Perfectly evil God

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Surely the first question is ''What is God'', and having got the answer you progress on to ''Is there a God and if so what is God's nature.

Not necessarily. We can start at the other end, by looking at the world. We see good and evil in the world and we ask whether there is something/someone "bigger" who is in control of that good and evil. If there is, then we can ask, without knowing anything else, whether that being is itself good or evil, or at least whether it has a preference one way or the other.

The problem of evil can be understood without having to change the characteristics of God. For example, karma, deals perfectly with that question.

And karma would equally deal with the "problem of good", I suppose.

The problem is, atheists cannot get passed the existence of God, because ther perseption cannot comprehend what God is.

This thread is not about atheists.

By postulating that God may be evil, or, what if God was evil, is to not understand what God is.

And equally, you would say, to postulate that God is good is not to understand what God is. I get it.

You don't seem interested in 'what is God', you only seem interested in creating a concoction, then throwing it into the arena.

In this thread, I am interested in whether God is good or evil.
Your answer, in summary, is that God is both, or neither. But you can't even narrow it down to one of those two options.

And yet somehow you claim to have an answer to "what is God".

No I wouldn't say that. We can think about God what we like. That is our perogative. As such we see God from different perspectives, or not see (or believe in), as the case may be. People think God is great, good, evil, incompetant, love, tyrannical, non-personal, non-characteric, non-existent, and lots of other things.
But these are individual perceptions. As I believe we are created in the image of God, we have a lot of room in which we are able to express these notions. So I wouldn't say they are wrong. If you think God is evil, I wouldn't accuse you of being mistaken, because you may actuallty think that is the case.

This is all beside the point. I understand that different people think different things about God. My question is asking what God is like, not what people think about God.

You have also said, in the past (probably in this thread also) that you are prepared to use the scriptural definition of God.

You refer to "scripture" as if all the different religious writings were the same and did not describe vastly different gods, and that everybody agreed on a single interpretation of all these diverse "scriptures". The fact is, there is no universally agreed definition of God, scriptural or otherwise.

I've explained that your question, in fact the whole thread, is unrelated to God, and it would only make sense if you didn't know God's characteristics.

Does God have good characteristics or evil characteristics? Or are good and evil not part of God's characteristics?

If the average Christian, for example, believes that "God is Good", then from your responses it is clear that you think the average Christian is mistaken about this.

No it's not clear, you're just saying that for effect. You are putting a spin on what I say, for whatever reason.

Ok. According to what you wrote above, it is the Christian prerogative to think about God what they like. They tell us they think God is great, good, love, personal, etc. But, according to you, these are individual perceptions, and you wouldn't say they are wrong, because they may actually think that is the case.

Nevertheless, even though you say you the Christians aren't wrong in saying God is good, you think they are mistaking their own perception for what God actually is. In that sense, they are as wrong as the atheists. They have failed to ask the more basic question of "what is God", and have therefore come up with a mere perception of God rather than the more accurate reality that you, Jan, are tuned into.

On the other hand, if some other group says that God is evil, then, as in the case of the Christians, you wouldn't say that group of people is wrong, because they may actually think that is the case. But, just like the atheists and the Christians, these people would also have failed to ask the correct question about God, and are instead relying on a false perception.

People are either good, evil, or both, but God isn't people.

So, to summarise your position:

God is neither good nor evil, and theists who believe that God is good, for example, are "not wrong, because they may actually think that is the case."

Or, God is both good and evil, and theists who believe that God is primarily good, for example, are "not wrong, because they may actually think that is the case".

Or, we can redefine "God" so that it has nothing to do with good or evil, and theists who believe that God has moral attributes are "not wrong, because they may actually think that is the case".

In other words, God can be anything anybody likes. Nobody is wrong, because they may actually think that is the case.

Have I got it right?

 

[Baldeee]

If you think God is evil, I wouldn't accuse you of being mistaken, because you may actuallty think that is the case.

If you think 2+2=5, I wouldn't accuse you of being mistaken, because you may actually think that is the case.
If you think cats are part of the canine family, I wouldn't accuse you of being mistaken, because you may actually think that is the case.

I must remember this notion.

 

[Capracus]

People are either good, evil, or both, but God isn't people.

Isn’t God free to act in any manner he wishes? If you insist that God’s hands are tied by some perceived theological contract, then God must sacrifice his inherent quality of omnipotence, thus disqualifying him as the god of your prescription. You can’t have it both ways and remain logically consistent.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Isn’t God free to act in any manner he wishes? If you insist that God’s hands are tied by some perceived theological contract, then God must sacrifice his inherent quality of omnipotence, thus disqualifying him as the god of your prescription. You can’t have it both ways and remain logically consistent.

