Can good God do evil?

[Age]

Where EXACTLY is MY explanation of 'belief'?

It read as follows, word-for word.

If I did BELIEVE that it is true, then I would NOT be open to fact that it may not be true nor would I be OPEN to any evidence provided that shows that it is not actually true at all.

Yep, that looks like it is EXACTLY what I wrote and said.

Now, you can set the record straight by explaining why you no longer believe what you said,

Are you some kind of idiot?

I do NOT no longer believe what I said. Because I NEVER believed any thing at all here. Why would you even ASSUME such a thing, let alone write it in public?

How many times does one have to be told some thing BEFORE they can understand it?

or you can go on pretending you didn't say it, and see if anybody -- even you -- will eventually believe that.

But I DID SAY IT.

Why would you even begin to ASSUME otherwise?

I have even earlier said I wrote it and said it. Nothing has changed in that department.

I said before that you could not be further from the truth here, but you are now proving me wrong.

So you wrote:

A 'belief', to me, is just an acceptance that some thing exists or is true. This is the more general accepted understanding of what the word 'belief' means.

That is not the same as what you wrote above, obviously.

Are you aware that the first is NOT a definition of the word 'belief'?

Anybody with two eyes can see you've dropped the "I would NOT be open..." and "nor would I be OPEN" criteria.

That is because I was NEVER defining anything in the first one, like I am in the second one.

Any one reading this can see this fact.

Considering that I have been pointing out to you directly that I had NEVER provided a definition for the word 'belief' in the first one, some are finding it very surprising that you STILL have NOT caught on and catches up yet.

So now you've changed your own explanation, by taking out the bit that was dead wrong.

NO I have NOT.

There is STILL absolutely nothing wrong in both of them, from my perspective.

But maybe you can PROVE wrong the bit that you BELIEVE is wrong.

We will wait and see.

In other words, your revision amounts to a confession that you made an imprecise use of words in the first case, and said something you don't actually believe about "belief." Fine.

Your now new ASSUMPTIONS are only leading you and getting you further away from the truth of things here now

I stand by what I said in the first one, as much as I do by what I said in the second one.

To some it is OBVIOUS that you are just 'trying to' get out of the obvious mistake that you made when you made the obvious first WRONG assumption.

Now a side note:

I think, "Age," that you've misunderstood what we do here. This is a philosophy-discussion website. It's not a place where people go to make unchallenged claims, but a place where they go to test their ideas against the questions others raise about them.

I have an idea about how the Mind and the brain work. To verify how correct this idea is I use test subjects, like yourself, and then the results are verified by expert readers.

The issue I also have with your view of how things supposedly "work" on this website is that I very rarely get questioned. I actually WANT and ASKED to be questioned and challenged far more than I do here. Unfortunately though most people just do exactly like what you have done here, and that is just ASSUME things, and then BELIEVE that their OWN assumptions are true, right, and correct.

When you say something on a philosophy website, you ought to expect to be asked about the particulars of what you mean, and to have your idea tested with reasoning. It's not personal -- it's about us all getting better at sharpening our ideas. And you'll find that all the most intelligent interlocutors here understand that, though there are also a few immature souls here, who seem to think it's just a forum for floating ideas that never get tested, or for firing off "zingers" at each other.

Now, if you find it offensive to be questioned, and if you then feel inclined to burst out into all sorts of ad hominem remarks, it betrays a certain lack of understanding of what we're doing.

But I do NOT find being questioned offensive at all. In fact I LOVE being questioned AND challenged, for the simple fact that I can, unlike you, back up and support I write and say.

Another reason why I LOVE being questioned for clarity is because when I am, then people like you would NOT make the same STUPID mistake that you have done and are still continually doing. For example, if you had asked a clarifying question first instead of making an ASSUMPTION, which was WRONG anyway by the way, and then varying in the way you are now, then this can have been resolved posts ago.

Also, the evidence that I WANT to be questioned, and thus I do NOT find being questioned offensive at all, can been seen throughout MY words, here in this forum.

(And, of course, it's also very boring, but let that pass.) So you might want to take a better angle from here on in.

Once again, from "another's" perspective, it is me who has supposedly done wrong and supposedly NEEDS to change.

Have you EVER considered taking and following your OWN advice?

Let's try again. If you want to amend your earlier explanation (as given verbatim in the first quotation above) I'm open to hearing about that.

I will make it clear again. I NEVER wanted to amend what I wrote and said earlier. And I STILL do NOT want to amend it. I STILL stand by it.

Now, if you want to keep on making ASSUMPTIONS about what you PERCEIVE it is that 'I am trying to say', then go right ahead. I am certainly NOT going to stop you. But I have already told you that if you, for example, what MY definition is for some thing, then what is far more effective is to just ask me.

If you want to say you never said it, well, you be the judge of how likely that explanation is to pass by anybody.

But I do NOT want to say that I never said it, because the TRUTH IS, I DID SAY IT.

Is that clear enough for you?

However, none of it has to do with you personally. If you're here, you're here to test your ideas, not to get testy about your ideas.

Fair enough?

No, most of what you have written here is not "fair eough" at all.

From my perspective, you are still twisting the truth of things. The reason WHY you are still doing this I have partly explained already.

Also, above you wrote:
When you say something on a philosophy website, you ought to expect to be asked about the particulars of what you mean, and to have your idea tested with reasoning.

To make it clear I WANT you to ask particulars of what I mean and NOT what you think or believe I meant. Comprehend?

Further to this, remember that you are one of those type of people who BELIEVES that God exists.

If this is correct, and you stand by what you wrote above and you expect to be asked about the particulars is what you mean, then, What do you mean when you use the 'God's word.

See, I stand by what I write and say. Now let us see if you do also.

[Immanuel Can]

Yep, that looks like it is EXACTLY what I wrote and said...

But I DID SAY IT...

I have even earlier said I wrote it and said it. Nothing has changed in that department....

Then you wrote:

That is because I was NEVER defining anything in the first one, like I am in the second one.

So let's get this straight: do you, or do you not, think the word "believe" entails that the "believer" is not open to proof or evidence?

You indicated it did, and said for that reason you don't "believe" in anything; then you said it does not, and is "just an acceptance that some thing exists or is true. This is the more general accepted understanding of what the word 'belief' means.Any one reading this can see this fact."

Then you say,

"I stand by what I said in the first one, as much as I do by what I said in the second one."

But you can't. They contradict.

So again, which of the two do you actually think is true? Because you can't logically think both. Either "belief" entails a lack of openness to proof or evidence, or it does not entail that at all. And there's no way to fudge that choice.

Choose, then. Which is it?

[Age]

What is your definition of sin?

Missing the mark.

What do you mean? So missing the mark is definition of sin?

Yes.

What are those things?

God, heaven, hell, sin, in the beginning, creation, garden of eden, apocalypse, just to start with.

Most people are unable to define these things in a way that makes sense.

Ok.

Because simply God wants them. I am not aware of any purpose to justify why God wants them.

What do you propose that this God thing wants people for what exactly?

