Is god evil?
Started by: Euge | Replies: 165 | Views: 11,332
Oct 23, 2012 9:46 PM #767358
I don't understand how can someone think that if there is a god, it's good, it's love. Look around you: the base of life is suffering. Everything kill for living. And us, we always need a target to reach; so it means we are not complete, and we suffer cause we feel a lack. Dafaq? Why should something have created such a terrible thing? I admit I'm happy, but I can't say I'm 100% happy, and I think I never will. So what the hell? It doesn't make sense!
Oct 23, 2012 9:55 PM #767368
We've had quite a few of these threads lately, but it wouldn't hurt to ask the question:
If there were an all powerful being in this universe, would it be fair to say that this being was malevolent?
I reckon there's a debate to be made out of that.
If there were an all powerful being in this universe, would it be fair to say that this being was malevolent?
I reckon there's a debate to be made out of that.
Oct 23, 2012 10:08 PM #767377
We can't be 100% happy, not in this earth, if we pass this little test (life) overcoming all the problems that we may have in our lives, afterlife we may get and endless state of hapiness
About the world's actual state, well what would be the point to come tothis earth to enjoy endless hapiness for ever after? It has no meaning, when we have a problem and then overcome it, we're "progressing", we always learn things with each problem we've faced, that's the purpose of life for me, be a kind person, overcoming every challange that steps in my way, and have faith that it'll someday get better, waayy better :3
Now that's my opinion *gets ready for loads of posts as a response
About the world's actual state, well what would be the point to come tothis earth to enjoy endless hapiness for ever after? It has no meaning, when we have a problem and then overcome it, we're "progressing", we always learn things with each problem we've faced, that's the purpose of life for me, be a kind person, overcoming every challange that steps in my way, and have faith that it'll someday get better, waayy better :3
Now that's my opinion *gets ready for loads of posts as a response
Oct 23, 2012 11:23 PM #767425
I think if you assume god exists you have to accept that all of the horrible terrible shit in the world happens because of some unknowable infinite wisdom or that God simply doesn't give a shit and is letting humankind rot.
Oct 24, 2012 12:09 AM #767454
Quote from Highly_ScentedI think if you assume god exists you have to accept that all of the horrible terrible shit in the world happens because of some unknowable infinite wisdom or that God simply doesn't give a shit and is letting humankind rot.
ya ok idiot or god is trying to kill everybody because its better for them to live in heaven which is a paradise but wat would an idiot like u kno
Oct 24, 2012 12:34 AM #767466
Quote from carstraftya ok idiot or god is trying to kill everybody because its better for them to live in heaven which is a paradise but wat would an idiot like u kno
I know enough to punch u in the face faggot
Oct 24, 2012 1:39 AM #767503
if i were God, and I created this scumbag race, i don't think it would have taken me long to give up and say "fuck these guys they are on their own"
Oct 24, 2012 2:44 AM #767533
Quote from ZedWe've had quite a few of these threads lately, but it wouldn't hurt to ask the question:
If there were an all powerful being in this universe, would it be fair to say that this being was malevolent?
I reckon there's a debate to be made out of that.
Well sir, then let's go. Now, there are two words in your question that might lead to confusion. When debating around ambiguous terms, it is always best to try and define those terms in the beginning, so as to get a common ground or some shit - That's Socrates, yo! In your sentence, the word "all-powerful being" (shut up, that's one word!), as well as the word "malevolent", are words that might need clarification. What is an all-powerful being?, one might ask, if one wanted to sound dramatically philosophical. Pretentious as it may sound, it is actually an important question to ask, because many dudes have defined omnipotence (and an omnipotent being) differently. Thus, in order not to speak past each other, we should make sure we have the same idea of what an omnipotent being is, and how it operates. Furthermore, how we define an omnipotent being relates directly to the question of whether such a being is malevolent or not, because the trait malevolence may in fact seem to restrict omnipotence.
So let's examine this shit. I'll just go with a fairly simple idea of an omnipotent being to start with. That is not to say it is unproblematic, if anyone wants to modify, go for it.
1. An omnipotent being can do anything we can imagine and anything we cannot imagine. It is not at all restricted by physical or natural laws as we have observed them, or any other laws for that matter.
It would perhaps be meaningless to try to apply earthly terms such as malevolence to a being like this. On what grounds do we morally judge such a magnificent bastard? It is common, as the OP has showed us, to look at the world, somehow judge its state, and then apply the same judgement on the being as on the world. If the world is suffering, the being is evil. If the world is aight, the being is good. This is problematic, for what I think should be obvious reasons. It doesn't necessarily follow that because a being has all the power in the universe, it is also responsible for the universe. Spider-man logic might not always apply. An omnipotent being can do anything, but it can also do nothing.
But let's assume even omnipotent beings listen to Uncle Ben's words. Doing nothing when you can do anything is inherently bad.
Alas! Our moral judgement is still problematic. First of all, how the fuck do you accurately judge the state of the world in didactic terms of good and bad? Second, whose interests do we prioritize? The OP seems to put human interests first, but to be honest this seems ridiculously arrogant when we are considering this is an omnipotent being responsible for the entire universe. Humans might not be the centre of attention for this being. Fuck, maybe cats are, they seem to be doing alright to me. Perhaps what we actually mean is: is this being good or bad to humans. Still, it is difficult to morally judge Omnibob, because even human morals is a complex question. What ethical system should the omnipotent being operate with? Should it listen to Aristotle or Kant? Should it be consequentialist or pragmatic?
Thus, it becomes a question of ethics, and it is for this reason we have to get a common understanding of the word malevolence. For, just as pretentiously as before: what is malevolence? A quick google search might help us.
Malevolence is an epic staff in the game World of Warcraft, with an item level of 359, which I imagine is a whole lot. Now, if there were an all powerful being in this universe, would it be fair to say this was an epic staff with an item level of 359? No, I would think not, and I think it is preposterous that anyone can claim otherwise.
Oct 24, 2012 5:41 AM #767578
Quote from aliveMalevolence is an epic staff in the game World of Warcraft, with an item level of 359, which I imagine is a whole lot. Now, if there were an all powerful being in this universe, would it be fair to say this was an epic staff with an item level of 359? No, I would think not, and I think it is preposterous that anyone can claim otherwise.
How dare you.
The epic staff Malevolence with an item level of 359 is my lord and savior.
Oct 24, 2012 6:25 AM #767588
One thing I think I must point out is how the fact that if we never experience sadness, pain, or anger, we could never experience happiness or love.
True it sometimes seems unfair, but a child believes some things it to be unfair, when all the parents want to do is teach the child what is right.
so I don't believe God is evil, he cares about everyone and everything.
True it sometimes seems unfair, but a child believes some things it to be unfair, when all the parents want to do is teach the child what is right.
so I don't believe God is evil, he cares about everyone and everything.
Oct 24, 2012 9:25 AM #767638
umm no. because. ok, life comes with suffering, but most of what happens to us is a result of our actions, for example being broke, well it's not "God's fault" you were too lazy to work. Besides, this suffering might be god just testing us, and god is to be considered good, because just him creating you and existing is gift from him, even the simplest things in life, they're all gifts, that you may never have the ability to repay god for. All this is in my point of view.
Oct 24, 2012 10:59 AM #767667
everything is a fucking 'test' to religious people. just another brainwashing mechanic to keep people in line
Oct 24, 2012 1:37 PM #767738
i think god is evil, i remember some people say God created us in his own image it mean what we can do, god can do it better and now we look around,some people have think or do alot of evil thing in they life, torture, do a sick thinging (you don't want to know) now looking back "God created us in his own image" what human can do, god can do better, that only my point, good think i not a religious, that all my bro thing :D
Oct 24, 2012 2:14 PM #767751
Quote from neckromorphgood think i not a religious, that all my bro thing :D
That gave me a headache.
Anyway... God is supposed to be omnipotent, so therefore he must have the potential for good and evil.
As for life being a "test", tests are supposed to be fair. If everyone gets a different test, what's the point? I'm talking about how some people are born in rich christian families, and others in poverty.