I'm insisting that God isn't what we regard as people.

It is people that are capable of good and evil.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you think 2+2=5, I wouldn't accuse you of being mistaken, because you may actually think that is the case.
If you think cats are part of the canine family, I wouldn't accuse you of being mistaken, because you may actually think that is the case.

I must remember this notion.

You are assuming that I apply that to everything.

2+2=5 is mistaken because it equals four.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Not necessarily. We can start at the other end, by looking at the world. We see good and evil in the world and we ask whether there is something/someone "bigger" who is in control of that good and evil.

Why think something is good or evil, moral or immoral? Wouldn't it simply be a case of we approve or disapprove, of particular acts. So the something/someone bigger would just be a projection of what you approve or disapprove of. Which kind of your position from what can observe, and probably why you think anything outside of that is unlikely, or have to be proven.

Jan.

 

[Seattle]

That's a novel concept. Let's take the morality out of religion.

 

[Jan Ardena]

@Seatle

If you decided not to would you be wrong?

Jan.

 

[James R]

Why think something is good or evil, moral or immoral? Wouldn't it simply be a case of we approve or disapprove, of particular acts. So the something/someone bigger would just be a projection of what you approve or disapprove of.

That idea has an official name that I can't recall right now, but informally it is sometimes called the "Yay! Boo!" theory of morality. The idea is that when somebody says something like "Murder is evil" or "Murder is wrong" they are really not talking about any moral rule or even about any fact in the world. Rather, they are merely expressing a personal preference, akin to "Boo to murder!" or "I don't like murder!", which has no more weight than a statement like "Yay for ice cream!" or "I don't like spinach!"

This might be your view of morality, or maybe not. Either way, I can tell you that it is not the view that is generally taken by mainstream religion. Mainstream religion usually adopts what is known as a deontological approach to morality. That view says that morality is built up of rules that say things like "Thou shalt not murder". To follow the rules is to do good, and to break them is to do evil. Moreover, religion usually identifies the authority who makes the rules as God.

Adopting the deontological perspective, we could, in principle, discern whether God is good or evil by looking at the moral rules that God has set down - possibly by looking at "scriptures", for example.

But here you are suggesting that we shouldn't do that, because morality actually has nothing to do with God's rules. Instead it comes down to "whatever people think is the case". That is, you are arguing that morality is just personal preference.

If this is truly your position, it is no wonder that you believe that to ask about God's morality is a mistake. For you, morality is completely independent of God.

Suffice it to say, this is not a view that many theists share with you.

So, to summarise once again, your position is that people can think what they like about God, but they are "wrong" in the most basic sense of ascribing moral attributes to God, because for you morality is only something that human beings do as a kind of personal preference, akin to liking or disliking ice cream.

Which [is] kind of your position from what can observe, and probably why you think anything outside of that is unlikely, or have to be proven.

The "yay boo" position on morality is not my position. Nor is the idea of a purely deontological ethics. I think that both of these ideas are interesting, however, and lead us down interesting avenues of thought about what morality is.

I don't intend to discuss my own view of morality here, as that would take us too far off topic.

It is enlightening to know that you put yourself so far from your fellow theists, though, Jan. Your religious beliefs are an interesting mish-mash of lots of different ideas, not always well articulated.

 

[Seattle]

@Seatle

If you decided not to would you be wrong?

Jan.

If I decided not to what?

 

[Jan Ardena]

If I decided not to what?

Take the morality out of religion.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

But here you are suggesting that we shouldn't do that, because morality actually has nothing to do with God's rules. Instead it comes down to "whatever people think is the case". That is, you are arguing that morality is just personal preference.

I suggested nothing of the sort.

If this is truly your position, it is no wonder that you believe that to ask about God's morality is a mistake. For you, morality is completely independent of God.

I believe no such thing.

Suffice it to say, this is not a view that many theists share with you.

So, to summarise once again, your position is that people can think what they like about God, but they are "wrong" in the most basic sense of ascribing moral attributes to God, because for you morality is only something that human beings do as a kind of personal preference, akin to liking or disliking ice cream.

I don't intend to discuss my own view of morality here, as that would take us too far off topic.

Maybe you should discuss the points I make, with me. Because so far your remarks are unrelated to my points. Makes me wonder if you are in discussion with someone else.

It is enlightening to know that you put yourself so far from your fellow theists, though, Jan. Your religious beliefs are an interesting mish-mash of lots of different ideas, not always well articulated.

