Why does God have to be Perfect & All Good? Why can't he be both Good & Evil or Imperfect like everything else?

[vlkmo]

God is very pure, pure love, pure light, pure positivity. he is creator source of all, he is all that is. therefore i am God. God gave us free will and he follows the law of non-interference. this is why the planet is evil today. because he will not interfere unless we ask for his help.

the only ones that create evil and perpetuate it is us. we have a negative side. we are the only ones in the universe with a polar opposite. he aint got nothing but pure positiveity in him. he is NOT responsible for the evil on this planet nor is he sending people to hell and doing whatever he wants to people. that part is complete bull shit. hope this helps dude.

Jesus also supposedly believed there will be no more sexual or romantic relationships in Heaven (usually Matthew 22:30 is the cited verse), so we will all be asexuals for eternity and those who didn't get it down here but desired would have to miss out for the rest of eternity. That has given me trouble with the whole thing. Imagine feeling really thirsty and wanting to quench yourself with a drink, only to be told you will no longer be thirsty. I'd rather have a bottle of water if I was thirsty.

[Winston]

Why not the hypothesis that God is both good and evil? All secret societies and ancient religions taught that. Including Neoplatonism, Kabbalah, Hinduism, etc. Even the Bible in Isaiah says that the Lord is both good and evil. And Carl Jung said that evil is the shadow side of God.

Why not just go with the obvious and simple explanation, that God must be both good and evil? If God created everything and evil is inherent in creation, then evil must be part of God too. The creator is a reflection of the creation, so if creation contains evil and good, then so does the creator. Simple logic. Easy as pie. I don't get why that's beyond most people. It's very simple and explains a lot. The book of Isaiah also says that the Lord creates both good and evil. And Carl Jung said that evil is just the shadow side of God. All ancient religions and secret societies taught that God was good and evil too. Only the Abrahamic religions deviate from this and claims that God is only 100 percent good and 0 evil. Hence they are an aberration. Neoplatonism, Kabbalah, and Hinduism also teach that God manifests as both good and evil. He has to because everything in reality is a balance of duality and opposites.

[Winston]

Check out Stephen Law's evil God challenge. It's interesting. It states that just as Christians claim that God is all good and evil is the result of free will to choose evil, one can argue the inverse, that God is all evil and that the good in the world is the result of free will choices by humans to do good. It's an interesting argument and thought experiment.

Summary of it.



Talk with Stephen Law.

[Lucas88]

Why not the hypothesis that God is both good and evil? All secret societies and ancient religions taught that. Including Neoplatonism, Kabbalah, Hinduism, etc. Even the Bible in Isaiah says that the Lord is both good and evil. And Carl Jung said that evil is the shadow side of God.

Why not just go with the obvious and simple explanation, that God must be both good and evil? If God created everything and evil is inherent in creation, then evil must be part of God too. The creator is a reflection of the creation, so if creation contains evil and good, then so does the creator. Simple logic. Easy as pie. I don't get why that's beyond most people. It's very simple and explains a lot. The book of Isaiah also says that the Lord creates both good and evil. And Carl Jung said that evil is just the shadow side of God. All ancient religions and secret societies taught that God was good and evil too. Only the Abrahamic religions deviate from this and claims that God is only 100 percent good and 0 evil. Hence they are an aberration. Neoplatonism, Kabbalah, and Hinduism also teach that God manifests as both good and evil. He has to because everything in reality is a balance of duality and opposites.

If my understanding of the material is correct, Neoplatonism, Kabbalah and Hinduism don't teach that the Supreme Being is both good and evil. They all have their explanations as to why the Supreme Being at the most fundamental level is completely good or perfect. Whether you find these explanations cogent or not is a different story.

Neoplatonism teaches that the Monad from which everything emerges and to which everything owes its sustained existence is absolutely perfect in its original state and that imperfection and evil emerge through emanation. The further away a plane of existence is from the Monad the more imperfect it becomes. Evil is regarded as the result of privation of the Supreme Being's absolute good.

