Simple question about god-human relations

[Kyriakos]

Look, I am not claiming that a hypothetical god being "evil" should mean the text linked to that god has to be authentic.
I am just noting that god being "benevolent" is just another idea. It also exists in Plato - where it was made fun of by other philosophers.
I think that first we would have to at least know what type of intellect this god has, and we obviously aren't going to learn that either, so the discussion simply has no leg to stand on so to speak
I agree with Protagoras' view on speaking/writing about god. When he was asked why he never wrote a book on this matter, he is said to have replied that no human can know such things.

 

[abradley]

If I was president I would put God on trial for everything that's happened thus far. God must face trial.

Why?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Why?

Because in America we litigate everything and find ways to get money for doing so. The churches must pay for spreading God's evil word!!!

 

[El_Machinae]

Theodicy is a foundational discussion in a huge number of faiths. Putting God on trial is not new at all. The book of Job bungles the discussion at the end, but its entire gist is about Job wondering whether to put God on trial.

 

[Kyriakos]

Theodicy is a foundational discussion in a huge number of faiths. Putting God on trial is not new at all. The book of Job bungles the discussion at the end, but its entire gist is about Job wondering whether to put God on trial.

While it's not there at all in christianity (nor judaism, afaik - Job is only struggling with trying to not think ill of god, no? That isn't any trial to speak of, Job is another ant), it's also not really there in greek mythology (if only ruling gods are concerned).
Other deities - not in the olympian order/dodecatheon - are put on trial. Most famously, perhaps, the titan Prometheus, who helped Zeus win the Titanomachia but has no power himself. The other lesser deities (like Kratos and Bia, also titans) and olympians (eg Hermes) make fun of him when he is chained, and also threaten him when he argues that he has somehow secured the future downfall of Zeus himself.

It's ok, Zeus would also have ended up being minced meat if he had lost the Titanomachia. In fact he still was cut to hundreds of pieces when the vast monster Typhon defeated him (then Hermes re-assembled him and he won the next fight).

 

[timtofly]

Theodicy is a foundational discussion in a huge number of faiths. Putting God on trial is not new at all. The book of Job bungles the discussion at the end, but its entire gist is about Job wondering whether to put God on trial.

Why is the end of Job wrong?

The problem with God would be giving humans intellects and knowledge of good and evil. Why blame God if He did leave it a mystery?

If Job was a test one way, then Adam and Eve was a test in the opposite direction, no?

God gets a bad wrap for good and evil either way. If a good God refuses evil, then He is still condemned by an entity who can think, but do nothing about it. Humanity on the other hand can change themselves, they just refuse to.

Then they blame God, because their own morality stinks. Why have morals at all? Morals do not fix things. They only make one feel better about their miserable lives. Besides, humans are fickle and do believe anything. If God were good, they would never know or even understand what that is like. Why? Because knowing evil, ruins knowledge. An evil God is impossible. How would an evil God enforce evil or good? A good God does not enforce either.

God is only bad when He corrects the direction, humans have placed themselves in. So God being good all the time is true, even if such goodness goes against who we want to be any given decade. If God took evil away, we would not have anything to do or think about, unless that is a lie. Life is really not about trying to do good. We already know what is good. Life is us knowing evil, but avoiding it without blaming God. Once God is blamed, evil has already won over our wills. We have just given up.

 

[Kyriakos]

Why is the end of Job wrong?

The problem with God would be giving humans intellects and knowledge of good and evil. Why blame God if He did leave it a mystery?

If Job was a test one way, then Adam and Eve was a test in the opposite direction, no?

God gets a bad wrap for good and evil either way. If a good God refuses evil, then He is still condemned by an entity who can think, but do nothing about it. Humanity on the other hand can change themselves, they just refuse to.

Then they blame God, because their own morality stinks. Why have morals at all? Morals do not fix things. They only make one feel better about their miserable lives. Besides, humans are fickle and do believe anything. If God were good, they would never know or even understand what that is like. Why? Because knowing evil, ruins knowledge. An evil God is impossible. How would an evil God enforce evil or good? A good God does not enforce either.

God is only bad when He corrects the direction, humans have placed themselves in. So God being good all the time is true, even if such goodness goes against who we want to be any given decade. If God took evil away, we would not have anything to do or think about, unless that is a lie. Life is really not about trying to do good. We already know what is good. Life is us knowing evil, but avoiding it without blaming God. Once God is blamed, evil has already won over our wills. We have just given up.

Not sure how (eg) doing math requires evil.
When I was in mid elementary, my view on this was that such things, particularly math, were noble, while human interaction seemed geared to combat noble thinking. In that respect, if some deity was in control, it would follow that deity was a god of low things. Naturally I never saw a reason to attribute stuff in my mind (as with math) to something external.

