Perfectly evil God

[Jan Ardena]

Is God Evilness, too?

Evilness is the same as evil, and evil is only attributed to humans.
God is not human.

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

No this what the topic is about.

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

and

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?

I have completed both challenges without even breaking a sweat.

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

Those terms cannot apply to a non human.

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

They are applicable from our perspective.
Are you going to keep repeating the same questions like you always do, then claim I'm being evasive?

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

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.

So once again you are claiming that God is not evil, despit previously asserting that you hadn't claimed it.
Consistency, Jan.
Look it up in a dictionary and perhaps try to apply it to your posts, please.

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?

So you now are claiming such perceptions as a mistake despite previously saying that you wouldn't say it was a mistake because they may actually think themselves to be true (or words to that effect).
Here's your word of the day again, Jan: consistency.

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

So is God evil or not?
If you think evil is a term that doesn't apply to God then it would be correct to say that, from your perspective, God is not evil, right?
You may also think that from your perspective God is also not good, but that doesn't alter your view on God being evil or not.
Remember, you have already claimed that God is not evil, and also claimed that you haven't made such a claim.
All I'm looking for now is a teeny bit of consistency, Jan.
Can you do that?

So you think it a mistake if someone says that God is evil?
Remember, you have already stated that you wouldn't say it was a mistake, and also said that it is a mistake, so now I'm just looking for a teeny bit of consistency.
Can you do that, Jan?

In the same way that I claim a door is not a fluffy pink lampshade.

So that's a yes, then.
Thanks for clarifying.

To simply claim that God s not evil, is to imply that God could be evil, but I don't think he is.

There is no such implication.
It makes no statement as to the future possibility of God being evil or not.
It certainly doesn't rule out the capability as being a possibility, but it doesn't imply that it is a possibility.
To Enable such an implication requires a further assumption, that God's nature is changeable etc.

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.

Irrelevant.
Actions taken on the basis of a perception do nothing to alter the fact of whether the perception was a mistake or not.
To think otherwise is simply fallacious: argument from consequence.
And as said, whether or not one is aware of the mistake does nothing to alter the fact that a mistake was made.

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.

If it is wrong then it is a mistake.
For whatever reason one arrives at the incorrect conclusion/perception, if it is not correct then it is a mistake.

It is similar to the little child describes the moon exactly as he sees it. When asked what is the moon.

And if they say it is a ball of cheese they would be mistaken, even if that is what they had read in one of their stories.

I keep explaining it to you, and you keep coming with the same points.

Because your explanations do nothing but highlight your inability to understand your error.
Each time you give a response, as above, you are inconsistent.
You claim you understand the point being made, claim you aren't committing the error, and then repeat the error.
That is why the same points are coming up, Jan, because you are making the same errors.

What's the matter with you?

Nothing, but thanks for your concern.

Stop trying to catch me out, or something, and let's move on.

I'm not trying to catch you out, Jan.
I'm trying to understand your position yet you are not being consistent.
When I seek what should have been a quick clarification from you, or a quick acknowledgement of not wording yourself adequately, what I get back is someone doing everything they can to cover themselves, to argue every point into the ground until it is ignored while circumventing, through inconsistency and obfuscation, the actual point being made.
Is it any wonder that people consider your tactics to be counter to those necessary for honest discussion?

As for "moving on", given that you resort to these tactics each and every time, there is no real "moving on", there is just a different location.

Are you angry with me?

Frustrated.
Not angry.
What is there to be angry about?

 

[Baldeee]

Yes.

Give me some instances of not seeing the bigger picture.

Each and every time, including those highlighted above, where you fail to comprehend the logical implication of what you have said, and deny that you have said it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So once again you are claiming that God is not evil, despit previously asserting that you hadn't claimed it.

In the way that something cannot be what it is not.
Be my guest if you want claim that as a victory.

So you now are claiming such perceptions as a mistake

No. For reasons given.

So is God evil or not?

God isn't human.