The Kabbalah, which is also an emanation cosmology possibly with direct influence from Neoplatonism, likewise teaches that the Ein Soph is absolutely perfect—so perfect that it even needs to create an imperfect void within itself in order to manifest any form of differentiated creation, what Isaac Luria called the Tzimtzum or contraction. The four worlds of Atzilut, Yetzirah, Beriah and Assiah and the 10 Sephirot of the Tree of Life are created in the same void and animated by the Ein Soph's Divine Light. However, the lower Sephirot prove not strong enough to withstand the Divine Light's intensity and burst, an event known as Shevirat ha Keilim or "shattering of vessels", which is believed to have led to the emergence of evil and the duality which characterizes the created world. Nevertheless, in the Kabbalah this shattering of vessels is seen as an opportunity for Tikkun (i.e., rectification).

Hinduism (e.g., Advaita Vedanta) also maintains that Brahman is completely unitary and therefore perfect—in fact, Brahman transcends both good and evil due to its complete unity—while all of the evil and dualistic imperfection of the material world is a creation of Maya and simply part of the divine play. Even the Atman is held to be perfect due to its identity with Brahman and may return to the state of transcendental perfection as soon as it sheds the illusions of the Ahankara (ego) and Sukshma Sharira (subtle body).

Each of these philosophies posits the existence of a highest aspect of the Supreme Being which is supposedly above and beyond all duality and therefore perfect. Evil is either attributed to a process of emanation away from the Supreme Being or to some form of cosmic illusion.

Although the following is just a subjective experience and may or may not be valid, I myself momentarily perceived the absolute unity of what I thought was the Supreme Being in an altered state of consciousness brought about by Ayahuasca. I was under the impression that at that level the Supreme Being is completely benevolent and that the material world with its duality serves as a realm of action for the evolution of incarnating souls despite the undeniable pain and suffering.

In fact, the Ayahuasca demonstrated this to me in the form of an explicit lesson—it took me to the depths of absolute torment and the heights of absolute bliss in an alternating manner until I realized that beyond this apparent duality all that exists is the most transcendental bliss and goodness, that being the ultimate nature of the Supreme Being.

If we suppose that the material world is nothing more than a realm of action created by the Supreme Being for the evolution of souls and that the duality of good and evil exists simply to serve that purpose, then it is conceivable that the Supreme Being may indeed be completely benevolent and that the challenges and hardships of the material world could be simply tools of growth that counterbalance joy and all positive experiences.

This concept is not too dissimilar to the development of a videogame—the developers fill the game with many obstacles, some of which are tremendously painful and cause all kinds of stress, but this ultimately serves to challenge the player and increase his skill.

[88jose88]

A self sufficient cause is absurd,being the cause of duality or having dual traits would mean your nature is composed and you're not self sufficient but dependant on your parts to exist.

The idea of self sufficiency like a God or soul is so absurd and the cause of so much suffering.

A God in motion cannot be self sufficient,as neither motion or movers are independent entities rather motion is dependant on movers and vice versa so neither have independent existence,and the same idea can be applied to stillness and still things.

If the motion and the movement were identical each other movement would mean a other agent when movement is realized.reality is dual and opposing and thus contradictory as madhyamika says it is.nothing dual can be self sufficient ergo monism and God are false .only madhyamika makes sense.codependance is the only reality.

[88jose88]

The basic error of all theisms and neoplatonism,sankhya,Hinduism is that they posit a still mover.that is hindu epistemology all derived from sankhya.a still cause cannot exist.but neither something moving or still can have inherent existance.

Get the independent existance out of your head and you will see reality clearly.there is no God,it's an absurd concept.there is no inherent soul or self either.

[88jose88]

Why not the hypothesis that God is both good and evil? All secret societies and ancient religions taught that. Including Neoplatonism, Kabbalah, Hinduism, etc. Even the Bible in Isaiah says that the Lord is both good and evil. And Carl Jung said that evil is the shadow side of God.

Why not just go with the obvious and simple explanation, that God must be both good and evil? If God created everything and evil is inherent in creation, then evil must be part of God too. The creator is a reflection of the creation, so if creation contains evil and good, then so does the creator. Simple logic. Easy as pie. I don't get why that's beyond most people. It's very simple and explains a lot. The book of Isaiah also says that the Lord creates both good and evil. And Carl Jung said that evil is just the shadow side of God. All ancient religions and secret societies taught that God was good and evil too. Only the Abrahamic religions deviate from this and claims that God is only 100 percent good and 0 evil. Hence they are an aberration. Neoplatonism, Kabbalah, and Hinduism also teach that God manifests as both good and evil. He has to because everything in reality is a balance of duality and opposites.