No one know God's purpose.

But I DO.

And that is one of the reasons WHY I said; I do SEE a lot of things differently than most people do.

To go against what God prohibited, sin.

Again, what does God prohibit?

A set of commandments, don't kill for example.

Okay.

To you, the only thing God prohibits is 'killing', correct? It is after all the only example you have given.

How are you defining the word 'sin'?

I already did. What God prohibit.

So, to you, 'don't kill' is sin, and therefore 'sin', means 'don't kill'.

Okay i will remember that every time you use the word 'sin', you define that word as 'don't kill'.

According to what people say that is God who has ultimate authority, therefore, God is allowed to give a set of rules to us to act accordingly otherwise you might be held in Hell, Fire for example, for eternity.

But God already has and always IS giving the "set of rules", which is just one rule.

When how this is done and how the one rule works, then also living in hell or heaven will also be understood.

So what is your understanding of Heaven and Hell?

Very simple really. If, and when, 'you', human beings, keep doing 'what is wrong', then 'you' will keep living in 'hell', like conditions, here on earth.

And conversely, when 'you', human beings, are only doing 'what is right', then 'you' will be living in 'heaven', like conditions, here on earth.

As they say; Thy will be done earth on earth, as it is in 'heaven'.

If 'you' live correctly and properly, then 'you' will create and live in 'heaven', which just means living a non greedy, pollution and stress free life, in peace and harmony with EVERY one, here on earth.

And, if 'you' carry on the way that 'you' are now, then you will keep living in the 'hell' like conditions that 'you' are now, which just means 'you' will keep causing, and thus keep creating, the war-torn, pollution-riddled, greedy and stress-full way of life that 'you' are living in now.

All very easy to understand really.

From God, either directly or indirectly.

So the exact same place EVERY person gains their knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, correct?

We don't gain knowledge of why something is wrong or right. We just gain knowledge of what is wrong or right.

Now that is one of the wisest pieces of knowledge that I have heard for a while now.

And exactly because it is completely True and Right this is the reason WHY 'you', human beings, keep thinking and doing what you think and do, without ever having actually changed for the better YET.

When 'you', human beings, understand fully WHY 'what is wrong' IS WRONG, and conversely WHY 'what is right' IS RIGHT, then you will have the knowledge of HOW to change, for the better.

When you learn and KNOW the reason WHY some thing happens, THEN you CAN prevent it from happening again.

Prevention, (of the ills of this "world") is better than the cure.

The wrong that 'you', human beings do is the only CAUSE of and for the wrong or ills of this "world".

They believe so.

But those people are completely incapable of explaining what this 'God' thing is exactly.

What it is?

'God', in the physical sense, is every physical thing.
'God', in the invisible or spiritual sense, is the Mind.

Killing for example.

How do you KNOW this?

It a one commandment. Have you ever hear of ten commandments?

So, do you BELIEVE that the commandments came directly from God?

If yes, then okay.
If no, then why write as though it is the actual and real truth of things?

What is 'God' to you?

The creator. If there is any.

Okay, fair enough.

This can be very easily and simply proven to be True.

Hell could be a very pleasant place for people who like it, like masochists who enjoy pain.

Are you talking here on earth or in some other place?

Here.

They believe in objective morality, what God says is good.

So, I just explained that when I ask A PERSON directly how a word is defined, ...

Your first word in reply is 'THEY', and then go on to explain what 'THEY' believe ....

Obviously you are completely 'missing the mark', once again.

I am not missing anything.

If you are not missing any thing, then WHY did you write what "others" believe, and NOT what you think or believe?

I specifically just made the point that when I ask 'you', the writer, a clarifying question directly in response to what you have just written, then what I
WANT to learn and KNOW is what 'you', the writer, thinks and/or believes, and NOT what any one "else" thinks or believes. But, when you begin your words with "They believe such and such", exactly like you did, then it certainly appears as those you completely missed my whole point that I was making.

So, WHY did you write what "others" believe instead of what you think or believe?

I think that one cannot defend objective morality unless s/he defines good and evil.

But remember it was YOU just NOW who stated: There is NO definition for evil. So, how could any person define what, to you, there is NO definition for?

There is no definition for evil. Yes. They can give an example of what they cannot define. What is an example of evil? Killing.

To you, are there definitions for other words?

Is the 'evil' word the only word, of which there is NO definition? Or, does this NO definition rule work for other words also? If there is NO definition for other words, then will you inform me of what these other words are as well?

Is any one ABLE to define ANY other word in the Universe?

Or, to you, is the 'evil' word the ONLY word in the Universe that no one can define?

I don't understand why stress in the existence of objective morality.

I do not really understand what you are suggesting here.

I mean why they persist that they have a proof for objective morality when they cannot define what is definition of good
and evil.

Your definition is circular unless you can define good and wrong.

Well explaining 'what is right' and 'what is wrong' is very easy to do. But for this explanation to be understood one needs to be OPEN to the fact that there just might be an objective morality.

Tell me what is good?

Show me HOW you are OPEN to the fact that there might just be an 'objective morality'. Then I will tell you what is 'good'.

Until then what is the point of telling you what is 'good' or 'wrong' IF 'objective morality' is not even a possibility to you?

You say that, There is NO definition for the word 'evil'. To you, is there a definition for the word 'good'?

Of course.

Great, so you agree with this.

Yes.

Are you talking about Adam and Eve?

I am talking about a story, which has been around for some time, which has characters in it called "adam" and "eve".

Ok. Do you believe in that story?

Tell me honestly, Have you ever heard me say in this forum that I do NOT believe any thing?

If no, then okay now you have, and KNOW.
If yes, then WHY the STUPID and IDIOTIC question?

Where is your resource?

Have you not heard of this story before? Your response about adam and eve suggests otherwise.

If you have heard of this story, then that is thee resource.

What are you resources? I think you might find that most of them come from 'stories' also.

Bible and Quran at least.

As I said, 'stories' also.

I mean, what is your religion?

I have absolutely NO religion, except in the BELIEF in one's Self, and Its ability to achieve what It sets out to do.

Ok.

I know, but that is all we can do.

When replying to my clarifying questions asked directly to you, in relation to what YOU write, then it helps us both much better if you reply for YOU only, and do NOT 'try to' speak for "others" as well. Because what 'we', you and I, CAN do is NOT always what you think and believe.

What I CAN do, you will have to wait and see.

Ok.

There is no definition for evil. I already provided my objection to your definition.

And what exactly is MY definition?

And where did I provide that definition?

Your honest answers would be most welcomed and appreciated.

You said that evil is opposite of good. Or something like that.

Did I ACTUALLY say that?

Or, is it an assumption that you are have made up/making?

If I did say it, here in this thread, then it should not be to hard for any one to find it.

Yes, by definition I am an evil person if I kill a person. By my understanding, an evil act can be right (what we should do) or wrong (what we should avoid).

Correct me if I read you wrong but did you just say here; That protecting children, for example, (what we should do) can be an 'evil' act?

No, protecting children is a good act.

So, what does, "By my understanding, an evil act can be right (what we should do)" actually mean to you?

You did write it, right?

I am aware of that and I agree.

So, WHY do you use words like 'evil' if you are completely and utterly incapable of defining them at all?

As well use words like, 'God, 'heaven', 'hell, et ceteral

I just don't know the definition of evil but I can give an example of it.

Okay. But NOT very helpful if want you to be understood or if you want your questions answered.

If we do NOT know the definition of the words you are using in a question, then it makes it very hard to answer your question properly and correctly.

We all have evil nature to some extent some are weak and some are strong.

What are you trying to say here?

Some are weak, and, some are strong in relation to WHAT exactly?

Strong and weak evilness.

Are you 'trying to' "justify" WHY you do evil things?

Are you also 'trying to' suggest that your evil doings are "weak" compared to the evil that "others" do?

Also, either ALL human beings have an 'evil' nature to all extent, or they do not. There can not be some humans have an 'evil' nature "to some extent", while "others" have an 'evil' nature "to another extent".

Either ALL human beings have an 'evil' nature or they do not.

Now, which one is it?

All human have evil nature to some extent.

If you believe that good God created human and human has evil nature then it follows that God created evil.

You missed the mark, and the point, once again. Your reply here has nothing to do with what I said in the quote.

I don't think so.

Well it did.

However, if you want to state what you have here, then;
1. I do not believe any such thing that you have said here, so any statement that begins with "If you believe [and what you then said] is a completely moot point.

I don't think so.

IF I do NOT believe any thing, then HOW can you telling ME that if I believe some thing, is NOT a moot point?

Are you really missing this this much?

IF I do NOT believe any thing, then I do NOT believe any thing. Full stop. To suggest that IF I believe such and such IS moot. Full stop.

It would be like if you told me that you do NOT have three legs, and I said IF you had three legs. My point would be moot. Full stop.

2. You are stuck on the terms 'good God' and an 'evil nature'. You state, that "There is NO definition for evil", yet you continue to insist that human beings have an 'evil' nature.

I gave you an example of good and evil and that is enough.

I recall your example of 'evil' is killing, But I do not recall your example of 'good'. So how do you define 'good' or what is your example of 'good'?

Also, I think you will find that you will NOT get far on a philosophy forum if you do NOT provide definitions for the words that you use on here.

For example I could say that there is NO definition for the word 'horse', but an example of 'horse', is big dog.

3. If human beings do, so called, 'evil' or wrong things, then that in no way infers that ANY God created evil. God, however, may have created life to evolve into a so called "human being", which God KNEW would eventually do 'evil' or wrong things anyway, for a very specific and simple reason that could be explained very easily.

No, if human does have evil nature then God is repsonsible for creation of human therfore reponsible for evil too.

You say THIS yet you also admit and claim that there is NO definition for the word 'evil'.

All you can do is provide an example for 'evil' and that is killing. So what you are really saying here now is; If human does have killing nature then God is responsible for creation of human therefore responsible for killing too.

If you are unaware at all, ALL you have been 'trying to' do, since the conception of this thread, which you started with this topic question, is to say, argue, and/or prove that God is the blame for and is thus the One responsible for the evil that 'you', and "other" human beings, do.

So, ANY God creating a species, which is FREE to choose whether to do what they call 'evil' things or not, does NOT then follow that that God created evil.

That is not what I said. I said that God is responsible for creating evil nature and not people decision.

I KNOW what you said. And that is WHY I said what I said.

Your ASSUMPTION that I said, you said some thing different from what you did actually say IS WRONG.

You said that God is responsible for creating evil nature, and I SAID, it does NOT follow that God created evil.

If you can NOT even define the word 'evil', and you even BELIEVE that there is NO definition for the word 'evil', then HOW do you get to the conclusion that 'God is responsible for creating 'evil' '. All you are really saying is 'God is responsible for killing', which IS absolutely True, if you LOOK AT things from a particular perspective.

If you just want to prove that God created and is thus responsible for ALL the 'evil' in the Universe, then that is a VERY simple and easy thing to do.

Just define the word 'evil' and I will SHOW you how to PROVE this.

True. As I said we all have evil nature to some extend.

Now define what you mean by 'to some extent'?

To the particular degree to which something is or is believed to be the case.

You are NOT very helpful at all, are you?

Would you now like to define what 'the particular degree' actually means?

And, does just 'believing' it to be the case, then make what the 'particular degree' is make it True that ALL human beings have 'evil nature', to some extent?

This all sounds like a very lousy attempt to "justify" one's own wrong or 'evil' behaviors.

You are the one who said that you aware of and agree that:
If a person has the correct and proper definitions for the words they are using, PRIOR to using those words, like they KNOW what they are talking about, then this helps them in being better understood and being fully understood.

Yet you appear to hardly ever follow what you are aware of and agree with here.

How can ALL human beings have an 'evil' nature, to some extent?

We are just. That is the fact.

Are you joking?

You claim and are "arguing" that ALL human beings have an 'evil' nature, to some extent (whatever that actually means), BECAUSE "That is the fact".

Some of the so called "logic" and "reasons" that is used, in a philosophy forum, to formulate so called "arguments" and arrive at "conclusions" is hilarious to watch.

You can not even define the word 'evil', you even claim that there is NO definition for the word 'evil', yet you HAVE concluded, and 'try to' "argue", that human beings have this 'whatever it is' nature.

All have evil nature to some extent.

Okay. Now please explain;

HOW you KNOW this?

History.

lol

Where the 'evil' nature actually came from?

God created it. Or it is natural thing.

They are both the exact SAME thing.

God obviously could NOT be any thing unnatural or supernatural.

What and how this nature affects and controls 'you'?

They don't control us. They give us a senses of urge.

So, you have an urge to do evil, or what you call 'kill'.

Okay, fair enough. Are you afraid of fulfilling 'your nature'?

What do you mean?

I was just following the same line of thought of IF you were thinking one way. But you HAVE ALREADY explained that, to you, ALL human beings have an 'evil' nature, "to some extent".

What I WAS meaning was that because I was still unsure IF you were saying ALL human beings had 'evil' nature, or just some had it, and while I was awaiting your answer, then I was just saying what was obviously not possible.

Of course there is a human nature. Of course people have good and evil nature to some extent.

Well I MUST BE missing some thing.

Because I have NOT observed an 'evil' nature. I, however, have observed ALL of 'you', adult human beings, do wrong, (or what some call "evil"), things.

Evil is a part of our nature.

Is that an irrefutable FACT, or just some thing that you think or believe is true?

It is a fact based on human history. Regardless whether all have evil nature, even one case of human with evil nature makes creation evil.

Is this 'evil' a bad thing?

What else do you say is "human nature"?

Human nature is also good. We are intelligent. Etc.

The second could be questioned.

Also, human nature is NOT good nor evil.

True. But shouldn't we always avoid doing the wrong things given the fact that we are intelligent agents?

