A.. maybe. B. try "benevolent god and benevolent world." — god must be atheist

is therefore not logically possible in this context.

it's simple because you need to start from god or definition of god.

god is perfect and not inferior in anything (otherwise it's inferior god and thus not god)
god which gives free will is more benevolent than one which doesn't.

then the rest follows based on that premise.

you must substantiate this. You haven't convinced me yet that a world full of evil is better than a world with no evil. — god must be atheist

perfectly benevolent god and evil world is better than less perfect or evil god and good world.
one reason why is that if there is imperfect god then this means there exists god which is superior thus leading again to god which gives free will, a good god.

And the god that is claimed to be all benevolent, good and graceful... why would being a slave to him be bad? — god must be atheist

god which gives free will is more benevolent than god which doesn't give free will.
thus god which gives free will is superior to god which doesn't.
and god is a superior being.

here is NO SLAVERY in a world with no free will. — god must be atheist

you would be a slave of god.

just go out ask 10 random people "would you like your free will to be taken away from you?"

but we're on right track, free will is closely related to evil and good:
https://www.gotquestions.org/why-did-God-give-us-free-will.html

We would still have thoughts, and pleasure; we'd all live in harmony; no evil. Isn't that what the Christian ideal of Heaven is? Free will is responsible for Evil. Isn't your idea of a good world to live without evil? — god must be atheist

would you like to sing songs to god all day, wash feet of poor people, give your wealth to the poor, go to church and all this stuff without the right to complain and so all day and every day until your death?

I think this sucks so bad, I prefer free will and I'm sure a lot of other people do as well.

isn't slavery evil? But no free will, no evil. — god must be atheist

slavery is evil and god would be an evil god if it gave us no free will but instead enslaved us to do only as god wants.

Your third set is false in the A part. "Free will is good, taking away free will is bad." Without free will there is no evil; therefore the lack of free will is desireable. — god must be atheist

how is lack of free will desireable?
without free will we would be 100% slaves, no freedom no nothing.

God PUNISHES (according to the scriptures) evil, but he does not stand in the way of evil deeds. Where did you get that? — god must be atheist

because otherwise it would violate our free will.

Therefore your argument in OP should be reformulated to:

1. Free will may lead to evil
2. God gave free will
3. God let his creation (humans and angels) do evil

Which doesn't imply that:
A) God is evil
B) God allows evil
C) God created evil

Because:
A) Giving free will is good, taking it away is evil
B) We know god doesn't allow or tolerate evil
C) Beings with free will create evil

Which doesn't make god evil character.

If you accept this, then you accept that evility is MORE than just a lack of goodness. — god must be atheist

You have to choose between the two. Either you accept your own definition, or you reject your own opinion on evility. — god must be atheist

and you can't say that there are degrees of lacking. — god must be atheist

OK, I got it, my definition excludes degrees of evil
I'm not sure what other definition could be made.

Is it in the scriptures that Satan had free will, or you made that up along with the people whose values you still embrace? Please tell me the book and line number where it is explicitly stated that Satan had free will. — god must be atheist

in the book of Enoch trough parables for ex. a lot can be found.
what I found in the book of Enoch is that angels are able to sin, and we know to sin one needs free will.

2 Timothy 2:26 states satan has will (not god's will but his own will)

I could find better matches than this with additional research for sure, for ex:
https://www.gotquestions.org/angels-free-will.html

What do you call it when you buy a loaf of bread or you look out the window in religious terms? — god must be atheist

This doesn't make sense, you're missing a context, it depends a lot on purpose, for what purpose does one look out of a window or buy bread?

I think genesis 1:3-4 is one good example:

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good

So using your logic one could say "light" is neutral, but it's not, at least not in this context.

Did god plan for us to idly look out the window, or to buy a loaf of bread? — god must be atheist

it is certainly god's plan to for us to live life, that's good, looking out a window is living life but it depends on context.
perhaps the window is from your house which you earned with your own hands so you enjoy your hard work, it's god's plan that you work and earn for house and now enjoy your hard work, that's good not evil.

You must have a neat explanation how Satan had come into existence without being created. — god must be atheist

we all know satan was created by god with free will. and it choose to defy god.
but you're trying to prove that god created evil being which is not true.