Oct 24, 2012 3:12 PM #767782
Quote from aliveWell sir, then let's go. Now, there are two words in your question that might lead to confusion. When debating around ambiguous terms, it is always best to try and define those terms in the beginning, so as to get a common ground or some shit - That's Socrates, yo! In your sentence, the word "all-powerful being" (shut up, that's one word!), as well as the word "malevolent", are words that might need clarification. What is an all-powerful being?, one might ask, if one wanted to sound dramatically philosophical. Pretentious as it may sound, it is actually an important question to ask, because many dudes have defined omnipotence (and an omnipotent being) differently. Thus, in order not to speak past each other, we should make sure we have the same idea of what an omnipotent being is, and how it operates. Furthermore, how we define an omnipotent being relates directly to the question of whether such a being is malevolent or not, because the trait malevolence may in fact seem to restrict omnipotence.
So let's examine this shit. I'll just go with a fairly simple idea of an omnipotent being to start with. That is not to say it is unproblematic, if anyone wants to modify, go for it.
1. An omnipotent being can do anything we can imagine and anything we cannot imagine. It is not at all restricted by physical or natural laws as we have observed them, or any other laws for that matter.
It would perhaps be meaningless to try to apply earthly terms such as malevolence to a being like this. On what grounds do we morally judge such a magnificent bastard? It is common, as the OP has showed us, to look at the world, somehow judge its state, and then apply the same judgement on the being as on the world. If the world is suffering, the being is evil. If the world is aight, the being is good. This is problematic, for what I think should be obvious reasons. It doesn't necessarily follow that because a being has all the power in the universe, it is also responsible for the universe. Spider-man logic might not always apply. An omnipotent being can do anything, but it can also do nothing.
But let's assume even omnipotent beings listen to Uncle Ben's words. Doing nothing when you can do anything is inherently bad.
Alas! Our moral judgement is still problematic. First of all, how the fuck do you accurately judge the state of the world in didactic terms of good and bad? Second, whose interests do we prioritize? The OP seems to put human interests first, but to be honest this seems ridiculously arrogant when we are considering this is an omnipotent being responsible for the entire universe. Humans might not be the centre of attention for this being. Fuck, maybe cats are, they seem to be doing alright to me. Perhaps what we actually mean is: is this being good or bad to humans. Still, it is difficult to morally judge Omnibob, because even human morals is a complex question. What ethical system should the omnipotent being operate with? Should it listen to Aristotle or Kant? Should it be consequentialist or pragmatic?
Thus, it becomes a question of ethics, and it is for this reason we have to get a common understanding of the word malevolence. For, just as pretentiously as before: what is malevolence? A quick google search might help us.
[IMG ]http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii94/mannebjorn/malevolence2.jpg[/IMG]
Malevolence is an epic staff in the game World of Warcraft, with an item level of 359, which I imagine is a whole lot. Now, if there were an all powerful being in this universe, would it be fair to say this was an epic staff with an item level of 359? No, I would think not, and I think it is preposterous that anyone can claim otherwise.
This post is a thing of beauty for so many reasons. And English isn't even your first language.
Firstly I would like to reject your Anselm-ian (Anselmic? Anselmsational?) definition of omnipotence in favour of a Cartesian one: An omnipotent being is a being which is capable of doing anything logically possible. It cannot draw a round square or a square circle because these things are nonsense by definition. It can only do that which is comprehensible.
By Kant's conception of morality such a being would still be bound by ethics. The moral law was true by definition and discoverable through logic, hence it is inconceivable that any being should not be bound by it.
As for which ethical system we should hold such a being subject to; there are some things which would be considered immoral under any system so we could check to see if any of those things occur in nature.
Not even going off on a tangent here - I'm pretty sure my train of thought has jumped the tracks completely:
An all powerful being, by either of our standards, has the ability to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Clearly, however, we disagree about a number of things. Even murder and rape aren't condemned universally. Therefore the all powerful being has decided not to give us a clear view on morality. If he was good then obviously he would have told us the difference between right and wrong so that we could do right and avoid wrong, so we can rule out the ominpotent being being good. If he was actively evil, however, I think we could safely say that things would be worse. You can imagine a world where after a man's seventh orgasm his penis drops off and he dies from blood loss. Therefore we can rule out a malevolent God. The only remaining option is one who doesn't care about us.
Or maybe an incompetent God works. I'm not 100% sure if it's consistent with omnipotence, but you can imagine something like a really advanced video game where you play God and can technically do anything in this virtual world but you might not be a very good player.