God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.

So you, in your infinite wisdom, decide what is "right" and "wrong"? I'm not here to satisfy you. You need to derive your own satisfaction from the tentative answers everybody gives.

Of course, we all do. How do you think it is done?I think that evil is decided by the person who is affected by the action.
If they liked it, then it's good.
If they disliked it, then it's bad.If you have an alternative definition, I'm open to ideas. Again, of course. Why would I be worried about anyone else's thoughts on a matter that is roused through my own curiosity? Did you read the thread?
If you're attempting to make a point, I'm missing it.I feel like we're drifting away from the topic. Here's a summary:

quote:

---

IF God exists.
IF God is all powerful.
IF "evil" includes not helping others when you're quite capable of helping them at no risk or loss of resources to yourself.
IF God does not prevent rapes.

​

THEN God is evil.

---

We can add in an "IF God is aware of the human population and it's activities..." if you'd like. But perhaps that is included in "all powerful."

Of course we all DON'T. Religionists have their notions of right and wrong imparted to them by a Supreme being who understands all of the implications better than they do. So when a prospective employer doesn't hire you, he's evil because you can't pay your bills. On the other hand, he didn't hire you because you were unqualified and therefore hiring you would have produced evil results. It's a lose-lose situation. That's a silly condition. You have to take everybody's resources into consideration, not just your own. If it costs a million dollars to prevent a rape and hundreds of people go hungry as a result, is it "worth it"?

They certainly say they do, yes. You say this as if it should change something?
Does the mere existence of a lose-lose situation make any idea of right/wrong incorrect?
Morality involves lose-lose situations all the time. That's why it's such a confusing subject.The point isn't to remove all lose-lose situations... that seems to be impossible (even your Supreme being imparting wisdom hasn't seem to be able to do that as lose-lose moral situations happen to Religionists as well).
The point is to have as few of them as possible.I note that you still haven't provided a better definition... Just nitpicking mine without offering another doesn't make mine any worse. It's still the best either of us has offered. I don't want to discuss what resources are worth a human life (or raping...) here.
Today, we're discussing God who is supposed to be all-powerful, in effect having no risk to Himself and also no possible loss of resources for interfering. So your comment seems irrelevant.Interesting side note:Have you seen the movie The Cabin in the Woods?***SPOILER ALERT*** Click on Peek-Mode for this post to view: Cool things to think about, anyway.

Yes. And that's why you can't decide that God is evil. The point is that as long as there are any lose-lose situations, you can't make absolute pronouncements about morality. We're not talking about His resources. We're talking about other people's resources. Note:

quote:

---

If it costs a million dollars to prevent a rape and hundreds of people go hungry as a result, is it "worth it"?

---

Not God's million dollars. Ours.

Ah... I see.
I agree with you, then.It's just... well, I'm not making any absolute pronouncements.
Or, at least, I don't intend to.I don't think it's possible to make absolute pronouncements about morals. Because I don't think morals are absolute.Does that help you to understand what I'm talking about? Are you making a different point?I thought we were talking about the point I was making. I'm making this point:

quote:

---

IF God exists.
IF God is all powerful.
IF "evil" includes not helping others when you're quite capable of helping them at no risk or loss of resources to yourself.
IF God does not prevent rapes.

​

THEN God is evil.

---

This point has nothing to do with "our million dollars" as it only has to do with God... who does not have a risk or loss of resources to Himself.I agree with you that the point gets muddy when "no risk or loss of resources" turns into "some risk and loss of resources.."
My point, though, is that God (specifically God) would have "no risk or loss of resources."That's what I'm talking about.
If you're talking about something different... something that includes any risk or some loss of resources... then you're not on-topic.

Good point. lets think about this.Rapists dont simply freely and innocently decide one day to become rapists.The addiction has to have been formed first. An addiction by definition is a maladaptive response to stress. Perhaps the rapist was in a sense "raped" themselves. We cant blame satan...since you lumped him and God together. This brings up the question---again--of human intention.Whose fault is it that the rapist became a rapist?

Of course I am. That's what we humans do, we judge by the evolved standards of our culture in our time.Throwing rocks at the women (but not the men) who screw around is evil. Throwing rocks at men because they are queer is evil. Throwing rocks at kids for being disobedient is evil. Slaughtering entire peoples, the men, the kids, the babies, the cows, the goats, the old women (but keeping the nice young girls for sex slaves) just for these people's lands, is evil. The list of evils in the book goes on.You may want to see all the blood, murder, pain and anguish at the hands of, or by the order of, this Holy Psychopath as "good", but that's on your head, not mine.Fortunately, the Sacred Sociopath is myth. Unfortunately, too many seek to follow in his mythical bloody, evil shoes. Edited by AZPaul3, : posessive's

Then ask yourself what a good and honest person would do in this scenario.There is a 5 year old playing in a yard a little distance ahead of you. As you walk down the sidewalk you see the child start walking towards the sidewalk. When you get to the front yard you watch as the child passes right in front of you and walks out into the road where the child sits down right in the middle of the lane. In the distance, you see a car coming straight for that child. What would an honest and thinking person do? What does God do, or not do, in that same situation? If you did nothing and just watched the car hit the child, would you be an evil person?

Too, too funny.That has been asked and answered many times in this thread.Whether or not I would be an evil person depends on what society, culture and era I happen to belong to and what society, culture and era the incident happened in.Sheesh.AbE:Also there could well be other factors not included in your little scenario that would change the answer regardless of what that answer happened to be.God, if God exists, is not a member of any particular society, culture or era.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Frankly jar, I find your position a little strange. Regardless of the fluidity of the definition of evil, you have no problem denouncing a god who behaves as Calvin described as evil. Why the hesitation to make a call in Taq's hypothetical?

Because the two examples show no correspondence. The hypotheticals put forward so far simply show sophomoric thinking. There actually is a difference between doing things and not doing things.The God of Calvin actually does the evil things, creates living people that She knows She will condemn for all eternity.When Snidely Whiplash ties poor Nell to the tracks directly before the speeding train he is doing evil.When Dudley Do-Right kisses Horse instead of Nell he is not doing evil even in the world of parody.It would certainly be possible with just a little thought to make up a scenario like Calvin did where the God Character really is actively evil, but so far that has not been done here.But there is a bigger issue with hypotheticals in general that I pointed out several times in this thread and that needs to be made clear and that is that evil really is only valid within a particular context of society, culture, era and mores.God is not a member of a particular society, culture, era or mores. The evidence is pretty clear that each society, culture and era creates its own caricature of what God should be like, but we need to remember that they really are only caricatures and not one of us really has a clue what a real GOD would be like.That is why I try to make it clear that I am not talking about GOD when I describe a God or god rather it is the God created by Calvin or the God character in Genesis 1 or the God character found in Gensis 2&3. None of those really refer to GOD, that thing which I believe created the Heaven and Earth and all things seen and unseen.So can there be an evil God?I imagine so but also understand that I will be discussing only Gods and gods and not GOD.

And yet you've decided that God "should" prevent the rapist - because rape is "wrong". Of course He does. The whole universe is His. When you decide what should happen to His rapist, you're robbing Him of the free use of His rapist.

You seem to contradict yourself again. You become a drug addict by freely and innocently deciding one day to take that drug. You may not intend to become addicted but you intend to become a user. Consider child molesters: You can be attracted to children without being a child molester. You're only a child molester if you molest children and you're only a rapist if you rape women. It may not be your own fault that you feel like committing rape but it is your fault if you do it.

So for all you're saying, the topic might as well be, "God likes ice cream".