Remember, you have already claimed that God is not evil,

I've claimed that as God isn't human, the terms good and evil does not actually apply.

They only apply from the perspective of a human. So to ask the question "is God evil" is a human perspective only. In that sense, and in that sense alone, God can be categorized as good or evil.

It is not a mistake for a person to honestly believe that God is good or evil, anymore than a child expressing what he perceives the moon to be.

Mistake:
an error in action, calculation, opinion, orjudgment caused by poor reasoning,carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.
2.
a misunderstanding or misconception.

A mistake is only diagnosed as such when one is aware of the truth of the situation.
We can predict that we are all mistaken , even if we are not aware that we are.

The mistakes we are aware of, only come to be realised with knowledge.

There is no such implication.
It makes no statement as to the future possibility of God being evil or not.

It implies that there are mixed views, and those other views are incorrect.

To Enable such an implication requires a further assumption, that God's nature is changeable etc.

Which would be a knowledge claim. As already clarified.

Actions taken on the basis of a perception do nothing to alter the fact of whether the perception was a mistake or not.
To think otherwise is simply fallacious:

I have already agreed with this.
A mistake can only be verified as one, when truth is present. Otherwise for all intent and purpose, we believe our perception to be true.
To assert that regardless of truth, a mistake is still a mistake is, whether we know it or not, is in and of itself a truth. But it serves no purpose in knowing whether a mistake has been made.

And if they say it is a ball of cheese they would be mistaken, even if that is what they had read in one of their stories.

That wouldn't be their perception.

Nothing, but thanks for your concern.

We're you lying about being frustrated?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Each and every time, including those highlighted above, where you fail to comprehend the logical implication of what you have said, and deny that you have said it.

That is you perception.

Jan

 

[Baldeee]

In the way that something cannot be what is not.
Be my guest if you want claim that as a victory.

So having implied that God is not evil, and then denied having said/implied that God is not evil, you now admit that God is not evil.
Do you ever wonder why people criticise your efforts for such blatant inconsistency?

No. For reasons given.

So you won't claim their perceptions are a mistake because it is simply their (mistaken) perception that they think what they do?

God isn't human.
...
I've claimed that as God isn't human, the terms good and evil does not actually apply.

So since they don't apply, God isn't evil.
See how it works, Jan.
Rather simple, really.

They only apply from the perspective of a human. So to ask the question "is God evil" is a human perspective only. In that sense, and in that sense alone, God can be categorized as good or evil.

And which is it?
From your perspective?

It is not a mistake for a person to honestly believe that God is good or evil, anymore than a child expressing what he perceives the moon to be.

The mistake is not necessarily in them holding the belief they do but in the content of what they believe.
That is the difference.
And it is the latter in question, not whether they have justification for that belief.

Mistake:
an error in action, calculation, opinion, orjudgment caused by poor reasoning,carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.
2.
a misunderstanding or misconception.

Indeed.
Note the "insufficient knowledge".

A mistake is only diagnosed as such when one is aware of the truth of the situation.

And a tumour doesn't exist until diagnosed by the doctor, right?

We can predict that we are all mistaken , even if we are not aware that we are.

The mistakes we are aware of, only come to be realised with knowledge.

And if you have knowledge that the other person does, such that you know what they believe is wrong, then you know what they believe is a mistake.
That the individual doesn't yet know is irrelevant.
You do (or so you claim).
Therefore to you it is a mistake.
Yet for some reason you cling to this notion that it is not a mistake until the other person realises?

I guess if a doctor doesn't tell a patient they have a tumour then it won't exist... up to the point it causes them to fall ill... right?

It implies that there are mixed views, and those other views are incorrect.

No - it simply implies that God is not evil.
It makes no assertion either way as to future, so one can not imply from it that God could be evil.
I'm sorry you don't get it, Jan, but it seems logic generally escapes you.

Which would be a knowledge claim. As already clarified.

It would indeed be a claim to knowledge.
But since that assumption is not in the example given, it needs to be added prior to being able to imply whether or not God could be evil.

