God is Evil - Now What?

[sojourner]

Absolutely. That God must be good is a premise without fundament, an unproven, and probably unprovable, axiom suspiciously close to wishful thinking.

All defenses of God being good despite evil, can be easily transformed into a defense of God being evil despite good.

Ciao

- viole

Only in a case where God is nothing more than a fairy tale. As I said, we can't argue God in any ontological sense. We can only argue God in a theological sense, because that's the only way we can talk about God.

 

[sojourner]

And how do you determine which is which? How do you determine that an assessment that concludes that God is most likely indifferent is a result of total incomprehension while the view that God is necessarily good is a result of merely "missing some pieces"? The fact is that any conclusion on this subject is going to come from an uninformed and incomplete perspective of the issues involved, so I do not think it is fair to dismiss someone else's conclusion entirely on those grounds.

The theology is contained in what is written and in the attendant oral Tradition. We have no ontological evidence for God to debate! The determination is made from what we have.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The theology is contained in what is written and in the attendant oral Tradition. We have no ontological evidence for God to debate! The determination is made from what we have.

And what we have now includes the suggestion that God is indifferent. Why do you ignore that as part of the collection of claims made about God? Why do they carry more weight? How do you determine which claims carry weight and which don't if you have no ontological evidence to sort the accurate claims from the inaccurate? Ultimately, if all you have is oral tradition, then you really have absolutely nothing solid to go on, and therefore all claims can be said to be uninformed.

 

[sojourner]

But why do you not dismiss any of those written or oral accounts as coming from a "superficial and incomplete understanding of theology"?

Because they form the basis for an understanding of God.

I mean, by definition they must be superficial and incomplete, since they are humans writing about subjects that are widely considered to be beyond the scope of human comprehension.

Of course they are, but they're what we have.

We now have at least one statement, "God is indifferent", that we can assess and add to their claims. Why can this statement, which can now be said to be part of the theological discussion, be dismissed while others are not? How do you identify a qualified claim about God from a claim you can just dismiss as "superficial"?

Because "God is indifferent" isn't included in the set of bases for a conception of God -- that is, the written texts and their attendant oral Tradition. "God is indifferent" is baseless.

How do you identify a qualified claim about God from a claim you can just dismiss as "superficial"?

How many times do I have to say it? The basis for God is found in the texts and their attendant oral Tradition.

 

[sojourner]

For the purposes of this discussion, I don't give a fig where a person got their beliefs about God from as long as those beliefs are sincere.

Aaaand that's why you don't have a dog in this hunt. Because you refuse to play by established rules of theological discussion.

I'm sure there's plenty for you to disagree with in my actual position, so why not try arguing against something I'm actually saying?

Because you're not "actually saying" anything.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because they form the basis for an understanding of God.

They form A basis for understanding God. Not everyone has to agree to them, and there are many people who have good reasons not to.

Of course they are, but they're what we have.

And now we have something to add to them. The claim "God is indifferent".

Because "God is indifferent" isn't included in the set of bases for a conception of God -- that is, the written texts and their attendant oral Tradition. "God is indifferent" is baseless.

But aren't the "set of bases" you're using also baseless? If you have no ontological basis for establishing the truth of any claims made by textual or oral tradition about God, then you have no rational means to differentiate those claims from any other claims. Your argument basically boils down to "We should trust these baseless claims because they are older, but not these other baseless claims because they're baseless."

How many times do I have to say it? The basis for God is found in the texts and their attendant oral Tradition.

And how do you establish which of these texts or oral traditions are accurate?

 

[sojourner]

No, I'm talking theoretically is it not possible that all of those things that we THINK we know about God are a deliberate attempt to mislead us?

Theoretically. But why assume that?? There's absolutely no basis for making that assumption.

So there is zero possibility that God is a malicious entity that has CONVINCED us that they are good, and we should just assume God is good because the writings of many religions say it?

Correct. Because, as I I've continued to repeat: We can only talk about God in theological terms, and the established basis for theological constructs about God are that God is good. So we must proceed from that basis. Once again: if you don't believe God is good, then you don't believe in God. Or you come up with some different God. But the God we're talking about in this thread is and always has been painted as good, so that's the basis upon which we must proceed -- or we're not talking about God anymore.

 

[sojourner]

I think that what he means, is, contextually, you don't have the material to make a sensible speculation.

Correct.

 

[sojourner]

Seems like you're confusing "what we know" with "what we believe".

There was a recent TED Talk that identified that as the hallmark of dogmatism:

No. We know what the theological constructs are, and that's really what's up for discussion -- the constructs. Because (as I've said before) there is no real conversation that can be had ontologically about God. It's those conversations that are about "I believe" -- not the theological constructs.

 

[sojourner]

"In our system, there are many gods, spirits. Part of one big family, with all the virtues, all the vices. . . . Voodoo says there's God, sure, Gran Met, but he's big, too big, and too far away to worry himself if your *** is poor, or you can't get laid."
- William Gibson, Count Zero

http://project.cyberpunk.ru/idb/voodoo_in_neuromancer.html

Aaaaand that comes from ... where in the bible, again?