But it is people just like you who when keep insisting that there is NO definition of 'evil', nor can 'what is right' and 'what is wrong' be known, as well as when insisting that there is NO 'moral objectivity' are the ones who are SHOWING that it is NEVER possible to KNOW what 'should' be avoided or 'should not' ever be avoided.

I say 'we', human beings, should NOT do the wrong things, but 'we' have to first AGREE to 'what is wrong' and 'what is right'.

Do 'you' have any idea or clue about 'what is actually right' and 'what is actually wrong'?

If yes, then please provide them.
If, however, you have no idea nor clue, then WHY ask the question, "Shouldn't we always avoid doing the wrong things given the fact that we are intelligent species?"

Also, on this point of supposedly being an "intelligent species" also, A truly intelligent species would ALREADY actually KNOW 'what is right' AND 'what is wrong', correct?

Yes. But evil could be right and wrong depending on a situation.

NOT answering my questions only slows this discussing, learning, and discovering process down considerably.

Now, HOW could 'evil' ever be right? In what situation could doing 'evil' or 'what is wrong' EVER be considered doing right or doing 'what is right'?

Also, if 'evil' could be right depending on a situation, then maybe God the situation that God created 'evil' for is RIGHT?

Wrong by definition is what we should not do. Right by definition is what we should do.

Okay, Do you have any idea at all 'what 'you' should not do' and/or 'what you should do'?

Your definition of evil is incomplete unless you provide a definition for wrong and good.

Have I provided a definition for 'evil'? If yes, then what was it?

Yes. Opposite of good.

Did you, last time, point us to WHERE I said supposedly said this?

If no, then will you do it now for us?

Also, you were the one suggesting that you should always avoid doing wrong. If this is what you were suggesting, then what do you propose is 'right' and 'wrong'.

Right and wrong is completely situational. Killing a terrorist who is willing to kill many individuals in people eyes is right.

lol

Now, I KNOW why you are so far behind.

The act of killing the any body is evil though, whether it is a terrorist or a normal human being. [/quote]

Yet here you are killing any body yourself.

Nature is what causes evil or good urge.

So, what is 'evil' and what is 'good', which you say nature urges you to do?

I gave you example of good and evil. There is no definition for good and evil.

So, your topic question really is; Can good God do killing?

It yes, then the same answer now applies, Yes.

So, is there any thing else you are looking for here?

Also, why would 'Nature', Itself, urge 'you' to do some thing that you class as 'evil'?

Self-protection for example.

So, to you 'NATURE', ITSELF, wants to protect little ol' bahman over "others", is this correct?

I would suggest that 'Nature' would only urge 'you' to do 'that' what is good and right for 'you', and ALL things equally.

Good is different from right. Good is not situation and relative whereas right is relative and situational.

Okay, if this is what you claim. Now back it up and explain why 'good' is different from 'right' AND explain how and why 'good' is not situational and relative but how and why 'right' is relative and situational.

You have said that you are aware and agree that for you to be better and fully understood, then it is better that you are able to properly and correctly define the words you use. So, go ahead and do what you say you are aware of agree with.

WHY would, and HOW could, Nature urge 'you' to do some thing 'evil', which would obviously go against Nature, Itself?

You might attack back a murder to save your own life.

And WHY do you propose NATURE cares about 'you', bahman?

Do you have some sort of 'right to life' over "others", from the perspective of Nature, Itself?

That is part of your nature.

Have I suggested before that it is better for you IF you speak from and about you only, instead of 'trying to' speak for "others", especially me?

If I have, did it fall on "deaf ears"?

IF you want to speak for me, then you could NOT be MORE WRONG even if you 'tried to be'.

It is against another nature, good. But you do it anyway.

Again, if you are going to keep 'trying to' speak for me, then you are only going to be more and more WRONG.

I will say it again, when I ask 'you' clarifying questions in regards to what you write, then I want to KNOW what YOUR answers are. I do NOT want your view of "others". Do you understand this?

It appears that when you 'try to' start defining what you think is true and right, you are leading yourself into contradicting your own self here.

I have problem defining good and evil. I don't have any problem defining right or wrong.

Okay. Now define 'right' AND 'wrong'.

Because that is God who created evil nature. We couldn't possibly do evil if we had good nature.

So are you now saying that you only have 'evil' nature and NO 'good' nature at all?

This is how it appears so now.

We of course have good nature too. I have never said otherwise.

YOU just SAID:
"We couldn't possibly do evil if we had good nature."

I am not sure how this appears to you. But, to me, it appears as though you are saying that 'we', human beings, could not possibly do evil if 'we' had good nature.

This, to me, means that if 'you', human beings, had good nature, then you could not possibly do 'evil'.

Which can also be expressed as "Because 'we', human beings, do evil, then that means 'we' do not have a 'good' nature.

So, are you now saying that 'you', human beings, only have 'evil' nature and NO 'good' nature at all?

The answer is either yes or no.

Either way elaborate on and further explain your answer. That is, if you possibly could.

I agree.

So, would you like to start explaining, with sound and valid explanations, what it is that you are 'trying to' say and get at here?

Which part? Whether good God can do evil? No good God cannot do evil because that is against God's nature.

Now, are you saying that; 'A good God cannot do evil' OR 'A good God can do evil'?

God doesn't have any urge for doing evil. Things is clear for me now.

Okay, that is good.

You started a thread, with a question, which is obviously fishing or trolling for some thing. So, what is it that you are exactly wanting and 'trying to' do here?

Would you like to find "others" and SHOW where they are WRONG? Or,

Would you like to just say what it is that you think and/or believe is true?

Or, is there some thing else that you would like to achieve in this thread.

We have already informed you that God, including a so called "good" God, CAN do any thing. So, what is it that you are REALLY after.

By the way, WHY are you using the label "good" God, when it is you who is completely incapable of defining the word "good" anyway here?

It was not clear to me that whether good God can do evil or not. Now it is clear to me.

And what have you concluded clearly?

You say that God does not have an urge for doing evil but can God do evil and can a good God do evil.

[Age]

Yep, that looks like it is EXACTLY what I wrote and said...

But I DID SAY IT...

I have even earlier said I wrote it and said it. Nothing has changed in that department....

Then you wrote:

That is because I was NEVER defining anything in the first one, like I am in the second one.

So let's get this straight: do you, or do you not, think the word "believe" entails that the "believer" is not open to proof or evidence?

I view that when a human being uses the words; "I believe ...", then that human being is NOT open to what the actual and real Truth IS, (which can be proven to be True with actual and real evidence) IF the actual and real Truth opposes what that human being currently BELIEVES is true, right, and/or correct.

Now have you got this 'straight' (whatever that means)?

A straight yes or no answer will suffice.

You indicated it did,

I did NOT indicate what you wrote. What you wrote is what you ASSUMED what I wrote indicated.

Can you spot and SEE the difference?

A straight yes or no answer will suffice.

and said for that reason you don't "believe" in anything; then you said it does not, and is "just an acceptance that some thing exists or is true.

WHEN DID I EVER SAY; "it does not"?

I think you really are seeing things that are NOT there, and this is because of the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS that you are now holding.

