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

[The Tanager]

Thank you ever so much for your prayers and kind wishes. If you want to learn more about veganism please see https://www.carnismdebunked.com I used to be a devout Christian, so I totally understand how you feel. Without religion, life's a bitch, then we die. With some religions (e.g. Christianity and Islam), life's a bitch, then we go to heaven forever. With some other religions (Hinduism and Jainism), life's a bitch, then we get a better reincarnation. I am not going to burden you with all the details of my painful life. I am pleased that you have never had suicidal thoughts. I hope you are happy.

You are welcome. Thank you for the link! I do have a different synopsis of what I think Christianity teaches. I think it's that life's a b----, but God is trying to redeem that, bringing heaven here on earth and wants us to join Him in that rescue mission. It wouldn't be a burden on me to share your life details, as I think we are meant to carry each other's struggles, but you certainly don't owe it to me or need to do so and I'm not a professional. I hope our paths cross in other threads.

[Compassionist]

Thank you ever so much for your prayers and kind wishes. If you want to learn more about veganism please see https://www.carnismdebunked.com I used to be a devout Christian, so I totally understand how you feel. Without religion, life's a bitch, then we die. With some religions (e.g. Christianity and Islam), life's a bitch, then we go to heaven forever. With some other religions (Hinduism and Jainism), life's a bitch, then we get a better reincarnation. I am not going to burden you with all the details of my painful life. I am pleased that you have never had suicidal thoughts. I hope you are happy.

You are welcome. Thank you for the link! I do have a different synopsis of what I think Christianity teaches. I think it's that life's a b----, but God is trying to redeem that, bringing heaven here on earth and wants us to join Him in that rescue mission. It wouldn't be a burden on me to share your life details, as I think we are meant to carry each other's struggles, but you certainly don't owe it to me or need to do so and I'm not a professional. I hope our paths cross in other threads.

I used to believe as you do, so I am familiar with the comfort it gives you. You are most welcome about the vegan website link. Even if you are not burdened by the details of my life, other readers might be. I don't want to trigger any vulnerable reader's symptoms of PTSD, etc. I wish you and yours all the best.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #124

If I sacrifice my life to save two humans then I have saved 2 x 99.9% of my genes which is almost twice the number of my own genes. If I sacrifice my life to save 8 billion humans then I have saved 8 billion x 99.9% of my genes which is almost 8 billion times the number of my own genes.

Those who sacrifice themselves for others don't do so to save genes; they do so to save beings. They sacrifice themselves to save somebody's loved one: someone's child, someone's parent, someone's spouse, someone's sibling, someone's friend. Saving the person is the motivation; saving the person's genes is incidental. The Golden Rule, common among the world's religions, operates on a grander scale than genetics.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #124

If I sacrifice my life to save two humans then I have saved 2 x 99.9% of my genes which is almost twice the number of my own genes. If I sacrifice my life to save 8 billion humans then I have saved 8 billion x 99.9% of my genes which is almost 8 billion times the number of my own genes.

Those who sacrifice themselves for others don't do so to save genes; they do so to save beings. They sacrifice themselves to save somebody's loved one: someone's child, someone's parent, someone's spouse, someone's sibling, someone's friend. Saving the person is the motivation; saving the person's genes is incidental. The Golden Rule, common among the world's religions, operates on a grander scale than genetics.

Yes, I agree, but the effect is the same. The more lives are saved, the more genes are saved. That's why the genes make us do it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #124

If I sacrifice my life to save two humans then I have saved 2 x 99.9% of my genes which is almost twice the number of my own genes. If I sacrifice my life to save 8 billion humans then I have saved 8 billion x 99.9% of my genes which is almost 8 billion times the number of my own genes.

Those who sacrifice themselves for others don't do so to save genes; they do so to save beings. They sacrifice themselves to save somebody's loved one: someone's child, someone's parent, someone's spouse, someone's sibling, someone's friend. Saving the person is the motivation; saving the person's genes is incidental. The Golden Rule, common among the world's religions, operates on a grander scale than genetics.

