Is God evil?

[Compassionist]

There are many verses in the Bible about God's predestination. https://www.openbible.info/topics/predestination Why would a good God predestine anyone to do evil? Surely, a good God would predestine all to do good? Does the existence of evil prove that God is evil? Surely, a good God would have made all living things to be autotrophs instead of making some autotrophs, some herbivores, some carnivores, some omnivores, and some parasites? Here are some examples of evil events which caused or are causing suffering, deaths, and injustices:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... death_toll
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... death_toll
https://thevegancalculator.com/animal-slaughter

[1213]

If God had made all living things autotrophs and all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, Adam and Eve wouldn't have wanted to eat any fruit in the first place.

I think they would have done it anyway.

Please prove that you have free will by going back in time and preventing all suffering, injustice, and deaths and by making all living things all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, and forever happy.

So, you are claiming free will means ability to travel in time and being all powerful? Why is that?

I think Free will means only that person can freely want whatever he wants, not that he is omnipotent.

[brunumb]

If God had made all living things autotrophs and all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, Adam and Eve wouldn't have wanted to eat any fruit in the first place.

I think they would have done it anyway.

That's hardly a compelling argument. Please justify your opinion.

[Compassionist]

If God had made all living things autotrophs and all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, Adam and Eve wouldn't have wanted to eat any fruit in the first place.

I think they would have done it anyway.

Please prove that you have free will by going back in time and preventing all suffering, injustice, and deaths and by making all living things all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, and forever happy.

So, you are claiming free will means ability to travel in time and being all powerful? Why is that?

I think Free will means only that person can freely want whatever he wants, not that he is omnipotent.

Why would they have done it anyway? Autotrophs would not feel any desire to eat anything. All-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful Adam and Eve would not be in a position to learn anything new as they were already all-knowing.

Definition of free will: A will that is free from all constraints and is not determined by any variables e.g. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I have never met anyone with free will.

Definition of constrained will: A will that is constrained and is determined by variables e.g. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Biological organisms have constrained will.

What do you think of my definitions? Do you have more accurate definitions? If so, what are they and what makes them more accurate? I am convinced that we all act according to the interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of you or a spider or a whale or an elephant or Albert Einstein or Marie Curie or Nelson Mandela or Adolf Hitler or anyone else, I would have made the same choices made by you or a spider or a whale or an elephant or Albert Einstein or Marie Curie or Nelson Mandela or Adolf Hitler or anyone else. No living thing chooses to be born into this horrific and unjust world. No living thing chooses the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences that make them who they are. No one really deserves any reward or punishment for anything. We are all prisoners of causality who are doomed to be born, doomed to suffer, and doomed to die through no fault of our own.

You have a constrained will, not a free will. If you had free will you would have already done what I asked you to do to prove that you have free will. It's not your fault that you have a constrained will. You said "I think Free will means only that person can freely want whatever he wants, not that he is omnipotent." How do you know this is true? What I want is not free from my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. What I am able to do is also not free from my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #27

I am talking about my experience of being me, about all the terrible experiences I have had, and how I am affected by the experiences of other living things. I don't need to directly feel the pain of all sentient organisms by being in their body, to be able to empathise with their pain. I have experienced many different kinds of pain directly. By extension, I can empathise with the pains of other organisms. Can't you?

For me, life is 99.9% negative and 0.1% positive. 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth are already extinct. The universe is heading towards heat death. Entropy rules. Even the remaining 0.1% species will also go extinct.

Life as I know it
Might is right,
Adapt or die.
The world works thus.
The evil prospers,
The innocent perishes.
Doomed we are,
To suffer,
And to die.

Do you believe that having terrible experiences determines one's outlook on life? If that's the case, why do so many who have terrible experiences go on to become some of the most inspiring individuals? Their terrible experiences give shape to their lives, but they decide what the shape will be.

And if it's true that energy can't be destroyed, then even cosmic heat death can lead to the spark of a new universe filled with life.

Here.....

https://greatergood.com/clicktogive/ggc/home

This morning I was moving some stuff around on the porch and discovered a small lizard who had gotten stuck out in the chilly night and could barely move. After I placed it in a sunny patch on my walk, it eventually warmed up enough to move off on its own. And warming up that little lizard warmed the day for me. Shifting that one tiny grain of sand on the beach gave a new design to the whole universe. Try it. As Harlan Ellison used to say, it's good for your soul.

