[Agnostic thoughts] Is God's nature inherently evil?

[WarHeRo]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[Original Cast Recording]

Originally posted by WarHeRo:

Originally posted by Maximum Disambiguation:

"Basic rules of the universe." Okay.

"Philosophy"

If God exists, He can do want He wants. That would be a "basic rule of the universe." (Mark this as the answer.)

I miss the point where I said God cannot do what he wants. The question is if he is evil

A meaningless question, given the stipulations.

[WarHeRo]

Originally posted by Starlight:

If I was religious I would say the top one. Omnipotence is a lie created so people can blame him when things go bad in our world.

Adults are being afraid to take responsibility. So they created someone to blame?

[AdahnGorion]

An omnipotent god is contradictive to itself.

[WarHeRo]

Originally posted by Maximum Disambiguation:

A meaningless question, given the stipulations.

True. But it's simply to see what people think. So which one does God fit into, according to you?

[Original Cast Recording]

Originally posted by WarHeRo:

Originally posted by Maximum Disambiguation:

A meaningless question, given the stipulations.

True. But it's simply to see what people think. So which one does God fit into, according to you?

If God exists, your proposed classifications are inadequate.

[talemore]

Originally posted by WarHeRo:

Originally posted by talemore:

For this reason the winner in this struggle will think that god was on their side.

The victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused.

The outcome is always a mass psychosis which is called domestic growth progress.

The boogeyman scares people that they don't wish to face it. While the victor is given an awakening of divine acension to godhood.

[The nameless Gamer]

Gods are mostly how humans imagine them. And there's been quite a variety of ways:

ancient Greeks imagined their gods as eccentric, selfish, petty, vengeful and lustful.
ancient Norse seem to have imagined their gods as defenders of the world.
ancient Slavic gods are mostly personifications of forces and phenomena of nature who are pretty impartial.
middle-American gods are incredibly varied and mostly competing with each other who'll be ruling the world.
the christian god strikes me as an uninvolved and negligent parental figure who is uninterested in his followers until they die. Then he judges them.
Allah seems to be a stricter and more war-oriented version of the christian god.

Xenophanes:
“The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.”

[Stingray_tm]

Originally posted by Maximum Disambiguation:

Originally posted by WarHeRo:

True. But it's simply to see what people think. So which one does God fit into, according to you?

If God exists, your proposed classifications are inadequate.

Could you maybe back this up with an argument instead of going "nah ah"?

[Original Cast Recording]

Originally posted by Stingray_tm:

Originally posted by Maximum Disambiguation:

If God exists, your proposed classifications are inadequate.

Could you maybe back this up with an argument instead of going "nah ah"?

OP literally admitted the question was meaningless. And he admitted the topic is just to see what people think, even though he thinks it's meaningless.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

^ This is what I said "nah ah" to (as you put it). Could you explain why this series of questions should be taken seriously in the first place? Does anyone know where this supposed paradox came from?

[Rio]

God is evil, Devil is good

[The nameless Gamer]

Originally posted by Maximum Disambiguation:

Originally posted by Stingray_tm:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

^ This is what I said "nah ah" to (as you put it). Could you explain why this series of questions should be taken seriously in the first place? Does anyone know where this supposed paradox came from?

The author of these questions was Epicurus, a rather famous ancient Greek philosopher.

[Stingray_tm]

Originally posted by Maximum Disambiguation:

OP literally admitted the question was meaningless. And he admitted the topic is just to see what people think, even though he thinks it's meaningless.

It's meaningless in a sense that it has no real consequences. Doesn't make the question invalid.

Originally posted by Maximum Disambiguation:

^ This is what I said "nah ah" to (as you put it). Could you explain why this series of questions should be taken seriously in the first place? Does anyone know where this supposed paradox came from?

Yes, I can. Because the way the Christian God is depicted, he is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. And these three properties are incompatible. Therefore this is a serious question.

And yes, I know where this paradox originated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurean_paradox

[WarHeRo]

Originally posted by Maximum Disambiguation:

Does anyone know where this supposed paradox came from?

I've already mentioned it's agnostic.

I doubt people here can hold a conversation about advanced science, so I keep it simple. It's just for talking. Also, talking isn't meaningless. Whats meaningless is trying to find perfect logic behind every question or topic.

[Original Cast Recording]

Originally posted by Stingray_tm:

Originally posted by Maximum Disambiguation:

OP literally admitted the question was meaningless. And he admitted the topic is just to see what people think, even though he thinks it's meaningless.

It's meaningless in a sense that it has no real consequences. Doesn't make the question invalid.

Originally posted by Maximum Disambiguation:

^ This is what I said "nah ah" to (as you put it). Could you explain why this series of questions should be taken seriously in the first place? Does anyone know where this supposed paradox came from?

Yes, I can. Because the way the Christian God is depicted, he is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. And these three properties are incompatible. Therefore this is a serious question.

And yes, I know where this paradox originated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurean_paradox

Well, no: The question's lack of "real consequences" is not the only way it's "meaningless" in its current iteration.

And neither you nor anyone in the thread have established that "these three properties are incompatible." You just haven't. And I don't want you to. I am not committed to this argument that has already been running for 2000 years.

There is no text by Epicurus that confirms his authorship of the argument.[3] Therefore, although it was popular with the skeptical school of Greek philosophy, it is possible that Epicurus' paradox was wrongly attributed to him by Lactantius

--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurean_paradox

Oh, hey: Lactantius! I wonder if he appears anywhere else in this thread.

[abcd]

god determines what good and evil is, vis a priori applications of force.

we are in no position to judge his moral spectrum accordingly.

however, the fruit allows us to question his force. either out of stupidity or maliciousness. in so doing we create good and evil outside of god's ken; our moral realities are comprised of things he would rather not deal with. stuff he arbitrated out of by fiat in the past.

as such we are free to determine what is good or evil in our own lives, but we cannot apply that reasoning to god. he's opted out of the constraints we're working under.