God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.

How so? What if the current point of this life is to learn how to do good things on our own, without interference from God?If it can be shown that people do not become good when God uses miracles to "bail them out", wouldn't it be better for God to restrain Himself so that people can learn this lesson? A whole universe of selfish, bratty children is not what I'd call a "good" outcome. This is only true if you can show that God cannot have a way to provide more goodness and less evil in the future by allowing some evil to exist today. Good luck. What? Are you saying that a God who can perform miracles doesn't know anything more than what humans know (who cannot perform miracles)?Your statement is inherently contradictory. Not if time is of the essence, and the judge has shown themselves to be worthy of providing such judgement.

I'd say we should judge him as evil. And if we were going to consider the possibility of God having a long-term plan, we should then show that God at least exists in the first place.My point was to simply show that if one thinks God is actually real, and if one thinks God is actually just and has an interest in our lives... then one can still think this God is not evil while evil exists in this world.Personally, I don't find the first "if" to be rational. But if we accept a few assumptions as true, rationality can still be jammed in there later.

My point isn't to defend the God you're thinking of.My point is to defend a God that someone could be thinking of that is good and yet allows evil to exist on this world.Personally, I don't think "the flood" actually happened. In which case, there was no genocide. I just mean to point out that a God who does not interfere with this universe may still exist and may still be good.I don't find such options likely, or rational with the information available to us, but it's still an option that shouldn't be rejected on the grounds of your personal incredulity.Basically, I agree with your conclusion, but I think your method of getting there is horribly irrational.

It is a basic part of any moral standard that it's not good to stand by and let evil go on right in front of you if you have the ability to prevent it.We brand people who do this as cowards.
Why not brand Gods the same way?
Or even worse, really... since they should have nothing to fear otherwise.From Message 30: Why? What's the difference between God preventing evil or you preventing evil?
Do you also hate and fear a world where you prevent evil?Are you against preventing evil in all forms?

I agree. Again, easily agreed. And again, we seem to agree.My idea is more that the world can be better than it is. No need to go to extremes.Like, let's say this:You have a daughter (just an example, I have no idea if it's true or not).
She's going to be raped when she's 12 years old.
God can prevent it, you can't.
Your daughter would prefer it if the rape was prevented (...do I really have to clarify such a thing? )If your daughter is not raped, she will lead the rest of her life as she sees fit. It won't be a perfect life, but it will be hers and she'll die of old age when she's 96.
The would-be rapist will not get out of bed that day. The next day he'll go about his normal life afterwards, it will be full of other evil... it just won't include the rape of your daughter.If your daughter is raped, she will be forced down a road of doubt, confusion and depression. She won't be able to get a job. She won't be able to form relationships (even platonic ones). She will kill herself when she's 27 to end the pain.
The would-be rapist will go about his normal life which is full of other evils.There are no hidden or unforeseen complications to this example. No additional information of any significance. This is it.This God has restrictions and only this single rape meets all the criteria for God to be able to prevent it, it is not possible for God to interfere in our world in any other way, at any other time.Would you like to live in a world where God prevents the rape of your daughter?I would say yes, I would want God to prevent the rape of my daughter.
Anyone answering "no" to the above example would raise a hell of a lot of red-flags in my mind... it would be extremely confusing to me. It just doesn't make sense if you want to call yourself a "good person."I mean, look at the sort of "what if" scenario we're discussing... Gods, free will, structure of the universe...
There's no limitations on the discussion that God must either interfere with everything or nothing at all.
We can discuss limitations where certain things are restricted and others are not.Anyone unwilling to entertain such obviously "better" scenarios would seem to have some sort of alternative motive than "helping other people."So, if it's possible for us to think of obviously better scenarios for the world... why did God choose to make evil such a powerful force in this world? Why not entertain some of the obviously-better scenarios?Hence, my question to God.
Perhaps God does actually have a satisfactory answer. I certainly don't know everything. But, from what I do know, it certainly is quite possible to imagine a world that is better than this one.
So, is God not as powerful as my imagination?
Or, does not God not care about people as much as my imagination?I understand the fear of oppression from an unrestricted, all-powerful dictator.But we're talking make-believe here... imagination... is it possible to imagine an unrestricted, all-powerful dictator who does not become corrupted over time? Would such a being be a "God?" Could such a being make extremely minor changes/interferences with our world that would have monumental, obvious benefits such as the example I provided?

I agree with everything you said, given that your initial statement is correct: If God exists, this statement is not necessarily correct. Therefore, the "context" of evil could possibly include more than humans. In such a context, what's wrong with a solution to evil involving more than humans?

