If God wants to destroy evil...

[Zarathustra]

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?

If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

[Curious]

Curious,

Are you saying that because your god is all-powerful he has the capability of doing evil and still being "all-good"?

Absolutely. It is not the inability to perform acts of evil that makes something good, it is the refusal (or unwillingness) to perform these actions that enables the god to be considered such. This cannot be thought of as a restriction on God's power but rather the direction of it's application. It could be said that an all-good, all-powerful God WOULD not perform acts of evil. I would have to agree with this. An act of evil could therefore not be attributable to an all-good, all-powerful God. For an act of evil or the presence of evil to disprove that a god was neither all-good or all-powerful it would therefore be necessary to prove that all actions are directly attributable to this God. If you can do this then I will willingly concede my position.

[harvey1]

It is not the inability to perform acts of evil that makes something good, it is the refusal (or unwillingness) to perform these actions that enables the god to be considered such.

Did you miss my definition of the word good? I tried to make it clear. I do not say that it is good BECAUSE it is God, I say it is good because it conforms with His will and action.

It seems like you have a discrepancy here.

(1) God is good because of a refusal to perform [anti-good] actions

(2) Good=conforms to God's will and actions

(C) God [conforms to God's will and actions] because of a refusal to [not do contrary] to [God's will and actions].

(*note: I'm restating (1) by using the definition provided in (2).)

In other words, it seems you are saying that God is good because God does the divine will and avoids anything contrary to that divine will because it's not the divine will.

[Curious]

It is not the inability to perform acts of evil that makes something good, it is the refusal (or unwillingness) to perform these actions that enables the god to be considered such.

Did you miss my definition of the word good? I tried to make it clear. I do not say that it is good BECAUSE it is God, I say it is good because it conforms with His will and action.

It seems like you have a discrepancy here.

(1) God is good because of a refusal to perform [anti-good] actions

(2) Good=conforms to God's will and actions

(P) God [conforms to God's will and actions] because of a refusal to [not do contrary] to [God's will and actions]. (I'm restarting (1) by using the definition in (2).)

In other words, it seems you are saying that God is good because God does the divine will and avoids anything contrary to that divine will because it's not the divine will.

Not at all. There is no discrepancy .
In the second example

(2) Good=conforms to God's will and actions
is consistent with
(1) God is good because of a refusal to perform [anti-good] actions

If (1)God refuses to perform anti-good actions then it follows that (2) Good=conforms to God's will and actions.
Where is the discrepancy here?
Of course if you mean that if God was to perform an evil act it would be considered good then that would come down to the correct judge of what is good and what is evil. Since it is God who is said to be the final judge then it is reasonable to assume that God's interpretation of what is good will be the one that matters and not ours. Of course this is purely a hypothetical argument and for the purposes of this we should assume that both our own and God's perspective of what is good is in conformity. In which case, I ask again where is the discrepancy?

[harvey1]

Not at all. There is no discrepancy . In the second example
(2) Good=conforms to God's will and actions
is consistent with
(1) God is good because of a refusal to perform [anti-good] actions
If (1)God refuses to perform anti-good actions then it follows that (2) Good=conforms to God's will and actions. Where is the discrepancy here?
Of course if you mean that if God was to perform an evil act it would be considered good then that would come down to the correct judge of what is good and what is evil. Since it is God who is said to be the final judge then it is reasonable to assume that God's interpretation of what is good will be the one that matters and not ours. Of course this is purely a hypothetical argument and for the purposes of this we should assume that both our own and God's perspective of what is good is in conformity. In which case, I ask again where is the discrepancy?

That just begs the question, then, what is good? If it is God just doing what God wills, then God cannot be anything else but good by definition. Is there anything outside of God doing the divine will that defines the term good besides just doing the divine will? If so, then what is the definition of good without referring to God just doing the divine will?

[Curious]

That just begs the question, then, what is good? If it is God just doing what God wills, then God cannot be anything else but good by definition. Is there anything outside of God doing the divine will that defines the term good besides just doing the divine will? If so, then what is the definition of good without referring to God just doing the divine will?

You have hit the nail on the head Harvey1. You might think that something is good while I might not. The actions of God might be "considered" good because they conform with our own definition of what good is. From the point of view of the devil though it might be considered bad. In the final analysis though, if God renders final judgement then it is God that has the final say on what is good and what is not. If this is the case then it is that which is in conformity with God's will and action that is to be considered good (although this does not mean that God would necessarily perform or will acts that are evil and so make them "good"). I had anticipated such an objection to my second post and am delighted that you brought it up.

[harvey1]

If this is the case then it is that which is in conformity with God's will and action that is to be considered good (although this does not mean that God would necessarily perform or will acts that are evil and so make them "good").

Why not? If God defines what is good, then whatever God wills is good, so God could will any action being good.

The objection I have is the same one that bleedingisaac mentioned, why call this property that God wills as good? Why not just call it by some x-property that may or may not coincide with what we call evil?

[Curious]

If this is the case then it is that which is in conformity with God's will and action that is to be considered good (although this does not mean that God would necessarily perform or will acts that are evil and so make them "good").

Why not? If God defines what is good, then whatever God wills is good, so God could will any action being good.

The objection I have is the same one that bleedingisaac mentioned, why call this property that God wills as good? Why not just call it by some x-property that may or may not coincide with what we call evil?

ok , i think here would be a good place to put the quote into its proper context:

If there is good and evil then good is that in conformity with God's action and will. Evil is that which is against it. To say that God is limited by what is good is therefore incorrect as it is good that is limited by the will and action of God. To say that God cannot perform an action that you see as evil is incorrect because if such an action was performed it would be in conformity with His will and action and therefore would be good.
You are quite right to point out that goodness is relative to us, but if good and evil are not some imaginary construct of our own minds then we must find the reference point or yard stick. As I said, I believe the yardstick is set by God so there is no paradox.

You seem to have come to the conclusion that I said that God might perform an act that is inherently and definitely, in all circumstances, evil and therefore make this act good in essence. you will notice though that what I say is that :

To say that God cannot perform an action that you see as evil is incorrect because if such an action was performed it would be in conformity with His will and action and therefore would be good.

So you see it is only your perception of the act that is evil and not the act itself. By the same token you might think that an addition you perform has the correct answer while that given by a calculator might be thought of as wrong. It is most likely that it was your error and that your conclusion as to whether the answer was "good" was incorrect. This does not say either that the answer to the addition was not always the same answer, even before the calculator performed the calculation.
Again, to say that God would be restricted to good actions is not the case but the direction of the application would not be towards those acts of evil. It is not a restriction of God's power that He does not perform acts of evil, it is a characteristic of it. If you were to say an act was evil and then God performed it would not change an act of evil to one of good, it would show that the act was only misinterpreted as evil in the same way that your addition answer was misinterpreted as being correct. This is not to say that there could not be acts of neutrality.
And again we come to the question of what is good and what is evil? If it is "real" and not something purely personal to each of us, and if we are to be measured by it, then that which measures it should be the final arbiter.

[harvey1]

If you were to say an act was evil and then God performed it would not change an act of evil to one of good, it would show that the act was only misinterpreted as evil in the same way that your addition answer was misinterpreted as being correct....

So, let me understand you.

(1) "If there is [some G property] and [some G* property] then [G] is that in conformity with God's action and will. [G*] is that which is against it..

(2) "To say that God cannot perform an action that you see as [G*] is incorrect because if such an action was performed it would be in conformity with His will and action and therefore would be [G]."

(3) "You are quite right to point out that goodness is relative to us, but if [G] and [G*] are not some imaginary construct of our own minds then we must find the reference point or yard stick. As I said, I believe the yardstick is set by God so there is no paradox."

Now, using your own argument (just substituting God's property of goodness for G and evil for G*), tell me why we should identify the label G as the English word "good." If humans would not label G as "good" in some or many instances, then why accept that they are equivalent? Why not say that G is G and the English term "good" refers to what humans have labelled certain actions down through the ages. Why make the association between G and the term "good" as you have made?

