If there is a god is he evil?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: If there is a god is he evil?

Post by honorentheos »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 3:47 pm
Rape, murder, slaughter, suffering, and fear are in reality the natural order of things, again, not just in the human realm of experiences.
Where i see humanity behaving uniquely is in elevating/debasing our preferences for certain outcomes into motives we term "good" and "evil". I think the designations have value, but they aren't objectively something that exists in the universe independent of human beings. A male lion may mercilessly murder the offspring of another male lion, and it will illicit fear and pain, even anguish among the lions involved. But the idea that lion is evil, or what it did is evil? That's anthropomorphism. A duck raping other ducks causes fear and pain, often death, and there is a natural response of disgust to that happening. I hope it does, honestly. But calling it evil is projecting a human perspective on the universe and asserting human priority.
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: If there is a god is he evil?

Post by Lem »

honorentheos wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:31 pm
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 3:47 pm
Rape, murder, slaughter, suffering, and fear are in reality the natural order of things, again, not just in the human realm of experiences.
Where i see humanity behaving uniquely is in elevating/debasing our preferences for certain outcomes into motives we term "good" and "evil". I think the designations have value, but they aren't objectively something that exists in the universe independent of human beings. A male lion may mercilessly murder the offspring of another male lion, and it will illicit fear and pain, even anguish among the lions involved. But the idea that lion is evil, or what it did is evil? That's anthropomorphism.
Earlier in the conversation, something like the concepts of good being altruistic and evil being selfish were added to the discussion, I would argue that assigning those attributes, one exclusively to good and the other exclusively to evil also aren't objective assessments. The bottom line seems to be that the randomness of nature does not consistently indicate any presence of what people define as a god. The post hoc attributions of events as "good" or "evil," in my opinion, are just an inconsistently applied religious construction, meant to support one's prior conclusions.
mentalgymnast
1st Counselor
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 6:29 pm

Re: If there is a god is he evil?

Post by mentalgymnast »

honorentheos wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:31 pm
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 3:47 pm
Rape, murder, slaughter, suffering, and fear are in reality the natural order of things, again, not just in the human realm of experiences.
Where i see humanity behaving uniquely is in elevating/debasing our preferences for certain outcomes into motives we term "good" and "evil". I think the designations have value, but they aren't objectively something that exists in the universe independent of human beings. A male lion may mercilessly murder the offspring of another male lion, and it will illicit fear and pain, even anguish among the lions involved. But the idea that lion is evil, or what it did is evil? That's anthropomorphism. A duck raping other ducks causes fear and pain, often death, and there is a natural response of disgust to that happening. I hope it does, honestly. But calling it evil is projecting a human perspective on the universe and asserting human priority.
A lion isn’t evil. What a lion does isn’t sin.

Evil does exist, however, when people engage in similar behaviors in which we would not call out other members of the animal kingdom for.

May I suggest a book I read back in the late seventies or early eighties? It’s been a long time ago...

https://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Became- ... 387&sr=8-1

A bit pricy nowadays. I had the paperback back in the day.

This stuff you’re spouting off has been in the works for a long time. And here we are.

Regards,
MG
Last edited by mentalgymnast on Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
mentalgymnast
1st Counselor
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 6:29 pm

Re: If there is a god is he evil?

Post by mentalgymnast »

Lem wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:43 pm
The bottom line seems to be that the randomness of nature does not consistently indicate any presence of what people define as a god. The post hoc attributions of events as "good" or "evil," in my opinion, are just an inconsistently applied religious construction, meant to support one's prior conclusions.
Read the book I linked to. You guys and your trashing of sin and evil. What a mess we’re in now. Decades of decadence. Calling good evil and evil good...with some spin offs attached to the mix.

Regards,
MG
mentalgymnast
1st Counselor
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 6:29 pm

Re: If there is a god is he evil?

Post by mentalgymnast »

Honor, in an earlier post we had this:
honorentheos wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 3:40 am
mentalgymnast wrote:
Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:57 pm
But then one might ask, what would be the purpose in a perfect life in a perfect world?
What? I mean, isn't that what you hope for in the end? To eventually have a perfect life in a perfect world?
I think I may have answered you by answering Doc.
mentalgymnast wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 5:15 pm
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 3:47 pm
...what life is, what I can see, if it was by design, can only be described as totally brutal with no respect to individual and kin. And I'm talking about all life forms, not just human. Rape, murder, slaughter, suffering, and fear are in reality the natural order of things, again, not just in the human realm of experiences.
- Doc
And on the flip side we have the soft feel, smell, and beauty of a velvet rose. The smile of a beautiful baby. The beautiful natural wonders of nature. The love of a beautiful family. Etc.

Beauty. Chance?

Or purpose?

If purpose...then would we not then have to consider that bone cancer and other maladies, passed to us through the same natural evolutionary mechanisms that gave us roses and smiling babies, also has purpose? The natural world is filled with beauty while at the same time being filled with maladies that afflict and torment mankind.

I suppose it comes down to whether or not we are open to the idea of there being an opposition in ALL things. And that opposition has purpose...besides pain. That is a difficult proposal to accept, granted.

Regards,
MG
A perfect world is not in the cards here in this fallen world..but we are working towards a better one. In this world we have sin and evil. In a better world the hope is that sin and evil will be eradicated.

Is that too much to expect or hope for?

Regards,
MG
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: If there is a god is he evil?

Post by dastardly stem »

I'd love to incorporate animal thoughts into what can be considered good and what can be considered bad, but the language barrier is too difficult to surpass. So all we have is us to join in working out what it might be. Animal behavior is interested because they do or can work out different levels of moral behavior, or so it seems. I mean we can't peak into their thoughts to confirm it but watching behavior it does appear some level of "we do it this way because its best" type of thinking goes on.

I don't think there's much to doubt in that human behavior is best observed when it hurts less humans, less plants and less animals. Using terms and language can be tough, though, I admit. Calling some particular quality evil is no doubt problematic. It may be good in some cases to be nice, and in other instances it may be best to not be so nice, lest someone else gets hurt, perhaps. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't or can't see human well being as our highest consideration. We can try to speak for animals, plants, and planets, but we're just guessing. It's not like we're favoring humanity at the expense of other things. We aren't those and can't communicate with them, so putting them into consideration is really only seeing it from our perspective.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
mentalgymnast
1st Counselor
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 6:29 pm

Re: If there is a god is he evil?

Post by mentalgymnast »

*dup

Sorry about that. 🙂
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: If there is a god is he evil?

Post by Lem »

dastardly stem wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:02 pm
I'd love to incorporate animal thoughts into what can be considered good and what can be considered bad, but the language barrier is too difficult to surpass. So all we have is us to join in working out what it might be. Animal behavior is interested because they do or can work out different levels of moral behavior, or so it seems. I mean we can't peak into their thoughts to confirm it but watching behavior it does appear some level of "we do it this way because its best" type of thinking goes on.

I don't think there's much to doubt in that human behavior is best observed when it hurts less humans, less plants and less animals. Using terms and language can be tough, though, I admit. Calling some particular quality evil is no doubt problematic. It may be good in some cases to be nice, and in other instances it may be best to not be so nice, lest someone else gets hurt, perhaps. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't or can't see human well being as our highest consideration. We can try to speak for animals, plants, and planets, but we're just guessing. It's not like we're favoring humanity at the expense of other things. We aren't those and can't communicate with them, so putting them into consideration is really only seeing it from our perspective.
:D truly. Speaking of human perspective, I was recently watching a top chef episode. In an interview after a farm visit, one chef said 'yes, absolutely we respect the lives of animals'. This caught my attention, because this contestant loves, loves, LOVES his animal proteins. He followed up by saying something like 'animals are born, we respect them as they live their lives, and then we kill them for their purpose, which is to be eaten.' :shock: :lol: :lol:

So I'm not sure all would universally agree hurting less plants and animals is better. But to me, that just emphasizes your point that "Calling some particular quality evil is no doubt problematic. It may be good in some cases to be nice, and in other instances it may be best to not be so nice..."
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8981
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: If there is a god is he evil?

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

dastardly stem wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:02 pm
I'd love to incorporate animal thoughts into what can be considered good and what can be considered bad, but the language barrier is too difficult to surpass. So all we have is us to join in working out what it might be. Animal behavior is interested because they do or can work out different levels of moral behavior, or so it seems. I mean we can't peak into their thoughts to confirm it but watching behavior it does appear some level of "we do it this way because its best" type of thinking goes on.