If my understanding of the material is correct, Neoplatonism, Kabbalah and Hinduism don't teach that the Supreme Being is both good and evil. They all have their explanations as to why the Supreme Being at the most fundamental level is completely good or perfect. Whether you find these explanations cogent or not is a different story.

Neoplatonism teaches that the Monad from which everything emerges and to which everything owes its sustained existence is absolutely perfect in its original state and that imperfection and evil emerge through emanation. The further away a plane of existence is from the Monad the more imperfect it becomes. Evil is regarded as the result of privation of the Supreme Being's absolute good.

The Kabbalah, which is also an emanation cosmology possibly with direct influence from Neoplatonism, likewise teaches that the Ein Soph is absolutely perfect—so perfect that it even needs to create an imperfect void within itself in order to manifest any form of differentiated creation, what Isaac Luria called the Tzimtzum or contraction. The four worlds of Atzilut, Yetzirah, Beriah and Assiah and the 10 Sephirot of the Tree of Life are created in the same void and animated by the Ein Soph's Divine Light. However, the lower Sephirot prove not strong enough to withstand the Divine Light's intensity and burst, an event known as Shevirat ha Keilim or "shattering of vessels", which is believed to have led to the emergence of evil and the duality which characterizes the created world. Nevertheless, in the Kabbalah this shattering of vessels is seen as an opportunity for Tikkun (i.e., rectification).

Hinduism (e.g., Advaita Vedanta) also maintains that Brahman is completely unitary and therefore perfect—in fact, Brahman transcends both good and evil due to its complete unity—while all of the evil and dualistic imperfection of the material world is a creation of Maya and simply part of the divine play. Even the Atman is held to be perfect due to its identity with Brahman and may return to the state of transcendental perfection as soon as it sheds the illusions of the Ahankara (ego) and Sukshma Sharira (subtle body).

Each of these philosophies posits the existence of a highest aspect of the Supreme Being which is supposedly above and beyond all duality and therefore perfect. Evil is either attributed to a process of emanation away from the Supreme Being or to some form of cosmic illusion.

Although the following is just a subjective experience and may or may not be valid, I myself momentarily perceived the absolute unity of what I thought was the Supreme Being in an altered state of consciousness brought about by Ayahuasca. I was under the impression that at that level the Supreme Being is completely benevolent and that the material world with its duality serves as a realm of action for the evolution of incarnating souls despite the undeniable pain and suffering.

In fact, the Ayahuasca demonstrated this to me in the form of an explicit lesson—it took me to the depths of absolute torment and the heights of absolute bliss in an alternating manner until I realized that beyond this apparent duality all that exists is the most transcendental bliss and goodness, that being the ultimate nature of the Supreme Being.

If we suppose that the material world is nothing more than a realm of action created by the Supreme Being for the evolution of souls and that the duality of good and evil exists simply to serve that purpose, then it is conceivable that the Supreme Being may indeed be completely benevolent and that the challenges and hardships of the material world could be simply tools of growth that counterbalance joy and all positive experiences.

This concept is not too dissimilar to the development of a videogame—the developers fill the game with many obstacles, some of which are tremendously painful and cause all kinds of stress, but this ultimately serves to challenge the player and increase his skill.

If that were true goodness would be ultimate and unique with no opposite,it would be the only reality which is not the case.a fully good entity cannot exist without goodness and goodness cannot exist without something good.so neither have inherent existance and anything good or evil has no self nature.also a cause is dependant on its effects to be a cause and thus has no self sufficient being.it is codependent on causation to be a cause.if something unconditioned exists,it must also be concrete,but it has no opposites as thus cannot be concrete as reality is dual,even a monad has multiple diffferent traits like being the cause of big and small,self causing(absurd) and other causing and thus is composed and contigent.even something one is composed metaphysically and dependant on multiplication to be one.

