A reason for existence of God

[bahman]

You have a obvious flaw of Logic in that. When I say 1 is good, I don't say 0 is evil. 0 is nothing and of no importance. That is where the positive weight comes from. If 1 is good, Logic is based on good or nothing. And if 1 is evil, Logic is based on evil or nothing. Good and evil are not absence of each other; they are negative of each other.

Some Christians that I used to discuss with them think that evil is the absence of good.

Not merely "absence," but "negation" of "corruption" of, as well. If evil merely meant negation of good, then it would be neutral, not negative.

So, for example, "animosity" is not merely "the absence of affection." "Absence of affection" might better be called "indifference," or "coldness" or "lack of engagement." If we call something "evil," it must go beyond the merely neutral.

But what is the case is that evil is not a thing-in-itself. It depends on the corruption, destruction or misdirection of something positive.

You can have your own definition of evil but that does not explain all the features of reality well. To me, there are Good and Evil. Good is the state of pleasure for example whereas Evil is the state of pain for example. Between we have neutral when there is no pain or pleasure. We also have the concept of right and wrong which apply to what we do, Good or Evil are fundamental aspects of reality as I defined and we should do Good or Evil depending on the situation. Good is not essentially right and Evil is not essentially bad. You need a sense of judgment and fairness to see what is need to be done namely right and avoid wrong.

Why not assign God as evil?

The point, I think, is that the property "evil" being merely a corruption, destruction or negation of "good" -- is a dependent property on the existence of those properties it would negate. There has to be the positive if the negation is going to exist. So before you claim "evil" has happened, you already must know there is a thing called "good." And you must imagine you know what that "good" is.

In this case, it might be, "the good is for people to be alive," and "the evil is for them to die in earthquakes." Okay, then...something evil is causing earthquakes, plausibly. But prior to that, there has to be something good that grounds the existence of living beings deserving of not being killed...and since you want to say that "god" is evil, you can't allow that the same "god" is good, or is the source of the good you're wanting to question the negation of.

Ok. Killing is not however evil. It could be good depending on the situation. Think of a person with locked-in syndrome. He is suffering from his/her current state of life so to me it is good that a doctor simply finishes his life.

That's hard to get you head around, maybe. But it's a real problem.

So you would have to be thinking there were at least two "creators," one that created good, and one that corrupted it to evil. But if you do that step, two problems immediately appear:

No, there is one God, either Good, Neutral, or Evil. Not two or three. A Good God creates Good so there could be only Heaven. Neutral God creates neutral so you can experience Good, neutral, and Evil. This seems to be the case fi there is any God. And finally, an Evil God creates Evil basically Hell. Of course, I don't agree that Evil is equal to corruption. So your stance of a God creating Good and another corrupts it does not work.

1. If you assign them the same weight, then you have no Supreme Being. So the concept "God" no longer applies to it, since "Supreme Being" is one of the true synonyms of "God." So you would have to say you don't believe in God, but in "gods." And you'd be a polytheist. And you'd have to say there is an evil "god" or "gods," but also good "gods." So now you've wrecked your thesis that THE God, the Supreme Being, could be evil.

There is no need for two Gods. Please see my previous comment.

2. If you assign the "god" to which you attribute the good the status of superiority to the "god" to which you attribute evil, (which you would have to, since evil is derivative an inferior to good) then you could plausilbly be talking about a Supreme Being again. But then He's good, not evil. And then you've got something like what's described Biblically, and one wonders why you bothered.

How do you know that He is not Evil? What if He lied to you about what is written in Bible? There is no Heaven but Hell awaiting whom that follow what is written in the Bible.

And there's a further problem. It might be even more serious.

Whichever you do, you need an objective set of criteria by which to judge the status of each. But those criteria cannot be borrowed from any reference to the "gods" themselves, since the purpose of the objective set of critieria is to give you solid grounds upon which to JUDGE both. But from where are you going to get such a set of criteria, since you cannot now refer to creation or to the Supreme Being in order to ground your concept of justice?

What do you mean by "both"? I cannot understand what "both" is referring to.

So now you've lost your basis for judgment, and are thrown back on making your statement read, "Evil means 'whatever Bauman dislikes,'" a definition bound to satisify nobody, not even yourself, since you know full well you're not the center of the universe or the unimpeachable grounds of truth.

