Wouldn't it then make the Christian God, at least partly but nevertheless substantially, evil?

Are you willing to accept and worship an evil God as your lord? And how is this worship different from submitting to an evil dictator (in this case, a celestial dictator, who is hundreds of times worse than a human dictator, of course)?

I am not asking this as a rhetorical question.

As I already said, that depends on what definition of "evil" you are using.

To say God causes "real human suffering caused by non-human factors" does not help whatever point you're trying to make. That God causes, or allows to happen, natural events resulting in human suffering is not in dispute.

An evil dictator did not create the universe, including you. So I suggest not worshiping one.

Using your own definition, is Satan evil? Because earlier in the thread you said:

Satan is evil by definition of the word, which means adversary (of God). In that capacity, all instances of "Satan" in the Bible refer to man.

lol, that's actually true!

Whatcha smokin' ?
( Just jokin'! )
Everything is broken.

It is hard to understand what your point is really. Maybe you do not have any, but let us proceed.

If you accept the proposition "that God causes, or allows to happen, natural events resulting in human suffering is not in dispute," as you write above, then it means that you also basically accept that this God is not all-good. Fine. I have no problems with that. So, in this case, we basically agree that God is either partly or entirely evil since he is not all-good.

Your insistence on worshiping this evil entity you call God, then, has only one support: Your belief that this partly or entirely evil entity "created" you. Fine. Now show me the morality behind this insistence on worship. Isn't your God, morally speaking, just a glorified celestial dictator (with the additional power of "creation" that ordinary dictators do not have) if there is no moral reason to obey him, other than the fact that he has power?

Doesn't your worship amount to just a "political" act of obedience to this dictator out of fear basically?

What a strange religion you have! Is that what you call Christianity: Obedience to an evil celestial dictator out of fear?

How can the fact that this entity somehow "created" you be used as a reason for why it should be your "moral" duty and responsibility to obey and worship him? Wouldn't the exact opposite be the moral thing to do: Resisting and refusing to obey this prick?

Cheers

wtf is jib talking about itt...we don't need the oil in the middle east? wat?

That's straightforward. Whatever created the universe had to be infinitely powerful, unless you want to posit that some immense finite power created finite time and matter. Either way, the power that created the universe has to be greater than the power in the universe. And as we further along, whatever was the cause of the mind coming into existence has to also have a mind itself.

All you can say is that being (we're assuming its a being for the sake of the argument) has the power to create the universe. It does not entail that it could do anything, or be infinite. It has to be outside of time and space, but that's not to say it isn't in some other plane of existence, or a software programmer. It may have extensive limits on its power. My point is that the first cause argument doesn't let you get there.

Not if the mind is an emergent (perhaps even unintentional) property of the brain. If the universe was intentionally created - that is what requires this being to have a mind or intelligence.

I had to stop reading here because this depends on what definition of "good" you are using. Since you deny the existence of God, I have no idea what your basis is for the meaning of that word.

So far you have defined evil as "real human suffering caused by non-human factors".

Is your definition of good something like "real human pleasure caused by non-human factors"? If not, what is it?

If we are to even consider that a finite power could have created the universe (and all within it), we then have to establish how such a finite power could have existed before time and matter existed. It is much more difficult to posit the finite power being the cause under such conditions than it is an infinite power.

That's the entire point. If the universe was created, then it was intentionally created. Only minds can have intentions. In the event that the mind was not an original property of the brain and is, instead, emergent, it still does not rule out the case that the universe does not have a creator with a mind. Such a creator could have easily intended to create us without minds of our own.

I happen to agree with you that the problem of evil is the best argument against theism - the trouble is it isn't logically unassailable, so that doesn't actually help (at least not in the immediate sense you seem to think it should). I am unable to get rid of the conception of God (replacing it with spiritual-ethical, a strictly ethical or no system at all becoming a moot point). Like it or not, I find myself a believer - despite the problem of evil.

My conclusion is that either there is no benevolent God, or there is a reconciliation of evil which I haven't hit on (all the attempts I've made end with the implausible view that this is the best of all possible worlds or in sleight-of-thinking dodges of that point).

Your conclusion is that I am dumb because I acknowledge my beliefs are currently inconsistent, yet can't resolve them.

Well, presumably this finite being exists outside of space and time, if it created space/time. That doesn't mean that it has the power to do absolutely anything. Perhaps this universe was the best it could do? Perhaps this universe is just a practice universe? Perhaps this being has created 100s of universes, 1000s, millions, billions of them? What you can establish is that its very powerful - there is no reason to assume that it can do anything. Or that it is benevolent. It could be an all-evil being, or - more likely - a morally mixed being.


That's not necessarily so either. Remember, all we're doing is postulating a first cause. Perhaps this being creates universes through instinct. Perhaps it does so unconsciously. Maybe that's all it does - create universes.

I'm not ruling out that the universe may have a creator with a mind, I'm just saying that avoiding infinite regress by asserting such a creator is not necessary. It is a possibility. There are other possibilities, including that it make no sense to talk about "before" time and that therefore this universe has always existed, in one form or another. But I'll let the physicists speculate more there - my point is that the first cause argument doesn't take us very far. Add in the fact that some physicists (such as Kraus) postulate a universe that indeed came from nothing, and we see that the first cause argument being God is not logically necessary. It's a possibility, of course, but not a necessary property of the universe, which is what I understand this argument to try and argue.