This statement is not true.I have a case against God as long as God has the power to prevent evil but chooses not to.Regardless of where evil comes from.
Regardless of whether or not The Fall is historically accurate.As long as God exists, has the power to prevent evil (like the example I provided for Jon) but chooses not to interfere... I have a case. If God exists, has the power to prevent evil (like the example I provided for Jon) but chooses not to interfere... then there is evil IN God.
This would be the epitome of a person standing by and doing nothing while someone else gets hurt right in front of them while they could easily prevent it.If the choice were put to a human... I would expect everyone with any sort of basic moral standard to attempt to prevent the injuries.
Why is it any different if the choice is put to a God? Doesn't that make it worse, if the God still does nothing?God, being God, may very well have an answer to this question that is satisfactory.
However, in my way of being human, I have yet heard of an answer that comes close to something that could be called "satisfactory."What about you, Faith?
Would you rather have God protect free will and allow your child to be raped as per my example above?
Or would you rather God protect your child and interfere?If anyone's answer is seriously "I would rather have my child be raped than to force a rapist into a day off..." Well, then, I would suggest that perhaps such a person is not very nice to be around, to say the least.

I never meant to imply that I would win in a fight with God Of course, such a fight would only add more issues to the appearance of God's lack of morals...

If God exists, it is possible that evil is a god construct, not a human construct.
But I don't think this is relevant. God isn't even necessary for evil to not be a human construct. Evil may be a construct of evolution or just a part of the way our universe is.An example of evil outside of humans would be evil within dolphins, or monkeys, or mice or any other number of animals that seem to display a notion of right vs. wrong or fairness.Do non-human animals understand "evil"?
I don't know for sure as I'm not a non-human.But all of our research and observations do seem to indicate that the answer is "yes."So what happens to your statement if the context of evil moves from being strictly a human construct into being an intelligence construct? Now any intelligent-enough being has a hand in constructing evil, not just humans.Can you show how evil is somehow restricted to being human and not simply intelligence?I am saying that God is intelligent enough to join in the context of evil with us.
Perhaps, being God, His intelligence is too different from ours in order to bother with our troubles. But, again, that's what I originally said... maybe God simply doesn't care enough to interfere.

This is also something that I'm questioning.
Is it?Is it a human problem, or is it an intelligence problem?
That is, is this a problem only-for-humans, no matter what? Or is it a problem for any being that has sufficient intelligence?It is my contention that this is a problem for anyone of sufficient intelligence.
It is my contention that God would have sufficient intelligence (if He is as described by any opinion I've ever heard of for God).Wouldn't that make it God's problem, too? Says who?
Are you sure the daughter in my example would think so?
Are you sure anyone who calls themselves a "good person" would think it's better for God not to interfere in the example I provided?What evidence can you show to explain the seemingly unending confidence you have that "God staying out of things" would be "better?" Right. And how is allowing the daughter in my example to be raped "better" than removing the free will of the humanity of the rapist?
You seem to have so much confidence that free will is so much better. But you also seem to be avoiding answering my question directly.Refusing to say God shouldn't prevent the daughter's rape deserves more of a response than "it's probably for the best...."
Yeah. I've heard many people say that sort of thing before... right before they choose to ignore a horrible act occurring right in front of their face. Such a phrase (in my experience) is the mark of a coward.Do you have a real reason to allow the rape? Or is it just "probably for the best..."? Why's that?
Do you really think the daughter in my example cares if a human prevents her rape or if a supra-human dictator prevents it - no matter how benevolent he/she may be?Is your pride in your principle really so important so as to allow an imaginary innocent girl to be raped? Fair enough.
I won't even do an example involving yourself specifically.What about the daughter in my example, though? Does she get the same choice, or just you?How does "deciding her fate" work for her?Is living her life whatever way she wants until she dies of old age really best described as God "deciding her fate?"
Is it better if she commits suicide at a young age to finally end the pain after the rapist "decided her fate?"

Are you sure about this? The universe doesn't seem to agree, mostly because it doesn't seem to care.
Basic human decency, on the other hand, strongly disagrees.

No, we don't.
We don't have to follow things we know are wrong.
We don't have to bend to the will of the one with the biggest stick.We have the ability to do what's right, even if it's going to be the losing side. Even if we're going to be hurt by the one with the biggest stick.Or, maybe, there is no winning and losing because there actually is no stick... and you're just completely wrong.

