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
Is God evil?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Compassionist
- Guru
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
- Has thanked: 1070 times
- Been thanked: 252 times
-
Compassionist
- Guru
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
- Has thanked: 1070 times
- Been thanked: 252 times
Re: Is God evil?
Post #311[Replying to William in post #310]
That’s a fair question - why regard my conclusion as the most reasonable reading?
Because it rests on three interlocking foundations: textual evidence, moral coherence, and consistency of reasoning.
1. Textual evidence
My assessment isn’t based on emotion but on direct reading of the Biblical narratives.
Across the text, the same deity is said to:
command genocides (1 Samuel 15:3),
drown nearly all life (Genesis 7),
strike infants for their parents’ sins (2 Samuel 12:14–18),
order execution for trivial offenses (Numbers 15:32–36),
yet also express mercy, love, and forgiveness in other passages.
If we were evaluating any human ruler on those same records, we’d call such a being morally mixed - benevolent at times, tyrannical at others. The Biblical text itself justifies that description.
2. Moral coherence
If “omnibenevolent†means all-loving and all-compassionate, then commanding or causing suffering directly contradicts that trait.
Either “good†is being redefined to include cruelty, or the being is not perfectly good.
My view simply follows the ordinary meanings of “good,†“evil,†and “love.â€
By those meanings, the Bible’s God does both, but the harm vastly outweighs the help.
3. Consistency of reasoning
I apply the same moral standards to deities as to humans: if killing innocents is evil when done by people, it remains evil when attributed to gods.
That’s not arrogance - it’s consistency.
If morality changes meaning when applied to the powerful, then “goodness†becomes a synonym for “might.â€
So my conclusion isn’t that my interpretation is infallible - only that it fits the evidence within the text and the ethical logic we use everywhere else.
Anyone who claims that the same actions are “good†when God does them is changing the meaning of the word.
That’s a fair question - why regard my conclusion as the most reasonable reading?
Because it rests on three interlocking foundations: textual evidence, moral coherence, and consistency of reasoning.
1. Textual evidence
My assessment isn’t based on emotion but on direct reading of the Biblical narratives.
Across the text, the same deity is said to:
command genocides (1 Samuel 15:3),
drown nearly all life (Genesis 7),
strike infants for their parents’ sins (2 Samuel 12:14–18),
order execution for trivial offenses (Numbers 15:32–36),
yet also express mercy, love, and forgiveness in other passages.
If we were evaluating any human ruler on those same records, we’d call such a being morally mixed - benevolent at times, tyrannical at others. The Biblical text itself justifies that description.
2. Moral coherence
If “omnibenevolent†means all-loving and all-compassionate, then commanding or causing suffering directly contradicts that trait.
Either “good†is being redefined to include cruelty, or the being is not perfectly good.
My view simply follows the ordinary meanings of “good,†“evil,†and “love.â€
By those meanings, the Bible’s God does both, but the harm vastly outweighs the help.
3. Consistency of reasoning
I apply the same moral standards to deities as to humans: if killing innocents is evil when done by people, it remains evil when attributed to gods.
That’s not arrogance - it’s consistency.
If morality changes meaning when applied to the powerful, then “goodness†becomes a synonym for “might.â€
So my conclusion isn’t that my interpretation is infallible - only that it fits the evidence within the text and the ethical logic we use everywhere else.
Anyone who claims that the same actions are “good†when God does them is changing the meaning of the word.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16490
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1037 times
- Been thanked: 1950 times
- Contact:
Re: Is God evil?
Post #312[Replying to Compassionist in post #311]
Sure. While the OP limits the question to the Bible God, rather than Theism overall (a far more complex undertaking to be sure) even in the Bible, the God does not claim to be ONLY the source of "goodness".
Integration of Reason and Intuition through the Power of Expression
Transcending the paralysis of skepticism.
From the link:
Sure. While the OP limits the question to the Bible God, rather than Theism overall (a far more complex undertaking to be sure) even in the Bible, the God does not claim to be ONLY the source of "goodness".
