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]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #109]

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.

Even so, the topic is not about your supposed lack of free will, but about whether God is Evil.

As such - the subject "GOD" assumes speculation about possibilities will be part of the overall mix of discussion, so complaining about it, doesn't help the position of your case.
If you don't want to speculate, then withdraw from the conversation.

[Compassionist]

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.

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 I am constantly doing things I don't want to do. Therefore, I don't have free will. This is a subjective truth because I don't have any way to know any objective truth. How could I possibly know any objective truth given that all of my awareness (sight, smell, taste, hearing, touch, proprioception) is subjective? My perceptions could be illusions. I could be living in a simulation created by sadistic aliens who are experimenting on me. Perhaps you are such an alien. How would I know for sure? I only blame beings who actually have free will. I don't blame anyone who does not have free will. I clearly don't have free will. I would have to be all-knowing and all-powerful to have free will. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then, God has free will and is therefore blameworthy.

I experience "willing the good of another" but I can't implement my will because my will is not free from limitations. If everything ran according to my will, all living things would be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and own an infinite number of universes each and be forever happy. However, this is not what is happening - as far as I can perceive. My will is constrained. My will is limited. You keep saying we have limited free will. Limited free will is not free will. Free will, by definition, is free from limitations. A limited free will is an oxymoron.

Why would a real and good God put up with a Bible that represents him falsely? If I were God, I would make myself known clearly to all living things.

The two creation accounts in the Bible do not match what we know from the scientific method i.e. the universe came into being 13.82 billion years ago through a Big Bang, there was a cosmic inflation, stars formed, galaxies formed, our Sun formed 4.6 billion years ago, our Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, our Moon formed when a Mars-sized planet collided with the Earth, life evolved on Earth 3.7 billion years ago, etc.

You claimed that "God ... brings objectivity through the purpose of creation." I disagree. It doesn't make any sense at all. How can a being bring objectivity?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #110

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.

If you're asking for proof, you're asking for something which science itself doesn't provide [outside of mathematics]. I've offered what I take to be evidence.

Human beings give selflessly every day, winning victories over their selfish genes, so the Selfish Gene Argument is a cop-out.

Our experiences may have made us the way we are, but since we are always having experiences, our experiences are always changing us. We are never static. From moment to moment we are constantly being shaped and reshaped by our experiences, so the Limited By Experience Argument is a cop-out.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #110

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.

If you're asking for proof, you're asking for something which science itself doesn't provide [outside of mathematics]. I've offered what I take to be evidence.

Human beings give selflessly every day, winning victories over their selfish genes, so the Selfish Gene Argument is a cop-out.

Our experiences may have made us the way we are, but since we are always having experiences, our experiences are always changing us. We are never static. From moment to moment we are constantly being shaped and reshaped by our experiences, so the Limited By Experience Argument is a cop-out.

At least 99.61% of the 8 billion humans currently alive are not even vegan. They murder and rape sentient organisms every second. Where did you get giving selflessly from? Yes, some of us donate to others but that is not selfless. For example, I have donated blood, food, clothes, toys, money, etc. many many times. I share 99.9% of my genes with the people I donated to. So, by helping them I am helping their genes, which are in fact copies of my genes. Even when I help other species, they have copies of most of my genes e.g. I share 98.8% of my genes with chimps, 80% of my genes with cows, 90% of my genes with cats, 82% of my genes with dogs, etc.

I have never claimed that we are static or that our experiences don't change. What I said is, our choices are determined by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I have never made a "Limited By Experience Argument". Where did you get that from? Since you claimed that you are not limited by your experiences, I request that you become fluent in all the languages you don't currently know without ever experiencing them through reading and hearing. If you have free will, you should be able to learn them without having to experience them through listening or reading.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #109]

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.

Even so, the topic is not about your supposed lack of free will, but about whether God is Evil.

As such - the subject "GOD" assumes speculation about possibilities will be part of the overall mix of discussion, so complaining about it, doesn't help the position of your case.
If you don't want to speculate, then withdraw from the conversation.

I have already said that I am an Agnostic Atheist as I can't decide whether God is evil and imaginary or evil and real. Although, I am leaning towards God being evil and imaginary. I have accepted that you are an Agnostic Neutral.

[JoeyKnothead]

If you're asking for proof, you're asking for something which science itself doesn't provide [outside of mathematics]. I've offered what I take to be evidence.

I'm curious to know what math can be brought to bear in this matter.

Human beings give selflessly every day, winning victories over their selfish genes, so the Selfish Gene Argument is a cop-out.

I'm not well versed on the selfish gene notion, but...

I can see where empathy would provide for closer bonds between kin, clans, tribes and such up the ladder to all humans. We could reasonably say it's "selfish" that we're more likely to help those genetically closest to us.

But as you say, in this matter we're really down to what math or reason or logic we can bring to bear.

Our experiences may have made us the way we are, but since we are always having experiences, our experiences are always changing us. We are never static. From moment to moment we are constantly being shaped and reshaped by our experiences, so the Limited By Experience Argument is a cop-out.

I reject the term "cop-out", but agree on the particulars.

So mark me down as agreeing with a good bit of your position here.

On God being evil, we're left to our own subjective opinion of what it means to be evil. The Bible contains examples I'd consider evil, but others might not.

This, for me, is sound indication the Bible is a story by men of what those men consider good and evil.

[William]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #115]

I have already said that I am an Agnostic Atheist as I can't decide whether God is evil and imaginary or evil and real.

