If God was the Devil, would he let us in on it?

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

BibleGateway.com - PassageLookup: Genesis 3This is the first transgression I can find in Genesis. Nothing previous to it.

Also, Pusyphus, if you're using the ontological argument in your proof of the existence of God, a corollary of "perfection" is that He could not create a system in which we are all deceived. Indeed, it seems that's why Descartes dropped his theory of a deceptive God: his argument doesn't allow it.

[INDENT]4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

[/INDENT]When a member of society (or a community) is aware of evil-doing, it is generally accepted that the member should come forward with it...notify the authorities, so to say. If the member willfully chooses not to, then he or she is regarded as a accessory to the [crime] by way of conspiracy or obstruction of justice. If it is found that the member a greater involvement in that which is kept hidden, then the member is guilty of an even greater crime.

Knowledge of evil, in this case, indicates criminal activity.

You can call him god, or cornhole, it doesn't matter...the crime is still the same (whatever it is).

@Pusyphus,

Then God should punish the serpent for his transgression before he transgresses? That doesn't sound very morally right to me...

The problem, Pusyphus, is that your argument is very much like Hume's skeptical argument; it is both impossible to completely and systemically disprove and also total anathema for the conduction of good philosophy. In other words, it is completely possible that God is a totally evil whackjob but should He be, then why is there any reason for us to find truth through reason? Anything we think of as true could be deceptions imposed on us by Him. Just as Hume's ultimate conclusion--"the only reason why the sun rises every morning is because we believe it will"--is both totally rational and totally antithetical, so too your argument--"the only reason why God should be good is because we believe He is" (the root argument, because your evil God is more a corollary of this argument than anything else).

That is, I have come to the point of saying that we must take it as axiomatic that God is good, else the tools of philosophy couldn't properly function. Godel strikes here too!

@Pusyphus,

If God was the Devil, he wouldn't tell us, because he wants to fool us. If the Devil was God, he would tell us, because he wants us to beware of him.

@Pusyphus,

God had cited that malice is requisite,and He eschew giving stability.

Because humanity's mind is tumultuous,they will do malice, if they are avaricious.
So God is not the curator of malice,humanity have been sinning to render malice.We should be experimental for packing them off,for making a whopping instability.

@Ennui phil,

Now, if god made us, then couldn't we say that it is not correct to label anything we do naturally (as a result of our design) as wrong-doing? In other words, If humans naturally fornicate whenever and with whoever, then how are we wrong? Isn't it just a mistake by god? And, when we take animals from the field to eat them, are we not stealing? If god is not happy with what he made, then shouldn't he be the one to blame?

Understandably, there is a need for social order, one which prevents murder, if nothing else. (Although that could be an assumption.) The point is, if we put numbers in front of the commandments and call them laws, aren't we just asking for trouble?

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita wrote:

If God was the Devil, he wouldn't tell us, because he wants to fool us. If the Devil was God, he would tell us, because he wants us to beware of him.

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at. It's a sort of logic puzzle. Let's define "good" as that which favors humans, and "evil" as that which does not...

[INDENT]If god was evil, then the devil is probably good, and less powerful.
If god was good, then the devil might be good, but would also be less powerful.

If the devil was good and less powerful, then we might never know.
If the devil was evil and less powerful, then god could also be evil.

If god created the devil and called the devil evil, while calling himself good, then god must be evil.
[/INDENT]...something like that.

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

Then God should punish the serpent for his transgression before he transgresses? That doesn't sound very morally right to me...

I don't believe god would be in a position to punish justly.

If what the serpent told adam and eve was true (which, as it turns out, was indeed true) the god lied to adam and eve. He said they would die if they ate from the tree of knowledge. How can that lie be justified?

@Pusyphus,

Pusyphus wrote:

I don't believe god would be in a position to punish justly.

If what the serpent told adam and eve was true (which, as it turns out, was indeed true) the god lied to adam and eve. He said they would die if they ate from the tree of knowledge. How can that lie be justified?