No, I have not lost my basis for judgment. How about you? Do you really think that what you believe is the truth?

So to get your criteria to say, (as you suggest) that "God is evil," where do you go? Where is the location of the objective moral criteria to make justifiable your indictment? From where, or what, will you draw them?

For me, there is no God (by God I mean the creator of everything from nothing), period. There are Gods however who are Good, Neutral, and Evil. These are supreme beings not the creator of everything from nothing! They however can create things from something.

So you can't "assign" anything. You're not qualified to know whether or not something is objectively evil or good, because you have no grounds or basis for either assessment.

I know what is objectively Good or Evil. You don't.

Ironically, to make the claim "I think God might be evil," you would need to draw your criteria from the Author of Good, i.e. from a Monotheistic, good God.

I don't think so.

[bahman]

I am afraid that I cannot follow your logic here. How is prevailing 1 and 0 a good reason for the existence of God?

Prevailing 1 and 0 is a good reason for the dominance of good to evil, and that is a good reason for existence of a Loving God.

Oh, come on. There is no dominance of Good over Evil. And even if that was the case, it does not follow that there is a Good God.

[Immanuel Can]

Some Christians that I used to discuss with them think that evil is the absence of good.

Not merely "absence," but "negation" of "corruption" of, as well. If evil merely meant negation of good, then it would be neutral, not negative.

So, for example, "animosity" is not merely "the absence of affection." "Absence of affection" might better be called "indifference," or "coldness" or "lack of engagement." If we call something "evil," it must go beyond the merely neutral.

But what is the case is that evil is not a thing-in-itself. It depends on the corruption, destruction or misdirection of something positive.

You can have your own definition of evil

I don't. I'm talking about evil generally, exactly the same way you do.

Good is the state of pleasure for example whereas Evil is the state of pain

Well, that won't work. There are pleasurable evils, such as rape or theft, for example. And there are beneficial pains, such as weight training or medical therapy.

Why not assign God as evil?

The point, I think, is that the property "evil" being merely a corruption, destruction or negation of "good" -- is a dependent property on the existence of those properties it would negate. There has to be the positive if the negation is going to exist. So before you claim "evil" has happened, you already must know there is a thing called "good." And you must imagine you know what that "good" is.

In this case, it might be, "the good is for people to be alive," and "the evil is for them to die in earthquakes." Okay, then...something evil is causing earthquakes, plausibly. But prior to that, there has to be something good that grounds the existence of living beings deserving of not being killed...and since you want to say that "god" is evil, you can't allow that the same "god" is good, or is the source of the good you're wanting to question the negation of.

Ok. Killing is not however evil.

That's not the point. It's only a convenient illustration. I gave you your case easily there, so as not to make it an issue. But it wouldn't matter which kind of "evil" you decide to name...you're going to face exactly the same set of problems.

That's hard to get you head around, maybe. But it's a real problem.

So you would have to be thinking there were at least two "creators," one that created good, and one that corrupted it to evil. But if you do that step, two problems immediately appear:

No, there is one God, either Good, Neutral, or Evil. Not two or three. A Good God creates Good so there could be only Heaven. Neutral God creates neutral so you can experience Good, neutral, and Evil. This seems to be the case fi there is any God. And finally, an Evil God creates Evil basically Hell.

That's three "gods" you've identified, each with a different nature.

And now you've got the same problem: how do you get the criteria to make that judgment?

2. If you assign the "god" to which you attribute the good the status of superiority to the "god" to which you attribute evil, (which you would have to, since evil is derivative an inferior to good) then you could plausilbly be talking about a Supreme Being again. But then He's good, not evil. And then you've got something like what's described Biblically, and one wonders why you bothered.

How do you know that He is not Evil?

Well, maybe you'd better tell me exactly what you mean by "evil," and where you get your criteria for judging it.

And there's a further problem. It might be even more serious.

Whichever you do, you need an objective set of criteria by which to judge the status of each. But those criteria cannot be borrowed from any reference to the "gods" themselves, since the purpose of the objective set of critieria is to give you solid grounds upon which to JUDGE both. But from where are you going to get such a set of criteria, since you cannot now refer to creation or to the Supreme Being in order to ground your concept of justice?

What do you mean by "both"? I cannot understand what "both" is referring to.

