Can good God do evil?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by bahman » Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:11 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:35 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:04 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:26 pm

How would you practically distinguish a person with good-nature who always does evil acts from a person with evil-nature who always does evil acts?
It is impossible to know.
So 'good' is unknowable and indistinguishable from 'evil' if it behaves the same way? Imagine that.
What is indistinguishable is the true nature of individuals.

Skepdick
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Skepdick » Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:23 pm

bahman wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:11 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:35 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:04 pm

It is impossible to know.
So 'good' is unknowable and indistinguishable from 'evil' if it behaves the same way? Imagine that.
What is indistinguishable is the true nature of individuals.
Potato potatoh.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by bahman » Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:25 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:23 pm
bahman wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:11 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:35 am

So 'good' is unknowable and indistinguishable from 'evil' if it behaves the same way? Imagine that.
What is indistinguishable is the true nature of individuals.
Potato potatoh.
What does that mean?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:33 pm

Age wrote:
To you what is the imperative definition for the word God
I do not really have any imperative definition for God . I prefer others to define him by what he means to them and then listen
I say this because God can mean many different things to different people and so it is important therefore not to just have one
single definition for him as that definition will not be true for everyone

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:56 pm

Age wrote:
To me it would be better if human beings actually clarified what it is that they think or believe that they are suffering from
Can you explain why do you think human beings are not suffering if you do not think they are
And can you also explain why do human beings think they are suffering if they are not really
I think the best way to answer such questions is to define suffering so what do you say it is

Age
Posts: 3286
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:55 am

bahman wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:09 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:55 am
bahman wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:15 pm

Yes, good things normally do not do evil but they have the ability to do so.
So when you asked the question, "Does good God have the ability to do evil?" you already KNEW what thee answer is, correct?
I knew the answer for human beings. I was wondering if there is an argument for God too.
So, are you saying you know a good God has the ability to do evil things or not?

If you want an argument for some thing, then I need to know what exactly it is that you want an argument for.

These are your two questions; Does good God have the ability to do evil? If yes, is His evil act justifiable just because He is God?

1. Let us say that God has the ability to do evil. Agreed?

2. If yes, then what evil acts do you now propose God has done, or does do, or will do exactly?

3. If a Universe exists in which ALL are living in peace and harmony together as One, for eternity ever-after, then that could be seen as EVERY thing that happened prior is justifiable.

To better understand all of this knowing who and what God is exactly, and how It does what It does, helps tremendously.

Age
Posts: 3286
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:19 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:33 pm
Age wrote:
To you what is the imperative definition for the word God
I do not really have any imperative definition for God . I prefer others to define him by what he means to them and then listen
You say you do not really have any imperative definition for 'God', yet you instantly define 'God' as a "he".

WHY do human beings, still, in this day and age when this is written, refer to God as a "he"?

The reason 'God' was originally referred to as a "he" was because the people's of those times actually believed that the male of the human being was stronger and more superior. Surely you human beings by now, in these days of when this is written, KNOW that this is NOT at all true.

Both the male and the female of the human species play an equal part, and are both completely equal, in existence. In fact if it was not for both of 'you' males and females being equally important as each other, then there would not be this one and only known of intelligent species in the whole of the Universe existing HERE-NOW.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:33 pm
I say this because God can mean many different things to different people and so it is important therefore not to just have one
single definition for him as that definition will not be true for everyone
The very reason WHY I ask people what is the definition for the word 'God' that THEY have is so that I then KNOW what it is that they are referring to exactly.

To me God was never a real a thing at all. That was until a definition of what God COULD BE came about, which when put together with ALL the other things, which were coming about, God then could be an actual real thing.

The word 'God' meaning different things to different people is very true. But this is the exact same with any other word as well. Any and every word could mean different things to different people. But what I found is that one single definition of a word, which ALL agree with and accept is much more important for understanding.

I found acceptance and agreement is very important to and for living in heaven, utopia, nirvana, peace, harmony, et cetera, et cetera.

