# On the nature of God **URL:** \ **Category:** Philosophy of Religion\ **Created:** [May 28, 2026, 12:19am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143 "2026-05-28T00:19:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![MoK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mok/32/578_2.png) [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2026, 3:36pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/121 "2026-06-02T15:36:24Z")
> [@John](#): > > So, you’re saying that God must be both good and evil, and deliberately so? That is, God would be, according to you, _knowingly_ both evil and good? Yes, God is Malevolent and Benevolent, and He does Good and Evil. > [@John](#): > > Why do you not buy the idea that God might be, like nature, unaware on both the cosmic and the local scales? I don’t understand what it means that God is nature. Are you saying that God is a separate entity from the universe, but it is ignorant of its own act? I have a thread that we are living in a simulation. There, I discussed that there is an entity that is in charge of running the simulation that we live within. I think that this entity must be extremely intelligent as well, otherwise it could not run this complex simulation. Anyhow, I differentiate God from this entity since this entity is in charge of sustaining the universe, whereas God is the first cause, the creator of everything, including this entity. ---
**Author:** ![GregW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2026, 5:05pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/122 "2026-06-02T17:05:22Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > Good exist in the world because good is God-made. Evil exists in the world because evil is man-made. > > Have you read the OP? I have. > [@MoK](#): > > Do you believe in Heaven, in which God and we live eternally together without any Evil? I do believe that we can be together with God in Heaven because only a perfectly good God, without any evil, can redeem and remake us to be without any evil. > [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > The malevolent/benevolent God that you described is not “The One True God”. > > It is. No. The malevolent/benevolent god that you described is any other god but the “One True God”. > [@MoK](#): > > Otherwise, we are dealing with the problem of Good and Evil! No. We don’t have to deal with the problem of a perfectly good God existing in a world with evil because the perfect God is not the source of evil. Imperfect man is the source of evil. > [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > Yes, some people have the desire to use their knowledge, power, and freedom of action for evil. > > Why do they choose Evil over Good? Because they have a mixed nature. No. They choose evil over good because they have mixed desires. > [@MoK](#): > > Who gave them such a nature? God gave mankind the nature of goodness. Some people have the desire to use their knowledge, power, and freedom of action for evil over good to fulfill their intemperate desires. ---
**Author:** ![GregW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2026, 5:11pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/123 "2026-06-02T17:11:28Z")
> [@Scorpion](#): > > One TPF member edified me on the matter. We have to discard the naive and childish view that God is omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. Instead he has favorites, sides with the strong, dislikes weaklings, isn’t blood-shy (likes a war every once in a while) and is whimsical. The god that you are describing sounds like Odin. A god of malevolence and benevolence worshiped only for his power. ---
**Author:** ![MoK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mok/32/578_2.png) [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2026, 6:06pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/124 "2026-06-02T18:06:14Z")
> [@GregW](#): > > I have. If you read, I discussed that a Benevolent, Omnipotent, Omniscient God can create a Good universe in which Evil is not possible. If we agree, then why didn’t God create such a universe in the first place? > [@GregW](#): > > I do believe that we can be together with God in Heaven because only a perfectly good God, without any evil, can redeem and remake us to be without any evil. Why didn’t God create us in Heaven in the first place? > [@GregW](#): > > No. The malevolent/benevolent god that you described is any other god but the “One True God”. Our universe is Good and Evil. That tells us that its creator must be Benevolent and Malevolent. > [@GregW](#): > > No. We don’t have to deal with the problem of a perfectly good God existing in a world with evil because the perfect God is not the source of evil. Imperfect man is the source of evil. Where does the evil come from? Some people have a desire for murder, rape, child abuse, etc. Where do these desires come from? > [@GregW](#): > > No. They choose evil over good because they have mixed desires. But you could not have Evil desire if you have a Good nature! So, desire and nature align with each other. I assume that you have a Good nature. Do you have a desire to murder? ---