1) Isn't the point of the Semitic God--especially the Jewish God--that He be in the ultimate position for just punishment?

2) Adam and Eve did eventually die; there are ways you can interpret this story without saying God lied.
One way is that God never said when or why; it could have been His intention all along that if one were to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, the punishment was to be that the transgressor(s) would be thrown out of the Garden of Eden, and so be unable to partake of the Tree of Life (the only fruit which guaranteed immortality to material substances), which would implicitly mean that said transgressor(s) would by fiat eventually die. Thus God is speaking the truth, and it's simply the readers' (and the transgressor's) misinterpretation of His words that makes it appear to be a lie.
Another way is that God has a different concept of space and time than we do; what God thinks of as immediately may not be immediate in our perception: in this case, it would take a good deal longer.

@Pusyphus,

Pusyphus wrote:

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at. It's a sort of logic puzzle. Let's define "good" as that which favors humans, and "evil" as that which does not...
[INDENT]If god was evil, then the devil is probably good, and less powerful.
If god was good, then the devil might be good, but would also be less powerful.

If the devil was good and less powerful, then we might never know.
If the devil was evil and less powerful, then god could also be evil.

If god created the devil and called the devil evil, while calling himself good, then god must be evil.
[/INDENT]...something like that.

Didnt understood two things from this reasoning: First, if god was evil, why would he do the pro-human thing of creating humans? Second, if god and the devil were on the same "side", for what reason would they be at war with each other?

@Pusyphus,

Good questions. I don't claim to know for sure, but I can offer an example for each...

First, if god was evil, then he may have created humans to serve him and his angels. The creating of us would not be so spectacular if we were to be used as slaves.

Second, if the first example was true, then the devil may have eventually recognized the injustice, and sided with humans over god.

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

1) Isn't the point of the Semitic God--especially the Jewish God--that He be in the ultimate position for just punishment?

2) Adam and Eve did eventually die; there are ways you can interpret this story without saying God lied.
One way is that God never said when or why; it could have been His intention all along that if one were to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, the punishment was to be that the transgressor(s) would be thrown out of the Garden of Eden, and so be unable to partake of the Tree of Life (the only fruit which guaranteed immortality to material substances), which would implicitly mean that said transgressor(s) would by fiat eventually die. Thus God is speaking the truth, and it's simply the readers' (and the transgressor's) misinterpretation of His words that makes it appear to be a lie.
Another way is that God has a different concept of space and time than we do; what God thinks of as immediately may not be immediate in our perception: in this case, it would take a good deal longer.

If god was fair, he would give us measures of time that we would comprehend, according to the astonomical processes that mark these measures in the first place. I could entertain the notion that these processes may have had different durations long ago. But I can't support an argument that god uses the names of time measurements just for the sake of using words to fill spaces.

To respond to your points...

1) Why should one be considered in the ultimate position simply because he says so?

2) Are you saying that humans were originally destined to live forever, prior to the original sin, or that the fruit from the tree would give eternal life? (I don't know enough of the bible to understand what you are saying.) My question is, why would adam and eve take the fruit if it would only give them what they already had? Are you saying, when god told them they would die from eating the fruit, they should have known that they would otherwise live forever? Why wouldn't god just say, you are going to live forever?

@Pusyphus,

Makes sense, tough then we are probally something like a show, and such a show would be better off winhout interference, dont you think? Smile

@manored,

manored wrote:

Makes sense, tough then we are probally something like a show, and such a show would be better off winhout interference, dont you think?

Maybe so. The tough part for me is deciding whether or not to go along with the charade. What a mistake that could be...I mean, once a deceiver, always a deceiver. No?

I need a philosophy that allows for a fallible "god" I think...

@Pusyphus,

Pusyphus wrote:

If god was fair, he would give us measures of time that we would comprehend, according to the astronomical processes that mark these measures in the first place. I could entertain the notion that these processes may have had different durations long ago. But I can't support an argument that god uses the names of time measurements just for the sake of using words to fill spaces.