 

[sojourner]

Although I agree with this in the context of believers, and how they utilize the Scripture, etc., it does not preclude a complete contextual situation where no speculation is logically possible. I believe that your view, though fine, in general, can lead to a very materialistic type of legalism within religion.

But it's the believers who establish the constructs. That's the point: if you don't believe in God, then you don't believe in God -- or you believe in some God other than the one painted in Tradition. Therefore, if you're talking about a God that's evil, you're talking about some other God than the established God of Tradition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Aaaaand that comes from ... where in the bible, again?

Be careful with that goalpost. Moving it that abruptly could hurt your back.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Aaaand that's why you don't have a dog in this hunt. Because you refuse to play by established rules of theological discussion.

Your personal whims are not "established rules".

Because you're not "actually saying" anything.

Just because you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm not saying anything.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Theoretically. But why assume that?? There's absolutely no basis for making that assumption.

I think there's absolutely zero basis for making any kind of assumption whatsoever about God, so to me it's just as valid as any assertion that God is necessarily good.

Correct. Because, as I I've continued to repeat: We can only talk about God in theological terms, and the established basis for theological constructs about God are that God is good. So we must proceed from that basis.

So you can only talk about God theoretically, but you can categorically state that God must be good because most of the oldest and most established theological ideas say so? If we can only talk about God in theoretical terms, then the idea that God is evil is just as viable and worth consideration than any other claim. If it's entirely theoretical, then you can't distinguish an accurate claim from an inaccurate one, and all theoretical models are possible. It seems wholly naive to me for people to trust one set of baseless claims and not even consider another.

Once again: if you don't believe God is good, then you don't believe in God. Or you come up with some different God.

Or, you believe that the God spoken about in ancient traditions and texts is actually a devious and nefarious being.

But the God we're talking about in this thread is and always has been painted as good, so that's the basis upon which we must proceed -- or we're not talking about God anymore.

Isn't that just an excuse to ignore any theoretical model of God you don't feel comfortable discussing?

 

[sojourner]

And what we have now includes the suggestion that God is indifferent.

Based upon what?!

Why do you ignore that as part of the collection of claims made about God?

Because, ultimately, the bible is the authoritative source for a construct of who God is. That's the basis from which we proceed. if we're not talking about the God of the bible, we're talking about some other god. And the God of the bible is a God who does care about -- and for -- us. Unless one is proceeding from an exegetically-untenable position.

 

[sojourner]

How do you determine which claims carry weight and which don't if you have no ontological evidence to sort the accurate claims from the inaccurate? Ultimately, if all you have is oral tradition, then you really have absolutely nothing solid to go on, and therefore all claims can be said to be uninformed.

Because we have to start somewhere -- and that "somewhere" is the bible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Theoretically. But why assume that?? There's absolutely no basis for making that assumption.

Correct. Because, as I I've continued to repeat: We can only talk about God in theological terms, and the established basis for theological constructs about God are that God is good. So we must proceed from that basis.

You've never heard of Marcionism?

Once again: if you don't believe God is good, then you don't believe in God. Or you come up with some different God. But the God we're talking about in this thread is and always has been painted as good, so that's the basis upon which we must proceed -- or we're not talking about God anymore.

What thread have you been reading? From the OP:

And when I say "god", you can take your pick from any or all of the following:
1. The spiritual world: God of the Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, angels, demons, etc.
2. The physical world (Earth): kings, dictators, tyrants, czars, government, mobs, etc.
3. The extra-terrestial worlds: Aliens, engineers, predators, etc.

 

[sojourner]

Be careful with that goalpost. Moving it that abruptly could hurt your back.

In what sense is the bible a "goalpost?" The bible and its attendant oral tradition has always been the basis for belief in God. Assuming that it's not is "moving the goalposts."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In what sense is the bible a "goalpost?" The bible and its attendant oral tradition has always been the basis for belief in God. Assuming that it's not is "moving the goalposts."

Sorry - I just can't do this. I can't take you seriously long enough to pretend that you're arguing in good faith.

If you can't take off your religious blinders, I'm not going to be able to do it for you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Based upon what?!

That fact that some people say it. According to you, that's all we really need in order to use it as a basis for discussion.

Because, ultimately, the bible is the authoritative source for a construct of who God is.

Why?

That's the basis from which we proceed.

Why?

if we're not talking about the God of the bible, we're talking about some other god.

That goes without saying, but I'm addressing all God concepts. The God of the Bible is just as capable of turning out to be a malicious, evil entity as any other God - in fact, moreso than many based on some of the thing they do in the Bible.

And the God of the bible is a God who does care about -- and for -- us. Unless one is proceeding from an exegetically-untenable position.

No, the God is DESCRIBED in the Bible as being an entity that cares about us. What reason to we have to believe that account, and how do we know God isn't intentionally misleading you?

Because we have to start somewhere -- and that "somewhere" is the bible.

Okay then, let's start from the book that depicts God as a genocidal, slavery apologetic and rape and public murder advocate and use that as basis for determining whether or not God is more probably evil than good.