Perfectly evil God

[Baldeee]

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.

Eh?
She might think she is telling the truth, but if it actually wasn't the defendant then she was mistaken, irrespective of how honest her mistake might be.
Only subjective things are immune from such possibility of mistake, because only the subject can know for sure what their own subjective position is.
If I say a picture is beautiful and someone says I am mistaken, for example, then in this instance your position would be okay: one could not say I am mistaken because it is what I think, and what I think is the only determining factor as to whether I think the thing beautiful or not.
So I fundamentally disagree with you use of language in this instance; when perceptions do not match actuality then the person is mistaken.
It's as simple as that.

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.

Irrespective of whether the defendent can prove they weren't in the vicinity, the mistake occurs when one compares perception to actuality, not when one compares perception to a provable position.
If one can't prove the actual position then one can not say whether the person was mistaken or not, but this is irrespective of what the person might think or might have seen.

And all you're doing here is arguing yourself into a deeper hole in this matter.

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.

If the actuality does not match their perception then, by definition, their perception is wrong, irrespective of anything else.
So as soon as you imply that their perception does not match actuality then you are saying that they are mistaken.

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.

They would already have been mistaken if their original perception did not match the actuality.
What you are talking about is simply a justification for holding a mistaken perception: I.e. Incomplete perspective.
In such cases it is a matter of them being mistaken, but understandably so due to their lack of the bigger picture.
But they are still mistaken if their perception does not match actuality.

They're unrelated. In this example a thought is the product of thinking, where's a perception is based on how much you know.

Dig that hole, Jan!
Your grasp of the English language is... lacking.
A thought is a product of thinking in the same way that a perception is the product of perceiving.
How much you know is, if anything, merely a subset of what you have perceived.
A reception is the product of receiving.
A conception is the product of conceiving.
See how the English language works?

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.

And you can not come into knowledge without perceiving.
See above.

Up until then I wouldn't be mistaken if what you did is regarded as evil.

If The actuality is that God is not evil then to perceive of him as such based on only part of the picture is to be mistaken, but justifiably so.

Fundamentally one is mistaken if what you claim / perceive does not match actuality.
Everything else is simply justification for your claim / perception.
But you would still be mistaken.

If a young child doesn't know anything about numbers or adding up, they are still mistaken if they think 2+2=5.
The not knowing about adding up or numbers is merely justification as to their mistaken thought.

Anyhow - enough of correcting your use of language.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So I fundamentally disagree with you use of language in this instance; when perceptions do not match actuality then the person is mistaken.
It's as simple as that.

If perception does not match the actuality, yes the person is mistaken .
That's what I said.

If one can't prove the actual position then one can not say whether the person was mistaken or not, but this is irrespective of what the person might think or might have seen.

This is the point. If the person is being honest, then no mistake has been made, because the person did perceive it like that. It is only a mistake to the person who knows that actuality. For example, the defendant knows whether she is mistaken or not.

If the actuality does not match their perception then, by definition, their perception is wrong, irrespective of anything else.

You keep reiterating what I said...

If it transpires that the defendant can prove she wasn't in the vicinity at the time, then the witness is mistaken.

They would already have been mistaken if their original perception did not match the actuality.

Yes they would have, but they wouldn't have the knowledge to realise that there perception was mistaken. So providing they are being honest, their perception is not mistaken.

What you are talking about is simply a justification for holding a mistaken perception: I.e. Incomplete perspective.
In such cases it is a matter of them being mistaken, but understandably so due to their lack of the bigger picture.

How could the witness know she was making a mistake, if she saw the defendant break into the building? She couldn't know, especially if she is honest.
If the witness maintains that the defendant was the burglar, despite knowing that it couldn't have been her, that's a different matter.

A thought is a product of thinking in the same way that a perception is the product of perceiving.
How much you know is, if anything, merely a subset of what you have perceived.

I said... Because one is a perception based on how one perceives a situation.
It is not simply having a perception, but what the situation is, compared with what you know about that situation. A child isn't mistaken in thinking the moon is a white smooth disc, situated a few hundred yards in the sky, because he is only describing what he percieves, until he is aware of what the moon is.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

If perception does not match the actuality, yes the person is mistaken .
That's what I said.

No, you said that it is only a mistake if the person is aware of being mistaken.
This is fundamentally different.

This is the point. If the person is being honest, then no mistake has been made, because the person did perceive it like that. It is only a mistake to the person who knows that actuality. For example, the defendant knows whether she is mistaken or not.

