Let's face it, such disasters are neutral. The rain falls on both the wicked and the just. Perversely, this fact doesn't dissuade theists at all.

When one defines a god that is illogical, he will be held as delusional for defying logic. When one defines a god that can logically exist, that theist is then held to be somehow cheating?

It's cheating because it's all unfalsifiable. It makes no predictions. It cannot be tested.

When one clings to outdated dogma they are ridiculed for that . When one updates theological ideas in line with our current world view, he is again somehow cheating?

I'm all for undating to fit revealed facts, which is why I'm an atheist.

Surely god is unscientific under any definition?

No, a God that existed before the Big Bang is still possible, but he would have been destroyed in the process of creation.

 

[Light Travelling]

Surely babies do not deserve suffering. Surely poor people in third world countries do not deserve horrendous parasites that prey only on people..

Do you have examples of suffering caused by God (not man) that you consider deserved then?

It's cheating because it's all unfalsifiable. It makes no predictions. It cannot be tested. .

You only allow definitions of God that you can provide arguments against. That is cheating.

No, a God that existed before the Big Bang is still possible, but he would have been destroyed in the process of creation.

He would have been destroyed under your definitions of what god would have been (and Christian definitions, I'll give you).

A god that is not living in part of the universe or living outside of the universe, but IS the universe. That is not to say a god of inanimate matter, but an intelligent conscious universe that is in its entirety an intelligent and conscious god. This is not something I have made up simply to vex you, it is the only god that can exist in the non dualistic Advaita Hindu schools of thought, going back over 3,000 years and well documented.

 

[spidergoat]

Do you have examples of suffering caused by God (not man) that you consider deserved then?

A rapist dying of AIDS.

You only allow definitions of God that you can provide arguments against. That is cheating.

That's called a hypothesis that is falsifiable. If you cannot imagine a scenario that could ever disprove it, then it's useless. It's the same as the Flying Spagetti Monster or the Teapot orbiting Mars.

He would have been destroyed under your definitions of what god would have been (and Christian definitions, I'll give you).

I can already disprove God by the Christian definitions, but we have strayed into alternative definitions.

A god that is not living in part of the universe or living outside of the universe, but IS the universe. That is not to say a god of inanimate matter, but an intelligent conscious universe that is in its entirety an intelligent and conscious god. This is not something I have made up simply to vex you, it is the only god that can exist in the non dualistic Advaita Hindu schools of thought, going back over 3,000 years and well documented.

And it is disproved by Einstein. Communication cannot travel faster than light, so the universe cannot be conscious. We are only conscious of our bodies because the distance between our parts is relatively short. That means bugs can think faster and be more conscious, but that is of course limited by their size and number of connections. If there are no boundries, as eastern philosophies tell us, then parts of the universe (the living parts) are indeed conscious, but therefore not supernatural. The human concepts of God are athropomorphic and can be explained by studying human evolutionary psychology. The universe cannot be understood in this way because living things are but a small portion of it. Complexity evolved with the universe, as it cooled. No complexity was possible in the beginning. It makes more sense for a God to come at the end of a long evolutionary process rather than at the beginning.

 

[Light Travelling]

A rapist dying of AIDS. .

So you would be happy with a vengeful god, but not an unjust one? Did the rapist rape a person with aids, in that case an ironic god?

I can already disprove God by the Christian definitions.

I know you can, so can I.

And it is disproved by Einstein. Communication cannot travel faster than light, so the universe cannot be conscious. We are only conscious of our bodies because the distance between our parts is relatively short. That means bugs can think faster and be more conscious, but that is of course limited by their size and number of connections. If there are no boundries, as eastern philosophies tell us, then parts of the universe (the living parts) are indeed conscious, but therefore not supernatural. The human concepts of God are athropomorphic and can be explained by studying human evolutionary psychology. The universe cannot be understood in this way because living things are but a small portion of it. Complexity evolved with the universe, as it cooled. No complexity was possible in the beginning. It makes more sense for a God to come at the end of a long evolutionary process rather than at the beginning.

Argument based on a false premise. Communication does not have to travel faster than light for a conscious universe.

The probabilities for the universe to form in the way it has and produce consciousness by random occurrence are so great that it becomes too illogical even for science to consider. Although science chooses to ignore this.

 

[spidergoat]

So you would be happy with a vengeful god, but not an unjust one? Did the rapist rape a person with aids, in that case an ironic god?

He is already supposed to be just (and vengeful). Of course I would not be happy with an unjust one, but ironic is fine.

Argument based on a false premise. Communication does not have to travel faster than light for a conscious universe.

Seeing as how consciousness is thought, and thought is predicated on communication, I don't see how you could have a conscious universe without some mechanism for communication, feedback, and a center of consciousness that can generate thought.

The probabilities for the universe to form in the way it has and produce consciousness by random occurrence are so great that it becomes too illogical even for science to consider. Although science chooses to ignore this.

Of course, if it happened by random occurrence, which it didn't. Evolution isn't chance.

 

[Light Travelling]

Seeing as how consciousness is thought, and thought is predicated on communication, I don't see how you could have a conscious universe without some mechanism for communication, feedback, and a center of consciousness that can generate thought. .

I didn’t say there was no mechanism for communication, just that communication did not have to be faster than light.

There also does not have to be a centre, consciousness does not have to be generated or controlled locally. There has been research into consciousness that point to consciousness being more evenly spread throughout the body than previously thought and not just localised in the brain. Work of David Bohm for example.

Of course, if it happened by random occurrence, which it didn't. Evolution isn't chance.

So the process of evolution is intelligent, even conscious (in a non central way).

 

[spidergoat]

No evolution is an unintelligent process by definition.

Attributing consciousness to the universe at large makes as much sense as calling the universe a giant kidney or spleen. It's an attempt at anthropomorphism, which seems to appeal to us. Far more of the universe is dead or empty than animate.

 

[(Q)]

we're all cogs in the murder machine Q. god has given me a glimpse of that and of a better way, and it wasn't over tea, it was over blood.

Ah, justifying the madness. How many more children will suffer and die horribly while you and your god sip blood? Is it the blood of those who died, Lori. Is the taste sweet? Are you proud of the murdering?

No Lori, I'm not a cog in your insanity.

 

[Lori_7]

Ah, justifying the madness. How many more children will suffer and die horribly while you and your god sip blood? Is it the blood of those who died, Lori. Is the taste sweet? Are you proud of the murdering?

No Lori, I'm not a cog in your insanity.

Q, there's something wrong with all of us and you're in denial.

 

[Alan McDougall]

Q, there's something wrong with all of us and you're in denial.

The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine”
James Jeans quote

 

[spidergoat]

You're a machine.

 

[Alan McDougall]

You're a machine.

Run by the mysterious thing we call our soul

 

[spidergoat]

Nope, soul is just a metaphor for the machine in operating condition.