Now PROVE what you CLAIM here. When did I EVER say one thing and then say it does not"?

If you do NOT prove what you claim here are you OPEN enough to admit you were either WRONG or LYING?

If yes, then okay.
If no, then WHY NOT?

This is the more general accepted understanding of what the word 'belief' means.Any one reading this can see this fact."

SEE what "fact"?

I think you are blinded by your own BELIEFS here, and ONLY SEEING/HEARING what you want to see and hear in what I write and say. This is generally known as 'confirmation bias', which YOUR words have SHOWN and thus so far YOU have just been another prime example of.

Then you say,

"I stand by what I said in the first one, as much as I do by what I said in the second one."

But you can't.

But I CAN, and I DO.

They contradict.

But they do NOT contradict.

Now tell me, do you BELIEVE that they contradict?

Or, do they, to you, just APPEAR as though they contradict and so you just THINK that they contradict, and thus you just have a VIEW of them as contradicting each other, which they may not be at all?

Or do you really BELIEVE that they contradict, and there could NOT possibly any other explanation?

Your open and honest reply will affect how I will respond.

So again, which of the two do you actually think is true?

What do you say, Do you BELIEVE or do you THINK that they contradict?

Your answer will SHOW how OPEN or NOT you are, which will then reflect in HOW I respond.

Because you can't logically think both.

Do NOT be so SURE of yourself UNTIL you HEAR what "another" has to say FIRST.

Remember, it was you making an ASSUMPTION and jumping to a CONCLUSION, in the beginning, BEFORE you asked any clarifying question, which is WHAT has led you "circling down this drain path", as some call it.

Either "belief" entails a lack of openness to proof or evidence, or it does not entail that at all.

Or, it could be some thing else, which I have already said above, but you have probably MISSED.

But which I will explain AFTER you tell answer my clarifying questions.

And there's no way to fudge that choice.

Being so SURE of one's self can all to often lead to making mistakes.

Are you absolutely SURE that there is NO way to, what you call, "fudge" that choice?

If yes, then we will wait and see.
If no, then great.

Choose, then. Which is it?

As I said, when you tell me whether you BELIEVE that they contradict or whether you just THINK that they contradict, then I WILL respond to your question here.

Also, REMEMBER you did NOT answer MY clarifying questions previously, which I stated that IF you did answer openly and honestly, then this would help in explaining WHY I wrote MY original writings.

I previously WROTE and ASKED you:
A 'belief', to me, is just an acceptance that some thing exists or is true. This is the more general accepted understanding of what the word 'belief' means. But my deeper meaning and a more specific definition for the word 'belief' is found when my clarifying question is answered openly and honestly;
Would you believe in some thing if it was not true, not right, and/or not correct?

If what you 'believe' could ONLY be true, right, and/or correct, then that is what I call a 'belief'. That is; an already fixed and closed position on the Truth, Rightness, and/or Correctness of some thing.

If, however, what you 'believe' could be false, wrong, and/or incorrect, then I would ask you:
WHY 'believe' it then?

So, I have ALREADY explained HOW you could understand what I have said. But you obviously do NOT want to do it that way, which to me is the best way (very simple, quick, and easy way), so let us proceed with your way, which is a far worse way, as has been proven already as it is a much more complex, slower, and harder way.

[Immanuel Can]

Yep, that looks like it is EXACTLY what I wrote and said...

But I DID SAY IT...

I have even earlier said I wrote it and said it. Nothing has changed in that department....

Then you wrote:

That is because I was NEVER defining anything in the first one, like I am in the second one.

So let's get this straight: do you, or do you not, think the word "believe" entails that the "believer" is not open to proof or evidence?

I view that when a human being uses the words; "I believe ...", then that human being is NOT open to what the actual and real Truth IS, (which can be proven to be True with actual and real evidence) IF the actual and real Truth opposes what that human being currently BELIEVES is true, right, and/or correct.

So then, what you said afterward was NOT true...namely, that...

"A 'belief', to me, is just an acceptance that some thing exists or is true.

It's not "just" anything of the kind. It's a closed-minded type of thing, you suppose.

But in supposing that, you suppose contrary to the dictionary definitions. But you seem closed to the evidence that your definition is arbitrarily narrow. So, in the "NOT open" sense, you are a believer in your definition of "belief," contrary to the evidence.

Yes, I now have your position straight.

[bahman]

Missing the mark.

What do you mean? So missing the mark is definition of sin?

Yes.

And what is "the mark"?

God, heaven, hell, sin, in the beginning, creation, garden of eden, apocalypse, just to start with.

Most people are unable to define these things in a way that makes sense.

Ok.

What do you propose that this God thing wants people for what exactly?

No one know God's purpose.

But I DO.

And that is one of the reasons WHY I said; I do SEE a lot of things differently than most people do.

What is God purpose?

Again, what does God prohibit?

A set of commandments, don't kill for example.

Okay.






To you, the only thing God prohibits is 'killing', correct? It is after all the only example you have given.

No, one should not steal, sex outside marriage, etc.

How are you defining the word 'sin'?

I already did. What God prohibit.

So, to you, 'don't kill' is sin, and therefore 'sin', means 'don't kill'.

Okay i will remember that every time you use the word 'sin', you define that word as 'don't kill'.

Ok.

But God already has and always IS giving the "set of rules", which is just one rule.

When how this is done and how the one rule works, then also living in hell or heaven will also be understood.

So what is your understanding of Heaven and Hell?

Very simple really. If, and when, 'you', human beings, keep doing 'what is wrong', then 'you' will keep living in 'hell', like conditions, here on earth.

And conversely, when 'you', human beings, are only doing 'what is right', then 'you' will be living in 'heaven', like conditions, here on earth.

As they say; Thy will be done earth on earth, as it is in 'heaven'.

If 'you' live correctly and properly, then 'you' will create and live in 'heaven', which just means living a non greedy, pollution and stress free life, in peace and harmony with EVERY one, here on earth.

And, if 'you' carry on the way that 'you' are now, then you will keep living in the 'hell' like conditions that 'you' are now, which just means 'you' will keep causing, and thus keep creating, the war-torn, pollution-riddled, greedy and stress-full way of life that 'you' are living in now.

All very easy to understand really.

Ok. But you need to define, good, evil, right and wrong.

So the exact same place EVERY person gains their knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, correct?

We don't gain knowledge of why something is wrong or right. We just gain knowledge of what is wrong or right.

Now that is one of the wisest pieces of knowledge that I have heard for a while now.

And exactly because it is completely True and Right this is the reason WHY 'you', human beings, keep thinking and doing what you think and do, without ever having actually changed for the better YET.

When 'you', human beings, understand fully WHY 'what is wrong' IS WRONG, and conversely WHY 'what is right' IS RIGHT, then you will have the knowledge of HOW to change, for the better.

When you learn and KNOW the reason WHY some thing happens, THEN you CAN prevent it from happening again.

Prevention, (of the ills of this "world") is better than the cure.

The wrong that 'you', human beings do is the only CAUSE of and for the wrong or ills of this "world".