If it doesn't match actuality then it is a mistake, irrespective of whether the person themself knows it is a mistake or not.
It may well be an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

You keep reiterating what I said...

No I don't.
You are mistaken.
Spot the difference:
1. If it does not match actuality then it is a mistake.
2. If you are aware that it does not match actuality then it is a mistake.
What you are saying is 2.
I am saying 1.

Yes they would have, but they wouldn't have the knowledge to realise that there perception was mistaken. So providing they are being honest, their perception is not mistaken.

Yes it is.
Honesty does not negate there being a mistake.

How could the witness know she was making a mistake, if she saw the defendant break into the building? She couldn't know, especially if she is honest.

Irrelevant.
The mistake was made in perceiving something that wasn't the case.
The witness may only realise at a later point in time that her perception was a mistake but it was a mistake as soon as it did not match actuality.

If the witness maintains that the defendant was the burglar, despite knowing that it couldn't have been her, that's a different matter.

Yes, that is called delusion.

I said... Because one is a perception based on how one perceives a situation.
It is not simply having a perception, but what the situation is, compared with what you know about that situation. A child isn't mistaken in thinking the moon is a white smooth disc, situated a few hundred yards in the sky, because he is only describing what he percieves, until he is aware of what the moon is.

And thus you are mistaken in your understanding.
It may be an honest mistake, but a mistake on your part nonetheless.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, you said that it is only a mistake if the person is aware of being mistaken.
This is fundamentally different.

No, I said. And quoted in my last post...

If it transpires that the defendant can prove she wasn't in the vicinity at the time, then the witness is mistaken.

This is regardless of what the witness thinks.

If it doesn't match actuality then it is a mistake, irrespective of whether the person themself knows it is a mistake or not.
It may well be an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

Which is what I demonstrated above. Can I take it we disagree on this point?

Yes it is.
Honesty does not negate there being a mistake.

I'm not saying it does. What I'm saying is if the witness honestly perceived the defendant doing the burglary, her perception isn't mistaken.

Let's say the defendants identical twin sister did the burglary, the situation doesn't change. She saw what she saw, and she expresses what she saw.

I agree that honesty doesn't negate a mistake, but we first have to realise that there has been a mistake, otherwise evidence, and honesty, is the best we have.

The mistake was made in perceiving something that wasn't the case.

Only because you know that now.

The witness may only realise at a later point in time that her perception was a mistake but it was a mistake as soon as it did not match actuality.

Obviously it was, but it wouldn't be so obvious if you didn't know the actuality.
The defendant who is the only human who knows the actuality still has to prove what is already true.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

No, I said. And quoted in my last post...

If it transpires that the defendant can prove she wasn't in the vicinity at the time, then the witness is mistaken.

This is regardless of what the witness thinks.

I am referring to your earlier part of the post:
"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."
This is a fundamentally flawed understanding of what it means to be mistaken.

I'm not saying it does. What I'm saying is if the witness honestly perceived the defendant doing the burglary, her perception isn't mistaken.

You claim that you're not saying that honesty negates there being a mistake, but then you say that if the witness honestly perceived the defendent then the perception is not mistaken...
How is this different to you saying that honesty negates there being a mistake?

Let's say the defendants identical twin sister did the burglary, the situation doesn't change. She saw what she saw, and she expresses what she saw.

She was still mistaken, irrespective of how honestly she interpreted what she saw.

I agree that honesty doesn't negate a mistake...

Then for Pete's sake stop saying otherwise.

...but we first have to realise that there has been a mistake, otherwise evidence, and honesty, is the best we have.

And if you know different (or at least think you do) - going back to your original statement - then you know there has been a mistake.
Yet you originally said that, despite knowing that it is a mistake (because you know the perception to not match actuality), you would not claim it a mistake because the person might believe what they think to be the case.
So evidence and honesty have naff all to do with it, because the mistake was made in the perception not matching actuality.

Only because you know that now.

That is simply a matter of recognising the mistake, not in there being one or not to recognise.

Obviously it was, but it wouldn't be so obvious if you didn't know the actuality.

We're not talking about what is obvious or not but what simply is or is not.

The defendant who is the only human who knows the actuality still has to prove what is already true.

Only for others to recognise the mistake for what it is.
But if, again going back to your original statement, you know there is a mistake made by a person, you said you wouldn't say it was a mistake because the person might actually think their perception to be the case.

