God is good and evil

"How did God "make something". "You expect me to know exactly how an omnipotent, perfect entity goes about making something?"Did he way his hand?Then he changed his physical state "First off, whether or not He waved a hand neither of us can say. Secondly, you mention that would mean he changed his physical state, when I didn't say anything about handwaving in the first place."Did he think it into being? Then he changed his mental state."If an omnipotent being is all knowing how is that changing anything about his mental state? For all we know God doesn't have a 'mental state'."In order to perform any action, God has to change something about himself, even if that change isn't permanant. Given that change from absolute perfection is by definition imperfect, an absolutly perfect being wouldn't be able to act."You continue to put him under (realistic) human laws; how do you know what an omnipotent being is required to do? I don't claim to know much about God or how he works, and unless you have some inside info on his actions that I don't, I don't think you do either.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

I won't pretend to know much about statistics of prayers; but here's what I've got.For one thing, keep in mind that some prayers could possibly be unanswered for a reason. Most cases of praying for someone to live during a risky operation would almost always, of course, be better off answered. Let's say after that coin toss(which is gambling anyway, but for the sake of arguement...) I go over to buy something across wherever place we're in from a vending machine with that quarter(again, for the sake of arguement despite obvious currency shortcomings) when a loose floorboard breaks under me, and I'm stuck down there unable to move my arms. Say you had a cell phone and I didn't, so you call for help and everyone manages to get me out somehow. Now, if I would've been the one standing around it'd be a pain to run all the way to the nearest place with people to get help.
So in some cases prayers are unanswered for a reason.I realize this scenario has plenty of awkward circumstances, but that's the best example I could come up with right now. Not bad for on-the-fly storytelling by Mr. Preach, huh?

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

On the other hand, you would have had a quarter to use a pay phone. But presume that the opposite does happen - I fall in a deep hole and are seriously injured because I won the coin toss. I've got the cell phone and there is no pay phone.I'm screwed because I won the coin toss. Is that supposed to be the answer to a prayer? How do you know that your example is the more likely of the two?We can play the hypothetical game all day, but the simple observed fact is, praying doesn't change the statistical outcome of anything, so there's no reason to suggest that prayer has any effect whatsoever (that positive thinking also doesn't have.) Eh. It was ok, but as an argument, it sucks. The only reason you would have to consider your example more likely than the opposite would be if you already assume God answers prayers. And even if the opposite thing happened, I'm more or less sure that you'd find some way to characterize that as an answered prayer. If there's no situation you would accept as an unanswered prayer, then the whole prayer idea becomes unfalsifiable.

Which is why I gave more than one option. Normally you would then state which option is correct or give an alternative. Knowing anything or even everything doesn't automatically entail doing anything or everything. Unless you are suggesting that God being all-knowing and therefore knowing about evil means that he does evil? I'm sure that isn't where you want to go. If God is not subject to logic and reason (realistic) how could we know or deduce anything about, including his existance?

---

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

That's precicely why I said unanswered prayers might be unanswered for a reason.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

NOW you're starting to get it. We can't really know anything about Him at all, including whether or not He exists. It's all about faith not knowing, and through that faith you will eventually make a connection with Him, no matter what name you call Him by.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

Good point about the faith Born2preach!Yes, we can ofcourse never know God fully and the unlimitless inteligence involved. Though I think you would agree, Christ certainly gives us an insight.PS. Thanks for the support in the other thread, you must do tag teams on that wrestling mat.

Thanks, Mike. And you're right about Jesus.P.S. no tag team in real wrestling, but I know what you mean.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

They might be, yes. Or they might be unanswered because there's nobody there to answer them.

But if we're talking about the reasons that God is or is not wholly good then it's a hypothetical positive that God exists for the sake of arguement, right?

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

I have read this thread's posts, have sensed there are (IMO) tangentials, and certainly I may have inadvertently overlooked reasonable answers to the query which follows (bear with me).1. It is fairly reasonable, even without citing the innumerable examples which bring the notion to bear, that by faith, or by emotion or autosuggestion, one can come to believe practically anything at all.2. For the sake of perspective, assuming the validity of "objective truth" (whether the premise is a theistic one or not), for each correct perception there is an infinite number of possible false perceptions. (For every correct appreciation of "truth" there is an infinite number of possible "lies".)Let me first express my disregard for spurious "excuse-permutations", such as were brought up in the (IMO tangential) prayer subset of this thread. Arguing for a "possible reason", on behalf of one or more presumed entities possessing will, begs the question of whether, for all practical purposes, the exercise does not inure itself quite comfortably to statements of "chance" or "randomness". If we are to reach at the proverbial straw that leads from a murderous act through a series of otherwise disjointed events (conected reasonably only by the common thread of having occured within the same reality, our universe), we may as well assert, with equal if not greater conviction, that events so spuriously connected occur by "chance" or "randomness". From this consideration, I wonder if I may inspire an explanation for exactly *what* differentiates that series of otherwise "random" events from an alleged cosmic Will. In other words, what, other than an emotional inuring or suggestion, should impel me to believe those events are the cause of a distinct Will? (Please limit responses to that which is rational... let's not bring circular arguments into this.)The more important question I wanted to pose is this: Given that humans are prone to believing falsehoods, and given that reason is the most reliable conduit by which to differentiate between falsehood and fact, and by which to systematically (with the lowest arbitrariness possible) categorize perceived events according to their plausibilities, would not a just and interested God ensure that his existence, and all other aspects of his message to his fallible creatures, make the most rational [human] sense possible?To finish the implied thought: I believe that a just, interested God, who is capable of at least this much, would in fact ensure that his message (including the veracity of his alleged realness) make the absolutely most rational sense possible, and by human standards. Conversely, should it happen that his alleged message is true, but does not make the absolutely most rational sense possible (by human standards), and I were to reject it on precisely those grounds, I am certain a just, interested God would certainly not reprimand me for my decision. In fact, woe unto them who accept a message so rationally flawed (by human standards), I should think would be God's sentiment.Your comments, and answers, please.

Is that what we were talking about here?It's too confusing for me to argure over in the other thread about whether or not God exists or not, and then come over here and argue that if God exists, then is he good or not.Can we finish the conversation about the existence of God before we hit the goodness debate? Cuz I guess I can't keep track.

crashfrog... it's a good thing to force new synapses... it renders relationships more easily recognized, and makes processing more efficient.Are you inclined to evaluate my argument above your post, and decide if a just, interested God capable of doing so would in fact choose to relay his message (including the revelation of his very existence) in a manner and form that makes the absolutely most logical sense (by human standards)?(And that, if this is the case, then the universe as we know it implies quite strongly that a just, interested God is a figment of the human imagination, and a clear example of psychological projection.)

I think that I agree with you, if what you're saying is that God, like any smart person who wants to communicate, communicates with his audience in mind.I would also agree that the evidence of the universe is that that sort of God doesn't exist. Rather, the only God that could be said to exist is the one who acts like he doesn't exist.BTW welcome to the forum.

So you agree with me that using your argument you can know nothing about god. Good. I thought you agreed with me. Yes you did, in the first quoted section of this post. Why then are you making statements about god? If you really believe the first part of your post, you can't possibly make the second claim.[This message has been edited by compmage, 04-24-2004]

---

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations