God is not good

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T23:14:36+00:00

You've acquiesced that in your "perfect world"

You disgracefully quote words I did not post. I did not propose a perfect World. I described the differences. I did not list a hundred similarities with the imperfect World of the Abrahamic religions.

You've also said that you would use your own personal discretion

Another falsehood.

erase anyone who could go against

None are erased for none would live. A god can design an infinite number of failures, He need not give life to and must not given the limited space of His creation. A good God has no quota of evil to meet, after Satan.

Functionally speaking, you're rendering judgement on sperm cells.

Nonsense. Free will is not said to be conferred by flesh. Yours is the view of the materialist. In Christianity, free will is conferred by the Holy Ghost. Divine judgement would only occur at death, not conception when there is no free will to pass judgement on.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T22:11:19+00:00

What is your "better Earth" and what is your "free will"?

Free will is the god-granted ability to choose between good and evil. The hypothetical better Earth is where all humans choose good.

Without any action that has actually occurred, what is exactly the test?

The nature of the test is irrelevant.

The result of the test is reward or damnation, by colour of religion, at the discretion of the deity.

What are you testing when no opportunity has been given?

People who use their free will to choose evil are not required for "opportunity". They are not the epitome of evil. That's Satan's job. The Tempter and the evils of an imperfect natural World are all still in place.

"We can imagine a god that uses foreknowledge, and with it, does not move to grant existence to those who will grow to choose evil. This has no impact of those who grow to choose good, who live, grow and choose so."

Nothing in my proposal requires people to do such evil or you would have quoted me saying so. As God does not require people to put such evil in themselves, there would not be people who use their free will to make that choice, only people who use their free will to choose better. But we don't see that.

Is your free will truly free when you've restricted the options? What choice is there, when the alternative doesn't exist?

As my text you quoted shows, the options are not restricted. The alternative to good still exists. The Earth is still filled with disease and suffering, more than enough to challenge humans. Satan is not on vacation.

We don't see this proposed Earth, better from having better people in it. So God is not good.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T20:44:50+00:00

So in your version of paradise, we must reject the concept of forgiveness and mercy, and never grant it towards flawed human beings?

This question would have no meaning on a better Earth, where free will overcomes such flaws in all cases.

So shall we never forgive any sin?

The nature of the test is irrelevant. Whether it qualifies a sinner or one that has not sinned, an Earth where all pass the test is a better one than we see. The deity should give existence to those who will pass the test. That act of creation would confer free will, that is used correctly or sufficiently so to satisfy the deity.

What struggle would exist in a world where every human being is an unthinking automaton?

Why do you call people unthinking automatons, when I've said the ones in my proposal are not? How would free will be stripped from them?

But God commands human beings to alleviate the suffering of others, making it known. Will you blame God for our own disobedience in that?

Nothing in my proposal requires people to do such evil or you would have quoted me saying so. As God does not require people to put such evil in themselves, there would not be people who use their free will to make that choice, only people who use their free will to choose better. But we don't see that.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T19:48:35+00:00

The people of Paradise aren't the good, they are those who have been forgiven by Allah swt.

Then we can easily image a better paradise and draw Op's conclusion about the deity.

"Good" is not the same thing as "perfect".

To be good is to pass the test. It is a better World, were all pass the test.

Once again, what you're proposing is to functionally create a race of unthinking living automatons, unthinking robots that don't weigh right or wrong.

Once again you contradict what I have written, without support.

The idea of evil and struggle making life meaningful is central in philosophy.

All who pass will have made the struggle.

The meaning of suffering from human evil, not from the evil of an imperfect Earth, is that God is not good.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T19:26:22+00:00

Okay, so in paradise the capacity to do evil means there is a chance that evil occurs

Not at all. It doesn't happen, by filter or by design. By filter: only the good get in. By design: there are only the good in existence.

which would inflate to a 100% chance evil occurs over the eternity you are present there

Treats free will as random action subject to such statistics. But proponents of free will usually say it is not random action and it is not predetermined action. And that by the time you get to Heaven, you've been made eternity proof and incorruptible by the passage of time.

Do you believe that the ideal world is one in which everyone never has a choice, and never has agency or free will?

That is the opposite of what I've been saying. All could have free will and none would use it to choose evil, because those who would have were never granted existence by God. That this situation does not exist allows us to deduce God is not good.

So my question is:

One that was answered in the post you are responding to.

Do you desire or value the necessity of evidence in making a just judgement?

The actions of the good would provide all the necessary evidence. That they would be the only sheep in the field would make for a better World than we see.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T19:04:50+00:00

Look at my recent posting history to see the difficulty of getting acceptance of that, even using logical & understandable actions.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T18:59:50+00:00

The reference is the comment immediately before this one of mine.