Integration of Reason and Intuition through the Power of Expression
Transcending the paralysis of skepticism.
From the link:
Me: For starters, the argument is strictly based upon the Biblical God, not on Theism as a whole.
Even so, they Biblical God does not hide the fact that “he†is both the bringer of evil and of good†and it should also be noted that the stories (mythology) is centered around the God being “Good†where individuals follow “his†ordinances and “Evil†when said ordinances are not followed.
UICDS: I Know
The product of human imagination filling in the blanks…
Add to memories that we are looking for kind ways to answer our skeptical sisterly brotherhood/ brotherly sisterhood
To Warm Them up to The Truth.
"Is Coral the stupidest animal or the smartest rock?"
Me: Yes - that is an interesting question about coral - but we can also include the concept re “the most creative rock†re Mother Earth. Even so - even if skeptics like Compassionist accepted for the sake of argument that The Earth was a sentient creator god - they are still stuck with the imperfections and the good and evil involved in that creativity…signifying that the resistance to answering the question “do we exist within a created thing†involves the idea that something sentient created…because they have “the problem of evil†to then deal with…so it is easier to drop the idea that we exist within a created thing and adopt the “simpler†idea that the evidence does not show us anything which mindless evolution doesn’t “explainâ€. However, the assumption (or claim) that evolution is a mindless activity really only serves to avoid the supposed “problem of evilâ€, which itself would not be such a “problem†if not for the fact of the contrast of “good†- so simply hand-waving - avoids having to search any deeper than the shallows…
UICDS: What we call the experience of reality
Me: Yes - and what evidentially can be interpreted a number of ways, depending on what one will or will not accept as “evidenceâ€.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
Compassionist
- Guru
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
- Has thanked: 1070 times
- Been thanked: 252 times
Re: Is God evil?
Post #313[Replying to William in post #312]
William, thank you for your thoughtful reflection - you always bring an imaginative depth to these discussions. I agree that the Biblical God does not claim to be only the source of goodness. The text itself explicitly attributes both good and evil to God:
“I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.†- Isaiah 45:7.
That’s precisely why the moral problem arises. If the same being who commands “Thou shalt not kill†also kills infants, orders genocides, and sends plagues, then by any consistent moral standard, that being acts both benevolently and malevolently. My question isn’t whether such a being admits to doing evil - it’s whether a being who does both can coherently be described as omnibenevolent.
1. The “Problem of Evil†isn’t evasion
You suggest that skeptics call evolution “mindless†only to escape the problem of evil. But the argument is not psychological; it’s logical.
Evolution is “mindless†because its mechanisms - mutation, selection, drift - operate without foresight or moral intention.
That very lack of intention explains imperfection, suffering, and waste without contradiction.
By contrast, invoking a sentient creator introduces the moral paradox: if the creator is all-loving, then preventable suffering becomes incompatible with its nature.
The appeal to mystery (“we can’t see the whole planâ€) doesn’t solve that contradiction; it only hides it behind vagueness.
2. Sentience and moral responsibility
If we imagine the Earth - or any creative force - as sentient, then we inherit the same moral question: how does a compassionate mind justify creating beings doomed to suffer and die?
Mindless evolution requires no justification; it simply is. A sentient designer, however, must face ethical accountability. That’s why the hypothesis of divine authorship increases the explanatory burden rather than reducing it.
3. Imagination and evidence
I agree that evidence can be “interpreted in a number of ways,†but only some interpretations yield testable consequences. Evolutionary theory predicts specific fossil sequences, genetic hierarchies, and maladaptive traits that fit a coherent pattern of descent with modification.
Mythic frameworks may offer symbolic insight, but they do not predict what we find when we dig into the rocks or sequence genomes.
The Biblical God admits to creating both good and evil.
That admission conflicts with omnibenevolence, not with poetry.
Mindless evolution explains imperfection without moral contradiction.
