Is God evil?

[Compassionist]

There are many verses in the Bible about God's predestination. https://www.openbible.info/topics/predestination Why would a good God predestine anyone to do evil? Surely, a good God would predestine all to do good? Does the existence of evil prove that God is evil? Surely, a good God would have made all living things to be autotrophs instead of making some autotrophs, some herbivores, some carnivores, some omnivores, and some parasites? Here are some examples of evil events which caused or are causing suffering, deaths, and injustices:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... death_toll
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... death_toll
https://thevegancalculator.com/animal-slaughter

[William]

P1: That there may exist other realities than just this one, is beside the point as the focus is on this one in relation to the problem of evil.

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #97]

P2: Evil is a problem only if existence is limited to what we presently experience.

P1: This is only true if what we are presently experiencing can be shown to be truly evil and that it was created by a truly omniscient and omnipotent creator/creators.

The question "Is God Evil" can only be asked of such a creator/creators, because the problem of evil stems from that concept.

If a creator/creators we not truly omniscient and omnipotent, then the question has no relevance.

This means that the problem of evil is actually more about "The Problem of GOD" ['GOD' in this case is being used to denote a truly omniscient and omnipotent creator personality] and may be a fallacy-concept.

Which is to say, "The Problem of God" as a creator/creators who are not omniscient and omnipotent isn't really a problem unless it becomes "The Problem of GOD" as a creator/creators who are omniscient and omnipotent.

Therefore, those who support the notion of GOD, have created the problem of evil.

[Compassionist]

I am an Agnostic Neutral which means I haven't decided that, should GOD exist, that GOD therefore, has to be regarded as evil.

I understand your position. How can God be real and good given all the suffering, injustice, and deaths? Surely, God's omniscience and omnipotence make him omniculpable?

How do we come about learning compassion? Could we have learned it without experiencing suffering and injustice and death?

I think your question has merit re the idea of a creator/creators who are truly omniscient and omnipotent.

My answer to your question would be - "Such a creator/creators would be not be Omniculpable because in order for that to occur, these must be held accountable for failing to prevent all suffering, and injustice and death ... but what can hold truly omniscient and omnipotent beings accountable and acquire justice from that process?

Because it is impossible to bring such beings to justice, then that path of reasoning has to be abandoned and in order to let it go, one has to find a way in which to do so.

Since my position is Agnostic Neutral, I am able to do this...one step at a time...that is my journey and the reason for my journaling.

It requires developing a completely new mind-set.

I agree that I don't have the power to bring an omniscient and omnipotent being to justice. However, I can still blame this being for failing to prevent all suffering, injustice, and deaths. If God had made all living things all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful then we would all have been forever happy. If we were made all-knowing, by definition, we would have known about everything, including compassion. Besides, compassion is only helpful in a world where suffering exists. If we lived in a world without suffering, compassion would be redundant in that world.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #101

This means that the problem of evil is actually more about "The Problem of GOD" ['GOD' in this case is being used to denote a truly omniscient and omnipotent creator personality] and may be a fallacy-concept.

Which is to say, "The Problem of God" as a creator/creators who are not omniscient and omnipotent isn't really a problem unless it becomes "The Problem of GOD" as a creator/creators who are omniscient and omnipotent.

Therefore, those who support the notion of GOD, have created the problem of evil.

But those who reject the notion of God treat the "problem of evil" as a rhetorical question, ignoring the solutions offered by theism.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to William in post #101

This means that the problem of evil is actually more about "The Problem of GOD" ['GOD' in this case is being used to denote a truly omniscient and omnipotent creator personality] and may be a fallacy-concept.

Which is to say, "The Problem of God" as a creator/creators who are not omniscient and omnipotent isn't really a problem unless it becomes "The Problem of GOD" as a creator/creators who are omniscient and omnipotent.

Therefore, those who support the notion of GOD, have created the problem of evil.

But those who reject the notion of God treat the "problem of evil" as a rhetorical question, ignoring the solutions offered by theism.

What solutions are offered by theism? There are many different religions and many different gods. Which theism are you talking about? As far as I know, all living things die and all sentient living things feel pain and die. I don't know any god who prevents all suffering, injustice, and deaths. If such a god existed there would be no suffering, injustice, and deaths for me to be upset about.

[The Tanager]

It's impossible to prove lots of things…You keep talking about free choices without proving that organisms make free choices. Please prove organisms make free choices....

I agree. As I said earlier, 100% certainty is in the realms of definitions and pure mathematics. Maybe something else, but I can’t think of it. I’m not asking for 100% proof for determinism, but a case that makes it more reasonable than the limited free will alternative, since you are claiming it is more reasonable. You have the burden, not me.

...In the examples above, I prove that genes (XY and XX chromosomes), environments (200 degrees Celsius oven), nutrients (lack of oxygen, water and food), and experiences (being cold) determine what happens.

Limited free will doesn’t disagree with these. These are not the point of difference in determinism vs. free will.

Here are some things that I desperately want to do but can't do due to lack of ability:...

Limited free will doesn’t disagree with these. These are not the point of difference in determinism vs. free will.

I am clearly not a free agent with free will….

Since the above things you spoke of isn’t the point of difference, this statement is not clearly the case.

Some people say that quantum indeterminacy gives us free will but it does not.

I agree it doesn’t.

By the word 'love', I mean all its different meanings. Love occurs as a result of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. If you can prove that free will is a prerequisite for love, please do.

Okay, then we need to focus on the one I’m referring to: “willing the good of another”. If our thoughts and actions are determined by outside factors, then we don’t will anything, much less the good of another. We may think about the good of another, we may act in ways that result in good for another, but we aren’t willing it. Thus, by that definition, if determinism is true, we can’t have love.