I have already agreed with this.
A mistake can only be verified as one, when truth is present. Otherwise for all intent and purpose, we believe our perception to be true.

Regardless of what we personally believe, if it is incorrect it is a mistake.
We may not be aware of it, but it is a mistake.
When we become aware of it then we become aware of the mistake - a mistake that was already there.

To assert that regardless of truth, a mistake is still a mistake is, whether we know it or not, is in and of itself a truth. But it serves no purpose in knowing whether a mistake has been made.

So now you backtrack and admit that a mistake is still a mistake whether we are aware of it or not.
Great.
But we are not talking about if someone is aware of their own mistake: we are talking about you, who claimed knowledge superior to the one holding the belief, being aware that the person's belief was a mistake, and then saying that you wouldn't say it was a mistake.
Consistency much?

That wouldn't be their perception.

And that perception would be a mistake as well.

We're you lying about being frustrated?

No.

 

[Baldeee]

That is you perception.

It is.
And that of many others.
And given the evidence, to believe otherwise would be tantamount to delusion.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So since they don't apply, God isn't evil.
See how it works, Jan.
Rather simple, really.

Yes "seeing as they don't apply".
Now that you have more knowledge of what God is, "God isn't evil"

And which is it?
From your perspective?

I've learned that God is not human, so to characterise Him in such a way is futile.

I now try to avoid using my own perception as a way of comprehending God.

The mistake is not necessarily in them holding the belief they do but in the content of what they believe.

Okay.

Note the "insufficient knowledge".

Would you agree we all have insufficient knowledge, about most things. Yet we do not know that we make mistakes until we have sufficient knowledge/truth.

And a tumour doesn't exist until diagnosed by the doctor, right?

Lots of things exist which we have no knowledge of, until such knowledge becomes available. If the person perceives his life to be healthy and tumour free, his perception isn't mistaken, simply because he didn't know, nor had any reason to suspect.

If he did have reason to, but didn't then he is making a mistake.

I guess if a doctor doesn't tell a patient they have a tumour then it won't exist... up to the point it causes them to fall ill... right?

The doctor would be withholding the knowledge.

The person doesn't know, or even perceive the condition.

Regardless of who does or doesn't, the tumour exists.

No - it simply implies that God is not evil.
It makes no assertion either way as to future, so one can not imply from it that God could be evil.
I'm sorry you don't get it, Jan, but it seems logic generally escapes you.

It is the assertion itself. It implies God is also described as evil, hence the need to express.

Regardless of what we personally believe, if it is incorrect it is a mistake.
We may not be aware of it, but it is a mistake.
When we become aware of it then we become aware of the mistake - a mistake that was already there.

Are you aware of mistakes you currently committing?
Or are you mistake free?

So now you backtrack and admit that a mistake is still a mistake whether we are aware of it or not.
Great.

Taken from an earlier post: 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.

Not they are not mistaken, or Ill-informed.

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

In the way that something cannot be what it is not..

Is that in the way I cannot be a tennis player because I am not a tennis player?

So I if I were to take up tennis tomorrow that would make me more omnipotent than even God. (Since I can change what I am - yet according to Jan - God cannot.)

Seems legit.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is that in the way I cannot be a tennis player because I am not a tennis player?

So I if I were to take up tennis tomorrow that would make me more omnipotent than even God. (Since I can change what I am - yet according to Jan - God cannot.)

Seems legit.

What are you now?

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

What are you now?

Jan.

I am not a tennis player.
But I am capable of being one.

 

[Sarkus]

Wow, is Jan's ego so large that he now can't bring himself to acknowledge that a mistake is a mistake. Apparently everything I'm not aware of does not exist, even if someone else is aware of it. Cool. Brings a new field to physics, I guess. When do we get to see your paper on the matter, Jan. Is it related to QM?

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Evilness is the same as evil, and evil is only attributed to humans.
God is not human.

Interesting.

You claimed that "God is Goodness". I suggested that "God is Evilness". Now you say that "God is Evilness" makes no sense because Evilness is the same as evil, and evil is only attributed to humans.