You do realize that our notions of time are based on astronomical measures, don't you? The Hebrew calendar is based on the moon (that is, a year is basically x lunar cycles) and our calendar is based on our rotation of the Sun (as it has been since, oh I don't know, the time of the Roman Empire)?

Quote:

To respond to your points...

1) Why should one be considered in the ultimate position simply because he says so?

Excellent question. If we take the Judaic God as our God, then it's because He created this world, and He is our Father and we are His sons (Christianity is also an extrapolation of this). In addition, if He were able to create this world, then it stands to reason that He Himself could not have been created along with it, and therefore exists beyond it; because He exists beyond it, He also acts beyond it, and since the only conceptions of God we have are those He imbued us with, we are forced to take His word for it that He acts in our best interests.

Quote:

2) Are you saying that humans were originally destined to live forever, prior to the original sin, or that the fruit from the tree would give eternal life? (I don't know enough of the bible to understand what you are saying.) My question is, why would adam and eve take the fruit if it would only give them what they already had? Are you saying, when god told them they would die from eating the fruit, they should have known that they would otherwise live forever? Why wouldn't god just say, you are going to live forever?

What I think is happening is that Man in Eden is neither mortal nor immortal--or, to put it in another way, both. Man is mortal insofar that his death is guaranteed should he refrain from partaking of the Tree of Life (as a consequence of natural processes), but that by regularly partaking of the Tree of Life he can inhibit his death ad infinitum (rather like the later myths of the Sorceror's Stone and the Fountain of Youth): in other words, it is the eating of the Tree of Life that makes man immortal--immortality does not inhere in man.

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

Excellent question. If we take the Judaic God as our God, then it's because He created this world, and He is our Father and we are His sons (Christianity is also an extrapolation of this). In addition, if He were able to create this world, then it stands to reason that He Himself could not have been created along with it, and therefore exists beyond it; because He exists beyond it, He also acts beyond it, and since the only conceptions of God we have are those He imbued us with, we are forced to take His word for it that He acts in our best interests.

Then why do you think he would create a handful of races, if his original goal was harmony and globalization, supposedly? Would that not be assinine, or irresponsible at best?

@Pusyphus,

Pusyphus wrote:

Then why do you think he would create a handful of races, if his original goal was harmony and globalization, supposedly? Would that not be assinine, or irresponsible at best?

Whatever purpose a god would create us for, creating us in a imperfect world would be a lot more interesting than in a perfect one...

@Pusyphus,

Pusyphus wrote:

Then why do you think he would create a handful of races, if his original goal was harmony and globalization, supposedly? Would that not be assinine, or irresponsible at best?

According to Judaic cosmogony, the members of the races were the sons of Noah: Ham, Shem, and...somebody else. Ham was the ancestor of the Africans, Shem the Semites and thence Jews, and the other guy the Europeans.

Manored's line of thinking is good too.

@hammersklavier,

Well, I'm talking about the creation of races before the time of Noah...

@manored,

manored wrote:

Whatever purpose a god would create us for, creating us in a imperfect world would be a lot more interesting than in a perfect one...

Are you sure?

(BTW, can someone explain how to use the "multi-post" please?)

@Pusyphus,

Pusyphus wrote:

Well, I'm talking about the creation of races before the time of Noah...

Well, in Abrahamic religions Noah's sons are credited with being the fathers of the different races, so I don't see where you're wanting to take this line of inquiry further...

btw Some would say heavenly bliss = heavenly boredom. Have you read Paradise Lost? "Better to make a Heaven of Hell than a Hell of Heaven" I think Satan says. A perfect world would quickly stagnate into a boring world, we would create our own demons and make it imperfect to relieve the monotony. Thus God created an inherently imperfect world, making it perfectifiable by us.

Philosophy Forum

If God was the Devil, would he let us in on it?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know