How do you define good, or goodness, in religious terms, SpaceDweller? This would be helpful in knowing how evil is created. — god must be atheist

I don't have a definition but I would certainly not limit good to morally right since the bible ie. mentions good things which don't necessarily deal with morality.

I know I answered this based on my own beliefs,, but I don't know what your beliefs are, SpaceDweller. You must have the clear idea how goodness gets taken away from an otherwise good deed for it to become an evil deed. — god must be atheist

I'm no longer religious even though it difficult to get rid of old values.
and I don't think good deeds can become evil by simply taking good out of them, deeds are either good or not.

There is a third problem. If evility is a lack of goodness, then there is no gradation of goodness. Everything that has no goodness is evil. You can't say "this nothing has more something missing than that nothing." If goodness is missing, then how much of it is missing? That is a silly question. Therefore all evil deeds are equal in magnitude of evility. yet you insist that they are graded for magnitude. — god must be atheist

but we know that not all good deeds or things are not equally good and same is true for evil things.
evil lacks all shades of good and consist of one shade of evil.
problem with your reasoning I think is that you compare good and evil with 0 and 1, but 0 and 1 don't have shades.

I bought a quart / a litre of milk today. — god must be atheist

good for you.

You must always check the blind spot before changing lanes.

Don't worry; be happy. — god must be atheist

good advices.

my argument is that something is either good or evil, in shades ofc. not absolute good or absolute evil. but no such thing as complete absence of both good and evil.

When we talked about good and evil here, we use the terms in religious senses. — god must be atheist

in religious sense "neutral" doesn't really exist.
in Christianity for ex. it's called "indifference" which is slightly evil, for ex. seeing an injured person on the street and not helping, you're indifferent (or neutral) by not helping but that's slightly evil, in religious or moral sense.

In what proportion? For every 1000 jobs made obsolete, how many are created? What happens to the 999 people and their children? — Vera Mont

for that we need statistics.

People seeing negative things and ignoring positive things is nothing new.

You have a point, but isn't your reasoning based upon that "neutral" is a state which could be put into same category as good and evil?

is neutral of same "type" so to speak, as good and evil?

Can you give a real world example of neutral which would imply something that excludes both good and evil?

With that said, is it ethical for technological automation top be stunted, in order to preserve jobs (or a healthy job marketplace)? — Bret Bernhoft

Available jobs don't go down due to technology, what happens is that some jobs are replaced with technology, however new kinds of jobs also pop out.

One difference is that those new jobs require more skills, ex. higher education, while old jobs are usually those requiring raw workforce with no special education such as high school.

I am afraid I can't accept your definition.

There are things in the world which are neither good nor bad. They are neutral. — god must be atheist

How is that an argument?

Because there are more or less good or more or less bad things doesn't make bad = ~good false.
ex. darkness is absence of light is false because dawn exists which is false.

related:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_a_white_horse_is_not_a_horse

3. Humans have free will and they created evility with their moral displestitude. — god must be atheist

1. Assuming that 3 is right, it does not explain the existence of the devil. — god must be atheist

You need to define evil first,
"Evil is lack of good"

If you agree with this definition, then evil isn't creatable.

ex. Night isn't created, night is lack of light.
There is no special celestial object which would shine night like there is Sun which shines light.

Thus the devil wasn't created but become so due to lack of good.

I believe the "agent" is anything you want it to be in game theory, so long as it is acting. This is why game theory has a very wide range of applicability. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thank you for reply.

I must admit I didn't read trough the whole article in the link I posted, but I did read a bit more now in trying to understand what you said and I see where does this lead to...

There are basically 2 camps of opinions as to who agents are by interpreting "utility",
one camp which defines utility by way of RPT (Revealed Preference Theory), and other camp which doesn't:

RPT camp:

Economists and others who interpret game theory in terms of RPT should not think of game theory as in any way an empirical account of the motivations of some flesh-and-blood actors (such as actual people).

Non RPT camp:

Some other theorists understand the point of game theory differently. They view game theory as providing an explanatory account of actual human strategic reasoning processes.