I don't think there's much to doubt in that human behavior is best observed when it hurts less humans, less plants and less animals. Using terms and language can be tough, though, I admit. Calling some particular quality evil is no doubt problematic. It may be good in some cases to be nice, and in other instances it may be best to not be so nice, lest someone else gets hurt, perhaps. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't or can't see human well being as our highest consideration. We can try to speak for animals, plants, and planets, but we're just guessing. It's not like we're favoring humanity at the expense of other things. We aren't those and can't communicate with them, so putting them into consideration is really only seeing it from our perspective.
Man, you must be vibing with the universal ohm right now:

Image

So, with regard to what you posted above let’s take the thought a bit further. A designing god would have had to include a subroutine that’d specifically target deer who occasionally get a very rare cataract defect causing hair to grow. *on their eye* .

Again, I’m not really in the evil vs. good game any more, but I’m scratching my head how to assign any sort of motivation to the design team that would brainstorm this one into existence, draft a proposal, shunt the project off to IT, and then push the product higher for approval. And then the higher ups, maybe a god itself, sees it and is like, “Yeah, hair growing out a buck’s eyeball is great. Perfect. Approved.”

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: If there is a god is he evil?

Post by Physics Guy »

Gadianton wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 5:28 am
I'll admit the "officer" analogy assumes God with certain responsibilities that maybe he doesn't have, but "Q" has built-in aloofness, given he's a fellow evolved life form with no jurisdiction over humans. We don't expect Q to step in not primarily because he's 150 steps ahead, but because it's not his business. The Enterprise likewise has their prime directive. But had the Enterprise concocted these other worlds in a lab, it feels like the cop analogy begins to fit.
Yes, Q would be a bad analogy for God in that way. But my point was that the only thing that makes cops 5 and 9 seem absurd is that you can't take it seriously for a cop to have such superhuman knowledge or power. If it were plausible that these cops actually could have such knowledge or power then one might not like their answers but their answers would not have the obvious inadequacy that they seem to have in the story as written.
My problem with Officer 5 is that it's a cake-and-eat-too out. One contribution from Christian theologians is that God, to be God, isn't just a cause, but is personable. So, I can nearly buy into some kind of pantheism or alternative weird-ass depth to reality where something describable in some way as intelligence is ultimately behind everything, and that if we understood this massive depth, we would see everything differently. Well, would such a force be personable enough to be "God"? And if pain and suffering don't mean anything when we come to understand this massive depth, then why would moral norms and commandments stay meaningful, and worse, have eternal implications? It seems to me that if God is personable enough to share norms he's saddled humans with, and expects humans to live by, that he can't just play the "oh, if you knew what I knew card" so easily.
The Mormon God is just a highly evolved human, but classical theism has been comfortable for an awfully long time with the assumption that God really is not like us. But "not like us" is a big category. I don't think that God sharing all our priorities in any situation, and caring nothing at all about how humans behave, are the only alternatives. And the 5/Job "it's complicated" answer doesn't say that pain and suffering don't matter at all. It just says that sometimes other things, which we may not even be able to imagine, can matter even more.
My problem with officer 9 is similar. Granting this is all just a spec in the grand scheme, and the glory of the next world incinerates the pain of this one as a forest fire consumes a dry leaf, then why does what we do matter so much to our future in the eternal realm? Just as pain is fleeting, so is sin, and so are horrible crimes.
If God can remedy ills in the afterlife, that doesn't necessarily mean that nothing in this life matters at all. I mean, if somebody suffers painful but non-fatal burns while saving a child from a burning building, then it's a lot easier to call it a happy ending if the firefighter fully recovers, but we're still not saying that the pain of the burns didn't matter. I do agree, though, that if God can remedy even horrible evils in the afterlife then this must mitigate the damage done by any Earthly sins. This is another good argument against eternal damnation—if we needed any. I don't see it as an argument against a good God.
Right, I think the argument in the realm of the evidential problem of evil, is the mounting of accidental or meaningless evil. There's no firm line in the sand. Some people can let a fawn die in a forest fire without blinking, some can let a thousand or a million die.
Yeah, a lot of bad things happen when it's really not obvious at all that they had to happen. I get irate just when something rolls off the counter while I'm cooking; I yell at it that there was no need for it to do that, that it could perfectly well just have stayed in its place. At least sometimes I do then remember that I'm supposed to know that tomatoes do not have free will but simply follow their deterministic laws of motion, so if the tomato rolled off the counter then it actually did have to do that. It's a lot harder to think that way about worse things than rolling tomatoes but the principle may still apply: there may be reasons that we just don't see why bad things do have to happen.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
Post Reply