A 3rd Option

Ok, so I come in here from time to time and, for the most part, all I ever hear about is the God of the Bible/Koran/Torah vs. no god at all. So my question is why can't it be possible for an "evil" God to exist? Why is it that all I ever hear about is an omni-benevolent God, followed by reasons trying to justify why there are natural disasters, famine, innocent victims, etc. Why does no one ever bring up the possibility that "God" isn't omni-benevolent, or (gasp), just doesn't care? An apathetic God, or one who created us simply for his pleasure, for his enjoyment? How is that any more ridiculous than the idea of an omni-benevolent God who allows for tornados and tsunamis to exist? If anything, I would argue that this concept may even be more plausible.

Originally posted by lioyank
Ok, so I come in here from time to time and, for the most part, all I ever hear about is the God of the Bible/Koran/Torah vs. no god at all. So my question is why can't it be possible for an "evil" God to exist? Why is it that all I ever hear about is an omni-benevolent God, followed by reasons trying to justify why there are natural disasters, famine, innoc ...[text shortened]... unamis to exist? If anything, I would argue that this concept may even be more plausible.

Can you have good without evil?
Can you have evil without good?

Righteousness/goodness if I'm allowed to say this, is how things
should be. Evil is a break from that, if God is real and I do believe
He is, righteousness and goodness are His ways, as we leave the
source of all things we can run afoul of righteousness and goodness.
Kelly

Originally posted by lioyank
Ok, so I come in here from time to time and, for the most part, all I ever hear about is the God of the Bible/Koran/Torah vs. no god at all. So my question is why can't it be possible for an "evil" God to exist? Why is it that all I ever hear about is an omni-benevolent God, followed by reasons trying to justify why there are natural disasters, famine, innoc ...[text shortened]... unamis to exist? If anything, I would argue that this concept may even be more plausible.

Satan is called the god of this world too, which is not the same
thing as 'God' if you follow the caps.
Kelly

Many primitive mythologies like Christianity rely on the "good guy" God truimphing in the end over the lesser "bad guy" god or gods. Probably for the same reason that John Wayne in the white hat always wins the gunfight with the B actor in the black hat.
; it satisfies the normal human desire to see the universe as a "fair" place where individual fate is tied to some eventual, cosmic good. Having the ultimate power in the universe being "evil" would offend our innate sense of "fairness" though many of the Christians here skirt that line by saying that God's concept of "fairness" is unintelligible to us poor miserable creatures.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Many primitive mythologies like Christianity rely on the "good guy" God truimphing in the end over the lesser "bad guy" god or gods. Probably for the same reason that John Wayne in the white hat always wins the gunfight with the B actor in the black hat.
; it satisfies the normal human desire to see the universe as a "fair" place where individual fate i ...[text shortened]... that God's concept of "fairness" is unintelligible to us poor miserable creatures.

That line of reasoning has always amused me. If god's fairness is unintelligible to humans, then humans have absolutely no basis on which to claim that god is fair. He has to be fair in a way that is understandable to humans, or the claim makes no sense at all. We would have no way of knowing if he was fair. If you have a god with unitelligible attributes, then at best you are left with a deist god about which nothing can be known.

Originally posted by 7ate9
this must be the god that ends up with a whole lot of robots! the human robots just end up trying to be like a certain 'good' (note the hyphens) person. when people come out trying to build their own perfect world it is based on ignorance and selfishness, as anything that human god has not experienced or taken into account is killed. when god is obsessed on ki ...[text shortened]... the name of Jesus while people die!

God exists when people do what they KNOW to be right.

Doing right does not require god. Quite the contrary, god is often an impediment to doing right.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Many primitive mythologies like Christianity rely on the "good guy" God truimphing in the end over the lesser "bad guy" god or gods. Probably for the same reason that John Wayne in the white hat always wins the gunfight with the B actor in the black hat.
; it satisfies the normal human desire to see the universe as a "fair" place where individual fate i ...[text shortened]... that God's concept of "fairness" is unintelligible to us poor miserable creatures.

Ok, so I gather that we (society in general) want to believe that the universe "balances out" and that "every dog has his day".

"it satisfies the normal human desire to see the universe as a "fair" place where individual fate is tied to some eventual, cosmic good. Having the ultimate power in the universe being "evil" would offend our innate sense of "fairness" though many of the Christians here skirt that line by saying that God's concept of "fairness" is unintelligible to us poor miserable creatures"

Yes, I agree with this assessment. So this answers the question as to why people would disbelieve in an uncaring God. What about your personal opinion? Which do you believe is more plausible? Are you still an agnostic, or have things changed? (I ask the last question because I gather from your last post that you may be an atheist.)