Ill is evil and not wrong.

But those people are completely incapable of explaining what this 'God' thing is exactly.

What it is?

'God', in the physical sense, is every physical thing.
'God', in the invisible or spiritual sense, is the Mind.

I disagree. But this is off topic so we can discard it.

How do you KNOW this?

It a one commandment. Have you ever hear of ten commandments?

So, do you BELIEVE that the commandments came directly from God?

People say so. I don't know.

If yes, then okay.
If no, then why write as though it is the actual and real truth of things?

To me, I am interested to divide actions into good and evil.

What is 'God' to you?

The creator. If there is any.

Okay, fair enough.

This can be very easily and simply proven to be True.

Please prove it. I can open a thread if you wish and we discuss this there since our posts are becoming very long. It is off-topic too.

Are you talking here on earth or in some other place?

Here.

So, I just explained that when I ask A PERSON directly how a word is defined, ...

Your first word in reply is 'THEY', and then go on to explain what 'THEY' believe ....

Obviously you are completely 'missing the mark', once again.

I am not missing anything.

If you are not missing any thing, then WHY did you write what "others" believe, and NOT what you think or believe?

I specifically just made the point that when I ask 'you', the writer, a clarifying question directly in response to what you have just written, then what I
WANT to learn and KNOW is what 'you', the writer, thinks and/or believes, and NOT what any one "else" thinks or believes. But, when you begin your words with "They believe such and such", exactly like you did, then it certainly appears as those you completely missed my whole point that I was making.

So, WHY did you write what "others" believe instead of what you think or believe?

Ok. I think we can divide actions into good and evil.

But remember it was YOU just NOW who stated: There is NO definition for evil. So, how could any person define what, to you, there is NO definition for?

There is no definition for evil. Yes. They can give an example of what they cannot define. What is an example of evil? Killing.

To you, are there definitions for other words?

Yes. In terms of other words. The definition is, however, circular so you need to provide an example to show what you mean with a word.

Is the 'evil' word the only word, of which there is NO definition? Or, does this NO definition rule work for other words also? If there is NO definition for other words, then will you inform me of what these other words are as well?

Is any one ABLE to define ANY other word in the Universe?

Or, to you, is the 'evil' word the ONLY word in the Universe that no one can define?

I think all words are like this, as it is explained.

I do not really understand what you are suggesting here.

I mean why they persist that they have a proof for objective morality when they cannot define what is definition of good
and evil.

Well explaining 'what is right' and 'what is wrong' is very easy to do. But for this explanation to be understood one needs to be OPEN to the fact that there just might be an objective morality.

Tell me what is good?

Show me HOW you are OPEN to the fact that there might just be an 'objective morality'. Then I will tell you what is 'good'.

Until then what is the point of telling you what is 'good' or 'wrong' IF 'objective morality' is not even a possibility to you?

You say that, There is NO definition for the word 'evil'. To you, is there a definition for the word 'good'?

I don't believe in objective morality but for sake of argument, I can accept it.

I have absolutely NO religion, except in the BELIEF in one's Self, and Its ability to achieve what It sets out to do.

Ok.

When replying to my clarifying questions asked directly to you, in relation to what YOU write, then it helps us both much better if you reply for YOU only, and do NOT 'try to' speak for "others" as well. Because what 'we', you and I, CAN do is NOT always what you think and believe.

What I CAN do, you will have to wait and see.

Ok.

And what exactly is MY definition?

And where did I provide that definition?

Your honest answers would be most welcomed and appreciated.

You said that evil is opposite of good. Or something like that.

Did I ACTUALLY say that?

Or, is it an assumption that you are have made up/making?

If I did say it, here in this thread, then it should not be to hard for any one to find it.

Yes, I recall that you said so. Regardless, what is definition of evil?

Correct me if I read you wrong but did you just say here; That protecting children, for example, (what we should do) can be an 'evil' act?

No, protecting children is a good act.

So, what does, "By my understanding, an evil act can be right (what we should do)" actually mean to you?

You did write it, right?

An evil act can be right. Yes. Killing anybody is evil. But killing a terrorist from the perspective of people under thread is right, yet the act is evil.

So, WHY do you use words like 'evil' if you are completely and utterly incapable of defining them at all?

As well use words like, 'God, 'heaven', 'hell, et ceteral

I just don't know the definition of evil but I can give an example of it.

Okay. But NOT very helpful if want you to be understood or if you want your questions answered.

If we do NOT know the definition of the words you are using in a question, then it makes it very hard to answer your question properly and correctly.

You can think of examples of good and evil. I think that resolves the problem you have.

What are you trying to say here?

Some are weak, and, some are strong in relation to WHAT exactly?

Strong and weak evilness.

Are you 'trying to' "justify" WHY you do evil things?

Of course, I am not responsible for the urge to do evil. I am responsible for an evil act which is wrong in my opinion.

Are you also 'trying to' suggest that your evil doings are "weak" compared to the evil that "others" do?

No.

2. You are stuck on the terms 'good God' and an 'evil nature'. You state, that "There is NO definition for evil", yet you continue to insist that human beings have an 'evil' nature.

I gave you an example of good and evil and that is enough.

I recall your example of 'evil' is killing, But I do not recall your example of 'good'. So how do you define 'good' or what is your example of 'good'?

Looking after children is good.

Also, I think you will find that you will NOT get far on a philosophy forum if you do NOT provide definitions for the words that you use on here.

There is no complete definition for any word. Words are defined in terms of words. The root of our understanding of words is examples.

For example I could say that there is NO definition for the word 'horse', but an example of 'horse', is big dog.

We know what is a horse and what is a dog.

3. If human beings do, so called, 'evil' or wrong things, then that in no way infers that ANY God created evil. God, however, may have created life to evolve into a so called "human being", which God KNEW would eventually do 'evil' or wrong things anyway, for a very specific and simple reason that could be explained very easily.

No, if human does have evil nature then God is repsonsible for creation of human therfore reponsible for evil too.

You say THIS yet you also admit and claim that there is NO definition for the word 'evil'.

Yes, and that is correct. I can argue about evil just by knowing examples of it.

All you can do is provide an example for 'evil' and that is killing. So what you are really saying here now is; If human does have killing nature then God is responsible for creation of human therefore responsible for killing too.

Yes. You see it follows.

If you are unaware at all, ALL you have been 'trying to' do, since the conception of this thread, which you started with this topic question, is to say, argue, and/or prove that God is the blame for and is thus the One responsible for the evil that 'you', and "other" human beings, do.

This is really is not the topic of this thread but yes, God is responsible for creation of evil nature.

So, ANY God creating a species, which is FREE to choose whether to do what they call 'evil' things or not, does NOT then follow that that God created evil.

That is not what I said. I said that God is responsible for creating evil nature and not people decision.

I KNOW what you said. And that is WHY I said what I said.

Your ASSUMPTION that I said, you said some thing different from what you did actually say IS WRONG.

You said that God is responsible for creating evil nature, and I SAID, it does NOT follow that God created evil.