Disagreements of, and the non acceptance of, words, their definitions, and their meanings I found is what led up to and is still causing the rifts in humankind, in these days of when this is written.

Age
Posts: 3286
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:35 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:56 pm
Age wrote:
To me it would be better if human beings actually clarified what it is that they think or believe that they are suffering from
Can you explain why do you think human beings are not suffering if you do not think they are
I do not think that they are not suffering.

I think that the current human beings think they are suffering far more than they really are, or is really necessary.

Human beings since coming into existence have continually, up to just a few decades ago, and maybe some still today, when this is written, just lived as one with the land/environment, and did not consider living as suffering.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:56 pm
And can you also explain why do human beings think they are suffering if they are not really
Because from a very early age some children are taught that some things are unfair, that to obtain, gather, and keep material things is very, very important, and to have more than "others" have is much better, these types of human beings grow up wanting more and more and when they do not get what they want or lose what they had, then they think they are suffering. But to them they do not 'think' they are suffering, they actually 'believe' that they are suffering.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:56 pm
I think the best way to answer such questions is to define suffering so what do you say it is
The state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.

I just observe that most of the pain, distress, or hardship that is actually felt is completely unwarranted and unnecessary.

If just the way things are LOOKED AT is changed, then most of the pain, distress, or hardship being felt by human beings would be at least reduced or gotten rid of completely.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am

Age wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:25 am
What is the imperative definition for the word 'Santa' to a child?
To a child, Santa cannot NOT-be-real, because he did deliver gifts to him/her on Christmas eve after flying all the way from the North via a flying reindeer sleigh.
But such a claim of Santa being real [child's reason] cannot be fully justified at all.

It is the same for the imperative definition of God to a theist, i.e. God is the omnipotent absolute perfect creator of the universe and for most will enable salvation and eternal life in heaven/paradise.
From 'your' imperative definition of the word 'God' to a theist every and all of what 'you' say here can be validated and justified, except of course for the word 'most', which would obviously need to be replaced with and by the word 'all' to make this Truly Correct.
Not ALL theists believe in salvation and eternal life explicitly, e.g. pantheists and panentheists. Hinduism do not promote salvation in a heaven but rather transmigration of soul progressively till they merge with the ONE.
However all theists are influenced and driven by an existential crisis.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:25 am
A belief in God soothed their terrible pains arising from an existential crisis/ Such reasoning induce the theist to insist God is really real.
But like Santa, such a belief cannot be justified philosophically at all.
Why do you propose that you know this?

Do you have any actual evidence and/or proof for this, or is this just your belief?

Are you aware that you base things solely on your own past experiences, and then put those experiences as the reason WHY every one else is the way that they are?

Are you at all open to the idea that people can believe things for different reasons from WHY you believed things.
Obviously I agree people can believe things for different reasons from why I believed things.
But for the idea of God [as defined] I am confident [with justifications], the majority of theists are driven by the terrible pains [mostly subliminal] of the existential crisis.

If you read the scriptures of all the mainstream religions [including non-theistic Buddhism] one can infer the main purpose for most of their followers is to relieve the terrible pains* of the existential crisis. * pains in this case include anxieties, Angst, despairs, depression, hopelessness and the likes.

It is so obvious in the Abrahamic religions [the 80% majority of all theists] a belief in God is for salvation and soothing the fear of perdition and eternal hellfire. It is so clear in John 3:16 and very explicit in the Quran, while the Torah may not be that clear.
Abraham was even willing to sacrifice his own son to God for a promise of heaven and eternal life.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:25 am
To me, it would be better if human beings actually clarified what it is that they think or believe that they are suffering from, BEFORE they think or believe that they are actually suffering. For example; I have heard human beings say that they are "suffering" because they do not have as much as "another". Some (a lot) of people can say that they are "suffering", but really all they are doing is 'whinging/complaining'
DNA wise ALL humans are programmed with the primal algorithm of pain or pleasure connected to every aspects of the brain, function and physical self, to facilitate survival.

Anything that is good for the human triggers desire and attachment thus pleasure to reinforce it As such, if the good things desired is not obtained or lost, sufferings [pain] is triggered to ensure the person pursue those that are desired, if achieved pleasure is triggered.

This program is crude without fine tunings, thus desired for things and the associated pleasure can turned around to be detrimental. Example, carbohydrates and fats are good for the body thus trigger desire and the more of it the greater the desire which is good thing when there is scarcity as in the past, but at present if without fine tuning we get a case of obesity and early deaths when caught in the desire cycle.

Some may be 'whinging/complaining' but the pain circuit [accompanied sufferings] is definitely triggered to some degrees which could be a good cause or the wrong reasons.
As I just said; 'To me it would be better if human beings actually clarified what it is that they think or believe ...' Unfortunately this falls 'on death ears', as once again exampled and shown here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:25 am

You can 'try' and make complex what is essentially very simple and basic, but really there is no need to.

It all depends on what they are actually "suffering" IS, and from?

Millions upon millions of human beings in this day and age when this is written think and believe that they are suffering, but what the actual Truth IS has to be seen and discussed first.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:21 am
All humans has evolved with mirror neurons to empathize with others that are suffering, do you want those who empathize to stop doing so and let people suffer?
Yes, explore, research and discuss first.
Note Buddhism made 'suffering' [dukkha] a central focus.
It identify the root causes of sufferings and proposes preventive steps to manage [not eliminate] such sufferings.
Once again my point is completely missed.
If I missed your point is it basically your fault for being a bad communicator [on assumption I am an average reader].
You have to explain your point clearly, that is what I often do when others missed my point.
I have discussed the 'imperative definition of God' above.
That definition can very easily and very simply be verified as not just being possible but also as being actually True and Right. But this can only be understood by those who are Truly OPEN enough and are generally curiously wondering HOW?
No.
God as defined above is impossible to be empirically real because it is empirically impossible, i.e. philosophically and rationally impossible.
It is only possible within the mind of the believers, i.e. a psychological issue, thus we must focus on the psychological aspects which I had done to some degree.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:25 am
Re 'sufferings' Buddhism has a thorough system to deal with it effectively.
IF that system was as thoroughly as effective as you are 'trying to' make out here, then things would be a lot different already. Unfortunately buddihism solely is NOT thee answer.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:25 am
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193&p=377268&hil ... sm#p377268

The above teaches one how to fish [how to resolve one's own sufferings] instead of solely relying on others.
But this One has NO suffering at all. So there is nothing to resolve for this One. It is only those like 'you' who think or believe that they are "suffering" who NEED thee Resolution that will solve 'this' and ALL the other perceived "problems" in Life.

Also, why do you like to express buddhism as though it is thee solution, yet you are obviously completely unable to follow buddihism fully yourself?
As I had argued above 'this ONE' i.e. GOD cannot be justified empirically nor rationally on a universal basis but it is grounded on psychology of the individual.
Such psychology [existential] is grounded on sufferings driven by the existential crisis.
The existential crisis is an emergence from a combination of various primal neural drives/algorithms.

That the 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique, as a justified model is already indication Buddhist philosophy is heading the right way. Once you understand the details involved you will be convinced it is an effective technique that can generate solution for humankind.

The limitation is the above problem solving model is, it is a too advanced for the majority of people at their current state in generating efficient results. However as the average intellectual capacity increases [very possible due to the internet' then the principles of Buddhism can bring about greater efficiency and results.