God committed genocide many times in the Bible e.g. Noah's flood. If the Bible is true, then God is real and evil. If the Bible is false, then God is imaginary and evil the way Voldemort is imaginary and evil.

While I don't agree with your view on the depiction of God in the Bible, let's assume you are correct. Assuming that, you have still presented a false dilemma. If the Bible is (at least partly) false, then God could still be real and good, while God is falsely represented by the Bible.

I am leaning towards God being imaginary and evil because the claims of the Bible don't mesh with what we know using the scientific method.

How do the claims of the Bible (or of God) go against the scientific method?

God is not necessary to define good and evil, justice and injustice. We can use our experiences to decide these things. It's good to live and help live. It's evil to harm and kill. I can define these things without requiring God.

You can talk about your perspective on them, but you can’t objectively define them. I’m talking about objectively defining good and evil so that it’s not just your view versus another person’s view. If good and evil are subjective, then things like child abuse being bad is an opinion on par with how I don’t like pistachio flavored ice cream. But what logic is there in blaming a being for other people liking different ice cream flavors?

How does God give us anything objective? A sentient being can't have any objective truth because all our truths are perceived through subjective sensory perceptions. For example, I, you, and billions of other organisms can see the Sun in the sky. However, this could be a simulation or an illusion. We don't have any way to be perceiving anything objectively as all perceptions are subjective. There are two kinds of subjective truths. They are:
1. Exclusive Subjective Truths e.g. thoughts, emotions, beliefs, interpretations, dreams, and hallucinations experienced by a human.
2. Shared Subjective Truths e.g. two or more organisms watching the Sun in the sky.

Is it objectively true that a sentient being can't have any objective truth? Your comment seems self-defeating here, so why trust it?

God, if God exists, as the creator of the universe and human moral agency, brings objectivity through the purpose of creation.

[William]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #102]

I agree that I don't have the power to bring an omniscient and omnipotent being to justice. However, I can still blame this being for failing to prevent all suffering, injustice, and deaths.

Yes you can. But it has no effect on the outcome of the justice you think needs to happen. Therefore, your blaming is non-relevant in that context.

If God had made all living things all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful then we would all have been forever happy.

That is to say, that if GOD had just being content with itself and not created anything else except for things indistinguishable to itself [ just like GOD,] then we would be forever happy like/as GOD.

If we were made all-knowing, by definition, we would have known about everything, including compassion.

And by definition we would be indistinguishable from a GOD who made us that way.

Besides, compassion is only helpful in a world where suffering exists.

Which means that a world where suffering exists is necessary in order to know compassion, which means that GOD knows compassion because such a world exists. Which means that IF such a world did not exist, GOD would not be all knowing.

If we lived in a world without suffering, compassion would be redundant in that world.

But it could be possible that we could end up in such a world, yet also understand compassion at the same time. Compassion would be of some value in such a world, by knowing compassion, as the knowing could still be an advantage in such a world because it would allow those knowing compassion - learned from experiencing a world where compassion was learned - to also know how to maintain such a world and ensure it does not become something other than a world without suffering.

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #103]

But those who reject the notion of God treat the "problem of evil" as a rhetorical question, ignoring the solutions offered by theism.

What "solutions"?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #103]

But those who reject the notion of God treat the "problem of evil" as a rhetorical question, ignoring the solutions offered by theism.

What "solutions"?

The solutions which have been under discussion----there being more to existence than what we presently experience, the necessity of knowing unhappiness to be able to know happiness, free will [which arguably does exist despite any effort to impeach it from being a solution to the problem of evil]....

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #102]

I agree that I don't have the power to bring an omniscient and omnipotent being to justice. However, I can still blame this being for failing to prevent all suffering, injustice, and deaths.

Yes you can. But it has no effect on the outcome of the justice you think needs to happen. Therefore, your blaming is non-relevant in that context.

If God had made all living things all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful then we would all have been forever happy.

That is to say, that if GOD had just being content with itself and not created anything else except for things indistinguishable to itself [ just like GOD,] then we would be forever happy like/as GOD.

If we were made all-knowing, by definition, we would have known about everything, including compassion.

And by definition we would be indistinguishable from a GOD who made us that way.

Besides, compassion is only helpful in a world where suffering exists.

Which means that a world where suffering exists is necessary in order to know compassion, which means that GOD knows compassion because such a world exists. Which means that IF such a world did not exist, GOD would not be all knowing.

If we lived in a world without suffering, compassion would be redundant in that world.

But it could be possible that we could end up in such a world, yet also understand compassion at the same time. Compassion would be of some value in such a world, by knowing compassion, as the knowing could still be an advantage in such a world because it would allow those knowing compassion - learned from experiencing a world where compassion was learned - to also know how to maintain such a world and ensure it does not become something other than a world without suffering.

You are just speculating about possibilities. What can you know for sure about what is real and what is not real? I know what I know for sure: I exist and I can't do an infinite number of things that I really want to do and am constantly doing things I don't want to do. Therefore, I don't have free will.

Why would an all-knowing and all-powerful being need to create a universe where there is suffering and compassion in order to know suffering and compassion? He is already all-knowing and all-powerful, so, there is nothing new for him to learn.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #103]

But those who reject the notion of God treat the "problem of evil" as a rhetorical question, ignoring the solutions offered by theism.

What "solutions"?

The solutions which have been under discussion----there being more to existence than what we presently experience, the necessity of knowing unhappiness to be able to know happiness, free will [which arguably does exist despite any effort to impeach it from being a solution to the problem of evil]....

Please prove to me that there is more to existence than what we presently experience and that free will exists for biological organisms. Thank you.