Is God evil?

[Da_Ze_Ir]

What if the universe was created as an experiment for testing ideas and concepts?

It is easily understandable that people are largely determined to their fates, that people are manipulated throughout their lives by mere existence to be what they are. That would be as God designed them to be, as God designed things to be. People merely have the conscience to experience what happens to them and their fates are ever manipulated. Since there is so much evil in the world, if this be the case, then perhaps God is running tests around sentience by having living beings experience the world.

Since He is not communicating with us and we have to suffer from so much evil while discovering new wonders - which may be the results of the said tests - then by the human sense it might occur that God is SOMEWHAT evil, not completely due to the good parts, but certainly not being like family. The ammount of evil from the human view over the ages engulfs any comprehended evil and the lack of communication leaves it to be seen as evil.

The worst case scenario would be like we are this way to produce sentience from our experience and that sort of like feeds God.

[TMA_1]

Ha! I have thought of similar ideas, not exactly as you put it though. Personally I dont believe God to be evil. I wont go into why, would take too long and I dont feel like debating on that subject. Some of those thoughts would help to make a killer story, seriously. In fact it vaguely reminds me of The Desodi Experiment.

[Egeides]

I wonder... there are some things which I later consider only as "hardships" rather than a lost I first saw. I'd need to look at which cases it was, and if it could really be the base of a whole "well, over the infinite it remains good".

Is oppression, over some infinity of time, taking a different form? Like "it's just hardship" or "as work, bringing a different experience once matured". It sure remains oppression and I wouldn't call it a good thing...

[Caid Ivik]

Ash

[Andrew]

Didn't God kill several million people while the devil only killed a dozen or so according to the bible?

[Egeides]

Where's that?... I'm wary of selective reading when it comes to any tradition. We'd do that in science and it'd screw things up.

Da_Ze_Ir: An "experiment" to test concepts, to start with, would seem to imply that what was at first (the whole) was not complete. I wouldn't call this God-like then - it's not really "whole" by then. Ot it would seem like Hegel, if it's in the sense that it is going to better completion in human world, forever better and better but never complete.

[Acriku]

Didn't God kill several million people while the devil only killed a dozen or so according to the bible?

Then again, God created the Devil for his own means. Whatever the Devil does or is doing, God wished it with his creation of the Devil himself.

[Egeides]

Acriku, I kind of never see my outlook in any of your representations of religion. I hope that you are conscious of not necessarily representing theists' views here. You are, eh? Maybe some atheists represent more the effects of radicals' views instead, I'm not sure. The same gets done with the "science as belief system" crowd, it just seems to twist things up.

[Edric O]

Well, before we can even discuss the issue of whether God is good or evil, you should really clarify what you mean by "evil." See the sticky topic at the top of this forum for a short introduction to various conceptions of good and evil. :)

But it is true that, under almost any reasonable definition of evil, we are indeed living in a universe that contains a lot of evil. There are many philosophical debates around an issue called the Problem of Evil, which basically asks "If God is good, why is there evil in the world?" And there are many possible answers to this question:

1. A universe that does not contain evil is incompatible with free will and the human mind as we know it. In other words, God wanted to create humans rather than mindless robots that always act with perfect goodness, and this required the creation of a universe that contains evil (or at least a universe that allows for the possibility of evil).

This view is expressed in the Christian doctrine of Original Sin: God created a universe that was perfectly good, and placed human beings in it. Those human beings were given free will and the ability to choose between good and evil. They chose evil, and thus evil entered the universe.

2. Existence is always better than non-existence; and furthermore, existence is the Highest Good. There is an infinity of possible universes, some of which contain evil and some of which do not. A perfectly good Creator God would create every possible universe that can be created, because it is better to live in an evil universe than not to live at all.

If existence is the Highest Good, then a perfectly good God would ensure that everything which can exist, DOES exist. So God created every possible universe. Some of them are perfectly good. Others, like our universe, are not.

(that second option is my preferred solution to the Problem of Evil, by the way)

[Acriku]

I don't understand the reason behind the premise "Existence is always better than non-existence."

[Edric O]

I take it as a moral axiom. It's not based on anything except my own intuition (I'd rather have a miserable life than die).

[gryphon]

You have named this topic after a nice tile for a toilet wall. Although without much real value. :)

Like Edric O mentioned you have to define evil before you can ask this probably rhetorical question. Then "evil" is not one thing if it even exists. And when it does, one persons evil is another persons blessing.

Second, the concept of "God". In our world (with all due respect but that's another argument) God isn't mere then a global notion of something spiritual.

When you start the argument of a commonly accepted posessing the quality of good and evil. A quality which does not reflect upon persons. But upon actions. And even then. Most evil actions usually come from a very good and honest motivation.

The Dosadi experiment is a good book though ;)

[Da_Ze_Ir]

Well, before we can even discuss the issue of whether God is good or evil, you should really clarify what you mean by "evil." See the sticky topic at the top of this forum for a short introduction to various conceptions of good and evil. :)

Yes, I like your thread very much, both you and the others present interesting things and even divert from the base discussion. Of course, it isnpired me to post this.

But it is true that, under almost any reasonable definition of evil, we are indeed living in a universe that contains a lot of evil. There are many philosophical debates around an issue called the Problem of Evil, which basically asks "If God is good, why is there evil in the world?" And there are many possible answers to this question:

I don't think my hypothesis would be anyone's favorite, I don't bet on it anyway, but I would like feedback on its plausibility.

1. A universe that does not contain evil is incompatible with free will and the human mind as we know it. In other words, God wanted to create humans rather than mindless robots that always act with perfect goodness, and this required the creation of a universe that contains evil (or at least a universe that allows for the possibility of evil).

This view is expressed in the Christian doctrine of Original Sin: God created a universe that was perfectly good, and placed human beings in it. Those human beings were given free will and the ability to choose between good and evil. They chose evil, and thus evil entered the universe.

How about this counter image: God were a good father and spent time with his children exploring the possibilities of existence from the comfort of heaven? How would that be? Is it plausible? Think this:

I have never been anywhere near disasters and even with so little developement I am sure that I am better off comfortable as I am, regarding the experience factor. Those struck by disaster probably don't get very far with their minds, despite their spiced experience.

There is much more to learn from a good family than from living among ruins and monsters.

2. Existence is always better than non-existence; and furthermore, existence is the Highest Good. There is an infinity of possible universes, some of which contain evil and some of which do not. A perfectly good Creator God would create every possible universe that can be created, because it is better to live in an evil universe than not to live at all.

If existence is the Highest Good, then a perfectly good God would ensure that everything which can exist, DOES exist. So God created every possible universe. Some of them are perfectly good. Others, like our universe, are not.

(that second option is my preferred solution to the Problem of Evil, by the way)

This one is easy to counter. If the multiverse were the case, there would be no point to strive for anything in life for it has already been achieved. Regarless of anything, everyting I've done or haven't done, everything I do and will do, is ensured by other dimensions.

Maybe you're saying that I live in my OWN world but I think that if so, God were ensuring every possibility, rendering my existence meaningless.

Whatever the Devil does or is doing, God wished it with his creation of the Devil himself.

I too think that, under the premise of God, the universe is entirely under the supervision of God. No room for an opposing force. God is omnipotent and whatever Devil is under His influence.

Da_Ze_Ir: An "experiment" to test concepts, to start with, would seem to imply that what was at first (the whole) was not complete. I wouldn't call this God-like then - it's not really "whole" by then. Ot it would seem like Hegel, if it's in the sense that it is going to better completion in human world, forever better and better but never complete.

How about all of it is a way of existence? The experiments.

Didn't God kill several million people

I was thinking like, under God's supervision, all the suffering ever took place and all the people that have died died, including of old age, including the decay involved.

If when we die our sentience is carried to some place our existence as we know it still ends with death, a part is always lost. Think only what happens regarding brain condition. Clearly, a part of who we are is destroyed with death. I think the biggest problem with death is that God does not communicate with us, reason with us on this step of existence. In its absence, I can only considder my existence as it is up to death and considdering it completed in death, a view which is independent from what lies beyond.