Invoking a sentient creator explains less while raising deeper questions about justice and compassion.
And as always, I value your creative engagement. These conversations remind me that imagination and reason both have their place - but only reason can tell us which stories correspond to reality.
William, thank you for your thoughtful reflection - you always bring an imaginative depth to these discussions. I agree that the Biblical God does not claim to be only the source of goodness. The text itself explicitly attributes both good and evil to God:
“I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.†- Isaiah 45:7.
That’s precisely why the moral problem arises. If the same being who commands “Thou shalt not kill†also kills infants, orders genocides, and sends plagues, then by any consistent moral standard, that being acts both benevolently and malevolently. My question isn’t whether such a being admits to doing evil - it’s whether a being who does both can coherently be described as omnibenevolent.
1. The “Problem of Evil†isn’t evasion
You suggest that skeptics call evolution “mindless†only to escape the problem of evil. But the argument is not psychological; it’s logical.
Evolution is “mindless†because its mechanisms - mutation, selection, drift - operate without foresight or moral intention.
That very lack of intention explains imperfection, suffering, and waste without contradiction.
By contrast, invoking a sentient creator introduces the moral paradox: if the creator is all-loving, then preventable suffering becomes incompatible with its nature.
The appeal to mystery (“we can’t see the whole planâ€) doesn’t solve that contradiction; it only hides it behind vagueness.
2. Sentience and moral responsibility
If we imagine the Earth - or any creative force - as sentient, then we inherit the same moral question: how does a compassionate mind justify creating beings doomed to suffer and die?
Mindless evolution requires no justification; it simply is. A sentient designer, however, must face ethical accountability. That’s why the hypothesis of divine authorship increases the explanatory burden rather than reducing it.
3. Imagination and evidence
I agree that evidence can be “interpreted in a number of ways,†but only some interpretations yield testable consequences. Evolutionary theory predicts specific fossil sequences, genetic hierarchies, and maladaptive traits that fit a coherent pattern of descent with modification.
Mythic frameworks may offer symbolic insight, but they do not predict what we find when we dig into the rocks or sequence genomes.
The Biblical God admits to creating both good and evil.
That admission conflicts with omnibenevolence, not with poetry.
Mindless evolution explains imperfection without moral contradiction.
Invoking a sentient creator explains less while raising deeper questions about justice and compassion.
And as always, I value your creative engagement. These conversations remind me that imagination and reason both have their place - but only reason can tell us which stories correspond to reality.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16490
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1037 times
- Been thanked: 1950 times
- Contact:
Re: Is God evil?
Post #314[Replying to Compassionist in post #313]
Yes - it is interesting.
Where you say "That’s precisely why the moral problem arises. If the same being who commands “Thou shalt not kill†also kills infants, orders genocides, and sends plagues, then by any consistent moral standard, that being acts both benevolently and malevolently. My question isn’t whether such a being admits to doing evil - it’s whether a being who does both can coherently be described as omnibenevolent." you are conflating. Drop the "omnibenevolent" aspect on the grounds that you have already agreed that such a being cannot exist since we and everything else we can measure and compare, exists.
Then from that point accept that we exist in something which could have been created by a "more evil than good" entity, look for evidence to back this up (Dinosaurs) Big chewy monsters. Imagine (yes - imagine) that the earth was sentient way back then, but in a more primitive, childlike manner, producing the forms which it did, in the process.
What the imaginings do is show a type of emerging consciousness which was able to use its own form to create all the horrors (and rainbows) that it has, as well as suffer the misfortune of having to start over again because of fortuitous happenings, without which, humans would never had emerged...
Sure, call it "poetry" if that suits you, but don't forget that I am merely narrating a possible truth and connecting that with any evidence physical science and the sciences in general, can throw at it. A picture emerges. The creativity was toned down to accommodate a possible maturing of said Earth Entity as it emerged consciously into this reality and eventually bore the Humanities.
Something which has so far taken more than just a few "years"...stuff like that...
Yes - it is interesting.
Where you say "That’s precisely why the moral problem arises. If the same being who commands “Thou shalt not kill†also kills infants, orders genocides, and sends plagues, then by any consistent moral standard, that being acts both benevolently and malevolently. My question isn’t whether such a being admits to doing evil - it’s whether a being who does both can coherently be described as omnibenevolent." you are conflating. Drop the "omnibenevolent" aspect on the grounds that you have already agreed that such a being cannot exist since we and everything else we can measure and compare, exists.
Then from that point accept that we exist in something which could have been created by a "more evil than good" entity, look for evidence to back this up (Dinosaurs) Big chewy monsters. Imagine (yes - imagine) that the earth was sentient way back then, but in a more primitive, childlike manner, producing the forms which it did, in the process.
What the imaginings do is show a type of emerging consciousness which was able to use its own form to create all the horrors (and rainbows) that it has, as well as suffer the misfortune of having to start over again because of fortuitous happenings, without which, humans would never had emerged...
Sure, call it "poetry" if that suits you, but don't forget that I am merely narrating a possible truth and connecting that with any evidence physical science and the sciences in general, can throw at it. A picture emerges. The creativity was toned down to accommodate a possible maturing of said Earth Entity as it emerged consciously into this reality and eventually bore the Humanities.
Something which has so far taken more than just a few "years"...stuff like that...
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
Compassionist
- Guru
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
- Has thanked: 1070 times
- Been thanked: 252 times
Re: Is God evil?
Post #315[Replying to William in post #314]
William, I see what you’re doing - you’re reframing the issue away from the Biblical God’s moral contradictions toward a broader, mythic vision of an evolving, self-expressive Earth-mind. That’s a creative and internally coherent narrative, and I appreciate that you’re not claiming infallible revelation but rather exploring how imagination might reveal deeper patterns.
I can even meet you halfway: life on Earth does behave like a self-organizing, feedback-driven system that learns through variation and error. In that limited sense, “the planet learning about itself†is a fine metaphor for evolution. Where we differ is over what kind of explanation we’re pursuing.
Science asks: What mechanisms generate these outcomes?
Mythic cosmology asks: What meanings can we draw from them?
Both are valuable, but they operate on different evidential currencies. Evolutionary theory explains the same pattern of predation, extinction, and adaptation through measurable processes - natural selection, mutation, environmental feedback - without requiring that Earth itself be conscious or morally intentioned.
So, if your model is meant as a metaphor for emergent complexity, I’m with you. But if it’s offered as a literal cosmology, then it still faces the same evidential challenge as theism: what independent data shows that consciousness, intention, or moral learning exists beyond individual brains?
Your poetic picture gives meaning to the story of life; the scientific model gives mechanism. Both can coexist - but only the latter predicts and tests outcomes in a way that lets imagination connect to reality.
William, I see what you’re doing - you’re reframing the issue away from the Biblical God’s moral contradictions toward a broader, mythic vision of an evolving, self-expressive Earth-mind. That’s a creative and internally coherent narrative, and I appreciate that you’re not claiming infallible revelation but rather exploring how imagination might reveal deeper patterns.
I can even meet you halfway: life on Earth does behave like a self-organizing, feedback-driven system that learns through variation and error. In that limited sense, “the planet learning about itself†is a fine metaphor for evolution. Where we differ is over what kind of explanation we’re pursuing.
Science asks: What mechanisms generate these outcomes?
Mythic cosmology asks: What meanings can we draw from them?
Both are valuable, but they operate on different evidential currencies. Evolutionary theory explains the same pattern of predation, extinction, and adaptation through measurable processes - natural selection, mutation, environmental feedback - without requiring that Earth itself be conscious or morally intentioned.
So, if your model is meant as a metaphor for emergent complexity, I’m with you. But if it’s offered as a literal cosmology, then it still faces the same evidential challenge as theism: what independent data shows that consciousness, intention, or moral learning exists beyond individual brains?