**Author:** ![NihilLoc](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/nihilloc/32/843_2.png) [@NihilLoc](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/NihilLoc)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2026, 6:44pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/125 "2026-06-02T18:44:32Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > God could have attributes we cannot understand yet, but we can analyze Him, assigning Him a set of attributes we understand through His creation. There is no possible consensus of those attributes, unless God coincides with reality itself. Our affirmations as to his qualities are always borrowed by what has been said about Him by people. The persistence of those affirmations has less to do with any kind of honest empirical study of reality and more to do with inherited traditions/beliefs that helped to bring a measure of order to human life. There have been Christian theists who emphasize the apophatic approach (" to speak only in terms of what may not be said about [God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God "God")). Both Magureite Porete and Meister Eckhart suffered a measure of condemnation for their unorthodox beliefs. > “The Masters say that God is an intelligent being who knows all things. But I say that God is neither a being, nor an intelligent being, nor one who knows this or that. Hence, God is empty of all things, and moreover, is all things.” Taken from : [Meister Eckhart: The Poor Man](https://www.stillnessspeaks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/MeisterEckhartThePoorMan.pdf) * * * Heretics! Off with their heads! 😵 ---
**Author:** ![MoK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mok/32/578_2.png) [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2026, 7:46pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/126 "2026-06-02T19:46:56Z")
> [@NihilLoc](#): > > There is no possible consensus of those attributes, unless God coincides with reality itself. Correct. People have different beliefs when it comes to the attributes of God, but we can make a set of arguments to discuss the nature of God, hence Its attributes. For example, we can for sure say that God is Omnipotent and Omniscient since otherwise, another entity would be Omni! God is discussed to be Benevolent and Malevolent in this thread. It is, however, quite ironic to see how attached people are to the concept of God they believe in. We probably cannot change their mind through a serious and honest discussion, but we can at least put doubts in their minds. I have a saying: “Without belief, we couldn’t find the truth, and without doubt, we are trapped in our beliefs.” The dialectic is an art in which one finds the truth by being in a mixed state of belief and doubt. > [@NihilLoc](#): > > There have been Christian theists who emphasize the apophatic approach (" to speak only in terms of what may not be said about [God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God "God")). I am open to both approaches. ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2026, 11:57pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/127 "2026-06-02T23:57:33Z")
Pagan gods are different from the Christian god. The Christian god came into conflict with paganism during the Roman civilization. Christians were persecuted until, it is said, Rome won a victory against the Huns + allies. The emperor converted and the rest is history. This was followed by reverse persecution: paganism was declared a heresy and heresy was punishable by torture/death. The only possibility is that God is both malevolent and benevolent. ---
**Author:** ![GregW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2026, 3:13am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/128 "2026-06-03T03:13:50Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > If you read, I discussed that a Benevolent, Omnipotent, Omniscient God can create a Good universe in which Evil is not possible. If we agree, then why didn’t God create such a universe in the first place? He did. In the beginning, God created a good universe in which evil did not exist. > [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > I do believe that we can be together with God in Heaven because only a perfectly good God, without any evil, can redeem and remake us to be without any evil. > > Why didn’t God create us in Heaven in the first place? He did. God created us in Paradise, Heaven on earth, free from pain, suffering, hardship, and strife. > [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > No. The malevolent/benevolent god that you described is any other god but the “One True God”. > > Our universe is Good and Evil. That tells us that its creator must be Benevolent and Malevolent. No. Just because our universe contains good and evil does not mean that God must be benevolent and malevolent. The perfect God is the source of good. The imperfect man is the source of evil. God is perfectly good, that tells us that God must be benevolent and not malevolent. > [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > No. We don’t have to deal with the problem of a perfectly good God existing in a world with evil because the perfect God is not the source of evil. Imperfect man is the source of evil. > > Where does the evil come from? The imperfect man is the source of evil. > [@MoK](#): > > Some people have a desire for murder, rape, child abuse, etc. Where do these desires come from? Desire is a part of the human condition. We can choose to desire good, or we can choose to desire evil. > [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > No. They choose evil over good because they have mixed desires. > > But you could not have Evil desire if you have a Good nature! So, desire and nature align with each other. You can have evil desires even if you have a good nature. Good people can sometimes do evil