Not "a human mistake" but a human characteristic. It means God is the standard of what is good. 'Evii' is a distortion of good. Like atheism, it has no existence by itself, only in relation to good/theism. See for yourself. Look for the definition of Evilness, the look for the definition of Goodness. How can you perceive the moon to be made of cheese? I agree. Therefore, the thread is about perceptions. This is from learning about God from scriptures and people who have a great understanding of God. God isn't human. It is if the person understands that God is not human. Not sure what you mean. No. Jan.
Jan Ardena, Then "Evilness" is the essential quality of being evil. As for the "standard", I have no idea what you're talking about. If you have an argument to make, make it. Stop prevaricating. Yes, I would understand you as saying the moon is neither fluffy nor cheesy. So, it would be fair to say that you consider God to be neither good nor evil. Already done. See my posts above, where I discussed the issue of your lack of consistency in some depth. Does it matter? Perhaps it looks like the colour of cheese to them. Perhaps the craters look cheese-like. Perhaps somebody told them the moon was made of cheese. Whatever the reason, they are mistaken about fact of the matter. I'm not sure why this remains a live issue for you, given that you appear to agreed with me about the difference between perception and reality. But humans also use the terms "good" and "evil" to refer to God. And you have said explicitly that you do not consider this to be invalid. So, where's your math on this? This is contrary to what mainstream religions teach. Are these mainstream religions wrong, in your opinion?
Again. Don't you dare accuse anyone else of being evasive. You asserted that God cannot be something it is not. Yet, clearly I am quite capable of being something I am not. Your statement is poorly-formed. That is faulty engagement. You have argued your way into a paradox.
Jan has stated that "good" and "evil" can't be applied to God as they are only applicable to humans, and God isn't human. He has also said that God is "goodness" but that "goodness" is different from "good". So while God is goodness, God can not be described as good. But then he also states that "evilness" is the same as "evil". Does anyone else on this website get to use their own dictionary and meaning of words that is privy only to themselves? Is anyone else as demonstrably inconsistent? I'm sure he would say no, because they may honestly believe what they say. Maybe that's Jan's entire ethos: "I am never mistaken as I honestly believe what I say, so must simply refuse to recognise any mistake, because only then would I be mistaken." Okay, it's not quite as snappy an ethos as he'd have liked... but you can't have everything even if you do consider yourself infallible.
If God is evil, then evil is the standard and good is the aberration. This is assuming, of course, that good and evil require God for their definition at all. But in any case, you would say that God is not good, and therefore can't be any kind of model or epitome of Goodness. To claim otherwise would be a category mistake, inconsistent with your previously-stated position. Or, at least, it would be inconsistent if you hadn't also claim that God is Goodness. That is, although God is not good, God is Goodness. For some reason. Some people would say this is a separate inconsistency on your part. Every thread is about people's opinions, obviously. We write what we believe is the case, don't we? If we're being honest. Everybody's thoughts are based on their own perceptions, and their writings are based on their thoughts. Why do you persist with this distraction from the thread topic, anyway? Why don't you just address the topic? So you're telling me that you learned from scriptures and religious expert people that God is not evil. Did they teach you that God is good, then? Or did they teach you that God is neither good nor evil? I get it. You say that humans have perceptions of God as good or evil, but that actually only humans can be good or evil. Logically, it would seem to follow that you think God is neither good nor evil, but you wish to avoid locking yourself into accepting the logical implications of your own statements. Instead, you want God to be in some indeterminate state in which whatever anybody thinks of God, they are never wrong. And since God can be anything, nobody can be wrong about God's goodness or evilness, even though you say at the same time that those concepts are inapplicable to God. And you also say at the same time that God provides a standard of goodness, even though God is not good. And people complain you lack consistency and argue illogically, Jan! Right. So, if there is a hypothetical religious person out there who actually believes, for some strange reason, that God is a human being, then that person might think that God was good or evil. But since religious believers generally appreciate that God is not human, then they recognise that God is neither good nor evil. And yet, I know of religions - Christianity, for example - that teach that God is good. These Christians are mistaken as to the fact of God's goodness, aren't they Jan? Sure, they have a perception that God is good, but you know that is a mistake of the facts. It's strange that these Christians don't fit your description of them, given that they mostly believe that God is not human.
No it's not. Good. Because that is the wording I'm sticking to. Then we have to agree to disagree on what you regard as discussing the actual content of my posts. Irrelevant. jan.