Care to obfuscate the matter further or do you yet acknowledge the nonsense of what you wrote?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I am referring to your earlier part of the post:
"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."
This is a fundamentally flawed understanding of what it means to be mistaken.

She is testifying to what she saw. That would be the question put to her. ''What did you see on the night in question''? If she is honest, and says exactly what she saw, she isn't mistaken.
You really should pay more attention.

She was still mistaken, irrespective of how honestly she interpreted what she saw.

She is only mistaken about what she saw, when the truth is revealed and it is not what she said it was.

Yet you originally said that, despite knowing that it is a mistake (because you know the perception to not match actuality), you would not claim it a mistake because the person might believe what they think to be the case.

I don't even comprehend let alone know what this means.
Can you just quote me?

So evidence and honesty have naff all to do with it, because the mistake was made in the perception not matching actuality.

???

jan.

 

[Seattle]

I responded to your question.
Did you see it?

Jan

Can you define "see" and maybe "it" while we're at it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Can you define "see" and maybe "it" while we're at it?

Don't worry about it Seatle.

That's quite funny (for you).
Nice one!

jan.

 

[Seattle]

Don't worry about it Seatle.

That's quite funny (for you).
Nice one!

jan.

When one is without God humor fills the void.

 

[Jan Ardena]

When one is without God humor fills the void.

Hooray! I've got 20 likes.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

She is testifying to what she saw. That would be the question put to her. ''What did you see on the night in question''? If she is honest, and says exactly what she saw, she isn't mistaken.
You really should pay more attention.

I will repeat again, for though you agree you subsequently prove otherwise: honesty does not make a mistake into a non-mistake.
If what she thinks she saw was not actually what she saw, regardless of how honest her recollection, then she was mistaken.

She is only mistaken about what she saw, when the truth is revealed and it is not what she said it was.

No, the mistake exists irrespective of any revelation.
She may not be aware it was a mistake, but it was still a mistake.
She may honestly think she saw what she claimed she saw, but it was still a mistake.
Actions may be conducted while honestly thinking it not a mistake, but it is still a mistake.

I don't even comprehend let alone know what this means.
Can you just quote me?

You stated: "If you think God is evil, I wouldn't accuse you of being mistaken, because you may actuallty think that is the case."
Yet you claim to know that this is a mistake - i.e. that this is a perception that does not match actuality - so to you the mistake has been revealed.
Thus you know it is a mistake.
Yet you still wouldn't tell the other person that it was a mistake?

???

Which part are you struggling with, Jan?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I will repeat again, for though you agree you subsequently prove otherwise: honesty does not make a mistake into a non-mistake.
If what she thinks she saw was not actually what she saw, regardless of how honest her recollection, then she was mistaken.

So we both agree? Good.

No, the mistake exists irrespective of any revelation.
She may not be aware it was a mistake, but it was still a mistake.

Yes I know. But what saw wasn't a mistake. What she saw doesn't change, even after the revelation. The mistake isn't based on what she saw, it is based on the on the truth of the situation.

You stated: "If you think God is evil, I wouldn't accuse you of being mistaken, because you may actuallty think that is the case."
Yet you claim to know that this is a mistake - i.e. that this is a perception that does not match actuality - so to you the mistake has been revealed.
Thus you know it is a mistake.
Yet you still wouldn't tell the other person that it was a mistake?

I've claimed no such thing. If you're going to keep misrepresting what I say, what is the point of this discussion?

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

So we both agree? Good.

If we agree on this, why do you keep asserting something different with almost every other comment you make on the matter?
For example, your very next sentence...

Yes I know. But what saw wasn't a mistake. What she saw doesn't change, even after the revelation. The mistake isn't based on what she saw, it is based on the on the truth of the situation.

And so one response after saying "so we both agree" you are asserting a different position.
Why are you so inconsistent, Jan?
Do you not see a difference between "what someone actually sees" and "what someone thinks they see"?

I've claimed no such thing. If you're going to keep misrepresting what I say, what is the point of this discussion?

So you are stating that you have not claimed, either directly or through clear logical deduction, that you know it to be a mistake that God is evil?
Hmmm.
Where to start.
Post #124: "I'm insisting that God isn't what we regard as people.
It is people that are capable of good and evil."
Logical implication: God is not evil.

Post #103: "So evil is a perception, not an invention.
How is it that we can sense evil? Because we have a sense of goodness. And it is the distortion of goodness that evil can be recognised.
How can there a distortion in God, and He be God."
Logical implication: God is not evil.

