Give that “God” is an empty name, fictional is “the nature of God”.
Good and evil have very important contributions in life. For example, the pain is a sign of a problem in the body, so it is necessary; otherwise, we either damage the body more or never seek a cure for the pain. What we normally prefer as good is generally healthy and needed for life.
I don’t think it would be a winner or loser as far as there is God who takes care of the balance.
I see what your point is, and I agree with it.
I don’t understand what your point is. Do you mind elaborating?
I have enjoyed our discourse.
We are made to be good for the betterment of ourselves and those around us. We desire those who are good. Those who are good for us and those who are good to us.
Isaiah 45:7 may support your argument.
1 Like
My first question would be to ask why any such entity would create anything at all.
If it is all present, then its presence is itself alone.
If it is all knowing, its knowing is of itself alone.
If it is all powerful, its power is of itself alone.
Thus to create something and call it “other” would be absurd because it would know that already.
It cannot create an “other” because of those omni-attributes.
And “other” would have to be something it does not know, understand or have full power over.
There are of course many arguments coming FROM the assumption of an omni creator actually existing, that counter the idea that such an entity wouldn’t create anything.. Before we ask why an omni-God did or did not do something, we must first ask: Is there any good reason to believe such a being exists in the first place?
We are arguing about what an omni-God would or would not do, but we have not even established that ‘omni-God’ is a coherent or actual referent. Until that is established, all subsequent reasoning is hypothetical at best—and at worst, pure theology masquerading as philosophy.
To add to this, I do think that we do exist in a created thing. Furthermore, I think “we” created it and did so with purpose - perhaps as a means of explaining our own existence. (Is acceptable even if we always existed because the notion might have surfaced whereby some of us questioned the possibility that we were created with the notion we had always existed and thus we needed to find a means to test that argument.) or perhaps simply as an act of play, or exploration, or love of novelty. (or both). What I don’t think is that “we” (in that prior state) are omni-anything…Extremely powerful, yes. Extremely knowledgeable, yes. Extremely present, also “yes”…and these in contrast/relation to the human experience we created to experience for ourselves…and in doing so somehow created a “God” which was omni…simply a mistake produced by the human experience itself - but also a designed one, due to the fact that the Blank Slate design was purposefully allowing us to have an experience of a beginning and in that - allowing for unknowns to potentially surface in the process.
In effect what I am saying here is that we - as humans - created a false image of ourselves as creators of this Madventure…
The omni-God concept that does emerge from the human experience is a false positive - a mistake generated by the limitations of the Blank Slate - but its incoherence is itself data that points back toward the truth: we were not created by an omni-God; we are the creators, testing our own origins.
Now - I do not claim this as a provable fact - only as a framework that is more coherent, less contradictory, and more honest about its assumptions than the omni-God hypothesis.
The “problem of evil” in this framework is strictly a human problem.
I am not interested in proving the Omni-attributes of God in this thread. I assume them and see what they lead to. In the same manner, I assume that the universe is the created thing.
Good and evil do not exist in nature. In nature, some living creatures eat other living creatures and thus survive. Humans were the first to divide actions toward others into good and bad, because they are capable of empathy, so it was humans who invented the categories of good and evil. One could even figuratively say that humans were the first to taste the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which no one had tasted before.
[quote=“MoK, post:148, topic:1143, full:true”]
I am not interested in proving the Omni-attributes of God in this thread.[/quote]
Okay.
I assume them and see what they lead to.
Me to - which is why I came to reply as I did.
In the same manner, I assume that the universe is the created thing.
For me it is more the case of connecting the dots so that less assumption is evident.
If we accept that G&E do not exist in nature, then what do we make of empathy? Where (if not nature) did it derive and how has it helped?
Given the mythology you point to, how does this knowledge help us collectively? What examples can be shown to support it?
Or perhaps niether, because effectively G&E is a human construct created in an attempt to understand our collective situation.
MoK, as Epicurus shows, your 1st assumption is incoherent:
• Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not all-powerful. (impotent)
• Is He able, but not willing? Then He is not good. (malevolent)
• Is He both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?
• Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God? 
And your 2nd assumption ‘implies’ an infinite regress (i.e.) “the universe is created” by a creator (also) created by … (also) created by … (also) created by … 
Afaik, both assumptions lead to the same dead end.
God is All That Is. When we say god is omnipresent, it means god is everywhere. For god to be everywhere, god must be everything. We also say Creation/God does not make mistakes. Which means everything in existence exists for a reason and belongs in creation. We have day and we have night. We have what we call “good” and what we call “bad”. Both belong and are essential parts of All that is/God. God is beyond the concepts of Good and Evil, as these ideas can play out in god, yet God is beyond these human concepts. The reason we have evil is because from many perspectives the evil is not evil and is actually the good thing. From many perspectives, good is the most evil thing in existence. For example to hold an entire population to a moral standard that many do not believe in is quite evil in my opinion. To many, evil means complete freedom. The night is dark but is by no means evil, the day is bright, but is by no means good. Both are simply what they are, night and day. To separate all that is into good (approved) and evil (not approved) is to banish and not approve half of creation. If a bully gets hurt, we feel good, yet to the bully it was evil. I think it is a perspective.
Is it true that God created both good and evil? I heard from religion that all the people in this world are sinners with a sinful and ungodly spirit. How can sinners say they know God when they know sin instead?
What is the number one driving force in this world? It is to start a business to make money and to get rich. So, what God can you expect to come from this? It should be a God that the general public can relate to. A God that is just like them with the same spirit.
This world is obsessed with material and personal belongings. It is obsessed with wanting to be free, wild and out of control.
(LOVING MATERIAL) If you take a child and teach them to love material. They will stop loving living things and love material things instead. This is why people do evil it’s for money, so then the child will do evil to others until they die. So, people are obsessed about being rich or richer instead of being happy. It is not about being rich, it is about being richer. “I would be happy if I was rich,” however rich turns into richer. So, you can never be happy because you can always be richer.
What started all this? Here is the story how it all started.
You have a world of people with technology and over time this technology advances. Then one day it happened and the technology reaches a threshold. Then the technology jumped to the end of technology advancement. At this time many people went into shock, and they were unable to think. They said, “look at all the power and things I have!” This the starting of the love for material and personal belongings. Now the hate for others has started and where all the others are trust passing. Then they said, “I am perfect and I can do nothing wrong!” The others say, “you should not do this, and you better stop it!” “Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do! I am perfect doing nothing wrong and I will do whatever I please!” The others say “this is what we are going to do. We will make a world and put them in it and work with them.” Then the war started and the corrupt spirited persons said, “I will get you first!”
The problem is we have a energy force or spirit and if it is corrupt, it will have no control. So, if the person dies and the spirit is given a new body, it will pick up where it left off.
[quote=“WhoKnows, post:152, topic:1143”]
Or perhaps niether, because effectively G&E is a human construct created in an attempt to understand our collective situation.
[/quote],
God is not both benevolent and malevolent, nor is God neither benevolent nor malevolent. By definition, the one true God is perfectly good and not evil.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of God. God is not all powerful. God is perfectly powerful, which means that He cannot use His power for evil and He cannot use His power to create perfection.
God is able and willing to destroy all evil. He is just not willing to destroy all mankind.
Evil come from imperfect mankind.
He is called the one perfect God because of His perfect goodness, perfect power, and perfect desire.
There is not an infinite regress. The one perfect God is not created. God came before all else and is the Creator of all things.
Mere semantics. 
And yet God hasn’t destroyed “all evil”.
And “imperfect mankind” (like imperfect creation) “comes from” God – the creator of evil (e.g. Isaiah 45:7).
Nonsense. If God is “the creator of all” imperfections, then God is not “perfect”.
By who’s definition? And what evidence is there for a “one true God” and how is its nature determined?
No, this is not mere semantics. All powerful is not the same as perfectly powerful. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of God. God is not all powerful. God is perfectly powerful, which means that He cannot use His power for evil and He cannot use His power to create perfection.
In The Old Testament, God sent a great flood to wash away sin by destroying all flesh. God hasn’t yet destroyed all evil because He chose not to destroy all mankind.
God created man, and man created evil. Isaiah 45:7 is wrong. God is not the creator of evil. God cannot use His perfect power to create evil.
God is perfect, otherwise we are not talking about the one true God. God is the Creator of all that is good, not all that is perfect. God cannot use His perfect power to create perfection.