It would probably be overkill to argue that this is about (some type of) opposites being possibly required for any highly intelligent order. Then again, opposites don't need to include the more vile stuff - let alone that due to emotion you can't speak of identical or even crucially the same view about anything objectively bad (or good).
That said, it is possible that even if "evil" in the world was greatly reduced, the human sense of the notion of evil wouldn't be diminished. For similar reasons that people can fear without being objectively threatened.

 

[Birdjaguar]

...Life is really not about trying to do good. We already know what is good. Life is us knowing evil, but avoiding it without blaming God. Once God is blamed, evil has already won over our wills. We have just given up.

So in the end God is not actually needed. Not doing bad things and ignoring God is sufficient? You must be a Buddhist!!

 

[timtofly]

That said, it is possible that even if "evil" in the world was greatly reduced, the human sense of the notion of evil wouldn't be diminished. For similar reasons that people can fear without being objectively threatened.

If no one understood evil, how would they view the results of evil? Now remove both evil and the knowledge, is that different than just removing the knowledge alone?

 

[timtofly]

So in the end God is not actually needed. Not doing bad things and ignoring God is sufficient? You must be a Buddhist!!

God is only necessary to remove both the knowledge of evil and evil as well. Is a Good God still Good, if we think God is not necessary?

 

[Birdjaguar]

God is only necessary to remove both the knowledge of evil and evil as well. Is a Good God still Good, if we think God is not necessary?

I do not know what your post means or how it relates to mine. Please explain it differently.

 

[Kyriakos]

If no one understood evil, how would they view the results of evil? Now remove both evil and the knowledge, is that different than just removing the knowledge alone?

It should be noted:

a) you have to define what you refer to as "evil"
b) if a notion exists in humanity, it is inevitably picked up and reformed by any individual capable of picking it. "Evil" being so general a notion generally means that virtually everyone will have it in their mental world. More complicated notions may be less universal. (by the way, just cause a notion is less complicated in this sense, doesn't mean it is less important; for all we know all notions feed into one another at some deeper level).

A different note:
If by "not knowing evil" you mean something like the animal state (I doubt animals feel they did some evil when they kill each other for food or fun), then one should mention that most of those animals are clearly not even able to identify their own self as distinct; eg cats won't ever realize the cat in the mirror is them, while (eg) some apes, dolphins etc will. In other words, not having the ability for such things is obviously not a positive state, it just connotes the being is less intelligent.

At any rate, the human being with no notion of evil wouldn't be the human being, much like it wouldn't if it lacked the notion of the integer.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, the mistake Job makes at the end of The Narrative is replacing all of what he lost, as if replacing what somebody has lost is both sufficient and guaranteed for those who don't lose faith in the Creator.

The underlying point of Job is that we have no real choice but to be grateful that we exist, despite all the hardship, because it is the only way to avoid existential misery. There is no underlying logic, it's just an examination of how to deal with the underlying emotions. Sure, the story pretends that it's something we have control over, our gratitude. But that is a deeper debate about free will.

If you're not grateful to exist, you're miserable. It's a tautology, sure. That would be the narrative, if they didn't toss in the bad ending about everything being replaced in the end if you don't lose faith. That ruins the story.

Many of the Bible's parables are almost excellent, and just miss the mark by a hair.

 

[timtofly]

I do not know what your post means or how it relates to mine. Please explain it differently.

You asked if God was needed.

Not doing bad things is not sufficient for removing evil. Good choices still lead to evil, if not outright, indirectly. Evil is just the inescapable reality of life.

I asked if God was "still" good, if humans did manage to avoid evil. Is God only good, if evil did not exist? God is needed to remove both evil and the knowledge of evil. Ignoring God or outright denying God's existence does not change anything. I do not think everyone's interpretation of good is the same as God’s definition of good.

If any human avoids evil all their life, they had a great life, and that is all they had. The end is still the same.

 

[timtofly]

It should be noted:

a) you have to define what you refer to as "evil"
b) if a notion exists in humanity, it is inevitably picked up and reformed by any individual capable of picking it. "Evil" being so general a notion generally means that virtually everyone will have it in their mental world. More complicated notions may be less universal. (by the way, just cause a notion is less complicated in this sense, doesn't mean it is less important; for all we know all notions feed into one another at some deeper level).

A different note:
If by "not knowing evil" you mean something like the animal state (I doubt animals feel they did some evil when they kill each other for food or fun), then one should mention that most of those animals are clearly not even able to identify their own self as distinct; eg cats won't ever realize the cat in the mirror is them, while (eg) some apes, dolphins etc will. In other words, not having the ability for such things is obviously not a positive state, it just connotes the being is less intelligent.

At any rate, the human being with no notion of evil wouldn't be the human being, much like it wouldn't if it lacked the notion of the integer.

There are some examples where humans are not phased by evil, for different explainable reasons. A sociopath for one. Not knowing or comprehending the consequences of evil is one thing. We know evil not only to experience it, but to avoid it.