Post #52: "How can God be evil?"
Logical implication of question in context: God is not evil.

Post #43: "God is God.
If we discuss an entity as evil, or good, that entity isn't God."
Logical implication: God is not evil.

Post #21: "I don't think you comprehend the concept of God.
How can God, be immoral, or wicked?"
... and ...
"We as humans are said to be immoral, and wicked, because there is a standard theists regard as God.
Evil is performed by those of us who do not conform, or choose not to conform to this standard."
Logical implication in both of these: God is not evil.

Now I'm sure you will try to claim that you have not actually said that you have claimed God is not evil, but the logical implication of what you have said is clear for all to see.

You do know what a logical deduction is, I assume?
Or do you only expect people to go with the face value of what you write, without extracting any direct logical inferences?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Do you not see a difference between "what someone actually sees" and "what someone thinks they see"?

She actually saw what she saw.
It transpired, due to the revelation of the truth, that she was mistaken. Otherwise nobody would know she was mistaken That's all I'm saying.

So you are stating that you have not claimed, either directly or through clear logical deduction, that you know it to be a mistake that God is evil?
Hmmm.

Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond.

Post #43: "God is God.
If we discuss an entity as evil, or good, that entity isn't God."
Logical implication: God is not evil.

I'll start with this one.
Why did your logical implication stop at "God is not evil" instead of "God is neither evil or good"?

Post #124: "I'm insisting that God isn't what we regard as people.
It is people that are capable of good and evil."
Logical implication: God is not evil.

Again why is your logical summation so narrow.

Post #52: "How can God be evil?"
Logical implication of question in context: God is not evil.

This a question. If only people are evil, and God isn't people, how can God be classified as evil? That's just basic logic.
Something cannot be what it is not.

Post #21: "I don't think you comprehend the concept of God.
How can God, be immoral, or wicked?"
... and ...
"We as humans are said to be immoral, and wicked, because there is a standard theists regard as God.
Evil is performed by those of us who do not conform, or choose not to conform to this standard."
Logical implication in both of these: God is not evil.

God isn't what we are. So to classify God as good or evil, is to judge God as a human.

But to say God is evil isn't a mistake because you may read something in a scripture, and judge it from a human perspective.

Just like the witness judged a situation based on what she saw, not seeing the big picture.

Once we are aware of the bigger picture we realise it is only our limited perception that causes us to do so.

Now I'm sure you will try to claim that you have not actually said that you have claimed God is not evil, but the logical implication of what you have said is clear for all to see.

Let me ask you. Do you think (the characterization of) God is evil?

If you do. Why?

Or do you only expect people to go with the face value of what you write, without extracting any direct logical inferences?

I expect people to sometimes not see the bigger picture.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

She actually saw what she saw.
It transpired, due to the revelation of the truth, that she was mistaken. Otherwise nobody would know she was mistaken That's all I'm saying.

Yet that is not what you said previously.
But thanks for the eventual clarification.

I'll start with this one.
Why did your logical implication stop at "God is not evil" instead of "God is neither evil or good"?

Because I am focussing on whether or not you claimed that God is not evil.
If God is neither evil nor good then, by that definition, God is not evil.
So the implication didn't need to stop, but continuing to "God is neither evil or good" would have added nothing to showing that you claimed that God is not evil.

Again why is your logical summation so narrow.

For the same reason that extending it to include the matter of being good or not is extraneous to whether you claimed God to be not evil.

This a question. If only people are evil, and God isn't people, how can God be classified as evil? That's just basic logic.
Something cannot be what it is not.

Exactly - so you are claiming that God is not evil.
See, it's not rocket science.
Are you still adhering to your statement that you have not claimed God to be not evil

God isn't what we are. So to classify God as good or evil, is to judge God as a human.

I concur - so you are claiming that God is not evil.
See, it's not rocket science.
Are you still adhering to your statement that you have not claimed God to be not evil

But to say God is evil isn't a mistake because you may read something in a scripture, and judge it from a human perspective.

Yet you have claimed that God is not evil - and presumably you think you know this is the truth.
Therefore for someone else to claim otherwise is, from your perspective, to see them make a mistake as to the nature of God - understandable though their mistake may be.

Just like the witness judged a situation based on what she saw, not seeing the big picture.

And she was mistaken - not just when the mistake was discovered but when her perception failed to match actuality.
The discovery of the mistake at a later point does not negate it being a mistake at the time.