You issued two challenges, and I have dealt with them effectively. All you have left is whinging and moaning, negative paraphrasing, and repressed anger. Get over it. I say that ''God isn't human''. I don't believe y0u see it like that. I believe you arrange it like that to score points amongst your like-minded chums. You know exactly what I'm saying, you agree with it, but you don't like it. jan.
I asked, why don't you engage properly. The fact that you're evasive doesn't need to be brought up, as that seem to be your entire tactic. So you cease the opportunity to try and defeat the sentiment. How petty of you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You'd like to think that I have. jan.
Mockery is the standard just like Goodness. If there is hell on earth however Evilness would be the standard wouldn't it?
Goodness: 1. the state or quality of being good. 2. moral excellence; virtue. 3. kindly feeling; kindness; generosity. 4. excellence of quality: goodness of workmanship. 5. the best part of anything; essence; strength. 6. a euphemism for God: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/goodness I tried to find a definition of 'evilness', but only came up with 'evil'. Sorry guys. I did try. Perhaps you'll have better luck. jan.
I directly addressed the exact statement you made, several times, in fact. That's kind of the exact oppostie of evasive. I will address it again, below. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" is also a poorly-formed question. So I demand you answer the question "properly" (i.e. with a yes or no, because that's how I choose define "properly") If you refuse to answrr eithn my parameters, do I get to accuse you of being evasive? No. That would be arguing disingenuously. So, I will bring it back to the point. Again. You made a statement: (God) cannot be something it is not. I directly countered that, showing it is quite possible to be something one is not. See above, same post. See above, several posts ago. See me asking the question multiple times. I don't need you to respond to it; it has simply been shown to be false. Any entity not labeled X, can certainly be X. Your statement is unsupported. And. You're getting desperate.
Religions such as Christianity claim that God is good. You say that God is not good. Therefore, you are in conflict with the opinion held by many of your co-religionists. Of course, millions of them could be wrong and you could be right. And, after all, according to your own illogical argument, you couldn't be mistaken if you really thought that was the case. Right? Repeated false assertion does not improve your position in this debate. I have addressed this point in depth above. All you can offer in reply is repetition, empty statements and one-line dismissals. I've tried to extract what meaning I can from the very small small amount of substance that you have written that actually addresses the topic. I have suggested what I consider to be the most likely interpretations of your meaning. If I made a mistake, you could correct me. But your entire aim here is to make yourself a small target by not actually committing to anything. So, you're probably worried that if you actually venture a real opinion on the topic you'll open yourself up to more demonstrations of your lack of logic and consistency. Evilness: 1. The state or quality of being evil. 2. Moral decrepitude. 3. Ill feeling; cruelty; selfishness. 4. a euphemism for the devil. --- But this is just a diversionary game, isn't it? You assert that "God is Goodness", but also that "God is not good". You have a fondness for trying to redefine words so as to use them in a way that nobody else does. And you expect other people to buy into your ad hoc definitions, which blow in the wind as your argument changes.
No, He asserts that, for the sake of argument, either one could be true (since no one can show otherwise). And then we explore the implications of that.
DaveC426913: Jan has said "God Is Goodness". In his preferred definition above, we read that "Goodness" is a euphemism for "God", so what Jan is really saying there is nothing more than "God is God". Jan has also consistently denied that God can be good or evil. However, he wants to sneak notions of good in via the backdoor. This is why he introduced the term "Goodness" and why he is now desperately trying to redefine that term to distinguish it from "good". He wants us to think that "God is Goodness" has more content than merely "God is God". But at the same time, he doesn't want to come straight out and say that, because in that case just a little digging would expose the fact that "Goodness" is just a synonym for "good", after all. As far as I can tell, Jan wants us to believe that the thinks God is neither good nor evil, but he won't actually commit to that position because doing so would be to actually venture an opinion on the question of the thread. In reality, I think it is likely that Jan holds the usual religious idea that God is good, but he knows that this is unprovable. And besides, Jan considers himself exceptional when it comes to religious beliefs - he doesn't want to be put in a box with all the other religionists. On the other hand, since he holds essentially the same views, he will never say that his co-religionists are wrong about anything. The give-away is that Jan is quite happy to talk about God's Goodness, but he will never talk about God's Evilness, and indeed he denies that Evilness is even a concept. Thus, we conclude that, according to Jan's actual belief, God is good (indeed, he defines God as Goodness personified). But since this puts him in a box, he wants us to accept that he simultaneously holds to two mutually contradictory positions: that God is good, and that simultaneously the term "good" does not apply to God. Unfortunately for Jan, the sheer illogicality of his position has been amply demonstrated for all to see.
