I AM THAT I AM:

Exactly. The only necessary attributes for a god are omnipotence and omniscience. Anything else is superfluous. And omnibenevolence is nowhere in any scripture or writing as an attribute of the gods. All gods prior to and including the god of Abraham, have been wicked, instigating, rabble-rousers.

Manitoumulegirl

I think a discussion of what Zen is and what its not more properly belongs in the nonAbrahamic religions section. Zen attempts to get the practitoner to change his/her way of looking at things. There is logic behind the seeming illogic. And that's all I have to say on the topic in this forum.


Well, I did warn you in an earlier reply that I tend toward theism. Of course I'm not suggesting that we throw out our powers of reason and logic. In fact, I'm insisting that we apply them with all possible rigor.

For example, we haven't even come to a consensus of god's possible attributes if god does exist. Is s/he all powerful and all knowing? These are ideas picked up from the xtians and too many mornings in Sunday school. What kind of intellect does god have? Is s/he as smart as us? Smarter? Maybe human logic doesn't work when considering god. Maybe it does. But I see so many different assumptions being put forth in this thread that I see no way to reconcile them all. Hence my angels on a pin analogy.:banghead:

temporalillusion

I know some that would still invoke free will.. in that by allowing sin to enter the world through their free will choice, Adam and Eve changed the nature of the planet and now things like disease and natural disasters happen whereas before they didn't.

rhutchin

Evil is not a noun, not a physical object, and not a thing that can be created. God did not create an object that we label as evil. The term, "evil," is an adjective and a descriptor. We can describe an action or event as "evil" or "good" and say that a person did an evil thing or a good thing.

Evil is the opposite of good. Once you identify what is good, then evil is ~good. We see this in Genesis 2. When God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of one particular tree, then God defined what was good (not eating the fruit) and therefore evil (eating the fruit).

Evil describes those things done by people who do the opposite of what God says.

Again, the term, "evil," is an adjective that can be used to describe certain actions. A person who disobeys God can be described as an evil person who does evil things. God hates those actions that are against His law (His will). That is because God's laws are designed to provide good to people. The person who violates God's commands brings suffering on others as a consequence of the evil things that he does.

George S

Indeed the words 'good' and 'evil' are not absolute.

There is the old tale that takes place in feudal China...

The farmer's nicest mare runs away. The neighbors say, "what bad luck." The farmer says, "maybe."

The mare returns with a stallion and a colt. The neighbors say, "what good luck." The farmer says, "maybe."

The farmer's son falls off the new stallion breaking his leg while trying to break him. The neighbors say, "what bad luck." The farmer says, "maybe."

The army conscripts all the men in the area but the farmer's son is not conscripted. The neighbors say, "what good luck." The farmer says, "maybe."

Good and evil are always relative to someone's desires or well-being.

What is evil for one may well be good for another.

The physical basics are good. Breathing, eating, sleeping and waking up again, being conscious, being pain free, able to relate with friends and family, having children who have children. These are 'good' for.

The founding fathers summarized this as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. As good a definition of 'good' for individuals as any.

Note that there need be no god for there to be good.

Evermore

We (on this forum) often argue god's existence, etc. based upon the sort of "standard" of Christianity and western religious practice in general. Obviously this does not mean if there was a god, it would automatically have attributes in keeping with that viewpoint of god. It's just much more common (for most of us) to actually encounter such notions of god in our day-to-day lives; therefore we tend to discuss it from that pov.
That said, regardless of any attributes a supposed god may or may not possess, I think I speak for everyone when I say we would be happy to discuss any ideas on the matter. Simply start a thread and pose the question. I for one would be greatly interested in exploring "theoretical god-concepts". Just know you will have your work cut out for you should you attempt to convince anyone here of the existence of your postulated god.
Simply creating an internally consitent god-concept does nothing to prove it's reality. We have no reason to subscribe to any god, whether "historical" or modern.

Manitoumulegirl

That's fine by me, but you are, in effect creating a straw man (or straw god) when you start an argument with the premises "God created evil" and "God hates evil." If you are a dyed in the wool atheist, you are only chasing your own tail by stating premises that have no validity for you in the first place.

PS How could I have a discussion of the possible attributes of a possible god with a group of atheists? And you guys DO realize that you are true believers as much as any fundie, right? You have a deep FAITH that there is no god, but you are unable to prove god's non-existance. Personally, I think agnostics are the most objective group of all, but that's just my humble opinion.

Evermore

Sure, technically speaking we cannot say "there is no way god can exist". Likewise, we cannot technically say "no fairie can exist", or "no flying purple dragon can exist". Why? Because proving a negative is near impossible.
The problem with agnosticism, imo, is that it does not take into account the ridiculous improbability of god. In physics, anything is possible. There are, however, many things which are terribly improbable. Gravity could cease to function tomorrow. Sunlight could become completely composed of infrared radiation. My couch could come to life. These things, though, are so improbable that to speak of them as though they were actual possiblities is crazy. It is misrepresentative of the world we live in.
If my son comes to me in the middle of the night and claims to have seen a monster under his bed, do I call the ghostbusters? No. I don't even have a parapsychologist on call for such an occasion. I don't even entertain the notion that my son could be right and accurate in his discription of the events he experienced. Technically, he could be right. Bigfoot could be in his closet. But that possiblity (among so many others) are so improbable as to be considered 0%.
The notion of god, in every form and concept I have yet to discuss with anyone, matches this level of probability (when the concepts are logical at all). IMHO, agnosticism shows intellectual poverty (as Dawkins puts it) when it says : "god could exist or god could not exist...we just don't know" .
The statement is made as if both possibilities had an equal chance of being correct. They don't. The idea of god is so close to being "impossible", that to entertain it's notion is to be dishonest with ourselves about the odds.

Once again, these statements were made because of the commonly accepted concept of "god" in western society. In such a concept, god created everything. So god created evil, or allowed it to be created; which means it is god's responsibility by proxy. Please reread my last post.

Evermore

sorry, forgot to mention this part in my last post. Fundamentalists have believe in things without any justification. Their faith brook no argument. I have said before (and I'm sure I am not the only one here) that if someone would just prove god's existence. Just show some empirical evidence that stood up to scrutiny, I would convert and become a true believer without hesitation. Would a fundamentalist do that if shown evidence their god did not exist? I seriously doubt it. A fundamentalist atheist is an impossible creature. Only if empirical evidence came out to support the existence of god and an atheist still refused believe in it, would such an idea as a "fundamentalist atheist" come to exist. That has yet to happen. I challenge anyone to do so. I doubt it ever will.

connick

Post #48 by Evermore pretty well represents my sentiments regarding the above claim. I have exactly as much faith in the non-existence of gods as I do in the non-existance of Russel's teapot. To describe my lack of belief in gods as "FAITH" is to bastardize the term. Would you call yourself a true believer in the non-existance of invisible, three-horned goblins from Neptune who live among us and steal our Oreos? Would you say you have faith in that non-belief in the same way that a fundie believes in God? To equate a lack of belief in supernatural beings with a belief in supernatural beings is the epitome of dishonest, semantic handwavery.

Returning to rhutchin however.
The term "evil" is in fact a noun. It describes a concept and, as you said, it can also be used as an adjective and descriptor. The strength of the PoE lies in your statement above where you say that doing the opposite of what God says is evil. God says not to do X, Y and Z but does them himself. Redefining evil doesn't exonerate God from saying one thing and doing another. As I see it, God is either "not-as-advertised" or "works in mysterious ways". The former is the point of the PoE and I view the latter as an ad hoc epicycle added in order to escape an absurdity.