It follows, therefore, that "God is Goodness" makes no sense because Goodness is the same as good, and good is only attributed to humans. Recall that you previously stated that "good" is a human perception and cannot be applied to God.

Why did you say "God is Goodness", Jan? Are you not applying a term to God that you assert cannot be applied?

As Baldeee says, it would be good to see some consistency from you.

I have completed both challenges without even breaking a sweat.

An empty assertion.

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

Those terms cannot apply to a non human.

The term "neither" cannot be applied to a non-human? Why not, Jan?

Suppose I were to ask you whether the moon is cheesy or fluffy, or both or neither. If you considered that the moon was not cheesy or fluffy, then you would say that is is neither of those things, would you not?

You might well say that the term "cheesy" cannot be applied to the moon, but in that case it would be fair to say that the moon is not cheesy, would it not? The question is straightforward: do the moon's characteristics include cheesiness? The simple answer is: no, they do not. The moon is not cheesy.

So why do you struggle so much in saying that God is not good? If the term "good" does not apply to God, which is your claim, then it is wrong to say that God is good. One is making a category error there, according to you.

Your real position, once we sweep aside all your smoke and mirrors, is that you regard God as amoral. The terms "good" and "evil" can't be applied to God because morality only applies to human beings, according to you. In other words, God is neither good nor evil according to you.

Or maybe you just can't work out for yourself what you actually think, so you're flip-flopping back and forth. If you don't know what you think yourself, it's no wonder you can't be consistent in your replies to the rest of us. For instance...

[The terms "good" and "evil"] are applicable [to God] from our perspective.

Now, either the terms "good" and "evil" are applicable to God, or they aren't. There's no "perspective" involved there.

You're having a parallel discussion about the notion of being mistaken, a notion which you also seem to have trouble being consistent about.

When I ask the question of whether the moon is cheesy or fluffy, some people might reply "The term 'cheesy' is not applicable to the moon (so the moon is not cheesy)". But a person with an honest belief that the moon is made of cheese would say "Yes, the moon is cheesy."

Now your argument that you have been putting forward in this thread, is something like "The term 'cheesy' is applicable to the moon from our perspective". Therefore, you argue, the person who honestly believes the moon is made of cheese is "not wrong" to say that the moon is cheesy, because "they may honestly think that is the case".

I suspect that you don't really believe your own nonsense here, and this line of argument is disingenuous on your part.

Clearly, either the moon is made of cheese or it isn't. Let's say that it isn't. Then anybody who believes from their perspective that it is made of cheese is, in fact, mistaken. They hold a false belief about the moon. And you, knowing that they hold a false belief, are being disingenuous in claiming that "it is not wrong for them to say that the moon is cheesy, because they really believe that is the case".

Again, once we sweep away your smoke and mirrors, we're left with two inconsistent claims from you:
1. Applying the terms "good" and "evil" to God is a mistake.
2. A person who does apply such terms is not making a mistake.

You can't have it both ways, Jan. You are attempting to argue that perception and reality are the same thing, deliberately muddying the distinction between the two. But you know that perception and reality can differ.

So, how about you come clean and tell us which position you hold? Here are the options:

1. God is good.
2. God is evil.
3. God is neither good nor evil (or, equivalently, it is a category mistake to apply the terms "good" and "evil" to God).
4. God is both good and evil.

You can only logically hold one of these four positions. Once you have chosen one, it follows (numbering the same way):
If (1), then a person who believes God is evil is in fact mistaken (regardless of his or her personal "perspective").
If (2), then a person who believes God is good is in fact mistaken (regardless of his or her personal "perspective").
If (3), then a person who believes God is good or evil is in fact mistaken (regardless of his or her personal "perspective").
If (4), then a person who believes God is only or primarily good, or only or primarily evil, is mistaken (regardless of his or her personal "perspective").

You can't weasel around this by trying to adopt (3), and then arguing that a person is not mistaken if they believe (1), (2) or (4), because "they may honestly believe that is the case".