Ash

[TMA_1]

"God were a good father and spent time with his children exploring the possibilities of existence from the comfort of heaven? How would that be? Is it plausible?"

I want to take a stab at that one. God is goodness, God is love. We attempt to discribe the absolute nature of God through all sorts of terms. Sometimes though these confuse things a bunch, at least from how I see it. We see these absolutes and immediately they give God human attributes beyond his inherent nature, which is dangerous. What do you mean by "comfort"? Heaven is more than comfort. We can use terms like this for heaven, but it doesnt give the full picture. Heaven is the abode of God, and I dont think God feels comfortable, or irritable, or sad, or happy in the way we understand it. So because of this what we see as an injustice, really isnt unfair at all. In fact that is why suffering is really such a one sided thing for us humans. God is Empathy too, and understands it better than we do, yet suffering derives itself from a flaw, just as irritability or sadness. Happiness and comfortability are just flawed corrections on flaws, which makes these emotions flawed in unique ways as well. Okay I did a terrible job here.lol Basically what I am saying is this, try to dissociate your own reckoning of experiances and impressions from God's existence. I dont know if what I said just touched on blasphamy, (Edric? what do you think? lol)

Desodi Experiment doesnt really touch on this subject. Instead it deals with the nature of empirical control and analysis of various societies in a closed system. This is done in order to artificially fine tune and amplify the evolutionary progression of those said societies. It just vaguely reminded me of the book, because of the test we are all involved in now inside this closed system.

[TMA_1]

Sp1cy, you broke through the pothead looking glass... it is a very hazy and confusing place, trust me I know. Beware of the Pink Floyd! Though they have some pretty wonderful lyrics, one can analyze them too much on marijuana. I feel like I just got done reading an submitted story on Erowid.

[TMA_1]

Hey sp1cy, I was just playing with my last comment. I hope you get to feeling better. If you need to talk, just hit me up with a PM.

[Egeides]

It's quite a stort, spicy. The central part seems to be "AND WHO KNOWS WHICH IS WHICH AND WHO IS WHO" (lyrics).

If this is resolved overall, and if I "know that I don't know" and am therefore not over-"rationalizing" the issue, then it seems to me that the rest follows.

[Da_Ze_Ir]

Like Edric O mentioned you have to define evil before you can ask this probably rhetorical question. Then "evil" is not one thing if it even exists. And when it does, one persons evil is another persons blessing.

I think the only way to define good and evil is intuition, which improves with experience. Any written view of good and evil is doomed to failure at some point in the future.

Second, the concept of "God". In our world (with all due respect but that's another argument) God isn't mere then a global notion of something spiritual.

In the title and in general around this thread I have used the word in regard to the Creator & Supervisor of the Universe, who could be anything from a single entity to a vast group of higlty evolved spirits or existence itself forming a soul. In any case, the form in which God exist is unknown and irrelevant because we only need to regard Him as God.

I have also briefly regarded God as an aspiration to a perfect state, which might or might not metaphorically coincide with the Creator depending on wether God is evil or not.

At the moment, I regard this perfect state as some form of a collective of friends.

Most evil actions usually come from a very good and honest motivation.

I think not. Other than deliberate evil out of desire to do evil, evil done from religion, evil out of selfishness or pursuing twisted/reasonable goals (counts for most evil already, no?), evil comes from pure foolishness/inexperience or evil masquerading as means/goals out of either inexperience/foolishness or, most often, willful naivite. In all cases except impossible experience, evil is there because of someone guilty. And on top of all of it there is the Creator God who made things the way they are.

Happiness and comfortability are just flawed corrections on flaws, which makes these emotions flawed in unique ways as well.

To some extent, I agree. I have thought myself that happiness regards an improvement on flaws. Nevertheless, there is SOMETHING behind them that makes them feel tue, or they cease feeling like happiness or comfort, being just perversed pleasures.

We attempt to discribe the absolute nature of God through all sorts of terms. Sometimes though these confuse things a bunch, at least from how I see it. We see these absolutes and immediately they give God human attributes beyond his inherent nature, which is dangerous.