I've never discussed my religious beliefs with you.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

You are assuming that I apply that to everything.

I make no such assumption: I am merely inferring from what you have said.
The point is, though, which I'm sure is not lost on you, that if something is wrong (wrong as in non-factual rather than in any moral sense) then personal views of it make no difference to it being wrong.
So that someone might think that X is the case, irrespective of what that X is, does not change the right/wrong status of X.

Furthermore, by saying that you wouldn't accuse them of being wrong, while also implying that they are indeed wrong, you're not actually refraining from accusing them of being wrong.

2+2=5 is mistaken because it equals four.

But if someone thinks it to be 5 then how is this different to them thinking that God is evil?
Why would you refrain from directly accusing them of being wrong in one case yet not the other?
Is God evil?
Either God is evil or not.
Either 2+2=5 or it does not.
And these are surely irrespective of what people might actually think, right?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Furthermore, by saying that you wouldn't accuse them of being wrong, while also implying that they are indeed wrong, you're not actually refraining from accusing them of being wrong.

I haven't implied they are wrong.

But if someone thinks it to be 5 then how is this different to them thinking that God is evil?
Why would you refrain from directly accusing them of being wrong in one case yet not the other?
Is God evil?
Either God is evil or not.
Either 2+2=5 or it does not.
And these are surely irrespective of what people might actually think, right?

Because one is a perception based on how one perceives a situation.
I might think you're evil based on my perception of good and evil. But you may not be evil.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

I haven't implied they are wrong.

Yes, you have.
If you can't fathom how your comment is such an implication then that's a pity, but it is there nonetheless.
Of course, I shouldn't accuse you of being mistaken because you might actually think that is the case.

Because one is a perception based on how one perceives a situation.
I might think you're evil based on my perception of good and evil. But you may not be evil.

One is a perception based on how one perceives a situation?
Wow.
Next you'll be saying that a thought is based on how one thinks about something.
Or a reception is based on how one receives something.

And of course, you think perceptions cannot be mistaken?

 

[James R]

I believe no such thing.

I've never discussed my religious beliefs with you.

Maybe that's why we never make any progress on what you actually think about God. You're afraid to tell anybody.

Anyway, it's clear that you have no intention of addressing the question of this thread.

 

[Seattle]

Maybe that's why we never make any progress on what you actually think about God. You're afraid to tell anybody.

Anyway, it's clear that you have no intention of addressing the question of this thread.

Of course not. That wouldn't really be Jan would it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes, you have.
If you can't fathom how your comment is such an implication then that's a pity, but it is there nonetheless.
Of course, I shouldn't accuse you of being mistaken because you might actually think that is the case.

If in court, a witness testifies that she saw the defendant break into the building at night, providing she is being honest, she isn't mistaken, because that is what she saw. If it transpires that the defendant can prove she wasn't in the vicinity at the time, then, the witness is mistaken. IOW some situations are much more complex than 2+2=?, when it comes understanding the truth of it.

Just because a person may have a perception of God, that says God is evil, or good, doesn't mean their perception is mistaken. It means they don't have a bigger picture.
However once they do get a bigger, and they decide to ignore it, and carry on with what is now a false perception, then they are mistaken.

One is a perception based on how one perceives a situation?
Wow.

Yes. See above.

Next you'll be saying that a thought is based on how one thinks about something.

They're unrelated. In this example a thought is the product of thinking, where's a perception is based on how much you know. I could believe you are evil because of something you said. In the big picture you may not be evil, and the perception can be corrected once I come into the knowledge of that big picture. Up until then I wouldn't be mistaken if what you did is regarded as evil.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Maybe that's why we never make any progress on what you actually think about God. You're afraid to tell anybody.

I've defined God countless times.
God is the greatest.
God is the origin of everything.
God is Supreme among all beings.
God is One without a second.
God is the totality.
God IS.
God is merciful...

...these are just the tip of the iceberg of thoughts that I have expressed about God just in this year alone.

Anyway, it's clear that you have no intention of addressing the question of this thread.

That's a cop out James.
You are accusing me of not knowing what I know, and all you have is complete and utter speculation dressed up as a philosophical mind experiment, which is easily defeated.

It seems that you are using these mind experiments to express your worldview, and feelings regarding Theos and theism, much like a religious person uses and quotes scriptures for the same purpose.

Anyway, in my responses to you I have brought up some valid points, and questions to which you have yet to reply. It would be a shame if didn't respond as that would go a long way in proving my perception correct. Where's the fun in that?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Of course not. That wouldn't really be Jan would it?

I responded to your question.
Did you see it?

Jan