Is there more than one standard definition of evil? Evil in contrast to good. Either God is considered good, or evil.

 

[timtofly]

Oh, the mistake Job makes at the end of The Narrative is replacing all of what he lost, as if replacing what somebody has lost is both sufficient and guaranteed for those who don't lose faith in the Creator.

The underlying point of Job is that we have no real choice but to be grateful that we exist, despite all the hardship, because it is the only way to avoid existential misery. There is no underlying logic, it's just an examination of how to deal with the underlying emotions. Sure, the story pretends that it's something we have control over, our gratitude. But that is a deeper debate about free will.

If you're not grateful to exist, you're miserable. It's a tautology, sure. That would be the narrative, if they didn't toss in the bad ending about everything being replaced in the end if you don't lose faith. That ruins the story.

Many of the Bible's parables are almost excellent, and just miss the mark by a hair.

Thanks for the clarification.

The book was not about Job though.

The book was about everyone's opinion of the situation.

Job was the only one who exercised his free will and maintained his position without letting determinism control his outcome.

Job was not blessed in the end because of being grateful, nor because it was all taken away, nor to prove Satan or any one was wrong, nor because Job maintained his righteousness.

God said He would listen to Job and no one else. Job simply obeyed God.

God did not give a reason for Job's wonderful life. That is the claim of Satan: that Job obeyed God, only because God blessed him.

Job just happened to be one who obeyed God for no reason at all. Even when God took it all away, Job still obeyed God. Job's obedience was not out of faith nor gratefulness. Job was just simply obedient. God was not obligated to bless Job either. God simply blessed Job.

 

[El_Machinae]

I know, and that ruins the story

"Life is crap, obey God anyway" is the better story.

 

[Kyriakos]

There are some examples where humans are not phased by evil, for different explainable reasons. A sociopath for one. Not knowing or comprehending the consequences of evil is one thing. We know evil not only to experience it, but to avoid it.

Is there more than one standard definition of evil? Evil in contrast to good. Either God is considered good, or evil.

Evil isn't an external state, though (neither is good). It is a sense, and dependent on beings who are capable of forming it, not having it transmitted by the world or some god. If god exists, it exists for animals too, but animals (at least virtually all of them) clearly have a very basic and different sense of things.
An issue with the human species is that it is too little to live in its own creation.This just means that it forgets most things and is prone to cling on the simplest formations, given time. Old people generally don't think even as much as they thought in the past - with very few exceptions - and according to literature on the subject most people reach a peak in actual thinking ability (not to do with knowledge, which may be increased) in their mid 20s.

One can imagine a variation of "humans" (it wouldn't be an actual human, of course) which never quite formed social groups, and lacked the sense of evil you refer to, since it would have no issue killing other humans on sight. While the old testament indeed seems to present "knowledge of evil" as something tied to "the tree of knowledge" and development of human thinking in the first place, I personally really am not of the view this is some positive wisdom and to me it seems to be more of the usual servile attitude in the bible: there you can't have humans do anything, even internally, without god being responsible for it. The ability to think in the current way humans do (as opposed to prehistory where things were very different and no language existed) has to be an internal development.

 

[Kyriakos]

When I was 8, I was very interested in ants. During the summer break I would focus on a large fire-ant nest, in our vacation house. I'd spend hours observing them and (in my view) improving the architecture of their nest, by removing sand and forming it like a bunker with a moat.
The ants didn't like it, and they'd attack me.
Then, one afternoon, I noticed a peculiar looking yellow ant, elsewhere in the yard. I took it in my hand and moved it to the fire-ant nest, expecting to see some interesting ritual of greeting between it and the red ants. Instead they instantly rushed to it and killed it with a hundred mandible bites. This led me to feel enraged and stomp on them. But, in reality, it was just wrong on my part to expect something like a greeting, the ants are not humans and have their own ways, and my act of divine vengeance certainly wasn't warranted.

You can ask of the ants to like you, or behave in a way you condone, and kill them if they don't, but it is irrational to expect gratitude for doing stuff they don't want in the first place. Likewise with the supposed existence of a god.

 

[Ferocitus]

When I was 8, I was very interested in ants. During the summer break I would focus on a large fire-ant nest, in our vacation house. I'd spend hours observing them and (in my view) improving the architecture of their nest, by removing sand and forming it like a bunker with a moat.
The ants didn't like it, and they'd attack me.
Then, one afternoon, I noticed a peculiar looking yellow ant, elsewhere in the yard. I took it in my hand and moved it to the fire-ant nest, expecting to see some interesting ritual of greeting between it and the red ants. Instead they instantly rushed to it and killed it with a hundred mandible bites. This led me to feel enraged and stomp on them.

TL;DR.

The Failure of Best Intentions
Kyriakos, chanelling Harry Lime, uses myrmomancy to foretell the foreign policy blunders that America would make over the next few decades.