If you can NOT even define the word 'evil', and you even BELIEVE that there is NO definition for the word 'evil', then HOW do you get to the conclusion that 'God is responsible for creating 'evil' '. All you are really saying is 'God is responsible for killing', which IS absolutely True, if you LOOK AT things from a particular perspective.

If you just want to prove that God created and is thus responsible for ALL the 'evil' in the Universe, then that is a VERY simple and easy thing to do.

Just define the word 'evil' and I will SHOW you how to PROVE this.

There is no non-circular definition for evil.

Now define what you mean by 'to some extent'?

To the particular degree to which something is or is believed to be the case.

You are NOT very helpful at all, are you?

Would you now like to define what 'the particular degree' actually means?

And, does just 'believing' it to be the case, then make what the 'particular degree' is make it True that ALL human beings have 'evil nature', to some extent?

This all sounds like a very lousy attempt to "justify" one's own wrong or 'evil' behaviors.

You are the one who said that you aware of and agree that:
If a person has the correct and proper definitions for the words they are using, PRIOR to using those words, like they KNOW what they are talking about, then this helps them in being better understood and being fully understood.

Yet you appear to hardly ever follow what you are aware of and agree with here.

As I discussed there is no complete definition of any word. So yes, if I define particular and degree for you in terms of other words then you ask what are definition of those words.

How can ALL human beings have an 'evil' nature, to some extent?

We are just. That is the fact.

Are you joking?

You claim and are "arguing" that ALL human beings have an 'evil' nature, to some extent (whatever that actually means), BECAUSE "That is the fact".

Some of the so called "logic" and "reasons" that is used, in a philosophy forum, to formulate so called "arguments" and arrive at "conclusions" is hilarious to watch.

You can not even define the word 'evil', you even claim that there is NO definition for the word 'evil', yet you HAVE concluded, and 'try to' "argue", that human beings have this 'whatever it is' nature.

Can you define father? You cannot. People have some understanding of words. A complete definition for a word does not exist.

Okay. Now please explain;

HOW you KNOW this?

History.

lol

What is wrong?

Where the 'evil' nature actually came from?

God created it. Or it is natural thing.

They are both the exact SAME thing.

God obviously could NOT be any thing unnatural or supernatural.

What and how this nature affects and controls 'you'?

They don't control us. They give us a senses of urge.

So, you have an urge to do evil, or what you call 'kill'.

Okay, fair enough. Are you afraid of fulfilling 'your nature'?

Yes. People send me to prison.

I was just following the same line of thought of IF you were thinking one way. But you HAVE ALREADY explained that, to you, ALL human beings have an 'evil' nature, "to some extent".

What I WAS meaning was that because I was still unsure IF you were saying ALL human beings had 'evil' nature, or just some had it, and while I was awaiting your answer, then I was just saying what was obviously not possible.

Of course there is a human nature. Of course people have good and evil nature to some extent.

Well I MUST BE missing some thing.

Because I have NOT observed an 'evil' nature. I, however, have observed ALL of 'you', adult human beings, do wrong, (or what some call "evil"), things.

Is that an irrefutable FACT, or just some thing that you think or believe is true?

It is a fact based on human history. Regardless whether all have evil nature, even one case of human with evil nature makes creation evil.

Is this 'evil' a bad thing?

It is situational. Sometimes is right and sometimes is wrong.

What else do you say is "human nature"?

Human nature is also good. We are intelligent. Etc.

The second could be questioned.

Also, human nature is NOT good nor evil.

We have both natures, good and evil.

But it is people just like you who when keep insisting that there is NO definition of 'evil', nor can 'what is right' and 'what is wrong' be known, as well as when insisting that there is NO 'moral objectivity' are the ones who are SHOWING that it is NEVER possible to KNOW what 'should' be avoided or 'should not' ever be avoided.

I say 'we', human beings, should NOT do the wrong things, but 'we' have to first AGREE to 'what is wrong' and 'what is right'.

Do 'you' have any idea or clue about 'what is actually right' and 'what is actually wrong'?

If yes, then please provide them.
If, however, you have no idea nor clue, then WHY ask the question, "Shouldn't we always avoid doing the wrong things given the fact that we are intelligent species?"

Also, on this point of supposedly being an "intelligent species" also, A truly intelligent species would ALREADY actually KNOW 'what is right' AND 'what is wrong', correct?

Yes. But evil could be right and wrong depending on a situation.

NOT answering my questions only slows this discussing, learning, and discovering process down considerably.

Now, HOW could 'evil' ever be right? In what situation could doing 'evil' or 'what is wrong' EVER be considered doing right or doing 'what is right'?

Killing a terrorist is right from people perspective.

Also, if 'evil' could be right depending on a situation, then maybe God the situation that God created 'evil' for is RIGHT?

True, if God has both good and evil nature. I am asking about a good God rather than a generic God with neutral nature.

Wrong by definition is what we should not do. Right by definition is what we should do.

Okay, Do you have any idea at all 'what 'you' should not do' and/or 'what you should do'?

Yes.

Have I provided a definition for 'evil'? If yes, then what was it?

Yes. Opposite of good.

Did you, last time, point us to WHERE I said supposedly said this?

If no, then will you do it now for us?

You can define evil again.

Also, you were the one suggesting that you should always avoid doing wrong. If this is what you were suggesting, then what do you propose is 'right' and 'wrong'.

Right and wrong is completely situational. Killing a terrorist who is willing to kill many individuals in people eyes is right.

lol

Now, I KNOW why you are so far behind.

Ok. So we are on the same page.

The act of killing the any body is evil though, whether it is a terrorist or a normal human being.

Yet here you are killing any body yourself.

Not yet.

So, what is 'evil' and what is 'good', which you say nature urges you to do?

I gave you example of good and evil. There is no definition for good and evil.

So, your topic question really is; Can good God do killing?

It yes, then the same answer now applies, Yes.

So, is there any thing else you are looking for here?

I don't think that a good God can kill.

Also, why would 'Nature', Itself, urge 'you' to do some thing that you class as 'evil'?

Self-protection for example.

So, to you 'NATURE', ITSELF, wants to protect little ol' bahman over "others", is this correct?

Nature give such a nature to all individuals.

I would suggest that 'Nature' would only urge 'you' to do 'that' what is good and right for 'you', and ALL things equally.

Good is different from right. Good is not situation and relative whereas right is relative and situational.

Okay, if this is what you claim. Now back it up and explain why 'good' is different from 'right' AND explain how and why 'good' is not situational and relative but how and why 'right' is relative and situational.

You have said that you are aware and agree that for you to be better and fully understood, then it is better that you are able to properly and correctly define the words you use. So, go ahead and do what you say you are aware of agree with.

I gave examples of good and evil. I gave definitions of right and wrong. I also explain why right and wrong are situational and relative.

WHY would, and HOW could, Nature urge 'you' to do some thing 'evil', which would obviously go against Nature, Itself?

You might attack back a murder to save your own life.

And WHY do you propose NATURE cares about 'you', bahman?

Nature doesn't care. We are the result of evolution.

Do you have some sort of 'right to life' over "others", from the perspective of Nature, Itself?

Yes.

That is part of your nature.

Have I suggested before that it is better for you IF you speak from and about you only, instead of 'trying to' speak for "others", especially me?

If I have, did it fall on "deaf ears"?

IF you want to speak for me, then you could NOT be MORE WRONG even if you 'tried to be'.

Okay, I speak of myself.

It is against another nature, good. But you do it anyway.

Again, if you are going to keep 'trying to' speak for me, then you are only going to be more and more WRONG.

I will say it again, when I ask 'you' clarifying questions in regards to what you write, then I want to KNOW what YOUR answers are. I do NOT want your view of "others". Do you understand this?

Okay.

It appears that when you 'try to' start defining what you think is true and right, you are leading yourself into contradicting your own self here.

I have problem defining good and evil. I don't have any problem defining right or wrong.

Okay. Now define 'right' AND 'wrong'.

I did.

We of course have good nature too. I have never said otherwise.

YOU just SAID:
"We couldn't possibly do evil if we had good nature."

That was a mistake from my side if I said so.

I am not sure how this appears to you. But, to me, it appears as though you are saying that 'we', human beings, could not possibly do evil if 'we' had good nature.

Yes, that is true. How we could possibly have an urge of evil if our nature was not evil. We didn't even know that evil exists.

This, to me, means that if 'you', human beings, had good nature, then you could not possibly do 'evil'.

We could not do evil if our nature was only good.

Which can also be expressed as "Because 'we', human beings, do evil, then that means 'we' do not have a 'good' nature.

No. We have both natures. So we understand what are those natures. Sometimes we do good and sometimes evil.

So, are you now saying that 'you', human beings, only have 'evil' nature and NO 'good' nature at all?

The answer is either yes or no.

I have both natures.

Either way elaborate on and further explain your answer. That is, if you possibly could.

I did.

Which part? Whether good God can do evil? No good God cannot do evil because that is against God's nature.

Now, are you saying that; 'A good God cannot do evil' OR 'A good God can do evil'?

A good God doesn't even understand and know what evil is. How God does evil then?

It was not clear to me that whether good God can do evil or not. Now it is clear to me.

And what have you concluded clearly?

You say that God does not have an urge for doing evil but can God do evil and can a good God do evil.

My conclusion is that a good God cannot do evil. We cannot know things which are not part of our nature. This applies to God too. So good God cannot know what is evil, therefore good God cannot do evil.

[Age]

Then you wrote:



So let's get this straight: do you, or do you not, think the word "believe" entails that the "believer" is not open to proof or evidence?

I view that when a human being uses the words; "I believe ...", then that human being is NOT open to what the actual and real Truth IS, (which can be proven to be True with actual and real evidence) IF the actual and real Truth opposes what that human being currently BELIEVES is true, right, and/or correct.

So then, what you said afterward was NOT true...namely, that...

You are assuming incorrectly again.

"A 'belief', to me, is just an acceptance that some thing exists or is true.

It's not "just" anything of the kind. It's a closed-minded type of thing, you suppose.

You are wrong again assuming such a thing.

What I am saying is really very simple actually.

Learning and KNOWING how the Mind and brain work, then understanding this fully will come about almost instantaneously.

Another way of understanding this fully is by just STOP making assumptions and STOP believing things, and instead by just asking clarifying questions.

But in supposing that, you suppose contrary to the dictionary definitions. But you seem closed to the evidence that your definition is arbitrarily narrow.

But MY definition is a dictionary definition, so why do you now suppose that you are getting things so wrong and so twisted here?

The reason WHY you are is very simple really.

So, in the "NOT open" sense, you are a believer in your definition of "belief," contrary to the evidence.

Now you could not have twisted this any further from the actual and real Truth of things, even if you wanted to.

Yes, I now have your position straight.

Okay. That is good.

But from what you have written here, the exact opposite may be much closer to the real and actual Truth of things.

Just about all of what you have written is WRONG.

[Greatest I am]

[

If you WANT to continue BELIEVING that, then go right ahead. I am NOT here to try to convince otherwise.

Good, because you would fail.

You have shown you have no basis for your foolish notions.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

We do what we WANT and CHOOSE to do.

You choose to lose at competitions so as to not create hardship for others. Not likely.

I don't think you get what it means for you to evolve and why you have to do evil.

As the Christians sing, Adam's sin, and ours, is a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Regards
DL

[Age]

We do what we WANT and CHOOSE to do.

You choose to lose at competitions so as to not create hardship for others. Not likely.

If I was you I would not make a bet on that.

I don't think you get what it means for you to evolve and why you have to do evil.

If that is what you think, then okay.

Do you have any examples of the 'evil' things that you do?

Then can you provide some examples of the excuses that you tell yourself, which allows you to keep choosing to do those 'evil' things?

As the Christians sing, Adam's sin, and ours, is a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Regards
DL

Okay.

[Age]

[

If you WANT to continue BELIEVING that, then go right ahead. I am NOT here to try to convince otherwise.

Good, because you would fail.

You have shown you have no basis for your foolish notions.

Regards
DL

Yes you are right. I have shown NO basis for my notions. This is because hitherto I have had NO intentions of ever showing them here, in this forum

[Greatest I am]

[

Do you have any examples of the 'evil' things that you do?

These days, I only do good as I am out of the survival game.

Christians will not agree given that what they see is hate in me. Then again, they call evil good and good evil.

As a Gnostic Christian, I believe the intelligentsia who say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[

If you WANT to continue BELIEVING that, then go right ahead. I am NOT here to try to convince otherwise.

Good, because you would fail.

You have shown you have no basis for your foolish notions.

Regards
DL

Yes you are right. I have shown NO basis for my notions. This is because hitherto I have had NO intentions of ever showing them here, in this forum

Then you are a bigger fool than I thought.

Regards
DL

[Age]

[

Do you have any examples of the 'evil' things that you do?

These days, I only do good as I am out of the survival game.

That is one pretty HUGE claim to make.

To only ever do good, some might suggest infers that you are somewhat God-like.

Also, to say that one is "out of the survival game", then makes me wonder; HOW they are then still here, surviving?

If you are, as you say, "out of this game", then WHY are you still here?

Christians will not agree given that what they see is hate in me. Then again, they call evil good and good evil.

Is that what christians really do? Are you at all able to define what these 'christian' things are exactly?

As a Gnostic Christian,

Also, what is a 'gnostic christian' thing EXACTLY?

I believe the intelligentsia who say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Regards
DL

I wonder who else finds it completely and utterly hilarious how often it is always the, so called, "intelligentsia" are the ones who just happen to, coincidentally, agree with and believe the same thing, as the one who is calling them "the intelligentsia"?

[Age]

Good, because you would fail.

You have shown you have no basis for your foolish notions.

Regards
DL

Yes you are right. I have shown NO basis for my notions. This is because hitherto I have had NO intentions of ever showing them here, in this forum

Then you are a bigger fool than I thought.

Regards
DL

Okay.