First off, my apologies. I got a little heated and carried away in my previous message to you. You don't deserve such angst and I will try to stay more calm when discussing such things. Sometimes it's an animal-action, and an animal is affected, and an animal-reaction to the situation with no humans involved whatsoever.
As studies in such things show with dolphins, monkeys, mice and other non-humans.Hence my claim that evil is an intelligence-problem and not necessarily an only-human problem. If it is just a human problem, I would agree with you.
However, I don't think it is. I think it's an intelligence problem. And God, assuming He exists and has intelligence, would therefore be involved. If He has intelligence and is aware of our situation and can do something about it... then it is His problem and it is His business. He would be the equivalent of a human standing by doing nothing.But that all hinges on my claim that evil is an intelligence-problem, not simply a human-only problem. If you do not agree with me on that, I can provide links of morality and evil in non-humans (animals) that do have levels of intelligence. Hmmm... perhaps "respect for her desire" would have been a better phrase for me to use instead of "choice."
You don't want God "deciding your fate."
She would (very likely) want God to interfere and prevent her rape.Two equally valued opinions. Now what?
I say that her opinion is attached to a more... dire situation... than yours is. Therefore, I'm on the side of God interfering. Unless you can convince me that having God not-interfere is worth allowing this daughter to be raped? So far, all I've heard is "it's probably for the best." Well... that's not good enough for me to overcome the emergency situation that this daughter finds herself in. As far as I can tell (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), your position is that you think God should stay out of things because:1. Evil is a human problem
-I am contending this, I think that Evil is an intelligence-problem, not something connected only to humans2. You think it would probably be better if God stayed out of it.
-I contend this with the example I provided... I'm pretty sure the daughter would very much appreciate it and consider it "better" if God prevented her rape. I know that I personally think God should prevent the rape in that situation. Discussion, of course
That's what I'm here for... to toss my ideas out and discuss them and to see if they hold water or not through "trial by fire."
So far, I think I have pretty reasonable rebuttals to your position such that I still think that my position is more upstanding, rational and reasonable. But I'm always open to further objections I may have yet to think about.Don't feel like you have to oblige me, though.
If you'd rather not continue the discussion for any reason... don't worry about me, I'll be fine. I really just visit this site for fun and personal growth

I agree.
It wasn't what I was talking about, though. But it doesn't matter. I completely agree.
Which is why in the same reply you posted to I mentioned that Evil being a God-construct is irrelevant. The only thing necessary for my point to stand is that Evil is not an only-human construct.Since you agree that Evil could quite possibly be an intelligence-construct (as the evidence shows us with animals).
Then the next few steps are easy:Evil is an intelligence construct.
If God exists...
and if God has intelligence...
Then God plays a part in dealing with Evil.If the above is valid, then God doing nothing when evil things happen is the equivalent of a human doing nothing when evil things happen... abhorrent, cowardly and disgusting.Therefore, God should interfere to prevent evil whenever He possibly can. I never intended to imply that there was. Such a notion is not necessary for my argument. I disagree. I think that it is the intelligence (usually a human) who gets to decide if the action acted upon them was evil or good.
Everyone else's opinion about the action on that intelligence (person...) is irrelevant. I would say this particular example is up to the lions. What makes you the arbiter? Agreed.
And if a human stood by and did nothing to prevent such a thing, wouldn't you call that human also evil?
And if a God stood by and did nothing to prevent such a thing, wouldn't you call that God also evil?I would call both the human and the God evil for standing by and doing nothing if they could prevent the situation.
I take it that you would not? Why is that? I disagree.
It is the property assigned by intelligence (usually human...) that determines whether or not an act is evil or not.And, of course, there are many things some people agree are evil while other people agree that it is not. Like, for example, eating animals. Vegetarians vs. meat-eaters. Who is right? Is someone "right?"I understand why you would be wary and even scared that an All-Powerful God might interfere and there's nothing you could do about it.
I agree, and such a thing makes me wary and scared as well.But I'd still want God to prevent the rape in my example. Is your fear so great that you'd allow an innocent girl to be raped just so that you can sleep at night?

Some suffering is, some is not.
Some we can control and mitigate, some suffering is beyond our abilities to change it.Suffering is not such a simple concept. This is true if you are afraid of His wrath.
This is false if you think that a decent moral standard is worth standing up to a God for. Or maybe He doesn't exist at all and therefore there's nothing to worry about.Or maybe He does exist as you say.
I would still oppose Him and ruin myself in order to protect and help the innocent people that I love. Because I think that is a noble goal.I would rather die spending time with others who simply try to do their best with what they have... then live on in eternity knowing that I rejected those that deserve love just so that I could live on in eternity.What's offered simply isn't worth the cost.