things, and evil people can sometimes do good things. Desire and nature do not always align with each other. > [@MoK](#): > > I assume that you have a Good nature. Do you have a desire to murder? Not often, but when I do have the desire, it is usually in my car during my commute, (Just kidding) ---
**Author:** ![MoK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mok/32/578_2.png) [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2026, 2:58pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/129 "2026-06-03T14:58:47Z")
> [@GregW](#): > > He did. In the beginning, God created a good universe in which evil did not exist. But the creation had problems within; otherwise, Adam and Eve would have never sinned. Have you read my other thread on who is responsible for the original sin? > [@GregW](#): > > No. Just because our universe contains good and evil does not mean that God must be benevolent and malevolent. The perfect God is the source of good. The imperfect man is the source of evil. God is perfectly good, that tells us that God must be benevolent and not malevolent. Then what is the source of Evil if the creation was/is Good? > [@GregW](#): > > The imperfect man is the source of evil. So, we have two problems here: imperfection in man and his desire to become like God, both of which God could fix! > [@GregW](#): > > Desire is a part of the human condition. We can choose to desire good, or we can choose to desire evil. That is certainly false. We cannot desire to do Good if we have a desire to do Evil. In fact, we don’t have control over our desires. We can only resist them. > [@GregW](#): > > You can have evil desires even if you have a good nature. Good people can sometimes do evil things, and evil people can sometimes do good things. Desire and nature do not always align with each other. If that were true, then a Benevolent God could do Evil as well. Therefore, desire aligns with nature. > [@GregW](#): > > Not often, but when I do have the desire, it is usually in my car during my commute, (Just kidding) This is a confirmation that what I said in the last comment is true. ---
**Author:** ![GregW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2026, 6:39am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/130 "2026-06-04T06:39:29Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > He did. In the beginning, God created a good universe in which evil did not exist. > > But the creation had problems within; otherwise, Adam and Eve would have never sinned. Have you read my other thread on who is responsible for the original sin? What problems does the creation have within? How would Adam and Eve never have sinned? I have read the OP on your other thread on who is responsible for the original sin. I have questions on your premise and your conclusion on that thread. > [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > No. Just because our universe contains good and evil does not mean that God must be benevolent and malevolent. The perfect God is the source of good. The imperfect man is the source of evil. God is perfectly good, that tells us that God must be benevolent and not malevolent. > > Then what is the source of Evil if the creation was/is Good? Imperfect man is the source of evil. The creation of what was/is good? > [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > The imperfect man is the source of evil. > > So, we have two problems here: imperfection in man and his desire to become like God, both of which God could fix! If God fixed the imperfection in man and man’s desire for knowledge, power, and freedom, to become like God, then man would have remain as God’s favorite pets in paradise, unable to live the life they choose as human beings. > [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > Desire is a part of the human condition. We can choose to desire good, or we can choose to desire evil. > > That is certainly false. We cannot desire to do Good if we have a desire to do Evil. No. We can desire to do good even if we also have a desire to do evil because we have a choice in our desires and our actions. > [@MoK](#): > > In fact, we don’t have control over our desires. We can only resist them. In fact, we do have control over our desires because we can give into or resist our desires. > [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > You can have evil desires even if you have a good nature. Good people can sometimes do evil things, and evil people can sometimes do good things. Desire and nature do not always align with each other. > > If that were true, then a Benevolent God could do Evil as well. Therefore, desire aligns with nature. No. An omnibenevolent God cannot do evil, otherwise He would not be an omnibenevolent God. But a benevolent man can desire to do evil as well as good. Therefore, desire do not always align with nature. > [@GregW](#): > > > [@MoK](#): > > > > I assume that you have a Good nature. Do you have a desire to murder? > > Not often, but when I do have the desire, it is usually in my car during my commute, (Just kidding) > [@MoK](#): > > This is a confirmation that what I said in the last comment is true. No. This is confirmation that what you said in your last comment is not true. While I may sometimes have a desire to murder, I can control my desires, I can choose not to commit murder. ---
**Author:** ![Scorpion](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/scorpion/32/875_2.png) [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2026, 7:02am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/131 "2026-06-04T07:02:42Z")
God did create Eden (often depicted as a garden) in which dwelled A&E, the serpent + other animals. There doesn’t seem to be any account of how life was in Eden; the story jumps to the point where A&E eat the forbidden fruit. Some theists identify that event as when suffering entered the world. N.B. God is supposed to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. Some claim that free will is God’s greatest gift to humanity, but all the evidence suggests the absence of free will (re Libet experiment, Schopenhauer). ---
**Author:** ![MoK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mok/32/578_2.png) [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2026, 3:13pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/132 "2026-06-04T15:13:11Z")
> [@GregW](#): > > What problems does the creation have within? The creatures of creation, including Adam and Eve, had the desire to become like God. There was a tree from which you could become like God once you ate its fruit. This is what I call a sinful situation created by God, and only God was responsible for it. I am sure you know well that we could resist sin for a while, especially when the desire for it is so strong. And the last problem was the Serpent, who convinced Eve that she would not die if she ate the fruit. So we have four problems, including the imperfection of man. > [@GregW](#): > > How would Adam and Eve never have sinned? God could make them perfect. God could make them such that they have no strong desire to become like God. God could remove the tree from the Garden. God could prevent access to the Garden for the Serpent. > [@GregW](#): > > Imperfect man is the source of evil. It was not just man’s imperfection. Isn’t the desire to become like God Evil? If not, why would God punish them? If yes, then their nature was Evil as well. > [@GregW](#): > > If God fixed the imperfection in man and man’s desire for knowledge, power, and freedom, to become like God, then man would have remain as God’s favorite pets in paradise, unable to live the life they choose as human beings. So, God is responsible for such a creation and their sin. Just let them eat from the tree of knowledge and life, and they become like God, and all problems are resolved. According to Genesis, they were not the only creatures that looked like God, so other creatures ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as well. > [@GregW](#): > > In fact, we do have control over our desires because we can give into or resist our desires. By control, I mean that we cannot decide what type of desire we should have. Our desires are because of our nature. We are not responsible for them. We can only resist them. > [@GregW](#): > > But a benevolent man can desire to do evil as well as good. That is a definition of a creature with a mixed nature! > [@GregW](#): > > No. This is confirmation that what you said in your last comment is not true. While I may sometimes have a desire to murder, I can control my desires, I can choose not to commit murder. If you sometimes have a desire to murder, then you have an evil nature as well. Again, desire and nature align with each other. ---
**Author:** ![GregW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2026, 5:00pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/133 "2026-06-05T17:00:32Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > The creatures of creation, including Adam and Eve, had the desire to become like God. There was a tree from which you could become like God once you ate its fruit. This is what I call a sinful situation created by God, and only God was responsible for it. I am sure you know well that we could resist sin for a while, especially when the desire for it is so strong. And the last problem was the Serpent, who convinced Eve that she would not die if she ate the fruit. So we have four problems, including the imperfection of man. > [@MoK](#): > > God could make them perfect. God could make them such that they have no strong desire to become like God. God could remove the tree from the Garden. God could prevent access to the Garden for the Serpent. You are saying that God is responsible for the Original Sin because He could have prevented it but did not. 1. God could have made them perfect. 2. God could have made them such that they have no strong desire to become like God. 3. God could have remove the tree from the Garden. 4. God could have prevented access to the Garden for the Serpent. Your argument, in this post, is that since God is responsible for sin and evil as well as good, He is malevolent and benevolent. > [@MoK](#): > > It was not just man’s imperfection. Isn’t the desire to become like God Evil? If not, why would God punish them? If yes, then their nature was Evil as well. No. The desire to become like God is not evil. God did not punish them, God set them free from Paradise to live life in the world as they see fit. Their nature was not evil. God made them with a good nature. > [@MoK](#): > > So, God is responsible for such a creation and their sin. Just let them eat from the tree of knowledge and life, and they become like God, and all problems are resolved. According to Genesis, they were not the only creatures that looked like God, so other creatures ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as well. Really? > [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > In fact, we do have control over our desires because we can give into or resist our desires. > > By control, I mean that we cannot decide what type of desire we should have. Our desires are because of our nature. We are not responsible for them. We can only resist them. We have many types of desires. We are responsible for them. We can choose to desire good, and we can choose to desire evil. > [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > But a benevolent man can desire to do evil as well as good. > > That is a definition of a creature with a mixed nature! Yes, a benevolent man can choose to do evil, and a malevolent man can choose to do good. > [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > No. This is confirmation that what you said in your last comment is not true. While I may sometimes have a desire to murder, I can control my desires, I can choose not to commit murder. > > If you sometimes have a desire to murder, then you have an evil nature as well. Again, desire and nature align with each other. We sometimes have a desire to sin, but unless we act on it, we are not necessarily evil. We sometime have a desire to do good, but unless we act on it, we are not necessarily good. ---
**Author:** ![MoK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mok/32/578_2.png) [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2026, 5:30pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/134 "2026-06-05T17:30:52Z")
> [@GregW](#): > > You are saying that God is responsible for the Original Sin because He could have prevented it but did not. > > 1. God could have made them perfect. > > 2. God could have made them such that they have no strong desire to become like God. > > 3. God could have remove the tree from the Garden. > > 4. God could have prevented access to the Garden for the Serpent. > > Your argument, in this post, is that since God is responsible for sin and evil as well as good, He is malevolent and benevolent. Yes, I am saying all these. God put them in a situation knowing that they would fail in advance. And then He punished them as a result of their actions. This is a definition of Malevolent God. > [@GregW](#): > > No. The desire to become like God is not evil. God did not punish them, God set them free from Paradise to live life in the world as they see fit. Their nature was not evil. God made them with a good nature. God certainly punished them. He cursed the ground, Adam and Eve,… If their action was not evil, then why didn’t God allow them to eat from the tree of life and live eternally? > [@GregW](#): > > Really? There is a verse in Genesis mentioning that now they have become like us! > [@GregW](#): > > We have many types of desires. We are responsible for them. We can choose to desire good, and we can choose to desire evil. We cannot choose our desires! We either act based on our desires or resist them. ---
**Author:** ![GregW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2026, 6:14am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/135 "2026-06-06T06:14:51Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > You are saying that God is responsible for the Original Sin because He could have prevented it but did not. > > > > 1. God could have made them perfect. > > > > 2. God could have made them such that they have no strong desire to become like God. > > > > 3. God could have remove the tree from the Garden. > > > > 4. God could have prevented access to the Garden for the Serpent. > > > > Your argument, in this post, is that since God is responsible for sin and evil as well as good, He is malevolent and benevolent. > > Yes, I am saying all these. God put them in a situation knowing that they would fail in advance. And then He punished them as a result of their actions. This is a definition of Malevolent God. The problem with your argument that God is responsible for the Original Sin is that the Original Sin was committed against God by Adam and Eve disobeying God’s command. God did not disobey His own command. > [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > No. The desire to become like God is not evil. God did not punish them, God set them free from Paradise to live life in the world as they see fit. Their nature was not evil. God made them with a good nature. > > God certainly punished them. He cursed the ground, Adam and Eve,… If their action was not evil, then why didn’t God allow them to eat from the tree of life and live eternally? God is not punishing them. God gave them a fact of life speech about the pain, suffering, strife, and hardship (on the cursed ground that they will work in all the days of their life) that they will face living in the world separated from God. God didn’t allow them to eat from the tree of life because He did not want to give them immortality. > [@MoK](#): > > There is a verse in Genesis mentioning that now they have become like us! “Now they have become like us” means that they now have knowledge, power, and freedom of action like us. > [@MoK](#): > > > [@GregW](#): > > > > We have many types of desires. We are responsible for them. We can choose to desire good, and we can choose to desire evil. > > We cannot choose our desires! We either act based on our desires or resist them. We can choose our desires. We were made to be good. By our nature, we naturally desire what is beautiful and good. We act based on our desire for the beautiful and good and not our desire for the ugly and bad. ---
**Author:** ![MoK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mok/32/578_2.png) [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2026, 3:36pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/136 "2026-06-06T15:36:14Z")
I am afraid that I don’t find it fruitful to repeat myself. I invite you to contemplate what I said. Doubt might be the fruit of our discussion, and it might lead you to the truth. ---
**Author:** ![Gnomon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/71e660/32.png) [@Gnomon](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Gnomon)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2026, 4:45pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/137 "2026-06-06T16:45:16Z")
> [@MoK](#): > > The believers either believe that God is Benevolent or Malevolent. I am trying to show God is **both** Malevolent and Benevolent. Since the creation has both good and bad aspects, an omnipotent creator must have the potential for _both_ consequences. But the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God was defined as all-good. So they had to invent a bad-god (adversary) to explain what went wrong with a perfect Paradise. But then they had two competing top-gods in their pantheon, not to mention legions of god-like angels & demons, and the later addition of a son-of-god, and an Earthbound Holy Spirit. So, once you divide a singular generalist creator, you can keep on imagining equal or subordinate gods with specialist roles. Just like the Pagans had always done. Or, you can assume that a self-existent, un-created eternal world just is-what-it-is, a mish-mash of goodish and badish. Or you can conclude that the world was created as an experiment in freedom, with options for either good or bad. Then just sit back and watch what happens. Like watching a football game, a non-partisan Creator can root for the good guys in white uniforms or the bad guys in black. For an uncommitted spectator god though, it’s a both-and win-win, or survival of the fittest. Maybe the criterion is not Good vs Evil, but Brains vs Brawn. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![NihilLoc](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/nihilloc/32/843_2.png) [@NihilLoc](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/NihilLoc)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2026, 5:15pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/138 "2026-06-06T17:15:14Z")
> [@GregW](#): > > We were made to be good. By our nature, we naturally desire what is beautiful and good. We act based on our desire for the beautiful and good and not our desire for the ugly and bad. What is beautiful and good for any person, as they discover their desire to be in full accordance with the will of God or not, comes at a cost. What is good for one person may come at the cost of what is good for another. Genesis 22:2 > 2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” Any modern Christian who encountered a man who believed God wanted him to kill his family would reject it as mental illness. Yet Abraham obeying God’s command to murder is by some metric the greatest good. If we were made to be good, who are we made to be good for? ---
**Author:** ![MoK](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/mok/32/578_2.png) [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2026, 5:41pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/139 "2026-06-06T17:41:32Z")
Very well written, but I disagree that the universe is brains versus brawn! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Gnomon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/71e660/32.png) [@Gnomon](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Gnomon)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2026, 10:27pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143/140 "2026-06-06T22:27:30Z")
OK. What’s your guess about the role of Good & Bad (causes & effects) in evolution (Sin vs Virtue)? Which side is winning the race to the finish line of creation? Which god — Good or Evil — is likely to win the creation contest? Of course, those polar oppositions are human opinions & values. For non-human non-god Nature there are no moral sentiments : it is what it is. But natural selection based on Brain vs Brawn could explain the emergence of Consciousness in a competitive dog-eat-dog world **1**. Otherwise, how could "naked apes" **2** , lacking fangs & claws (brawn), rise from shrew-like mammals to rule the world (brains)? 🤔 **1.** _The **evolutionary purpose of consciousness** is to enhance an organism’s survival by transforming complex sensory data into subjective feelings (like pain or pleasure). This shift enables **flexible decision-making** , rapid learning, and future planning, allowing individuals to adapt to unpredictable environments rather than relying solely on hardwired, preprogrammed behaviors._ [https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rstb/article/380/1939/20240299/235164/The-evolutionary-functions-of-consciousnessThe](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rstb/article/380/1939/20240299/235164/The-evolutionary-functions-of-consciousnessThe) **2.** _Humans are distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom precisely because we lack natural weapons like sharp fangs, rending claws, or immense physical brute strength. Instead, our evolutionary survival—a concept historically known as “ **naked ape** ” physiology—relied on tool-making, social cooperation, and fire to overcome our biological vulnerabilities._ [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143.md?page=6) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/on-the-nature-of-god/1143.md?page=8)