Further the continuation of the article seems to lean toward RPT camp:

An economically rational player is one who can:
1. assess outcomes, in the sense of rank-ordering them with respect to their contributions to her welfare
2. calculate paths to outcomes, in the sense of recognizing which sequences of actions are probabilistically associated with which outcomes
3. select actions from sets of alternatives (which we’ll describe as ‘choosing’ actions) that yield her most-preferred outcomes, given the actions of the other players.

Which excludes human player as the only one qualifying as "rational agent":

An entity is usefully modeled as an economically rational agent to the extent that it has alternatives, and chooses from amongst these in a way that is motivated, at least more often than not, by what seems best for its purposes.

Thus according to RPT camp definition, it qualifies the AI in computer games as rational agent.

Therefore I guess those arguments against AI in my OP can be dismissed if non RPT stance is also dismissed as definition of game theory, but that's up to debate because I'm sure non RPT camp has it's own arguments to defend their stance that only human beings qualify.

I start this OP because I am interested in your thoughts regarding transitoriness. We already discussed some threads about the concept of death where I quoted Mishima’s books. But this time is different because I learned a new state of mind: self-realization on the pass of time. — javi2541997

Maybe not related to what you're asking but transitoriness from the link you posted sounds like a proof of reality, as opposed to ex. theory of simulation which aims to say we and our surrounding aren't real.

The feeling of running out of time is thus sense of reality or proof that world is real.

To my knowledge all mutations are either bad or don't change anything, and super rarely anything good and evolving. — TiredThinker

I don't find any article which would support that good mutation are super rare, DNA mutations are either bad, good or change nothing:

What are the consequences of mutations?
Mutations are a source of genetic diversity in populations, and, as mentioned previously, they can have widely varying individual effects. In some cases, mutations prove beneficial to an organism by making it better able to adapt to environmental factors. In other situations, mutations are harmful to an organism — for instance, they might lead to increased susceptibility to illness or disease. In still other circumstances, mutations are neutral, proving neither beneficial nor detrimental outcomes to an organism. Thus, it is safe to say that the ultimate effects of mutations are as widely varied as the types of mutations themselves.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-constantly-changing-through-the-process-6524898/

Artificial intelligence does or may someday have the reasoning we have, but does this mean they are conscious? — Gregory

Conscious I think means self-awareness, and if so machines will never be self-aware like us.
machines may have reasoning far better and faster than us, ex. chess engine, but self-awareness not.

It's easy to predict war, just look which country buys most gold.

Russia for ex. was buying a lot of gold in recent years.

What does it mean to give oneself purpose? — TiredThinker

To know what one lives for.

What are the major arguments for and against the idea of a simulation? — Benj96

It would take enormous amount of computing power to simulate such a vast universe to such a great detail.
and even if that's possible, computer simulation doesn't handle biology.

Thank you both, it makes sense since there is no specific formal fallacy in it.

the term "non sequitur" typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute formal fallacies covered by particular terms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

My personal opinion of "truth" is that it should unambiguously tell us whether we are animals or creation of god.

In respect to Jesus' saying of truth, I think good start is Lewis Trilemma:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lewis_Trilemma

knowing the "truth" is very powerful because either entire world becomes atheists or entire world converts, and truth if known should not cause any suspicions further.
Truth I think may not be personal thing.

But then, what is "truth"?

We make laws by electing politicians. Democracy is the best way imo. — universeness

Democracy just like any other form of government is nothing else but ideology, and just like democracy come so will other forms of governments come and then people will claim how good it is.

Every word of gods written by humans into books have been tested and found to be pretty poor guidelines. — universeness

Word of God survived the test of time.
laws that humans make do not survive the test of time, human laws are constantly changing.

Many proposed words of gods incite violence, justify ethnic cleansing, slavery, racism, autocratic rule, etc
They even suggest really repugnant ideas such as ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesars,’ even though he was an evil scumbag who destroyed whole peoples! — universeness

you mix morality of the OT with morality of the NT, I don't see anything wrong with NT morals.

They even suggest really repugnant ideas such as ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesars,’ even though he was an evil scumbag who destroyed whole peoples! — universeness

Which is money, Caesar made money and he controls the flow of money, and so is the case today and so will be forever.

I would not judge history because times today are better, there may be even better times tomorrow and then they will judge how today was bad.