It is fundamental to the human condition that we seek out that which is good and true. Concepts like God stand at the heart of this. While some may personalize God in a way that is silly, attributing human traits in a litteral way and using this to push things in the world, it doesn't mean that the rest of us can't test the essential traits of sentience and life. God may be over our heads but we must do with what we have and we can only reason things in our way. Dogma is bad anyway. Assuming you are a christian and a most litteral one, the way you put things, you must remember that forgiveness is one of the most human traits. Most human interpretations of God's forgiveness are close to silly, I think. He will never help anyone in need or pain, just provide support in meditation. If it turns out for the better, it is just because that was part of his designs.

Before his FIRST post got deleted, sp1cy proposed that God may have been defeated by the evil Satan and that the roles are reversed.

First of all, the only ones who acknowledge Satan as a god acknowledge him as evil, but that is not the way you put things.

I think that the revolution thing has nothing to do with the heavens. Revolutions succeed each other much faster and this ends in balance and peace. Revolutions span a few hundred, maybe thousands of years, in epic fantasy worlds. You must remember that in revolution succesions, only the best win in the end because that it is the only balance.

I believe that in any world or any universe, things evolve towards balance and THAT balance is the GOOD. And that reminds me of the ultimate pursuit of man and the view of God as an ultimate state of being, not necessarily the creator or supervisor, but the state toward wich the human condition leads.

[Egeides]

What if the universe was created as an experiment for testing ideas and concepts?

I notice one thing, that what is tested could not simply invent a world in collision with another. Excluding parallel worlds, it's a world as permissive as possible while keeping everyone within a single space (which implies some common background for this). It really looks like Hegel.

Where I personally disagree most with Hegel is that I think humans do more evildoing - willingly and not - when they don't take care of it.

Regarding an intuition improved by experienced, if it's "all experience", does it include rational experience? If it all forms intuition, it becomes formed of "everything". Tricky intuition if it's "everything" ;)

[Da_Ze_Ir]

I notice one thing, that what is tested could not simply invent a world in collision with another. Excluding parallel worlds, it's a world as permissive as possible while keeping everyone within a single space (which implies some common background for this). It really looks like Hegel.

Where I personally disagree most with Hegel is that I think humans do more evildoing - willingly and not - when they don't take care of it.

I don't understand. :O

Regarding an intuition improved by experienced, if it's "all experience", does it include rational experience? If it all forms intuition, it becomes formed of "everything". Tricky intuition if it's "everything" ;)

Actually I think intuition IS everything. How do you think that it isn't? Everything was discovered by intuition in the first place, and if we expand the notion of intuition we find that it provides our feelings, our senses, no? Our individual realities would not exist without it.

I am here to place a new line on my thread. I realise that I was quite bitter when I started it. Here is what I think now:

The creator God is certainly not good. However, you might think that "all evil leads to good", yet I think actual good is the only thing we ought to be concerned about. In fact, I rather define Good as something that can stand on its own and can grow. Therefor I remain puzzeled with the "need" for evil. I still think we were better off learning within good than through evil.

The difference to this new line of thinking would be to put bitteress behind. Bitterness is not a good constant for life. I also believe that one should respect tradition and the God of the church is the One we all love, regardless of what name we associate Him.

On the other hand, although the church claims God to be the Creator God, I would think that it is the Good God that they are talking about. To acknowledge the Creator God would mean nothing if He were a mixture of good and evil. It is the good side of God, the God of goodness, that we believe in and the future belongs to Him.

[Caid Ivik]

One doesn't need to study Hegel or Plotinos to understand all you say or how Egeides comments it. But still, even theology may be systematicized.