Once we are aware of the bigger picture we realise it is only our limited perception that causes us to do so.

And while we may realise our mistake at that time, it doesn't negate the mistake being there from the outset.
Or are you of the opinion that things don't actually exist unless discovered?

Let me ask you. Do you think (the characterization of) God is evil?
If you do. Why?

Personally, no.

I expect people to sometimes not see the bigger picture.

A non sequitur to what I wrote.

Do you generally see the bigger picture (i.e. logical implications) of what you write?
If yes, why is it so often that you don't appear to?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because I am focussing on whether or not you claimed that God is not evil.
If God is neither evil nor good then, by that definition, God is not evil.
So the implication didn't need to stop, but continuing to "God is neither evil or good" would have added nothing to showing that you claimed that God is not evil.

James issued this...

Challenge #1: Can anybody produce a convincing argument that the God I have described does not exist?

''God isn't evil'', alone, isn't a convincing argument.
His depiction of God cannot exist, as God is outside the realm of being defined as either good or evil.
As good and evil are terms used by human beings alone, to define other humans, you use the term to define God, because God is not human.

Challenge #2: If you're religious, you might have been brought up to believe that God is perfectly Good rather than perfectly Evil. My claim is that this is a mistake. Can you show that I am wrong and you are right?

Both are right from your own perspective of what is good and evil, and how it pertains to their relationship with God.

Exactly - so you are claiming that God is not evil.
See, it's not rocket science.
Are you still adhering to your statement that you have not claimed God to be not evil

In the same way that I claim a door is not a fluffy pink lampshade.
To simply claim that God s not evil, is to imply that God could be evil, but I don't think he is. That claim would be no better than James's.

And she was mistaken - not just when the mistake was discovered but when her perception failed to match actuality.
The discovery of the mistake at a later point does not negate it being a mistake at the time.

That can only be understood by knowing the truth. Her statement may have caused an innocent man to be punished were it not for the truth revelation. It is the same with classifying God in the same category as humans. It isn't a mistake, it is a perception based on emotion, and a lack on scriptural knowledge of God's nature and character. It is similar to the little child describes the moon exactly as he sees it. When asked what is the moon.

And while we may realise our mistake at that time, it doesn't negate the mistake being there from the outset.
Or are you of the opinion that things don't actually exist unless discovered?

I keep explaining it to you, and you keep coming with the same points.
What's the matter with you?
Stop trying to catch me out, or something, and let's move on.

Are you angry with me?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

A non sequitur to what I wrote.

Do you generally see the bigger picture (i.e. logical implications) of what you write?
If yes, why is it so often that you don't appear to?

Yes.

Give me some instances of not seeing the bigger picture.



jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

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...

God is merciful?

Does that mean that God is good? Mercy is a good quality, isn't it?

How can God be merciful if, as you claim, God is not good?

Or is it that God is in equal parts merciful and vindictive, perhaps?

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.

I've spent a lot of this thread asking you what you know about God's nature, but you won't tell me.

It's a simple enough question: is God good, or evil, or both, or neither? And how can we know that whatever answer you wish to give to this question is the right one?

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.

Anything I write here will almost inevitably reflect my worldview to a lesser or greater extent. But you could say the same about anything that anybody posts here, yourself included.

Anyway, in my responses to you I have brought up some valid points, and questions to which you have yet to reply.

Which on-topic questions would you like me to answer?

 

[Jan Ardena]

od is merciful?

Does that mean that God is good? Mercy is a good quality, isn't it?

How can God be merciful if, as you claim, God is not good?

I've told you God is Standard.
I'm going to throw you a bone here. God is Goodness.

I've spent a lot of this thread asking you what you know about God's nature, but you won't tell me.

Remind me again why me telling you about God's nature is beneficial to the thread?

It's a simple enough question: is God good, or evil, or both, or neither? And how can we know that whatever answer you wish to give to this question is the right one?

He is not a human being, or Darwinian evolution.

Which on-topic questions would you like me to answer?

Oh so only you get to decide what is to be considered on or off-topic.

jan.

 

[James R]

I've told you God is Standard.

That doesn't actually mean anything to me.

I'm going to throw you a bone here. God is Goodness.

Is God Evilness, too?

Remind me again why me telling you about God's nature is beneficial to the thread?

Because that's what the thread topic is about. Remember?

He is not a human being, or Darwinian evolution.

Fine. So is God good, or evil, or both, or neither?

Or is it that you think that the concepts of good and evil have nothing to do with God?