What you consider humane someone else may consider inhumane, how do we then make laws?
I think laws need to be well tested and crafted and not depend on what majority thinks is right.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+30%3A5&version=NABRE


If there is no law then how do you know what is right and what is wrong?

for example:
you are forced to choose to either kill yourself or kill your friend.
there is no law for this situation, therefore what is right and what is wrong?

Which god and which set of god laws are you referring to? — universeness

All religions have in common to lay out laws or commandments or some set of rules.
and what all these rules have in common is recognition of evil because obeying rules implies good.

So do you think godless humans like me, are unable to label any act by another human, evil? — universeness

that's tough question because morality is subjective.
but what is sure is that you can't judge what's good or evil without some laws.

Is there free will in heaven? Yes? Is there evil in heaven? No? Then free will doesn't explain (or inevitably lead to) evil. — Art48

You have discovered nothing new because evil doesn't come because of free will.

It's rather God's laws that make us recognize evil.
I recently googled "what is purpose of religion" and come upon one interesting conclusion:

The essence of religion is to develop in us the sense of recognition of evil

You mean like a coincidence? — Metaphysician Undercover

I mean to be able to reproduce something with the goal to prove it, we need to be able to cause whatever to have an effect.

supernatural may have a cause, but we can't cause supernatural.

If "natural" things necessarily have a cause, and a cause is necessarily something other than its effect, then we must allow for a class of things which is other than "natural" — Metaphysician Undercover

Which is why things which are not caused can't be empirically proved?

God and Gods fill such a vast, and largely unexamined, need, that they will never go away. Their services will always be required, by some. — hypericin

New people are born on daily basis, there will always be fresh flesh willing to experience God.
What you or me learned or concluded, ex. such that there is no God or that God is something else or anything that would undermine God does not have any effect on new flesh being born.
There will always be new people.

That's John's opinion. It isn't a fact that the Revelation is ununderstandable. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The book may be understandable and for certain portions of it there is official interpretation, but you can't fulfill it, such as going trough personal psychological stages according to the book which is what you seem to be aiming for.

You can pretend only.

All of the 7 seals are unsealed (or fulfilled) by Jesus (ex. see Revelation 6:1), otherwise anyone could claim it has been fulfilled and destroy Christianity.

You can take the role of Jesus ofc. and suffer, but are you willing to take that psychological stress and suffering?

Would you say this dog and this cat were being cruel? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes and no.
Yes because they had fun killing the mouse or a rat, not because they were hungry.
No because it's nothing in comparison to what humans are capable to do to other people, like skinning someone a live or burning someone on the stake, animals don't do such horrible things.

So it's intelligence what makes people more cruel than animals.

This is not a theology thread. Shoo! — ZzzoneiroCosm

Whether you like it or not, Revelation 5:1-4 explains why it is impossible to understand the revelation.
first 3 chapters are self explanatory, the rest is "sealed".

How much does it make sense to ignore this fact, I don't know.

Wolves are notorious where I live for killing cattle without eating it. Killing for the sake of killing, it seems. — Tzeentch

Also there is a kind of dogs who kill a rat but do not eat it.
Also cats who kill a mouse but do not eat it.

I had both, such a dog and a cat.

This distinction divorces human aggression from animal aggression, in opposition to the widely accepted myth that 'malignant' human aggression has its roots in an animal past. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I would say, it's human intelligence which is the reason of "malignant" aggression.

thanks, interesting book.
this proves atheism with the help of science is forming a new religion.

Is time infinite — Paul S

If time is infinite then this means there is infinite number of past events.
if there is infinite number of past event then how is it possible that we have reach the present?
Therefore infinite time is impossible.

Since infinite time is impossible the universe is not infinite because otherwise there would be no time for manifestation of all events in the universe infinite in magnitude.

Therefore universe is infinite only if time is infinite.
Therefore logically space is finite.

Are the Jesus miracles doable with modern (bio)tech?

For starters...

Healing lepers: Dapsone + Clofazamine + Rifampicin

Curing blindness: LASIK/Cataract surgery/Corneal transplants — Agent Smith

If you define "miracle" as something that only God can do then you might have a point.

otherwise the closest you can get with this is that somehow Jesus was a doctor few thousands year ahead of others or that there was treatment that is now lost in time.