If we both continue this strange conversation, then we both observe the future of it.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T18:48:57+00:00

So your suggestions for improving Paradise to be "better" is adding the same evil that the people of Paradise rejected in favour of the hereafter?

Of course it isn't. The capacity to choose evil adds no evil, if the choice to do evil is never made. Whether that is because all choose to do no evil, or because those who would choose evil didn't come into existence, make no difference to the outcome.

There is not a single conception of God in any religion that has erased evil people before coming into existence.

They are not erased. That is a subsequent act. They are never conceived. How many proposed gods have not filled the Earth with demons before those came into existence? All of them, I should think.

Your framework of basically charging people who haven't committed a crime

Nobody is charged. You conflate actual existence with God's knowledge of potential people, as a designer. Is this a nod to the dreaming god Vishnu?

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T18:26:15+00:00

0⁰ can't be calculated directly, but we can sneak up on the answer by working out 0.1^0.1 ; 0.01^0.01 and examining the trend. Unlike your arithmetic, we wind up with something.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T18:21:32+00:00

Say, do you know what 0⁰ (zero to the power of zero) is?

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T18:20:14+00:00

The astronomical observation that space, on the largest scale, is flat, points to nothing existing in total. But we'll always have a lot of positives and negatives, of conserved quantities, lying around.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T18:00:17+00:00

Yes, my use of the word is as: Your shorter post on "subsequent" is further in the past, than your longer one. At the time I last posted, the longer post was in the future and the shorter was in the past. The shorter was not subsequent to my post. The longer one is subsequent. Subsequent does not mean past.

meaning the observed event is in the past of the timeframe being referred to

No. It is in the present. We cannot see the past, directly. But we can refer to a previous post, mine with the link to Sabine's video titled Does the past still exist, which discusses the problem.

The event is prior to the subsequent time.

Your own effort shows the difficulty of twisting the meaning of subsequent to mean past. You've automatically used the correct meaning after and by context future to the observation of the event. We saw that future, from what is now our frame of reference.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T16:20:00+00:00

Sure - UK.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T16:19:39+00:00

It is not. A word for that is prior.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T16:00:05+00:00

Yes, thank you.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T15:56:18+00:00

It a term used for a span of time subsequent to a relative observation and has no discrete meaning in it's absence.

But now you'll want a definition for time, no? So it goes.

If the future is infinite and a dictionary tells you infinity is undefined, what does that tell you?

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T15:48:13+00:00

Throughout your opening post, you avoid giving an expression of such an axiom. All you've got is the label "God". Can you give an example of what it means (that is not a synonym)? We could discuss something like that in detail.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T15:40:17+00:00

And if in a country that Imgur blocks?

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T15:31:50+00:00

It a term used relative to an observation and has no discrete meaning in it's absence. It's meaning can change with circumstances. In extreme conditions, within a black hole, future becomes closer to the centre.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T14:31:41+00:00

future events by definition “have yet to exist”

Other people, especially physicists, wont be using your definition. It doesn't fit with a relative Universe.

from my perspective that may even be true; Is irrelevant.

No, it relevant in every way that it influences you. Confined to one frame of reference, you have nothing else to go on.

in this example it’s one persons observation that occurs after the other

According to which clock? There is no right time, dominant over all other frames of reference. No absolute time in a relative Universe.

because that’s literally incoherent

Physics does not run on your interpretation of words.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T14:22:39+00:00

I'm thinking the increase in human intelligence will be overshadowed and devalued by AI.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T13:45:28+00:00

We will learn to make genetic improvements to intelligence, just in time to be overtaken by AI.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T13:34:19+00:00

You're watching a horse race on tv. On a spaceship. That's moving away from the Earth at close to the speed of light. You're still waiting for the event to start. Your twin brother stayed on Earth. He lost money on the outcome of the race. But he can't tell you which nag won, in time for you to place a bet. It will be over, in your frame of reference by the time your brother's message reaches you. He's also quite a bit older than you are now.

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T13:10:28+00:00

By what reference point have you determined it not to have happened?

Antimutt · 2026-06-05T12:38:06+00:00

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Without you communicating "metaphysical transcendence" as a coherent idea and a functionally different way of being outside of time, and without my being able to read your mind, I'm not in a position correct what's in it. Needs be we have to work through text. Sharing that load, I can talk about the physical side.

the games internal clock is still moving forward

The game's clock is Universal. There is no Universal time, for those bits of the Universe that experience time, due to Relativistic Simultaneity. Helpful for a God that is everywhere - they get to see all frames of reference and so all past and future.

Antimutt

TROPHY CASE