Well, let's simplify: from where do you get your criteria by which you claim to be able to judge your "god" as "evil"?

No, I have not lost my basis for judgment.

You're not understanding the problem, clearly. I'm not making a claim as if I think you have some personal moral deficiency, or something like that. I'm asking where you get the criteria of "good" and "evil," since you obviously can't be getting them from your "god," because you're using the criteria to pass judgment on its character as "evil."

So to get your criteria to say, (as you suggest) that "God is evil," where do you go? Where is the location of the objective moral criteria to make justifiable your indictment? From where, or what, will you draw them?

For me, there is no God (by God I mean the creator of everything from nothing), period.

That doesn't answer the question at all. You still need to be getting your criteria from somewhere.

There are Gods however who are Good, Neutral, and Evil.

Then you're a polytheist.

These are supreme beings not the creator of everything from nothing!

We call those "demigods," and most of us regard them as merely mythical. Polytheism is not a common belief, these days, for obvious reasons.

So you can't "assign" anything. You're not qualified to know whether or not something is objectively evil or good, because you have no grounds or basis for either assessment.

I know what is objectively Good or Evil.

How?

Do you see the problem, B? You have to get your criteria from somewhere. From what or where do you get them?

[K1Barin]

I am afraid that I cannot follow your logic here. How is prevailing 1 and 0 a good reason for the existence of God?

Prevailing 1 and 0 is a good reason for the dominance of good to evil, and that is a good reason for existence of a Loving God.

Oh, come on. There is no dominance of Good over Evil. And even if that was the case, it does not follow that there is a Good God.

Let's first get to dominance of Good over Evil. You may bring a lot of examples and cases for that not to be true. But there are a lot of examples and cases for that to be true. After all if you assume good, you will feel good, and if you assume bad, you will feel that way. Here I am talking about the very first underlying essence of the whole universe, 1's and 0's of mathematics of Logic. After solving that, I let you assume good or bad or neutral, and feel any way that comes.
And "Oh, come on." doesn't count that much of a Logical argument for me.

[K1Barin]

For me, there is no God (by God I mean the creator of everything from nothing), period.

You are not reasoning. The same way you disrupt other's discussions and say "Why is that?" , and questions like that, one can say that to you. If you want to persuade others, please reason when you want to say "For me," this and that, "period."

[bahman]

Not merely "absence," but "negation" of "corruption" of, as well. If evil merely meant negation of good, then it would be neutral, not negative.

So, for example, "animosity" is not merely "the absence of affection." "Absence of affection" might better be called "indifference," or "coldness" or "lack of engagement." If we call something "evil," it must go beyond the merely neutral.

But what is the case is that evil is not a thing-in-itself. It depends on the corruption, destruction or misdirection of something positive.

You can have your own definition of evil

I don't. I'm talking about evil generally, exactly the same way you do.

Ok, let's see.

Good is the state of pleasure for example whereas Evil is the state of pain

Well, that won't work. There are pleasurable evils, such as rape or theft, for example. And there are beneficial pains, such as weight training or medical therapy.

Now you are mixing things. There are two sides/persons when it comes to Good and Evil. One is the receptor of the action and another is the actor. For example, rape is pleasurable for the raper but painful for the one who is raped. The same theft. The thief enjoys his act and the one who loses his/her property is in pain. Good or Evil could be beneficial or not depending on the situation. So my definitions of Good and Evil are consistent.

The point, I think, is that the property "evil" being merely a corruption, destruction or negation of "good" -- is a dependent property on the existence of those properties it would negate. There has to be the positive if the negation is going to exist. So before you claim "evil" has happened, you already must know there is a thing called "good." And you must imagine you know what that "good" is.

In this case, it might be, "the good is for people to be alive," and "the evil is for them to die in earthquakes." Okay, then...something evil is causing earthquakes, plausibly. But prior to that, there has to be something good that grounds the existence of living beings deserving of not being killed...and since you want to say that "god" is evil, you can't allow that the same "god" is good, or is the source of the good you're wanting to question the negation of.

Ok. Killing is not however evil.

That's not the point. It's only a convenient illustration. I gave you your case easily there, so as not to make it an issue. But it wouldn't matter which kind of "evil" you decide to name...you're going to face exactly the same set of problems.