Originally posted by rwingett
That line of reasoning has always amused me. If god's fairness is unintelligible to humans, then humans have absolutely no basis on which to claim that god is fair. He has to be fair in a way that is understandable to humans, or the claim makes no sense at all. We would have no way of knowing if he was fair. If you have a god with unitelligible attributes, then at best you are left with a deist god about which nothing can be known.

"That line of reasoning has always amused me. If god's fairness is unintelligible to humans, then humans have absolutely no basis on which to claim that god is fair. He has to be fair in a way that is understandable to humans, or the claim makes no sense at all. We would have no way of knowing if he was fair."

Agreed. Except that I would change the word "amused" in the first sentence to "perplexed".

However, I think marauder further explains this reasoning in his next paragraph, and I tend to agree with his analysis.

-----------------------------------

"If you have a god with unitelligible attributes, then at best you are left with a deist god about which nothing can be known."

Would you mind giving your definition of "deist god"?

Originally posted by lioyank
Ok, so I gather that we (society in general) want to believe that the universe "balances out" and that "every dog has his day".

"it satisfies the normal human desire to see the universe as a "fair" place where individual fate is tied to some eventual, cosmic good. Having the ultimate power in the universe being "evil" would offend our innate sense of "fai ...[text shortened]... e last question because I gather from your last post that you may be an atheist.)

I remain an agnostic as to the existence of anything that could be described as "God". I am certain enough that the God described in the OT doesn't exist that I am comfortable saying I disbelieve in its existence. I am equally comfortable with saying that Odin, Zeus and other similar primitive constructs don't exist. Whether there might be a "God" of a deist, pantheist or with attributes like the Tao (which isn't a "God" per se) nature. I don't know.

Originally posted by 7ate9
this must be the god that ends up with a whole lot of robots! the human robots just end up trying to be like a certain 'good' (note the hyphens) person. when people come out trying to build their own perfect world it is based on ignorance and selfishness, as anything that human god has not experienced or taken into account is killed. when god is obsessed on ki ...[text shortened]... the name of Jesus while people die!

God exists when people do what they KNOW to be right.

I honestly don't know what you're message/theme in this post is.

"most people know what is right in life, yet most will either join a majority or run away. this is why terrorism exists, cause most people either put fuel on the fire or run up some holy mountain to praise the name of Jesus while people die!"

This paragraph especially confuses me. Can you please define what "right in life" is? Also, what do you mean when you say terrorism exists "cause most people either put fuel on the fire or run up some holy mountain..."

Originally posted by no1marauder
Whether there might be a "God" of a deist, pantheist or with attributes like the Tao (which isn't a "God" per se) nature. I don't know.

Interesting that you bring up Tao. What about the Aristotle "Prime Mover" concept? I think the two are very similar. Also, what is a pantheist? Dictionary.com defines pantheism as:

1. A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena.
2. Belief in and worship of all gods.

Is this comparable to some other belief? How does it differentiate from what deists believe?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can you have good without evil?
Can you have evil without good?

Righteousness/goodness if I'm allowed to say this, is how things
should be. Evil is a break from that, if God is real and I do believe
He is, righteousness and goodness are His ways, as we leave the
source of all things we can run afoul of righteousness and goodness.
Kelly

No, I don't think you can have one extreme without the other. Having one extreme implies there is another.

"Righteousness/goodness if I'm allowed to say this, is how things
should be. Evil is a break from that, if God is real and I do believe
He is, righteousness and goodness are His ways, as we leave the
source of all things we can run afoul of righteousness and goodness."

You say that goodness is how things SHOULD be. Why? Who says that God should be this extreme instead of the other. Do you have any other sources besides the Bible to back-up this claim? Furthermore, do you consider the Bible a valid source of God's goodness? (There are those who would argue the opposite.)

Originally posted by lioyank
Interesting that you bring up Tao. What about the Aristotle "Prime Mover" concept? I think the two are very similar. Also, what is a pantheist? Dictionary.com defines pantheism as:

1. A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena.
2. Belief in and worship of all gods.

Is this comparable to some other belief? How does it differentiate from what deists believe?

Basically, pantheism says that the universe is a unity that is all "God" i.e. there is no separate being of God. This website is a good one on pantheism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

Deists generally believe that there is a Creator God of the universe, but that he doesn't and never did take any active hand in human affairs. He's the "Watchmaker" who makes all that is and sets the natural laws into place but that pretty much it. I have a Deism website somewhere; I'll find the link.

EDIT: Here's the World Union of Deists website; http://www.deism.com/

Take a look at the FAQ and Deism v. Atheism & Christianity for the short version. An extended study requires reading most of the selections of Tom Paine linked to on the site.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Satan is called the god of this world too, which is not the same
thing as 'God' if you follow the caps.
Kelly

Would you consider the possibility that there is no Satan, and that "God" actually acts like your version of Satan?