What to say if you met God/god/Gods/gods

Having come upon God, and realizing who He is, the first question in my mind would be:Do you not have the ability to prevent evil in our world, or do you just not care enough?"Free Will" is an answer equivalent to "doesn't care" as evil actions are defined as those that remove the Free Will of innocent people.
Preventing the free-will of evil-doers is a much more caring alternative to allowing evil-doers to prevent the free-will of innocent people.Which is fair enough, I'd just like to know God's stance.

Sorry, I was trying to keep the point simple and not write an all-encompassing response.
Your interpretation of my definition, although viable from the text I provided... is wrong.What I meant is that all evil actions include the removal of Free Will of innocent people. Therefore, protecting "Free Will" is not a valid defense to allow evil actions to exist.
I did not mean to imply that all removals of Free Will of innocent people are defacto evil actions.I hope this clarifies your valid confusion?

Which is what I suspect, if God does in fact exist and is all-powerfull.
He just doesn't care enough to prevent the evil.

I'm not really concerned about bad or unfortunate stuff.
Just evil stuff like the sex trade and harsh slavery and shit like that... people being really evil against other people.If a God capable of preventing such things exists and chooses not to interfere... well, I wouldn't want to be associated with His morals, anyway.Unless, of course, He actually has a good answer for the question. Which is why I'd ask it.
He is God, right? It's quite possible God has a satisfying answer that we haven't been able to think of or understand yet."Preferring free will," however, is a horrible answer. It's quite possible for a horrible, irrational God, sure, but it... um... is left wanting.1. It values the free will of the evil-doer above that of the victim. And in the more-evil actions, the victim can have the rest of their life's free will removed... as opposed to preventing the evil-doer's free will for a single action. If God really did "prefer free will," then He would prevent the action if He could.2. It is simply incompatible with any basic moral standard.

What's the difference between you preventing evil and a God preventing evil?If you're against a God preventing evil... are you also against yourself preventing evil?
Are you against preventing evil of any kind, at all times?I'm having a hard time aligning such an idea of "not wanting God to prevent evil" and also "being a good person" in anyway.But, of course, this is not the place for such a discussion.
I've revived another thread if you care to take it over there: God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.
Message 39

Agreed. You see no human advantage to when a human life is protected?I can understand if you personally weigh "learning experience" over "protecting innocent people"... that's your call.
But saying that a God protecting innocent people is simply oppression with no human advantage... that's just cold.

So many possible answers.
Plus, with God being God, He may have some answer that we aren't even capable of uncovering on our own.Hence, my question.
If God does exist and I'm ever able to meet Him, I would just like to know exactly where He stands on this one.

That seems like a loaded/unfair/unnecessary dichotomy you've suggested.If it were possible to chat with God in some long-term fashion, I'd be very interested in learning His story.
I would also be interested in learning the parts of His story (if any) that affected us.I don't see why it has to be an either/or thing. Why not both?

Yes.The problem is that these two words can be used against any and all moral stances. Even those from God.Those from God simply back up the problem one more step."Morality from God is perfect because God know what is ultimately right and wrong objectively speaking."
"How do you know that God knows such a thing and how does God inform you of it?"
"The bible says so, and the bible informs us."
"I disagree."...and you're right back into the same boat as everyone else.The only difference is one side thinks they're acting under perfect knowledge - when such a thing is impossible for them to know. While the other side accepts the reality that we are unable to understand perfect knowledge, so we have to make do with what we can understand.

I don't think so. I don't know.
I haven't heard of a reliable way yet, though. I do not understand your question.
If I were shown a way... then that "showing" would be the proof.If there was actually "no proof.." then how would you show it in the first place?I think that by "showing a way" you're simply using the idea of "claiming a way."Those two things are fundamentally different.A claim can be made for anything.
It may be true, it may not.Showing something can only be done if you can actually do it.
If anything is showed to someone... it must be a part of reality.For example:An orphan who doesn't know his parents.
You can show him parents.
But really... you're only showing him your claim that "these are your parents."
In order to actually show him parents... you would have to take a DNA test from him, and the claimed parents, explain how DNA works and how the testing works to him... and then show him the honest results.Without doing that, you're not really "showing him" parents.
You're simply showing him a claim that "these are your parents."With that understanding, I hope you can see the inherent oxymoron involved in the question "what if you were shown a way with no proof?"The answer is: If there's no proof, then no one ever really "show a way" in the first place. They merely showed a claim of a way.Which has the problem of all claims. It may be true, and it may be false.
This unknown of whether it's true or not is exactly how we know that it wasn't really "showed" to anyone.