And I gave you an example of a person who has a locked-in syndrome. He is suffering for no reason so it is right to finish his/her life.

That's hard to get you head around, maybe. But it's a real problem.

So you would have to be thinking there were at least two "creators," one that created good, and one that corrupted it to evil. But if you do that step, two problems immediately appear:

No, there is one God, either Good, Neutral, or Evil. Not two or three. A Good God creates Good so there could be only Heaven. Neutral God creates neutral so you can experience Good, neutral, and Evil. This seems to be the case fi there is any God. And finally, an Evil God creates Evil basically Hell.

That's three "gods" you've identified, each with a different nature.

And now you've got the same problem: how do you get the criteria to make that judgment?

Judgment for which God is true? Well, it depends on how you define God. If by God you mean the creator of something out of nothing then I have an argument against such a God. So, the nature of God does not matter. If by God you mean the creator of something from something else then I have no argument against such a God.

2. If you assign the "god" to which you attribute the good the status of superiority to the "god" to which you attribute evil, (which you would have to, since evil is derivative an inferior to good) then you could plausilbly be talking about a Supreme Being again. But then He's good, not evil. And then you've got something like what's described Biblically, and one wonders why you bothered.

How do you know that He is not Evil?

Well, maybe you'd better tell me exactly what you mean by "evil," and where you get your criteria for judging it.

I already defined what I meant by evil. What we experience is either thought or feeling. There is no third category. The feeling could be pleasure, pain, or neutral. Thought could be a question (Evil) or an answer (Good).

And there's a further problem. It might be even more serious.

Whichever you do, you need an objective set of criteria by which to judge the status of each. But those criteria cannot be borrowed from any reference to the "gods" themselves, since the purpose of the objective set of critieria is to give you solid grounds upon which to JUDGE both. But from where are you going to get such a set of criteria, since you cannot now refer to creation or to the Supreme Being in order to ground your concept of justice?

What do you mean by "both"? I cannot understand what "both" is referring to.

Well, let's simplify: from where do you get your criteria by which you claim to be able to judge your "god" as "evil"?

For me, there is no God who can create things from nothing, regardless of His nature.

No, I have not lost my basis for judgment.

You're not understanding the problem, clearly. I'm not making a claim as if I think you have some personal moral deficiency, or something like that. I'm asking where you get the criteria of "good" and "evil," since you obviously can't be getting them from your "god," because you're using the criteria to pass judgment on its character as "evil."

I already define Good and Evil. An Evil God basically creates Evil which makes His creatures suffer.

So to get your criteria to say, (as you suggest) that "God is evil," where do you go? Where is the location of the objective moral criteria to make justifiable your indictment? From where, or what, will you draw them?

For me, there is no God (by God I mean the creator of everything from nothing), period.

That doesn't answer the question at all. You still need to be getting your criteria from somewhere.

I defined what I mean by Good and Evil.

There are Gods however who are Good, Neutral, and Evil.

Then you're a polytheist.

Yes.

These are supreme beings not the creator of everything from nothing!

We call those "demigods," and most of us regard them as merely mythical. Polytheism is not a common belief, these days, for obvious reasons.

For what reason?

So you can't "assign" anything. You're not qualified to know whether or not something is objectively evil or good, because you have no grounds or basis for either assessment.

I know what is objectively Good or Evil.

How?

I defined it for you. My definition is consistent and explains reality well.

Do you see the problem, B? You have to get your criteria from somewhere. From what or where do you get them?

From my sense of judgment.

[iambiguous]

Fine, there are a lot of issues to talk about. But let's first start with 1's and 0's of mathematics of Logic.

Pick one:

1] 0 + 0 = God
2] 0 + 1 = God
3] 1 + 0 = God
4] 1 + 1 = God
5] all of the above

Number 5, right?

[bahman]

Prevailing 1 and 0 is a good reason for the dominance of good to evil, and that is a good reason for existence of a Loving God.

Oh, come on. There is no dominance of Good over Evil. And even if that was the case, it does not follow that there is a Good God.

Let's first get to dominance of Good over Evil. You may bring a lot of examples and cases for that not to be true. But there are a lot of examples and cases for that to be true. After all if you assume good, you will feel good, and if you assume bad, you will feel that way. Here I am talking about the very first underlying essence of the whole universe, 1's and 0's of mathematics of Logic. After solving that, I let you assume good or bad or neutral, and feel any way that comes.
And "Oh, come on." doesn't count that much of a Logical argument for me.