I find all beings to be equally inspiring because we are all prisoners of causality who live inevitable lives and die inevitable deaths. I care about all beings equally and if I could I would make them all forever happy. Sadly, my will is constrained and I can't do what I want to do.

Energy can't be created or destroyed but when it is dissipated across billions of lightyears of the ever-expanding universe because all the stars have died, there is nothing left to power organisms.

I am pleased that you helped the lizard. I am glad you felt good for doing it. I have done many acts of kindness to many organisms. While I enjoy helping, I am all too aware that all of them will suffer and die.

I am not convinced that biological organisms have souls. If you can prove the existence of souls, please do. Thank you.

[Compassionist]

How else can you interpret the verses about predestination? I interpret the verses to mean that God predestined everything because the interpretation makes sense.

There are a lot of verses there but, generally speaking, I think predestination is a corporate thing rather than an individual thing. He chooses “those in Christ” rather than which individuals will become “those in Christ”. Or, to put the same thing differently, it’s about God electing the method of salvation rather than the individuals that are saved or damned. God chose to save those who put their trust in Christ rather than those of a particular ethnicity or those whose good deeds meet some standard or any other kind of method.

Definition of free will: A will that is free from all constraints and is not determined by any variables e.g. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I have never met anyone with free will.

Definition of constrained will: A will that is constrained and is determined by variables e.g. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Biological organisms have constrained will.

What do you think of my definitions? Do you have more accurate definitions? If so, what are they and what makes them more accurate?

Using these definitions, you’ve left a third view out. Perhaps limited free will or something like that as a title (I don’t think it really matters as long as the concepts are understood by those discussing it). If those are the 3 options, then no one believes in “free will”. We would have those who think the will is constrained (you and others) and those who think the will is not free from all constraints yet still not determined by those variables (me and others).

You claimed that free will is about having free choices within our human limitations - our choices are never free. I am convinced that we all act according to the interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients and experiences of you or Albert Einstein or Marie Curie or Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler or anyone else, I would have made the same choices made by you or Albert Einstein or Marie Curie or Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler or anyone else.

What convinces you that this is true? Why do these things determine our choices rather than just inform or influence them towards various choices?

Since I did not exist before I was conceived, I could not have consented to come into existence. So, I should not have been brought into existence.

Why does not consenting to come into existence mean that you should not have been brought into existence? The alternative, of giving your consent before being brought into existence, is logically impossible.

How can I prevent my existence, please? I really want to prevent my existence as I hate being alive in this horrific and unjust world. I hate not being able to prevent all suffering, injustice, and deaths. I hate note being able to make all living things forever happy.

I agree with you on hating the evil that occurs. At first glance, I agree that it sounds like a morally perfect world with no evil would be better than a world that contains evil.

I don’t think that holds up, though, as one looks more in depth. A morally perfect world eliminates love as well. Love requires a free will. Determining a morally perfect world would negate free will. No free will, no love. So, in order to get love, we need to have (at least limited) free will. But this, logically, opens up the possibility of beings using that will against love, i.e., for evil.

You determine what is helpful and what is harmful by the effect it has on an organism. For example, rescuing someone who is drowning in the sea will save their life. So, the action is helpful. Murdering someone will end their life so the action is harmful. Helpful actions or inactions result in saving or improving lives. Harmful actions or inactions result in ending or worsening lives. For example, if I were to throw acid on someone's face, it would cause them facial disfiguration and pain. Therefore, this action would be classified as harmful.

But there are multiple effects on multiple organisms. What if you save the life of someone that will later kill two people? Was that action still helpful? By what standard do you judge that someone’s life is improving? Some people believe money will make you happier, some think it leads to more problems. Is giving them money helpful or harmful then? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?

Ultimately, I’m trying to determine how you think we decide something is harmful or helpful because there are different views on that. Many times individuals will believe one thing but later see that what they thought was helpful in the moment really wasn’t. So, what is the standard to determine objective good and evil?

How can we know what is real, and what is not real? Epistemology is a conundrum because there are lots of hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. Simulation Hypothesis (the perceived world is simulated), Illusion Hypothesis (our perceptions are illusions), Philosophical Zombie Hypothesis (beings that appear sentient are not actually sentient), Gods Hypothesis (Gods exist and are all-knowing and all-powerful), Karma Hypothesis (sentient beings are rewarded and punished according to their Karma), Reincarnation Hypothesis (immortal souls exist and reincarnate in different bodies), Resurrection Hypothesis (immortal souls exist and are resurrected after death), Heaven and Hell Hypothesis (Heaven and Hell exist and immortal souls go there depending on their beliefs and/or actions), Undetectable Beings Hypothesis (beings that can't be detected exist e.g. angels, demons, aliens, time-travellers, ghosts, fairies, leprechauns), etc. How can we know what is true and what is false? Please see https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... at-is-real

You asked me how I know what I know. That's why I posted the above paragraph. I am 100% certain about only one thing - I exist. Everyone and everything else could be simulations or illusions. I have no way to know for sure.

As for how I know the effects of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences on choices made by organisms - I know them through experiments and observations. I deprived myself of oxygen for one minute and observed its effects on my body and mind and choices. I deprived myself of water and other fluids for one day and observed its effects on my body and mind and choices. I deprived myself of all food for 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, 4 days, 5 days, 7 days, and 10 days and observed the effects on my body and mind, and choices. I deprived myself of sleep for 48 hours and observed its effects on my body and mind and choices. I also read about thousands of research carried out by physiologists, psychologists, sociologists, neuroscientists, geneticists, biologists, chemists, physicists, and physicians.

I don't think we can know what is objectively true. We can only know what is subjectively true e.g. the contents of my dreams or hallucinations are known only to me. We can know what is true in shared subjectivity e.g. you and I both observing the Sun in the sky. However, we can't know for sure if the Sun we observe is real or simulated. To know what is objectively true, we would need to be all-knowing.

It is not at all necessary to have free will to love. Lots of organisms love their children. They don't do it because they have free will. They do it because of their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

You may find these books https://philosophybreak.com/reading-lists/free-will/ and this video intersting:

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #34

Energy can't be created or destroyed but when it is dissipated across billions of lightyears of the ever-expanding universe because all the stars have died, there is nothing left to power organisms.

Then what powered organisms in the first place? Why do you insist on always ending on the entropy side of a potentially repeating cycle?

I am not convinced that biological organisms have souls. If you can prove the existence of souls, please do. Thank you.

I wasn't commenting on souls here. It was Ellison who said it, and I don't know if he believed in souls.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to brunumb in post #30

There are 8 billion people alive now, and billions more now gone. Just how many of those are you suggesting had terrible experiences and gone on to become some of the most inspiring individuals? Or is it just a small number that you may have encountered in books and other media? I wonder how many have had terrible experiences and simply been destroyed by them.

Focusing on how relatively few have inspired others and conveniently ignoring how many millions they've inspired.....

Thanks for showing how atheism uplifts the human spirit.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #30

There are 8 billion people alive now, and billions more now gone. Just how many of those are you suggesting had terrible experiences and gone on to become some of the most inspiring individuals? Or is it just a small number that you may have encountered in books and other media? I wonder how many have had terrible experiences and simply been destroyed by them.

Focusing on how relatively few have inspired others and conveniently ignoring how many millions they've inspired.....

Thanks for showing how atheism uplifts the human spirit.

Meanwhile ignoring the suffering of how many millions who didn't have the opportunity to inspire anyone..... Is suffering supposed to be a way to uplift the human spirit?

You appear to misunderstand the meaning of atheism if you associate it with any purpose such as uplifting the human spirit.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to brunumb in post #38

Meanwhile ignoring the suffering of how many millions who didn't have the opportunity to inspire anyone..... Is suffering supposed to be a way to uplift the human spirit?

You appear to misunderstand the meaning of atheism if you associate it with any purpose such as uplifting the human spirit.

Thank you for clarifying that atheism doesn't uplift the human spirit.

.....ignoring the reality that we ourselves have a hand in providing those opportunities to inspire....

We can do just fine without God.....until we foul up, and then we need God......to blame.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #38

Meanwhile ignoring the suffering of how many millions who didn't have the opportunity to inspire anyone..... Is suffering supposed to be a way to uplift the human spirit?

You appear to misunderstand the meaning of atheism if you associate it with any purpose such as uplifting the human spirit.

Thank you for clarifying that atheism doesn't uplift the human spirit.

.....ignoring the reality that we ourselves have a hand in providing those opportunities to inspire....

We can do just fine without God.....until we foul up, and then we need God......to blame.

You are not making any sense, at least to me. Atheism is a position where one does not believe in gods. How is that supposed to potentially uplift the human spirit? We can do fine without God because we always have as far as I'm concerned. Only theists who foul up are likely to blame God. Atheists have no such recourse. Honestly, I really have no idea what you are on about, but that could just be my problem. Shall we end this exchange here?