I am not into Buddhism as an organized religion.
In addition there are many schools and sects of the philosophy of Buddhism.
The wiser move is thus to review the core and pick up what is most useful from Buddhism. I 'd done the same from any other sources.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:07 am, edited 2 times in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:03 am

Age wrote:
You say you do not really have any imperative definition for God yet you instantly define God as a he
God could be a he but he could also be a she or both he and she or neither of them
He can be what ever any one defines him to be and all definitions are equally valid

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:10 am

Age wrote:
If just the way things are LOOKED AT is changed then most of the pain distress or hardship being felt by human beings would be at least reduced
Can you give some examples of this in practical terms that would benefit all human beings

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:14 am

Age wrote:
Disagreements of and the non acceptance of words their definitions and their meanings I found
is what led up to and is still causing the rifts in humankind in these days of when this is written
Is this what is causing the greatest rift in humankind today or is that something else entirely

Can all human beings ever reach complete agreement on the meaning of every single word
For would there not have to be one single universal language in order to make this possible

Age
Posts: 3286
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:07 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
Age wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:25 am
What is the imperative definition for the word 'Santa' to a child?
To a child, Santa cannot NOT-be-real, because he did deliver gifts to him/her on Christmas eve after flying all the way from the North via a flying reindeer sleigh.
But such a claim of Santa being real [child's reason] cannot be fully justified at all.

It is the same for the imperative definition of God to a theist, i.e. God is the omnipotent absolute perfect creator of the universe and for most will enable salvation and eternal life in heaven/paradise.
From 'your' imperative definition of the word 'God' to a theist every and all of what 'you' say here can be validated and justified, except of course for the word 'most', which would obviously need to be replaced with and by the word 'all' to make this Truly Correct.
Not ALL theists believe in salvation and eternal life explicitly, e.g. pantheists and panentheists. Hinduism do not promote salvation in a heaven but rather transmigration of soul progressively till they merge with the ONE.
However all theists are influenced and driven by an existential crisis.
You misunderstood my point completely. 'ALL' refers to EVERY one, NOT just to theists nor to any particular ones.

IF your imperative definition of 'God' was; God is the omnipotent absolute perfect creator of the universe and for ALL, God will enable salvation and eternal life in heaven/paradise, THEN this, contrary to your belief, can very simply and very easily be justified.

The explanation of HOW this is not just possible but WILL actually HAPPEN is just as simple and as easy to understand.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:25 am
A belief in God soothed their terrible pains arising from an existential crisis/ Such reasoning induce the theist to insist God is really real.
But like Santa, such a belief cannot be justified philosophically at all.
Why do you propose that you know this?

Do you have any actual evidence and/or proof for this, or is this just your belief?

Are you aware that you base things solely on your own past experiences, and then put those experiences as the reason WHY every one else is the way that they are?

Are you at all open to the idea that people can believe things for different reasons from WHY you believed things.
Obviously I agree people can believe things for different reasons from why I believed things.
But for the idea of God [as defined] I am confident [with justifications], the majority of theists are driven by the terrible pains [mostly subliminal] of the existential crisis.
The thing with YOUR definition is that it can be very easily be validated as being True, Right, and Correct anyway.[/quote]
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
If you read the scriptures of all the mainstream religions [including non-theistic Buddhism] one can infer the main purpose for most of their followers is to relieve the terrible pains* of the existential crisis. * pains in this case include anxieties, Angst, despairs, depression, hopelessness and the likes.
Would you like to move on past this?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
It is so obvious in the Abrahamic religions [the 80% majority of all theists] a belief in God is for salvation and soothing the fear of perdition and eternal hellfire. It is so clear in John 3:16 and very explicit in the Quran, while the Torah may not be that clear.
Abraham was even willing to sacrifice his own son to God for a promise of heaven and eternal life.
Who cares?

The actual and real Truth of things is far more exciting anyway.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
If I missed your point is it basically your fault for being a bad communicator [on assumption I am an average reader].
I do not have to assume any thing to KNOW that I am a bad communicator, and that ALL of what is missed, misunderstood, and misinterpreted is completely ALL of my fault alone.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
You have to explain your point clearly, that is what I often do when others missed my point.
But you do not even clarify/answer my clarifying questions I ask of you so that I could better understand your point clearly. Your point is usually just an attempt to put "others" down so you can come across as being more superior than "others" are. You appear to just express your beliefs of things as though you KNOW that they are absolutely 100% correct, which when pointed out they are obviously NOT, then you do not show any interest in any other point.

