What is good? Good is what is aligned with the reality.

God is the reality, or the existence. Everything God does is aligned with the existence, since God is the existence and is not constrained by some outside independent force, as such force doesn't exist, which makes every God's action good.

We are a creation of the existence. The existence can create an entity that does things contrary to the existence, and that entity would be doing bad.

We don't have free will, unlike what some other Christians say (no human is perfect). We are not judged based on our will being free or not. We are judged because we are doing things contrary to the existence. Even more so, we are created to do things contrary to the existence and we have no say in the matter, because it's impossible for us to have such say in the matter.

As God can only do good things, since everything He does is aligned with the existence, which is Himself, creating a creation that acts contrary to the existence, and is doing bad, is also a good act by God.

Imagine, if you will, a lab scientist who creates toxic powder in his lab. He has his own purposes to do so, let's say. This powder had no say in whether it wanted to be created and with what characteristics. After the lab scientist got what he wanted from the powder, it is good for lab scientist to destroy that powder since it's toxic. It doesn't matter whether powder had free will or not. Lab scientist had good reason to create it, for his own purpose, and then to destroy it when the purpose is fulfilled. Powder is toxic, but actions of lab scientist in creating and destroying the powder are good.

I said "IF God is love". And I said it two years ago. This was a dead thread.

In some Gnostic cosmology Yaldabaoth, a lesser demiurge associated with Yahweh of the Torah and not with the highest God, is the self-deluded (in believing that he is the highest God) creator of this flawed world, with all its good and evil.

makes every God's action good. — Henri

You sure like to restrict your god.

I wrote this on hell and the same logic applies here on our issue of evil.

If god did not create it, then who are you naming as his co-creator?

The bottom line on the existence of hell would be the moral implications.
God killing instead of curing is evil.
God curing instead of killing is good.
If gods do the good, then there is no hell.
Such logic trails are how god’s attributes are found in many areas of thought.

Regards
DL

You don't get what good means.

In some Gnostic cosmology Yaldabaoth, a lesser demiurge associated with Yahweh of the Torah and not with the highest God, is the self-deluded (in believing that he is the highest God) creator of this flawed world, with all its good and evil. — Janus

Correct.
That is when people are discussing our myths and not our beliefs, which do not include any supernatural belief. Gnostic Christians are not foolish enough to read myth literally. We leave that for fools.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

Regards
DL

You don't get what good means. — Henri

Thanks for the great description.

Dumb is as dumb writes.

Regards
DL

Yes, insults prove smarts.

If God exists and He is all good and all powerful why does He allow evil? — MysticMonist

God exists, but She is the God of all things, not just human beings. To you puny humans, "evil" means only 'something we humans don't like'. Grow up! We all share the same world, and we all have the right to live there.

There is no 'Problem of evil'.

["Puny humans", etc, is just me being theatrical, not directing insults at anyone. :up: ]

God exists, but She is the God of all things, not just human beings. To you puny humans, "evil" means only 'something we humans don't like'. Grow up! We all share the same world, and we all have the right to live there. — Pattern-chaser

I think if we include non-human beings in the equation, the problem becomes bigger, not smaller, since most creature's lifes are even worse than ours. If god is supposed to care about pigs and cows, she has a lot to answer for.

The God of snakes and cancer and disease.
Cancer has right too. God loves cancer.

Interesting, thanks; yes, I've never been a fan of literal interpretations.

haha I used to like diseases but I don't think they're liked, they're frowned upon up there!

It's a pity they do exist, but I suppose a lot of them are beneficent.

Anyway, to the point, diseases likely are or aren't part of the plan. They may be liked or just sin spawn off such a big event as is this universe. I can't tell.

Evil and diseases may or may not be synonymous, but evil tends to act like a harmful disease, yes.

They do lots of work, good they will be rewarded, they put on a robe, turban, and cite religion, surely a stupidity that will be punished.

Not part of the Plan??
What plan?
Whose Plan?

"They do lots of work, good they will be rewarded, they put on a robe, turban, and cite religion, surely a stupidity that will be punished."

The good and the evil suffer just the same. Had you not noticed yet??