Your poetic picture gives meaning to the story of life; the scientific model gives mechanism. Both can coexist - but only the latter predicts and tests outcomes in a way that lets imagination connect to reality.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16490
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1037 times
- Been thanked: 1950 times
- Contact:
Re: Is God evil?
Post #316[Replying to Compassionist in post #315]
What we are "pursuing" is the answer to the question YOU posed. "Is God evil?"
Of course, you are being specific to the Biblical presentation of "GOD" and we have already agreed that said God is not in denial of being the source of BOTH evil and good.
My bringing into this the concept the idea that the Earth itself is sentient fits with the data science has so far presented.
So my question to you is, if such a sovereign entity exists in the form of the planet itself, does that - in your opinion - mean that said entity is therefore, evil? Science cannot answer that question for you, since as you say Science asks: What mechanisms generate these outcomes?
Thus, it is not from science that your question "Is God Evil" derives or can even be answered, unless of course, you decide that evil/good are "mechanisms" which you can back up with evidence.
Because clearly, you state that the God under question is "more evil than good" and such a statement offers a particular meaning, does it not?
Currently my impression is as follows.
Compassionist: Is (the God of the Bible) evil?
Also Compassionist: Even that the God of the Bible also does good things, the God of the Bible does more evil things, therefore the God of the Bible is predominantly evil.
To me, this answer signifies that the answer to your question is "no - but" which you then insert meaning into why the "but" in an attempt to explain "why" you believe what you do re how you answer the question - none of which has anything to do with the process of the science you are using, because if both the Bible and the subject of God and indeed Theistic mythology are simply poetic pictures which gives meaning to the story of life, then as far as I can see at this point, evolutionary science is besides the point and cannot answer YOUR question here.
My attempt re Earth possibly being a sentient being was to introduce a mechanism most aligned with physical science - not only with evidential predictions but also with evidential earth history embedded into the very rock as data which can be examined by one of its offspring...the humanities...
How is it that your AI has not picked up on this, and consequently you?Where we differ is over what kind of explanation we’re pursuing.
What we are "pursuing" is the answer to the question YOU posed. "Is God evil?"
Of course, you are being specific to the Biblical presentation of "GOD" and we have already agreed that said God is not in denial of being the source of BOTH evil and good.
My bringing into this the concept the idea that the Earth itself is sentient fits with the data science has so far presented.
So my question to you is, if such a sovereign entity exists in the form of the planet itself, does that - in your opinion - mean that said entity is therefore, evil? Science cannot answer that question for you, since as you say Science asks: What mechanisms generate these outcomes?
Thus, it is not from science that your question "Is God Evil" derives or can even be answered, unless of course, you decide that evil/good are "mechanisms" which you can back up with evidence.
Yes, and on that observation the study of your question "Is God Evil?", cannot be answered by the science of evolutionary theory, because such involves a being which is conscious and nor is evolutionary theory involved with the topic of moral intentionality. Thus, until you can show otherwise, the thread subject specific to your question has nothing obvious to do with said science being able to answer that for you.Evolutionary theory explains the same pattern of predation, extinction, and adaptation through measurable processes - natural selection, mutation, environmental feedback - without requiring that Earth itself be conscious or morally intentioned.
Is one such example then, that you have used something other than the science you have brought into your argument, to find in your current answer to that question YOU posed - MEANING?Mythic cosmology asks: What meanings can we draw from them?
Because clearly, you state that the God under question is "more evil than good" and such a statement offers a particular meaning, does it not?
Currently my impression is as follows.
Compassionist: Is (the God of the Bible) evil?
Also Compassionist: Even that the God of the Bible also does good things, the God of the Bible does more evil things, therefore the God of the Bible is predominantly evil.
To me, this answer signifies that the answer to your question is "no - but" which you then insert meaning into why the "but" in an attempt to explain "why" you believe what you do re how you answer the question - none of which has anything to do with the process of the science you are using, because if both the Bible and the subject of God and indeed Theistic mythology are simply poetic pictures which gives meaning to the story of life, then as far as I can see at this point, evolutionary science is besides the point and cannot answer YOUR question here.
My attempt re Earth possibly being a sentient being was to introduce a mechanism most aligned with physical science - not only with evidential predictions but also with evidential earth history embedded into the very rock as data which can be examined by one of its offspring...the humanities...
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
Compassionist
- Guru
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
- Has thanked: 1070 times
- Been thanked: 252 times
Re: Is God evil?
Post #317[Replying to William in post #316]
William, thank you again for engaging so deeply. You’re right that science by itself cannot determine what counts as “evil†or “good.†Those are normative judgments, not empirical ones. My point is that when we ask whether the Biblical God is evil, we can only evaluate that by the moral standards explicitly used within the text (“I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.†- Isaiah 45:7) - or, alternatively, by consistent ethical principles applied across contexts.
When I cite evolution or the flaws of nature, it’s not because science can measure moral worth, but because the Bible repeatedly attributes intentionality for natural suffering to its deity - droughts, plagues, floods, mass death. If we can now explain those events as the outcome of impersonal processes rather than conscious malice or punishment, that undermines the claim that such destruction expresses divine justice. In other words, science removes the need for a moral agent behind natural suffering. I have met Christians who claimed that victims of natural disasters such as cyclones, earthquakes, floods, etc., died because they were sinners and the Biblical God was punishing them. I am convinced that the Biblical God is imaginary and evil and doesn't punish or reward anyone for anything.
If, instead, we hypothesize that Earth itself is sentient, then we face the same question: would a sentient planet that designs ecosystems where at least 99.9% of species go extinct still count as “good,†“evil,†or simply “amoral� I don’t deny the poetic power of that idea - I even find it beautiful - but it doesn’t resolve the moral dilemma; it just reassigns agency to a different being.
So, while science cannot label God evil, it can dissolve the explanatory gap that once required invoking a divine will to account for suffering. What remains is a moral evaluation: if a conscious being deliberately created such a world, its goodness would indeed be doubtful. If no such being exists, then the problem of evil evaporates - not because the universe is fair or kind, but because it is not sentient and hence does not have culpability.
William, thank you again for engaging so deeply. You’re right that science by itself cannot determine what counts as “evil†or “good.†Those are normative judgments, not empirical ones. My point is that when we ask whether the Biblical God is evil, we can only evaluate that by the moral standards explicitly used within the text (“I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.†- Isaiah 45:7) - or, alternatively, by consistent ethical principles applied across contexts.
When I cite evolution or the flaws of nature, it’s not because science can measure moral worth, but because the Bible repeatedly attributes intentionality for natural suffering to its deity - droughts, plagues, floods, mass death. If we can now explain those events as the outcome of impersonal processes rather than conscious malice or punishment, that undermines the claim that such destruction expresses divine justice. In other words, science removes the need for a moral agent behind natural suffering. I have met Christians who claimed that victims of natural disasters such as cyclones, earthquakes, floods, etc., died because they were sinners and the Biblical God was punishing them. I am convinced that the Biblical God is imaginary and evil and doesn't punish or reward anyone for anything.
If, instead, we hypothesize that Earth itself is sentient, then we face the same question: would a sentient planet that designs ecosystems where at least 99.9% of species go extinct still count as “good,†“evil,†or simply “amoral� I don’t deny the poetic power of that idea - I even find it beautiful - but it doesn’t resolve the moral dilemma; it just reassigns agency to a different being.
So, while science cannot label God evil, it can dissolve the explanatory gap that once required invoking a divine will to account for suffering. What remains is a moral evaluation: if a conscious being deliberately created such a world, its goodness would indeed be doubtful. If no such being exists, then the problem of evil evaporates - not because the universe is fair or kind, but because it is not sentient and hence does not have culpability.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16490
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1037 times
- Been thanked: 1950 times
- Contact:
Re: Is God evil?