That is neither an Atheistic or an Agnostic position as you have only allowed for GOD to either be an imagined thing which is evil, or a real thing which is evil. Even mixing the two positions together would not give the conclusion you have already decided upon, which is that God, whether existing of not, would be evil.

Although, I am leaning towards God being evil and imaginary.

Lean away - the bias is obvious that you think of the idea of GOD as being evil. The hope is that the evil GOD does not exist, as it will be one less thing to have to deal with.

I have accepted that you are an Agnostic Neutral.

Can you say what the difference between your position and mine might be?

[The Tanager]

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 I am constantly doing things I don't want to do. Therefore, I don't have free will.

I’ll try to get at your (unintended) equivocation on “free will” another way. You sound like you are talking about free doing, not free willing. Free will, as non-determinists are talking about, is not about the ability to do all and only what we want to do. It’s about having freedom over the choices we make within our limitations. That is what you need to show we don’t have freedom over to show determinism to be true.

You may think limited free will is an oxymoron, but why do you think “free” means “completely free” versus “free in some senses but not all”? If it’s just a problem of terms, come up with what term you want us to use so that we can talk about the actual point of difference between determinists and non-determinists. Without that, you are presenting a false dilemma.

This is a subjective truth because I don't have any way to know any objective truth.

Is this statement objectively true? If so, then it is self-defeating. If not, then we don’t have a reason to believe we don’t have any way to know any objective truth.

How could I possibly know any objective truth given that all of my awareness (sight, smell, taste, hearing, touch, proprioception) is subjective? My perceptions could be illusions. I could be living in a simulation created by sadistic aliens who are experimenting on me. Perhaps you are such an alien. How would I know for sure?

I’m not talking about knowing for sure, but about what is most reasonable to believe. You are, too. You don’t know determinism is true, but think it’s the most reasonable position to take.

I only blame beings who actually have free will. I don't blame anyone who does not have free will. I clearly don't have free will. I would have to be all-knowing and all-powerful to have free will. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then, God has free will and is therefore blameworthy.

You do not have to be all-knowing and all-powerful to have free will in the way non-determinists mean free will. You just have to have control over the choices available to you to try to act on, within the limitations you have.

I have said God is blameworthy for the choices He makes. He is not blameworthy for the choices other beings with free will make.

I experience "willing the good of another" but I can't implement my will because my will is not free from limitations.

If determinism is true, then I’m not sure you experience willing the good of another because I’m not sure there is even a “you”; “you” are simply a collection of molecules that goes through a series of experiences with the illusion of a self and the illusion of some self making choices.

But even if there is a real you, within determinism, you aren’t willing anything; you are simply dancing to your DNA with the illusion of willing the good of another.

Why would a real and good God put up with a Bible that represents him falsely?

To allow people free will.

The two creation accounts in the Bible do not match what we know from the scientific method i.e. the universe came into being 13.82 billion years ago through a Big Bang, there was a cosmic inflation, stars formed, galaxies formed, our Sun formed 4.6 billion years ago, our Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, our Moon formed when a Mars-sized planet collided with the Earth, life evolved on Earth 3.7 billion years ago, etc.

I agree they don’t match. I think that’s because the Bible isn’t addressing those questions. It doesn’t talk about how the world scientifically came about. It’s a narrative that is speaking about God bringing order to chaos and the purpose He has for humans that distinguished Him from other worldviews about God(s) going around in that area of the world. As such, these accounts do not contradict what science is teaching us about the physical processes that played themselves out. They are perfectly compatible.

You claimed that "God ... brings objectivity through the purpose of creation." I disagree. It doesn't make any sense at all. How can a being bring objectivity?

Something is “good” for a certain purpose. Studying the many years it takes to become a doctor is good for those who want to be doctors; it’s not good for becoming a construction worker. God’s creation would have followed whatever purpose(s) God had in creating it. He would have designed humans in a way to fulfill that purpose. That design/desire, gives humans an objective purpose and, therefore, an objective good.

How, in your view, is what you think of as “suffering” and “harm” anything more than akin to an ice cream flavor you don’t like?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #114

At least 99.61% of the 8 billion humans currently alive are not even vegan. They murder and rape sentient organisms every second. Where did you get giving selflessly from?

Yes, some of us donate to others but that is not selfless. For example, I have donated blood, food, clothes, toys, money, etc. many many times. I share 99.9% of my genes with the people I donated to. So, by helping them I am helping their genes, which are in fact copies of my genes. Even when I help other species, they have copies of most of my genes e.g. I share 98.8% of my genes with chimps, 80% of my genes with cows, 90% of my genes with cats, 82% of my genes with dogs, etc.

There are those who choose to help those with the same genes and those who choose not to. Interpreting altruism as roundabout selfishness is a confirmation bias.

Since you claimed that you are not limited by your experiences, I request that you become fluent in all the languages you don't currently know without ever experiencing them through reading and hearing. If you have free will, you should be able to learn them without having to experience them through listening or reading.

That omnipotence is required for freedom of choice is a childish argument. I haven't had the experience to know every language, but I don't need the experience of someone's life in order to make their life better.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #116

I can see where empathy would provide for closer bonds between kin, clans, tribes and such up the ladder to all humans. We could reasonably say it's "selfish" that we're more likely to help those genetically closest to us.

But we're not limited to helping those genetically close to us. We're certainly not being selfish when we overcome our selfishness.