Is God evil?

[ftk]

Bod: Just a quiet reader of your posts for a while. I must say your posts carry more truth than any other posts on the Net. In my opinion. I have learned much from your writings and hope you continue. I even hope Stu continues to goad you about the non-existence of God. Its been a great learning for me. Thank you both! TK

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 06 2011,21:02)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 06 2011,06:38) Quote (Stu @ April 08 2011,15:38) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 07 2011,06:58) Quote (Stu @ April 06 2011,17:38) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 06 2011,14:38) Quote (Stu @ April 04 2011,17:57) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 04 2011,06:02) If a person can not see due to their lack of optical blindness would that make all the things that people without that condition see be considered imaginary? Come on, think harder. As usual your question does not make sense.  Probably in this instance because of your use of the word “lack of”.   Stuart Lack of Optical vision I see. Stuart I wish you could Could what? Stuart See See what?  That which your brain tells you is there? When you close your right eye, what does your brain tells you there is standing in line of sight behind the blind spot of your left eye?  You cannot possibly see that area because there is a hole in your retina at that point, but your brain is filling the void with what it thinks should be there. Just like the god you think is there, which your brain fills in for you and you believe despite the complete lack of any unambiguous evidence for it outside your own imagination. I'm open to unambiguous evidence, of course.  Do you have any?   Stuart

Hi Stuart,

I have given you plenty of unambiguous evidence,
but you have proved over and over to be close-minded even to that!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[ftk]

Hey Stu: About unambiguous evidence. Is it that you do not believe that “ambiguous” forces exist or are they just hard to prove scientifically? Is life unambiguous or ambiguous? The very things we “live” on or by are ambiguous. Air! Is there air? How is air created? Water! We also live on water. Can you create water? I don't mean by squeezing from the air. Can you manufacture water?
God is a term, not a name. If the term God was defined as “all existence” you wouldn't say there is no God/existence! There are as many gods as there are people. God is a term that sums up a source of existence. You can rename God to many names. Love, source, life, all goodness, perfection of balanced forces, spirit, air, water, energy and more. All of God or summed up in God. So don't fight a term as existent or non existent that may be a waste of time. Lets call God all ENERGY!!

Is energy ambiguous or unambiguous? Is energy alive? Can you see energy? Einstein said energy is, everywhere, more of it cannot be created, and what energy there is cannot be destroyed. Yet it is constantly moving and changing or being molded into infinite different forms eternally changing, never dying, always creating more of itself so always will be, no beginning and no end.

Just a thought or two. Energy bless you, TK

[Stu]

Hi ftk

Quote

Hey Stu: About unambiguous evidence. Is it that you do not believe that “ambiguous” forces exist or are they just hard to prove scientifically?

Please define the term “ambiguous force”, as you are using it.

Quote

Is life unambiguous or ambiguous? The very things we “live” on or by are ambiguous. Air! Is there air? How is air created?

There is a wonderful world of discovery waiting for you, by the looks of it. I will not get in the way of that, unless you would like help accessing it. The Holy Wikipedia, much maligned, is a good introduction for such things.

Quote

Water! We also live on water. Can you create water? I don't mean by squeezing from the air. Can you manufacture water?

Yes. I am right now. So are you.

Quote

God is a term, not a name. If the term God was defined as “all existence” you wouldn't say there is no God/existence! There are as many gods as there are people. God is a term that sums up a source of existence. You can rename God to many names. Love, source, life, all goodness, perfection of balanced forces, spirit, air, water, energy and more. All of God or summed up in God. So don't fight a term as existent or non existent that may be a waste of time. Lets call God all ENERGY!!

You appear to be advocating Spinoza’s god. This is not even a deist’s god. This is the sense in which Einstein used the term god, as a metaphor for the apparent order of the laws of the universe. Of course you could equally call this god Satan for all the difference it makes. Einstein was a big fan of the universe conforming to understandable principles, and contemplation of this led him to Spinoza’s god. However he was not necessarily right about all aspects of the nature of the universe!

Quote

Is energy ambiguous or unambiguous? Is energy alive? Can you see energy? Einstein said energy is, everywhere, more of it cannot be created, and what energy there is cannot be destroyed. Yet it is constantly moving and changing or being molded into infinite different forms eternally changing, never dying, always creating more of itself so always will be, no beginning and no end.

Read that back to yourself. Do you see the contradiction in there?

Energy and matter are appearing all the time in this expanding universe of ours, and quantum particles pop in and out of existence. Wave / particle duality might be challenging conceptually to we who really evolved to hunt cunningly on the African savannah, but that does not mean there is any ambiguity about it. Once again, you would have to specify your use of language in order to communicate your meaning more fully.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Is God evil.

Are we evil if we allow our sons and daughters to drive a car?
Yet they can potentially kill a person with a car.

Likewise God is not evil if someone drowns someone in water because God created water.
It is the one who chooses to do evil that is responsible.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 13 2011,15:16)

Is God evil. Are we evil if we allow our sons and daughters to drive a car? Yet they can potentially kill a person with a car. Likewise God is not evil if someone drowns someone in water because God created water. It is the one who chooses to do evil that is responsible.

God created all, including the capacity to kill by drowning.

Evil god.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

God created all including doing the opposite of what he intended.
It is called free will.
Why have free will?
If he didn't give us free will, we would be robots that were programmed to love and be obedient.
However the very definition of love has free will built into it.
Imagine your wife loves you because she has no other option.
Or imagine your wife loves you because she has the option not to, but chooses to love you.
Which one is better?

You get the picture.
I wonder if we would even have awareness if we were just a program.
Free will is what makes us individual.
And it is our choices that define us.

[Proclaimer]

I should also mention that those who reject God, rightly do not get to live forever with the one who they CHOOSE to reject.

I think that you should understand that. After all it is very fair. I don't like you, love you, and do not even acknowledge you exist. And then God says live with me forever anyway. Na. Doesn't work like that.

You see you get what you ask for and choose.

Free will is the ultimate responsibility because it is the only power that we have that God doesn't over-ride with his great power. He made you sovereign over your will.

So you are responsible for your own life.
Don't blame God for evil. He actually doesn't want anyone to choose evil or the opposite of what he is. Regardless of what he wills he doesn't over-ride your will if it is different to his.

[david]

This video and the story bother me and I've had to try to explain to people that logically, this story didn't happen.

Quote

Ignore the Albert Einstein bit and focus on the message. This is not a topic about Albert Einstein.

It's exceedingly hard to ignore Einstein. Really, 'Einstein believes in God' is the message most people would take away from this, and a month later, they'd remember that some sort of reasoning was used, but mostly, they'd remember that it was Einstein.

If you wanted us to focus on the idea of “Evil is simply the absence of Good,” then you should have just said that. Einstein is very distracting.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 13 2011,19:15)

God created all including doing the opposite of what he intended. It is called free will. Why have free will? If he didn't give us free will, we would be robots that were programmed to love and be obedient. However the very definition of love has free will built into it. Imagine your wife loves you because she has no other option. Or imagine your wife loves you because she has the option not to, but chooses to love you. Which one is better? You get the picture. I wonder if we would even have awareness if we were just a program. Free will is what makes us individual. And it is our choices that define us.

Evil god demands love, on pain of punishment by fire.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 13 2011,19:21)

I should also mention that those who reject God, rightly do not get to live forever with the one who they CHOOSE to reject. I think that you should understand that. After all it is very fair. I don't like you, love you, and do not even acknowledge you exist. And then God says live with me forever anyway. Na. Doesn't work like that. You see you get what you ask for and choose. Free will is the ultimate responsibility because it is the only power that we have that God doesn't over-ride with his great power. He made you sovereign over your will. So you are responsible for your own life. Don't blame God for evil. He actually doesn't want anyone to choose evil or the opposite of what he is. Regardless of what he wills he doesn't over-ride your will if it is different to his.

Evil god not worthy of anyone's eternal companionship.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (david @ Sep. 14 2011,07:19)

This video and the story bother me and I've had to try to explain to people that logically, this story didn't happen. Quote Ignore the Albert Einstein bit and focus on the message. This is not a topic about Albert Einstein. It's exceedingly hard to ignore Einstein.  Really, 'Einstein believes in God' is the message most people would take away from this, and a month later, they'd remember that some sort of reasoning was used, but mostly, they'd remember that it was Einstein.   If you wanted us to focus on the idea of “Evil is simply the absence of Good,” then you should have just said that.  Einstein is very distracting.

Einstein did not believe in any gods, let alone evil ones.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Stu, are you sure about that.
Read the quote:
I have no time to verify everything I quote, but feel free to read it and challenge it yourself.

Taken from http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
I am not vouching for this site either.
I have never visited it before, so I am not sure what they teach.

=====================
Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.”3

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist – a believer in an impersonal creator God:

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”4

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”5

“I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”6

References
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” (Albert Einstein, “Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium”, 1941)
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.” (Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59–215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The New Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005, p. 206. )
Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman (eds) (1981). Albert Einstein, The Human Side. Princeton University Press. p. 43.
Cable reply to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein's (Institutional Synagogue in New York) question to Einstein, “Do you believe in God?”.
Prinz Hubertus zu Lowenstein, Towards the Further Shore: An Autobiography (Victor Gollancz, London, 1968), p. 156.
G. S. Viereck, Glimpses of the Great (Macauley, New York, 1930), quoted by D. Brian, Einstein: A Life , p. 186.
G. S. Viereck, “What Life Means to Einstein,” Saturday Evening Post, 26 October 1929; Schlagschatten, Sechsundzwanzig Schicksalsfragen an Grosse der Zeit (Vogt-Schild, Solothurn, 1930), p. 60; Glimpses of the Great (Macauley, New York, 1930), pp. 373-374.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 14 2011,16:48)

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 13 2011,19:21) I should also mention that those who reject God, rightly do not get to live forever with the one who they CHOOSE to reject. I think that you should understand that. After all it is very fair. I don't like you, love you, and do not even acknowledge you exist. And then God says live with me forever anyway. Na. Doesn't work like that. You see you get what you ask for and choose. Free will is the ultimate responsibility because it is the only power that we have that God doesn't over-ride with his great power. He made you sovereign over your will. So you are responsible for your own life. Don't blame God for evil. He actually doesn't want anyone to choose evil or the opposite of what he is. Regardless of what he wills he doesn't over-ride your will if it is different to his. Evil god not worthy of anyone's eternal companionship. Stuart

Call God what you want. You have free will. It is your responsibility not mine.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 14 2011,21:56)

Stu, are you sure about that.

I think the information you posted confirms it.

Although it gets Spinoza's god wrong.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 14 2011,21:57)

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 14 2011,16:48) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 13 2011,19:21) I should also mention that those who reject God, rightly do not get to live forever with the one who they CHOOSE to reject. I think that you should understand that. After all it is very fair. I don't like you, love you, and do not even acknowledge you exist. And then God says live with me forever anyway. Na. Doesn't work like that. You see you get what you ask for and choose. Free will is the ultimate responsibility because it is the only power that we have that God doesn't over-ride with his great power. He made you sovereign over your will. So you are responsible for your own life. Don't blame God for evil. He actually doesn't want anyone to choose evil or the opposite of what he is. Regardless of what he wills he doesn't over-ride your will if it is different to his. Evil god not worthy of anyone's eternal companionship. Stuart Call God what you want. You have free will. It is your responsibility not mine.

It's only my responsibility if I can create something that evil god cannot or did not create.

Evil god put the blasphemy in my head.

Bozo god.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2011,18:34)

It's only my responsibility if I can create something that evil god cannot or did not create. Evil god put the blasphemy in my head. Bozo god. Stuart

Illogical.

To think something is not to create something and to use a tool incorrectly is not correlated to the tool maker being incorrect or responsible for the misuse of that tool.

In fact it is the very fact that the Creator created you to freely utilize your thought that make it possible to err or not to err. Hitting your thumb instead of the nail when hammering will cause you to think of a better way to use that hammer and nail so will not hitting the nail at all but at the end of the day you will only build something of value by hitting the nail on it's head, understand?

[Proclaimer]

Some people have no idea that no free will means you are a robot, and free will carries a risk, i.e., that we could choose against the will of the one who made us.
But love requires free will. Risky, yes.
Ultimately however, eternal life is given to those who choose God, so creation is populated by beings that are aligned with God in an eternal sense, while allowing for rogue beings in a temporary sense.
A very fair proposition because if you choose against God, then you choose to not have eternal life obviously.

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 16 2011,09:12)

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2011,18:34) It's only my responsibility if I can create something that evil god cannot or did not create. Evil god put the blasphemy in my head. Bozo god. Stuart Illogical. To think something is not to create something and to use a tool incorrectly is not correlated to the tool maker being incorrect or responsible for the misuse of that tool. In fact it is the very fact that the Creator created you to freely utilize your thought that make it possible to err or not to err. Hitting your thumb instead of the nail when hammering will cause you to think of a better way to use that hammer and nail so will not hitting the nail at all but at the end of the day you will only build something of value by hitting the nail on it's head, understand?

Evil god invented blasphemy. That was an option included in the language tool it created.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 16 2011,12:04)

Some people have no idea that no free will means you are a robot, and free will carries a risk, i.e., that we could choose against the will of the one who made us. But love requires free will. Risky, yes. Ultimately however, eternal life is given to those who choose God, so creation is populated by beings that are aligned with God in an eternal sense, while allowing for rogue beings in a temporary sense. A very fair proposition because if you choose against God, then you choose to not have eternal life obviously.

There is only punishment promised for those who don't love evil god.

Does that leave any room for freely-proffered love?

Evil god says love me or die twice, the second time by fire.

Stuart

[Author]

Posts