Evil, in addition to Good, requires the existence Free Will.

So, the the more fundamental quesiton that requires answering before the question of the existence of Evil existing can be answered is does Free will exist. If it does, then both Evil and Good can exist. If it does not, then neither Evil nor good can exist.

If god is supposed to care about pigs and cows, she has a lot to answer for. — Echarmion

Really? I thought that one fell squarely on humans, not God. Or must She bear the responsibility for everything, regardless of who does it? :chin:

Really? I thought that one fell squarely on humans, not God. Or must She bear the responsibility for everything, regardless of who does it? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

She does. That's at the heart of the theodicy issue. If you are all-knowing and all-powerful, it follows that you are also all-responsible.

If you are all-knowing and all-powerful, it follows that you are also all-responsible. — Echarmion

Is it God we're discussing, or just a scapegoat?

Regarding my immediately previous post about the necessity of answering the question of whether free will can exist before being able to answer the question of whether evil can exist:

In a universe run along classical principles, it's all just billiard balls. If one had a God's eye view and knew the position, velocity and direction of travel of all of the billiard balls at any arbitrary point in the universe's past, one would be able to predict, precisely, the position, velocity and direction of travel of all of the billiard balls at any arbitrary point in its future. Such a universe is both deterministic and predictable, at least in principle.

All of the above precludes the existence of Free Will.

In a universe run along quantum principles, it's still billiard balls. But, their existence now becomes probabilistic as opposed to absolute. In other words, at any arbitrary point in time, a billiard ball can wink into existence or wink out of existence. So, unlike a classical universe, although still fully deterministic, prediction become impossible in principle as well as in practice in such a universe. Even for God.

All of the above precludes the existence of Free Will.

Since we are a part of this material universe, we too are made of billiard balls. Therefore, the only way for Free Will to exist is for it to exist outside the time and space constraints of a material universe.

And if free will cannot exist, then neither can good nor evil.

And yet, we are compelled, by virtue of our genetic inheritance, to believe and to act as if it does exist.

Morality can be subjective or objective.

Objective, in the case of Earth. There's a right way to take care of a plant, and to the Earthbound objective, this may be beneficent.(good).

Subjective, in the case of myself getting food would be good for me, but there's no middle ground.

We all follow the state's morality, meaning that our objective is someone's subjective morality, which is ok, if that leader is wise (which it isn't).

Image of: man with burden climbing hill.

The man is climbing the hill and carrying its burden for:
A) Objective
B) Subjective
C) The States Subjective

It's good for the planet if we produce more green energy and reduce other energy to nil.

Whether this is ultimately good is beyond the question, it's just good for the planet and it's an objective we, as Earth inhabitants, effect.

Is it God we're discussing, or just a scapegoat? — Pattern-chaser

Omnipotence is a defining characteristic of God in the context of this problem.

So, unlike a classical universe, although still fully deterministic, prediction become impossible in principle as well as in practice in such a universe. Even for God. — Stephen Cook

Which means that God isn't really a god after all, since she's neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

Since we are a part of this material universe, we too are made of billiard balls. Therefore, the only way for Free Will to exist is for it to exist outside the time and space constraints of a material universe. — Stephen Cook

Or perhaps the material universe is the illusion and the free will we experience is actually the deeper truth. Your approach ignores metaphysics and directly jumps to physicalism.

If you are all-knowing and all-powerful, it follows that you are also all-responsible. — Echarmion

Omnipotence is a defining characteristic of God in the context of this problem.

[...]


...God isn't really a god after all, since she's neither omniscient nor omnipotent. — Echarmion

How does knowing everything (omniscience) and having unlimited power (omnipotence) make God responsible for Everything?

Or perhaps the material universe is the illusion and the free will we experience is actually the deeper truth. Your approach ignores metaphysics and directly jumps to physicalism. — Echarmion

I don't ignore metaphysics. I deny it.

Perhaps, another way to express that which I have already outlined in my previous posts is in relation to causality.

To accept the premise that good and evil exists, we must accept that free will exists and in order to accept that free will exists we must assume it operates outside of the constraints of causality.