One more thing, to close a potential loophole that you will otherwise surely try to exploit. The question of being mistaken, above, is not a question about a person's honesty about his or her own beliefs; rather, it is a question of fact. If a person honestly believes that the moon is made of cheese and therefore assents to the proposition that "the moon is cheesy", then they are mistaken about the fact of the moon's cheesiness. They are not mistaken about their own perception that the moon is cheesy. The point here, in a nutshell, is that honestly believing something doesn't make it true.

Applying this to the question of whether God is good or evil, I am asking whether God is, in fact, good or evil, not whether different specific people honestly believe that God is good or evil. I don't care about whether people are honest about what they think about God, in this context. I want to know whether God is, in fact good or evil, or both, or neither. That's all.

So, with all of the above in mind, do you now want to try one more time to construct an honest and consistent response to the thread topic, Jan? Or will you continue with your usual tactics of diversion and tangent and attempts to muddy the waters?

 

[James R]

Picking up on specific comments from posts above...

God isn't human.

This is irrelevant unless it impacts on the question of the thread: is God good or evil?

If your claim is that only humans can be good or evil, then your answer to the thread question is that God is neither good nor evil, because of this category error. Simple. And done in one line. That this is your view tends to be confirmed every time you write something like:

I've claimed that as God isn't human, the terms good and evil does not actually apply.

The rest is evasion and diversion.

They only apply from the perspective of a human. So to ask the question "is God evil" is a human perspective only. In that sense, and in that sense alone, God can be categorized as good or evil.

Are you saying that God is neither good nor evil in reality, but human beings can make the mistake of thinking that God is good or evil?

From what you have written here, you appear to believe there is no sense in which God can be categorised as actually good or evil, and that it is a human mistake to attempt to do so.

But then we have your inconsistency in claiming, for example, that "God is Goodness", whatever that is supposed to mean. Given your track record, you'll probably now try to argue that "good" is not the same as "Goodness", or some other such diversionary tactic. And you will do this in spite of your assertion that "Evilness" is the same as "evil".

Flip flop.

It is not a mistake for a person to honestly believe that God is good or evil, anymore than a child expressing what he perceives the moon to be.

If a person perceives that the moon is made of cheese, that is a mistake, even if it is an honest belief. See my post above.

Given your track record, you will still probably try to squirm and slither your way out of this, though.

A mistake is only diagnosed as such when one is aware of the truth of the situation.

Here you are talking about a person knowing that they have made a mistake. Their knowledge, or lack of it, does not negate the fact that they are mistaken. A person can be mistaken and not know it.

All this is a distraction, though. The question is not whether particular people have false beliefs about God. The question is about whether God is good or evil.

By the way, "I don't know" is a legitimate answer to that question, Jan. If you honestly don't know the answer, it's OK for you to admit it. I'd appreciate some honesty from you rather than this prevarication you constantly dish out.

A mistake can only be verified as one, when truth is present. Otherwise for all intent and purpose, we believe our perception to be true.

The question of the thread is not about whether a person has honest beliefs. It is about whether God is good or evil.

Now that you have more knowledge of what God is, "God isn't evil"

Is this an answer from you, then, Jan? Or are you attempting to project a "perception" onto somebody else?

Is it your opinion ("perception") that God isn't evil? If so, is it also your opinion that God isn't good? Or is it your opinion that God is good?

Flip flop.

I've learned that God is not human, so to characterise Him in such a way is futile.

Is it a category mistake to apply notions of "good" and "evil" to God, then? This would mean that God is neither good nor evil. Correct?

I now try to avoid using my own perception as a way of comprehending God.

So you have no opinion on the question of the topic, now?

Flip flop.

Before you next post, maybe it would be a good idea to sit down and think about what your own opinion on the question actually is. Then, in your next post, you could articulate that opinion.

Lots of things exist which we have no knowledge of, until such knowledge becomes available.

Are you saying then that the question of whether God is good or evil is one of those things that we have no knowledge of, then?