What is your definition of Good and Evil? What is your definition of God?

[bahman]

For me, there is no God (by God I mean the creator of everything from nothing), period.

You are not reasoning. The same way you disrupt other's discussions and say "Why is that?" , and questions like that, one can say that to you. If you want to persuade others, please reason when you want to say "For me," this and that, "period."

I have an argument against the God who creates something out of nothing: Any act has a before and an after. This means that you need time for any act. Act of creation includes the creation of everything including time. This means that you need time for the creation of time. That is a regress. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation out of nothing is impossible. Therefore there is no God who can create something out of nothing. QED.

[K1Barin]

Oh, come on. There is no dominance of Good over Evil. And even if that was the case, it does not follow that there is a Good God.

Let's first get to dominance of Good over Evil. You may bring a lot of examples and cases for that not to be true. But there are a lot of examples and cases for that to be true. After all if you assume good, you will feel good, and if you assume bad, you will feel that way. Here I am talking about the very first underlying essence of the whole universe, 1's and 0's of mathematics of Logic. After solving that, I let you assume good or bad or neutral, and feel any way that comes.
And "Oh, come on." doesn't count that much of a Logical argument for me.

What is your definition of Good and Evil? What is your definition of God?

God is the creator of universe, with all its Logic and 1's and 0's. Good is '1'. Evil is '-1' that comes up naturally afterwards in mathematics. By the way '0' is nothing.

[bahman]

Let's first get to dominance of Good over Evil. You may bring a lot of examples and cases for that not to be true. But there are a lot of examples and cases for that to be true. After all if you assume good, you will feel good, and if you assume bad, you will feel that way. Here I am talking about the very first underlying essence of the whole universe, 1's and 0's of mathematics of Logic. After solving that, I let you assume good or bad or neutral, and feel any way that comes.
And "Oh, come on." doesn't count that much of a Logical argument for me.

What is your definition of Good and Evil? What is your definition of God?

God is the creator of universe, with all its Logic and 1's and 0's. Good is '1'. Evil is '-1' that comes up naturally afterwards in mathematics. By the way '0' is nothing.

What are 1 and -1?

[K1Barin]

For me, there is no God (by God I mean the creator of everything from nothing), period.

You are not reasoning. The same way you disrupt other's discussions and say "Why is that?" , and questions like that, one can say that to you. If you want to persuade others, please reason when you want to say "For me," this and that, "period."

I have an argument against the God who creates something out of nothing: Any act has a before and an after. This means that you need time for any act. Act of creation includes the creation of everything including time. This means that you need time for the creation of time. That is a regress. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation out of nothing is impossible. Therefore there is no God who can create something out of nothing. QED.

When God creates something out of nothing, why he would need time to create anything, including time itself? Then what is the regress?

[K1Barin]

What is your definition of Good and Evil? What is your definition of God?

God is the creator of universe, with all its Logic and 1's and 0's. Good is '1'. Evil is '-1' that comes up naturally afterwards in mathematics. By the way '0' is nothing.

What are 1 and -1?

Universe is based on Logic, and lots of 1's and 0's. 1 and -1 and everything else are shapes of things life brings.
In case you may ask, 'life' is the act of choice between any 1 or 0 that can have any shape, which happens during time.
You know what 'time' is. Before and after, you were talking about.

[K1Barin]

Fine, there are a lot of issues to talk about. But let's first start with 1's and 0's of mathematics of Logic.

Pick one:

1] 0 + 0 = God
2] 0 + 1 = God
3] 1 + 0 = God
4] 1 + 1 = God
5] all of the above

Number 5, right?

No not number 5, I pick
0 + 0 = 0

[iambiguous]

Fine, there are a lot of issues to talk about. But let's first start with 1's and 0's of mathematics of Logic.

Pick one:

1] 0 + 0 = God
2] 0 + 1 = God
3] 1 + 0 = God
4] 1 + 1 = God
5] all of the above

Number 5, right?

No not number 5, I pick
0 + 0 = 0

Okay, how's this for logic:

zero actual hard evidence for the existence of a God, the God + zero actual hard evidence that a God, the God is your God = well, what exactly?