I do not normally use religious language to define good or evil (to my secular mind there is only good and "bad" which is there for various natural reasons: such as the presence or lack of human intelligence, presence or lack of understanding, as well as the presence of an essentially "indifferent" meaningless nature and so on, creating different outcomes of human "good" and human "bad").

Since you seem to be religious, I put on my religious garb and try to use a language that you may be more familiar with, hence the references to "good and evil" etc., that is all.

I do not think that it is particularly important for me to have a clear definition of good or evil here either (well, I have one, but it is a Nietzschean one that is not particularly relevant for our discussion) because I essentially adopt the common-sense everyday definition of these terms which are generally accepted by both religious and irreligious people:
So, if a tsunami wave comes for no apparent reason and kills thousands of men, it is "bad". If a human or non-human agent has the power to stop this tsunami and does not do this, then this agent (whether it is human or divine) is "evil". If an earthquake kills 6 million people, this is "bad." If a human agent prepares the death of 6 million people (i.e Hitler), then he is "evil." If a God, who has the power, does not do anything about preventing that earthquake (or in another sense, if he is responsible for the creation of such an event in the first place by creating the necessary physical conditions, laws etc.), then this God is evil. I can give numerous similar examples for "good" as well. But it is not necessary. The point should be clear by now.

So, if you have any point at all regarding the discussion at hand, go ahead, I am willing to listen. But if not (and I suspect that this is the case because you made absolutely no contribution to the discussion so far. This is not your fault though, all monotheistic religious systems are extremely juvenile and clueless about these most important moral matters and they do not have any meaningful answer to the question at hand), please let us agree on not wasting time on meaningless semantic points.

Cheers

My interjection:

This is the best of all possible worlds with the following qualifications: 1) from the perspective of its Creator, not man's Monday morning quarterbacking or imperfect speculation, and 2) insofar as God, not man, participated in putting the world into its current state is concerned.

If your definitions of "good" and "evil" are meaningless semantic points, then your assertions about either of those characteristics applying to God are also meaningless. This is no doubt why you dance around so much instead of providing unambiguous definitions of your terms, a well known sign of argument in bad faith.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I can see how the problem of evil is a problem for believers reconciling their own beliefs, but not so much how it's a good argument against God and/or theism. I doubt anyone is expected to know all of God's doings and reasons behind them, so…

A: if God is all good, then why is there apparent evil in the world?
B: I don't know.

… seems like an adequate, honest and acceptable response to me.

When physicalists or naturalists are asked questions about how the universe began or the hard problem with consciousness, they pretty much respond with they don't know yet, but believe science will eventually provide the answer. So unless there's some sort of litmus test requiring one to have all the answers, right now, to the questions their ideology is asked, not having those answers, right now, doesn't seem like that strong of a counter against said ideology.

These sorts of conclusions were what I found implausible.

I can't comprehend the suffering experienced by an animal caught in a trap, miles from anywhere, slowly bleeding to death in pain and fear. How come it doesnt die just one second sooner - wouldn't that be the world with a more benevolent God than the one who made this world?

I can invent a whole host of logically valid reasons - but considerations like this give me the greatest reason to doubt my belief in a benevolent God (benevolent as judged from a human perspective).

Bad translation. This rendering as "evil" would be better as "adversity" in common English usage.

Firstly, the Bible does not say God is omni-benevolent. Even so, our understanding of God's knowledge and intent is grossly incomplete, so a judgement of motive is impossible.

Being difficult to reconcile is what I mean by it being the best argument. I don't think it is logically unassailable (clearly) - but it's the one I must confess to having no good answer to.

Actually, I have a lot of respect for your position:

As far as I can tell, you are rationally aware of the fact that your beliefs contain inconsistencies, yet you "consciously" want to retain these beliefs for psychological reasons. This is alright for me. If somebody says to me that the only way for him to live a meaningful life in this world is to have belief in a God, then I would not want him to leave his faith. I have problems with morons who do not realize the inconsistencies within their religions or act as if these inconsistencies are magically solved by invoking meaningless words such as "free will," "sinful nature of human beings," "Eve eating apples a long time ago" and such.

I am not anti-religious at all and I am not trying to prove or disprove anything.

Cheers

i think this is the best answer so far on behalf of theists by far... i can absolutely respect someone who answers honestly...

although i am atheist i have never absolutely disregarded any religion as possible. i mean, who the hell knows?

Concerto, can you give me any definition of "good" that would have been inconsistent with what damaci was writing in so that it would have required him to explicitly define his use of the word "good"? I mean at what point in his writing did an alternate meaning of the word "good" potentially conflict with his intended use enough so that you would not be able to understand his statement until he defined it. Geez....

It's hard to know with the scare quotes, but your use of consciously makes me think that's not quite my position - I don't consider my belief a choice but a discovery. I realise there are inconsistencies in my beliefs - the resolution of those being something I'd like to understand (since I can't help but think it would involve learning something profound).

Irrespective, I think your original quote was too restrictive - nihilist, buddhist, secularist or moron were the options you listed. I think there are others.