Flip flop.

Are you aware of mistakes you currently committing?
Or are you mistake free?

Why does this matter? We understand that people can make mistakes.

Does this mean you are afraid to answer the question of the thread because you're afraid you might be mistaken?

Flip flop.

 

[Seattle]

God is human and therefore God is capable of both "goodness" and "badness". Jan is mistaken.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I am not a tennis player.
But I am capable of being one.

I didn't ask what you weren't.
I asked: what are you now?

Jan.

 

[Seattle]

We've been trying to figure out whether or not God exists and it turns out (according to Jan) that God is seated in everyone's heart.

No wonder we couldn't find God and no wonder God seems ineffective. God might as well be in our big toe as our heart. I always assumed that God was man and therefore in our brain but it's the heart!

Who knew?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

We need a heart in a vat thread.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

You claimed that "God is Goodness". I suggested that "God is Evilness". Now you say that "God is Evilness" makes no sense because Evilness is the same as evil, and evil is only attributed to humans.

That is correct.

It follows, therefore, that "God is Goodness" makes no sense because Goodness is the same as good, and good is only attributed to humans. Recall that you previously stated that "good" is a human perception and cannot be applied to God.

Incorrect. 'Goodness' is the essential quality of being good. It is the standard.

Suppose I were to ask you whether the moon is cheesy or fluffy, or both or neither. If you considered that the moon was not cheesy or fluffy, then you would say that is is neither of those things, would you not?

Would you understand me if I said "I do not consider the moon to be cheesy, and I do not consider the moon to be fluffy? Yes? Then move on.

Now, either the terms "good" and "evil" are applicable to God, or they aren't. There's no "perspective" involved there.

Why isn't there?

Now your argument that you have been putting forward in this thread, is something like "The term 'cheesy' is applicable to the moon from our perspective". Therefore, you argue, the person who honestly believes the moon is made of cheese is "not wrong" to say that the moon is cheesy, because "they may honestly think that is the case".

No.

1. God is good.
2. God is evil.
3. God is neither good nor evil (or, equivalently, it is a category mistake to apply the terms "good" and "evil" to God).
4. God is both good and evil.

Already explained it.

You can only logically hold one of these four positions. Once you have chosen one, it follows (numbering the same way):
If (1), then a person who believes God is evil is in fact mistaken (regardless of his or her personal "perspective").
If (2), then a person who believes God is good is in fact mistaken (regardless of his or her personal "perspective").
If (3), then a person who believes God is good or evil is in fact mistaken (regardless of his or her personal "perspective").
If (4), then a person who believes God is only or primarily good, or only or primarily evil, is mistaken (regardless of his or her personal "perspective").

I've already explained it.
Quote the parts you believe to be incoherent, or inconsistent. And I'llb e happy to discuss them with you.

The question of being mistaken, above, is not a question about a person's honesty about his or her own beliefs; rather, it is a question of fact.

I agree.

If a person honestly believes that the moon is made of cheese and therefore assents to the proposition that "the moon is cheesy", then they are mistaken about the fact of the moon's cheesiness.

I agree.

They are not mistaken about their own perception that the moon is cheesy. The point here, in a nutshell, is that honestly believing something doesn't make it true.

How would they perceive the moon being made of cheese?

Applying this to the question of whether God is good or evil, I am asking whether God is, in fact, good or evil,

I'll say it once more. Good and evil are terms used by humans, about other humans. God is not human. You do the math.

When humans refer to God as either good, evil, or both , their point of reference is their own understanding of what constitutes good or evil. As they develop their awareness of God, they understand that God is outside the remit of the human understanding of good and evil.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

We've been trying to figure out whether or not God exists and it turns out (according to Jan) that God is seated in everyone's heart.

No wonder we couldn't find God and no wonder God seems ineffective. God might as well be in our big toe as our heart. I always assumed that God was man and therefore in our brain but it's the heart!

Who knew?

Are you trying to mock me?
That's so cute.

Jan.