On the one hand you may say God is the same as human just eternal and powerful; I would answer then, you're a heathen :) as human is widely defined by his desires, perceptions and changes, which lack in God; altough you may argue with "image of God" notion and such things... I find it weird for an (at least within this world) omnipotent God to have any need to do experiments, as well as any need at all; it's an anthropomorphism. Same would we with our (human) judging of His actions. "Creator" and "Good" are two different attributes, former denoting an action and latter an essential description. Their relation may be, assuming that "to create" is considered "good", that: "God is good and therefore He creates the world", but not in a way: "God is the creator and because the creation is good, He is good as well". Human is not a judge, but an object of creation. What we judge is not the creation as a whole, but other causes, which occur within it. Sounds weirdly? That's catholic catechism. God gave humans freedom and thus also an ability to act in a good or bad way (as defined by Scripture). Muslims and Jews handle it in a rather different way, but one thing seems to be accepted by all. Within morale in general, God is neither good nor evil, as He creates only possibility of being such; attribute of "goodness" which we ascribe to Him is purely nominal, a name of the essence which cannot be measured by any human notion.

There were many debates if God could be considered to be a creator of all particular phenomena (say even of writing this post) or only of Creation in general, which would lead into interesting results, google for Ghazali for example ;)

[Da_Ze_Ir]

On the one hand you may say God is the same as human just eternal and powerful; I would answer then, you're a heathen :) as human is widely defined by his desires, perceptions and changes, which lack in God; altough you may argue with "image of God" notion and such things... I find it weird for an (at least within this world) omnipotent God to have any need to do experiments, as well as any need at all; it's an anthropomorphism. Same would we with our (human) judging of His actions. "Creator" and "Good" are two different attributes, former denoting an action and latter an essential description.

I'm not sure what they say in your version of Christianity but here in Romania, if we take the Orthodox church, it is said that man was created in the image of God. I interpret that in the sense of sentience.

Also, there is a passage in the standard English Bible I have been able to find that says: "Then the LORD God said,"Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil." "

It is therefor man's place to constantly judge things and think things over and over again, not take things for granted and making no exceptions. What would be the point of a man-made image of God anyway, to be taken as absolute, even under a logical construct? It is still subject to judgement, or else it has no place to be taken in the first place. And if a notion has no meaning then it does not exist at all.

Their relation may be, assuming that "to create" is considered "good", that: "God is good and therefore He creates the world", but not in a way: "God is the creator and because the creation is good, He is good as well".

If I create a confined space and make the people inside believe it is their universe. If that universe is one of discomfort or poor meanings, and if death is a bad constant, how would you think of that?

Human is not a judge, but an object of creation.

Then we are not alive or sentient. But we know we are.

What we judge is not the creation as a whole, but other causes, which occur within it.

We have to judge as far as we can.

Sounds weirdly? That's catholic catechism.

Strange that it contradicts passages from the Bible. I'm not a Bible fanatic myself, but the catechism should respect it.

but one thing seems to be accepted by all. Within morale in general, God is neither good nor evil, as He creates only possibility of being such; attribute of "goodness" which we ascribe to Him is purely nominal, a name of the essence which cannot be measured by any human notion.

How does God stand for salvation unless He is good? Also check the quotes above about the tree of knowledge, God, man and the way the knowledge makes them more alike.

There were many debates if God could be considered to be a creator of all particular phenomena (say even of writing this post) or only of Creation in general, which would lead into interesting results, google for Ghazali for example ;)

I would think that the creator God manipulates the world as a whole, therefor every little piece leads to that end.

[Caid Ivik]

The assertion "man was created in the image of God" is present in catholic creed as well. It may be interpreted in many ways, but it is sure one finds enough differences between human and God to not take it as a fundament of the belief. If we would speak inversely as "God is an image of man", then He would be a "thing", a part of the created world and a possible object for our judgement. But really, I doubt something like that is written in Bible or in the Romanian Orthodox creed (perhaps in some Feuerbach). I don't find it senseless to say that God sees the world differently than we do; either in perfect abstraction or in the detailest phenomenon. And still, we claim that both God and humans are sentient. To be created - does that mean to "be not sentient"? I would turn it: where you sentient before you were created? Were you sentient in the moment of your conception, birth? And also, if you were, were you able to judge it, whether it was good or not?

Death is not a bad constant in Christianity. It is like saying that we have two arms was bad. Bad is when we in fear of death sacrifice our faith our morality...