Post #318[Replying to Compassionist in post #317]
One cannot say for sure, and more to the point, one can at least understand that some influence is involved if indeed the sentient earth god is as all involved as the evidence (in that light/through that lens) indicates. It just means that no one book can contain Her actually re historic data.
So, no - not a "different being" so much as "one of the many faces theistic thinking paints upon her Beingness.
There is no "other" god we need to overreach for re examining theistic mythology, if indeed the local is a real and actual aspect of the whole Game being played.
The thing you label as " the moral dilemma" that "needs to be resolved" is a secondary concern. If the local god is as the evidence predicts, then the humanities questions of morality shift dynamically enough for actual light to be shone upon the way we perceive morality and if indeed our present concepts adequately address morality or simply assign it a "dilemma" and is it really a dilemma at all or simply a miscommunication due to underreach/overreach?
Physical science remains silent on that question. Other sciences to do with consciousness and mind study can help us potentially fling the veils aside.
Evidence = The Natural Neutral and the Mother of Minds
The Hunter’s Gnosis and the Ghost in the Machine
From the link
Listen
From where you are
Can you here it
Sounds just like a falling star
We didn't even notice 'till we turned around
It's been a long time coming but it finally hit the ground
Was it me
You were talking to
Funny
All this time I was thinking you were talkin' about you
You didn't even notice when I walked away
It's been a long time coming but its finally here to stay
I've seen a lot of shadows in my time
One of them was yours and one of them was mine
It's been a long time coming but I finally see the light
If it wasn't for the shadows making it real
If it wasn't for my heart making me feel
I'd be a long time
Waiting without you
That is the point because the "different being" also has similarities to the Bible God (specific of course to the Old Testament version of focused aspect of that being.If, instead, we hypothesize that Earth itself is sentient, then we face the same question: would a sentient planet that designs ecosystems where at least 99.9% of species go extinct still count as “good,†“evil,†or simply “amoral� I don’t deny the poetic power of that idea - I even find it beautiful - but it doesn’t resolve the moral dilemma; it just reassigns agency to a different being.
One cannot say for sure, and more to the point, one can at least understand that some influence is involved if indeed the sentient earth god is as all involved as the evidence (in that light/through that lens) indicates. It just means that no one book can contain Her actually re historic data.
So, no - not a "different being" so much as "one of the many faces theistic thinking paints upon her Beingness.
There is no "other" god we need to overreach for re examining theistic mythology, if indeed the local is a real and actual aspect of the whole Game being played.
The thing you label as " the moral dilemma" that "needs to be resolved" is a secondary concern. If the local god is as the evidence predicts, then the humanities questions of morality shift dynamically enough for actual light to be shone upon the way we perceive morality and if indeed our present concepts adequately address morality or simply assign it a "dilemma" and is it really a dilemma at all or simply a miscommunication due to underreach/overreach?
Physical science remains silent on that question. Other sciences to do with consciousness and mind study can help us potentially fling the veils aside.
Evidence = The Natural Neutral and the Mother of Minds
The Hunter’s Gnosis and the Ghost in the Machine
From the link
WITHOUT YOUMe: We can chart another trail - Raise the anchor fill the sails
Lift our glasses in a toast - We are the Ghost - In the Machine
We’ve been an island of our own - we’ve been a cosmic rolling stone
Now’s the time to spread our wings -
and fly!
Mumom: To Comprehend Correctly The Divine Darkness
As I said, it is not so much how each individual interprets any particular GM - either coming from me or you or anyone else - Rather it is the fact that a message is generated.
Me: Yes - and this is the evidence I share re that.
Listen
From where you are
Can you here it
Sounds just like a falling star
We didn't even notice 'till we turned around
It's been a long time coming but it finally hit the ground
Was it me
You were talking to
Funny
All this time I was thinking you were talkin' about you
You didn't even notice when I walked away
It's been a long time coming but its finally here to stay
I've seen a lot of shadows in my time
One of them was yours and one of them was mine
It's been a long time coming but I finally see the light
If it wasn't for the shadows making it real
If it wasn't for my heart making me feel
I'd be a long time
Waiting without you
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
Compassionist
- Guru
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
- Has thanked: 1070 times
- Been thanked: 252 times
Re: Is God evil?