If you do not ask me clarifying questions, then I have NO idea what points NEED more and better explaining.

I can just point out that you missed my points. If you then show NO curiosity as to what my points actually are, then there is NO need for me to say anymore.

By the way I have MISSED your whole point of this. So, explain clearly what is your point for what you write here.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am

No.
God as defined above is impossible to be empirically real because it is empirically impossible, i.e. philosophically and rationally impossible.
You BELIEVE that it is impossible.

I say it is very possible and HOW and WHY can also be very easily explained and very simply. You, however, completely and utterly refute this idea. So, then there is nothing more needed to be said.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
It is only possible within the mind of the believers, i.e. a psychological issue, thus we must focus on the psychological aspects which I had done to some degree.
But ALL to no effect. This is because you are WRONG, and when you are RIGHT, your BELIEFS distorted it to such a degree any truth is twisted completely out of shape.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am

As I had argued above 'this ONE' i.e. GOD cannot be justified empirically nor rationally on a universal basis but it is grounded on psychology of the individual.
But you have NOT argued any thing at all. All you have done is express your own BELIEFS, which are obviously WRONG or partly WRONG.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
Such psychology [existential] is grounded on sufferings driven by the existential crisis.
The existential crisis is an emergence from a combination of various primal neural drives/algorithms.
You can BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE but doing so does NOT make it true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
That the 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique, as a justified model is already indication Buddhist philosophy is heading the right way. Once you understand the details involved you will be convinced it is an effective technique that can generate solution for humankind.
Once again you are professing to KNOW things for EVERY one based solely upon your own past experiences.

If as you propose that any of 'us' will be "convinced" of the above, then as I alluded to earlier if this was true, then the effects would have already existed. The effects of YOUR buddhism do not work as good as you would like to believe because of the inherent wrongness within it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
The limitation is the above problem solving model is, it is a too advanced for the majority of people at their current state in generating efficient results. However as the average intellectual capacity increases [very possible due to the internet' then the principles of Buddhism can bring about greater efficiency and results.
Are you aware that it is the Truth within ALL things, which includes within ALL religions like buddhism, islamism, christianitism, hinduism, jewishism and ALL the other isms in LIfe, which is what is the True and Right formula to follow in order to obtain living the life that ALL religions profess to and which ALL people want to live. And, it is the Falsehoods with ALL things, which includes within ALL religions like buddhism, et cetera, which is WHY 'you', human beings, are suffering now and living a way of life that you ALL Truly do not like and want to being living?

Or, do you really BELIEVE and EXPECT that only one human made up religion is the way that ALL people "should" follow?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:54 am
I am not into Buddhism as an organized religion.
In addition there are many schools and sects of the philosophy of Buddhism.
The wiser move is thus to review the core and pick up what is most useful from Buddhism. I 'd done the same from any other sources.
The even wiser pick up on the Truth within ALL things, and disregard the falsehoods within ALL things.

Buddhism is only one of countless other things in Life.

Age
Posts: 3286
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:10 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:03 am
Age wrote:
You say you do not really have any imperative definition for God yet you instantly define God as a he
God could be a he but he could also be a she or both he and she or neither of them
He can be what ever any one defines him to be and all definitions are equally valid
Could a 'he' also be a 'she' really?

Also looking at God being a he or a she just takes away from looking at what 'God' really IS anyway.

Age
Posts: 3286
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can good God do evil?

Post by Age » Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:13 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:10 am
Age wrote:
If just the way things are LOOKED AT is changed then most of the pain distress or hardship being felt by human beings would be at least reduced
Can you give some examples of this in practical terms that would benefit all human beings
Yes when human beings explain to me what they suffer from, then I am then able to provide specific examples, in very specific practical terms, so that ALL human beings WILL benefit.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests