(Evil, Evil God) is a concordant dyad, leading many to be disappointed by the PoE argument. Further confusion is caused by the love that exists between this Evil God and his well-fed minions. 
I knew these two examples. Do you have more references?
I already discussed in the OP that a Benevolent God can create a world in which only Good exists. If this is true, then why does Evil exist in our world?
I am not saying that God is only Malevolent.
How could men possibly imagine Evil and do Evil if their nature is Good? Some people have desires to kill, rape, abuse,âŠ
I am not interested in discussing existing arguments for God in this thread.
I think so.
1 Like
I already argued that God must be Omniscient. What is left is that God has a mixed nature when it comes to Good and Evil. Regarding the universe, I only assume that Good and Evil exist.
- Good and Evil are human opinions about what happens relative to the observer. For an unconditioned universal observer, itâs just evolution. If you want to know why God (Brahma, Tao) created a dynamic world with options, youâll have to ask Her.
- The First Cause is imagined as Holistic and Monistic, hence unchanging, yet with the Potential (apprehension???) for all Possibilities. In order to allow the Big-Bang-created cosmos to evolve, Singularity must become Plurality, and Unity must be divided into Duality : light & dark, positive & negative, hot & cold, etc. Those oppositions are what make the world go around. If you are sweating at the equator, cold might be good. If freezing At the North Pole, cold may be bad. As Einstein concluded : itâs all Relative.
Brahma, Tao, First Cause
These three concepts represent humanityâs deepest philosophical inquiries into the origins and nature of reality. While they approach the mystery from different cultural traditions, each attempts to name the ultimate, uncaused source from which all existence flows.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=brahma%2C+tao%2C+first+cause
Good and Evil are stamps that we give to feelings, thoughts, and actions, to distinguish one from another. Good feelings like love, Evil thoughts like planning to kill someone, etc.
I am not interested in discussing this question in this thread. And I am sure that God does not answer us if we ask such a question.
âThe nature of God?â is an idle question at best. Iâm persuaded by Spinoza that âGodâ is synonymous with nature (i.e. natura naturans), avoiding incoherent ontological dualism, and therefore neither âcreatorâ nor âprovidentialâ â beyond good and evil â but is itself the generative structural process (i.e. laws of nature) immanent to the universe. There is gratuitous suffering (âevil?â) which is itself compelling evidence that there is no transcendent providence (âall-loving creatorâ) that prevents or relieves it despite the speciaal pleadings of tens of millennia of superstitions and myths, religious dogmas and apologetic metaphysics.
2 Likes
I understand the conclusion however I am not sure about your assumptions for what is good and what is evil. Do you just mean suffering as evil and non suffering or even pleasure as good?
Not just âsufferingâ but gratuitous â needless, useless â suffering (e.g.) painful birth defects, cruelty for its own sake, etc.
I disagree with Spinoza that God is nature. To me, God is the first cause, the creator of everything. Accepting that, I argue about the nature of God.
Good and Evil are stamps we use to distinguish between two different forms of feelings, thoughts, and actions. Love is a good feeling, hate is an Evil feeling, etc. And yes, pleasure is good, and suffering is evil.
Again: why do you assume (A) there was a âfirst causeâ and (B) that âeverythingâ (the universe?) has a âcreatorâ? 
Yes. The people who believe that God condones and encourages force conversion and the execution of non-believers, like the Spanish Inquisition.
Good exist in the world because good is God-made. Evil exists in the world because evil is man-made.
The malevolent/benevolent God that you described is not âThe One True Godâ.
This is my reply to you in my previous posts.
Yes, some people have the desire to use their knowledge, power, and freedom of action for evil.
I assume the existence of God to see what I can conclude about His nature. There are proofs for the existence of God, and there are people who believe in God regardless of the proofs. The believers either believe that God is Benevolent or Malevolent. I am trying to show God is both Malevolent and Benevolent.
Have you read the OP? Do you believe in Heaven, in which God and we live eternally together without any Evil?
It is. Otherwise, we are dealing with the problem of Good and Evil!
Why do they choose Evil over Good? Because they have a mixed nature. Who gave them such a nature?
Have you considered conceiving âGodâ to be neither benevolent nor malevolent (i.e. beyond good and evil)?
2 Likes
So, youâre 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? Why do you not buy the idea that God might be, like nature, unaware on both the cosmic and the local scales?
Just realized I have asked basically the same question.
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, isnât blood-shy (likes a war every once in a while) and is whimsical.
Any entity is defined by its attributes. God could have attributes we cannot understand yet, but we can analyze Him, assigning Him a set of attributes we understand through His creation. God could be beyond understanding, but He must be coherent within any form of understanding, including ours.