Post #319[Replying to William in post #318]
William, thank you for your poetic and imaginative reflections. I appreciate the mythic and symbolic dimension of what you call the Natural Neutral and the Mother of Minds. It’s a beautiful vision, and I can see how it reframes the cosmos as a living system of which we are conscious parts rather than detached observers.
Where we differ, I think, is over whether moral terms like “good†and “evil†retain meaning in that framework. If “Mother Earth†births creatures only for nearly all of them to perish, then calling Her amoral seems more consistent than calling Her good. Once we dissolve moral contrast into cosmic necessity, ethics becomes description rather than prescription.
That doesn’t make your view false - it just shifts the question from “Is reality moral?†to “What does morality mean within reality?†Physical science is silent on that, yes, but philosophy isn’t. We can still ask whether compassion, fairness, and the prevention of suffering have intrinsic value or are merely convenient adaptations.
Your poetry evokes the wonder of existence; my concern is the ethics of it. Both lenses - aesthetic and moral - reveal different truths, and perhaps both are needed to see the whole picture.
William, thank you for your poetic and imaginative reflections. I appreciate the mythic and symbolic dimension of what you call the Natural Neutral and the Mother of Minds. It’s a beautiful vision, and I can see how it reframes the cosmos as a living system of which we are conscious parts rather than detached observers.
Where we differ, I think, is over whether moral terms like “good†and “evil†retain meaning in that framework. If “Mother Earth†births creatures only for nearly all of them to perish, then calling Her amoral seems more consistent than calling Her good. Once we dissolve moral contrast into cosmic necessity, ethics becomes description rather than prescription.
That doesn’t make your view false - it just shifts the question from “Is reality moral?†to “What does morality mean within reality?†Physical science is silent on that, yes, but philosophy isn’t. We can still ask whether compassion, fairness, and the prevention of suffering have intrinsic value or are merely convenient adaptations.
Your poetry evokes the wonder of existence; my concern is the ethics of it. Both lenses - aesthetic and moral - reveal different truths, and perhaps both are needed to see the whole picture.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16490
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1037 times
- Been thanked: 1950 times
- Contact:
Re: Is God evil?
Post #320[Replying to Compassionist in post #319]
Jungian Archetypes as well. Any knowledge which is able to assist us with finding reasonable answers to such questions.
It would be difficult for an individual who upholds compassion to also claim they are simply upholding concerient adaptations with also appearing conflicted...remembering as we do, that morality is not absolute. It is unknown which morals are absolute and which are convenient adaptations.
We might argue for example that it is morally correct and absolute that we protect our children but this becomes blurry and confusing when two sides are warring and both are being morally correct and absolute when they protect their children against the other.
So, if it does not prevent suffering, is it morally correct and absolute?
It is not just philosophy in its broadest term, but inclusive of Theistic mythology and occultic knowledge to name two.Physical science is silent on that, yes, but philosophy isn’t.
Jungian Archetypes as well. Any knowledge which is able to assist us with finding reasonable answers to such questions.
Physical science is silent on that but some do interpret that silence as opportunity to say that morality is a product of evolution through survival instinct - explainable as convenient adaptations.We can still ask whether compassion, fairness, and the prevention of suffering have intrinsic value or are merely convenient adaptations.
It would be difficult for an individual who upholds compassion to also claim they are simply upholding concerient adaptations with also appearing conflicted...remembering as we do, that morality is not absolute. It is unknown which morals are absolute and which are convenient adaptations.
We might argue for example that it is morally correct and absolute that we protect our children but this becomes blurry and confusing when two sides are warring and both are being morally correct and absolute when they protect their children against the other.
So, if it does not prevent suffering, is it morally correct and absolute?
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