In our material universe, we understand that all physical states arise as a consequence of previous physical states. That is to say, they are caused by those previous states. Thus, all physical states are determined by previous physical states.

Therefore, there can be no such thing as free will so long as human cognition is a physical manifestation of brain functioning inside a physical universe.

I don't ignore metaphysics. I deny it. — Stephen Cook

Denial is neither rational nor healthy though.

How does knowing everything (omniscience) and having unlimited power (omnipotence) make God responsible for Everything? — Pattern-chaser

Responsibility flows from the ability to act and the duty to do so. An omniscient and omnipotent God has an unlimited ability to act. The duty is self-imposed by the third attribute - benevolence. The combination of all three is incompatible with suffering in a universe created by that God, hence the theodicy problem.

Responsibility flows from the ability to act and the duty to do so. An omniscient and omnipotent God has an unlimited ability to act. The duty is self-imposed by the third attribute - benevolence. The combination of all three is incompatible with suffering in a universe created by that God, hence the theodicy problem. — Echarmion

So omnipotence and omniscience have nothing to do with responsibility or duty: that comes from benevolence, from God being 'good'. Hmm, OK. So if God eliminates the tuberculosis bacteria, has She done good to humans, evil to bacteria, or both? Or neither, as would be my view. Good and evil are relative. No, I don't mean that as an open-ended assertion, I mean that good to one species (humans) can be evil to another (bacteria), so it's relative in that sense. It's all down to context. Is God, omnipotent as She is (apparently), expected to act so that Her actions are 'good' for all living things, or She is branded 'evil'? That makes no sense to me.

Good and evil are relative. No, I don't mean that as an open-ended assertion, I mean that good to one species (humans) can be evil to another (bacteria), so it's relative in that sense. It's all down to context. — Pattern-chaser

And there's another way they're relative, equally specific. Good requires the existence of evil for its very meaning. You can't have yin alone; it is only meaningful in contrast and comparison to yang. So it is with good and evil too.

Therefore a 'good' God would necessarily have to create evil, if only to give that goodness some meaning. That rather puts paid to the idea of a 'good' God, doesn't it? And remember, you're considering God as a creator-God (as I do not, but that's OK), so it's God who creates evil, if it is created, as there is no other creator to do it, is there? This seems to lead to the conclusion that a 'good' God would have to create evil in order to be a 'good' God. :chin:

So there is no Problem of Evil. It's just a mistake; a misunderstanding.

So omnipotence and omniscience have nothing to do with responsibility or duty: that comes from benevolence, from God being 'good'. Hmm, OK. So if God eliminates the tuberculosis bacteria, has She done good to humans, evil to bacteria, or both? Or neither, as would be my view. Good and evil are relative. No, I don't mean that as an open-ended assertion, I mean that good to one species (humans) can be evil to another (bacteria), so it's relative in that sense. It's all down to context. Is God, omnipotent as She is (apparently), expected to act so that Her actions are 'good' for all living things, or She is branded 'evil'? That makes no sense to me. — Pattern-chaser

Why would God need to either eliminate the tuberculosis bacteria or allow humans to suffer? An omnipotent being could just create a world were all beings can exist in harmony.

And there's another way they're relative, equally specific. Good requires the existence of evil for its very meaning. You can't have yin alone; it is only meaningful in contrast and comparison to yang. So it is with good and evil too.

Therefore a 'good' God would necessarily have to create evil, if only to give that goodness some meaning. That rather puts paid to the idea of a 'good' God, doesn't it? And remember, you're considering God as a creator-God (as I do not, but that's OK), so it's God who creates evil, if it is created, as there is no other creator to do it, is there? This seems to lead to the conclusion that a 'good' God would have to create evil in order to be a 'good' God. :chin:

So there is no Problem of Evil. It's just a mistake; a misunderstanding. — Pattern-chaser

There may not be good without evil, but there would still be an absence of evil. There can be an absence of pain and suffering, and that absence would be meaningful even though the beings inhabiting that world would have no terms for that absence. Is a God that creates pain and suffering for the sake of distinguishing it from joy and happyness good?