[Curious]

(1) "If there is [some G property] and [some G* property] then [G] is that in conformity with God's action and will. [G*] is that which is against it..

(2) "To say that God cannot perform an action that you see as [G*] is incorrect because if such an action was performed it would be in conformity with His will and action and therefore would be [G]."

(3) "You are quite right to point out that goodness is relative to us, but if [G] and [G*] are not some imaginary construct of our own minds then we must find the reference point or yard stick. As I said, I believe the yardstick is set by God so there is no paradox."

Now, using your own argument (just substituting God's property of goodness for G and evil for G*), tell me why we should identify the label G as the English word "good." If humans would not label G as "good" in some or many instances, then why accept that they are equivalent? Why not say that G is G and the English term "good" refers to what humans have labelled certain actions down through the ages. Why make the association between G and the term "good" as you have made?

You seem to think that it was I that brought up the terms good and evil here and that it was I who made the claim that God was all-good and all-powerful...it was not, I made, and make, no such claim. The claim was made that the presence of evil necessarily excludes the possibility of an all-good, all-powerful God. It was said that an all-good god would have restrictions on the allowable actions and therefore have a direct limiting action on that of power. I said that such a dependency of power by goodness was not logically consistent given that goodness has no beraing on power and that to cast such a limitation on power would be logically inconsistent given that the god in question was omnipotent. This is equivalent to saying that for a god to be all-good it would have to be something that it is not. This is not a valid logical proposition.
Now I have stated quite clearly that the goodness of God is not a limitation on His power (as no such link can be shown) but rather a characteristic of it's action. Just because I am able to kill people does not mean that I must kill people. I am guided by my own morality but this does not in any way affect my ability to perform such an action. It is not a limitation of my power but rather a characteristic of it's application that I do not kill people.

The point you make

(2) "To say that God cannot perform an action that you see as [G*] is incorrect because if such an action was performed it would be in conformity with His will and action and therefore would be [G]."

This does not mean that God makes action G* into G. It is saying that if you believe that the action is G* and then someone who knows better shows it is not G* but G, then you should rethink your interpretation as the Final Arbiter has shown that this is not G*. If you believe that you are entitled to judge God then that is your prerogative, but it is not something that I would advise. An act of good could still theoretically be good even if God had not performed it but if it was in conformity with his will then it would still be good. God need not perform an action for it to be thought of as good any more than an act need be performed by you or I to be thought of as good. Such an action need only be in conformity with what we believe to be good.

[harvey1]

The claim was made that the presence of evil necessarily excludes the possibility of an all-good, all-powerful God. It was said that an all-good god would have restrictions on the allowable actions and therefore have a direct limiting action on that of power.

I didn't interpret the arguments as one that says that God does not necessarily exist. I interpreted it as one that it is very unlikely that an all-good, all-powerful God exists since there is evil. But, you're right, this should have been clarified.

I said that such a dependency of power by goodness was not logically consistent given that goodness has no beraing on power and that to cast such a limitation on power would be logically inconsistent given that the god in question was omnipotent.

Okay, I see now why you would see goodness as limiting omnipotence per the definition of omnipotence since you see goodness as something exactly equivalent to whatever God does.

This does not mean that God makes action G* into G. It is saying that if you believe that the action is G* and then someone who knows better shows it is not G* but G, then you should rethink your interpretation as the Final Arbiter has shown that this is not G*.

Well, let me ask you this, what makes G and G* separate? Is it God who makes G into G, and G* into G*, or is it some other objective standard that makes G separate from G*? Based on your other answers, I gathered that it was God's will and actions that would tell us why G and G* are two distinct properties. However, here you seem to say that God does not make G and G*. Which is it, does God make G and G* into separate properties by God's will and actions, or does God determine what G and G* is by using some other standard besides what God chooses based on God's infinite wisdom?