Yes, I agree, but the effect is the same. The more lives are saved, the more genes are saved. That's why the genes make us do it.

Isn't it nice to know that our genes are programmed to move us to serve a higher purpose?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #124

If I sacrifice my life to save two humans then I have saved 2 x 99.9% of my genes which is almost twice the number of my own genes. If I sacrifice my life to save 8 billion humans then I have saved 8 billion x 99.9% of my genes which is almost 8 billion times the number of my own genes.

Those who sacrifice themselves for others don't do so to save genes; they do so to save beings. They sacrifice themselves to save somebody's loved one: someone's child, someone's parent, someone's spouse, someone's sibling, someone's friend. Saving the person is the motivation; saving the person's genes is incidental. The Golden Rule, common among the world's religions, operates on a grander scale than genetics.

Yes, I agree, but the effect is the same. The more lives are saved, the more genes are saved. That's why the genes make us do it.

Isn't it nice to know that our genes are programmed to move us to serve a higher purpose?

Yes, it is nice. Although, there is a dark side to this e.g. people have also committed genocides and slavery. We tend to have in-group love and out-group hate.

[Compassionist]

It's possible naive realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism is correct. I live my life as if it is correct. What do you think?

[Athetotheist]

It's possible naive realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism is correct. I live my life as if it is correct. What do you think?

"According to the naïve realist, the objects of perception are not representations of external objects, but are in fact those external objects themselves."

That's why some people believe that the earth is flat.

[Compassionist]

It's possible naive realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism is correct. I live my life as if it is correct. What do you think?

"According to the naïve realist, the objects of perception are not representations of external objects, but are in fact those external objects themselves."

That's why some people believe that the earth is flat.

The people who believe that the Earth is flat ignore direct perceptions of the curvature of the Earth from high up on a skyscraper or a mountain or a plane or a helicopter. Also, they ignore the direct perception that the mast of a ship appears as a tiny dot across the horizon and gradually gets taller as the ship gets closer to the port. This happens due to the curvature of the Earth.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's possible naive realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism is correct. I live my life as if it is correct. What do you think?

"According to the naïve realist, the objects of perception are not representations of external objects, but are in fact those external objects themselves."

That's why some people believe that the earth is flat.

A good observation. But,while one has to be a 'naive' realist to see things as the appear, rather than how (science shows) they actually are, just as one has to be an "Unaware" (so to speak) atheist in order to fall for the stock theist apologetics, it is better, however to think that the sky is actually blue as distinct from knowing that it is an effect caused by the brain producing a visual signal in response to a particular wavelength, that to imagine (for instance) that there is a god spray painting the sky - dome before dawn,every day.

The 'naive' realist is making the logical call by accident, or by instinct (just as he is wrong, by accident in taking the earth to be flat on initial appearance). And we have good old apologetics equivocation behind the curain, waiting to leap out. The 'naive realist' can be equated with the considered materialist, especially if metaphysical materialism (which nobody uses other than philosophers in their mind - games,it seems) - the claim that nothing exists or can exist other that the material/physical. Which may be true or maybe not, but there is no logical reason to credit the claim of the 'supernatural' (1). But metaphysical materialism has been played in the past to force materialists (realists) into a false position of making a claim they can't know. Which is why mechanical materialism is what is used in practice. 'There is no reason to believe a supernatural claim without proof'. Which is of course the counter to the apologetic of forcing gnostic atheism on us, so as to have us make an untenable claim.

So, just having separated 'naive realism' which is sorta ok in everyday use and actually more reasonable than living like there was a big invisible human interfering in our lives from metaphysical materialism, which I'm sure you would never think of doing, back to you!

(1) a misunderstood or misused term in itself, but generally referring to claims of entities unknown to naturalists and also beyond the norms of science. e.g a new species or subatomic particle is not supernatural because we we have seen that sort of thing before, but a ghost, goblin or god, is a supernatural claim and of course bears the burden of proof, as indeed does a new species or particle.