[Winston]

@lucas88

Those are interesting points. But I guess it depents on your definition of "perfect" right? When I say "perfect" I don't mean that God is all good and zero evil. My understanding is that esoteric traditions when they say "The One" is perfect they mean that it contains the sum total of all, like 0 is the sum total of all numbers and looks like an egg, or how white is the sum total of all colors. So in this case it means the sum total of everything - good and evil and everything in between. Am I wrong about that?

Also didn't you tell me before that all ancient religions believed the gods are both good and evil and that only the Abrahamic religions teach that God is 100 percent good only?

Regardless, there's a lot to support that God is both good and evil, including basic logic.

1. Creation contains both good and evil. Therefore the creator must contain both good and evil, since creation is a reflection of the creator.

2. People have a dark side, so why can't God have a dark side? The great psychologist Carl Jung in his Red Book said that evil is merely the shadow side of God.

3. Neoplatonism says that "The One" divided itself into parts, and those parts include a good god and an evil god. So the evil god must be part of the "The One" right?

4. If Satan were truly the enemy of God then God would have destroyed him long ago and evil would no longer exist. Right? It's the same as how the villains in a movie are not the enemy of the movie director. They are useful to the story and propel the plot forward, so the director puts them in. If the director didn't want the villains, he could just remove them, but he doesn't because they serve a purpose. Do you see what I mean?

5. God has to create evil just like movie directors have to create villains and evil forces in their movies, or else there's no energy to propel the story forward. It's also part of the divine alchemy process that is part of Hermeticism too. Even the Bible in the Book of Isaiah says "The Lord creates good and evil". Remember?

6. Evil has to exist or else good cannot, just like hot and cold can't exist without each other. It also works as a battery, in a battery there are two compartments that mix together and create friction. That's how your phone derives its power and how your car battery powers your car too. There has to be friction created by opposing forces to generate power for the matrix too, or to propel forth human evolution. That's how the entire matrix and our reality works.

7. A God that is both good and evil would explain everything in this world 100000000x better than a God that is only 100 percent good and zero bad.

Do you see my point? What do you think? Aren't these valid points?

[Winston]

The basic error of all theisms and neoplatonism,sankhya,Hinduism is that they posit a still mover.that is hindu epistemology all derived from sankhya.a still cause cannot exist.but neither something moving or still can have inherent existance.

Get the independent existance out of your head and you will see reality clearly.there is no God,it's an absurd concept.there is no inherent soul or self either.

What is your position then? How do you explain reality and the universe and existence? What perspective are you coming from?

If there's no god then how is it that everything is intelligently designed? For example the human brain and human DNA are vastly more complex than any computer. Bill Gates admits this. But we know that a computer cannot be created by random forces colliding together randomly. Only intelligent design can create a computer. This is common sense. Atheists never explain it. But even a child can understand this. You have to be dishonest to deny it. How do you explain that? Even Einstein said that the universe must have some divine intelligence that ordered it.

Also the chicken and egg cycle is a closed loop. Neither can be the first mover. So something OUTSIDE the loop must have began the cycle. That's one of the basic arguments of theists. How do you explain that?

Also isn't it an extreme claim to say that god doesn't exist or the soul doesn't exist? You cannot prove a negative right? And how can you know anyway? You can't expect physical proof of something metaphysical or non-physical.

[Lucas88]

Those are interesting points. But I guess it depents on your definition of "perfect" right? When I say "perfect" I don't mean that God is all good and zero evil. My understanding is that esoteric traditions when they say "The One" is perfect they mean that it contains the sum total of all, like 0 is the sum total of all numbers and looks like an egg, or how white is the sum total of all colors. So in this case it means the sum total of everything - good and evil and everything in between. Am I wrong about that?

In the first part of my post, I simply intended to explain how the esoteric traditions that you mentioned—Neoplatonism, Kabbalah and Hinduism—generally don't consider the Supreme Being evil in any way and instead attribute the existence of evil to limitations of the material world, imbalances or distortions of higher spiritual principles, or some form of cosmic illusion. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with their logic—I'm quite open to various interpretations since the scope of this topic far surpasses our ordinary perception and involves large doses of speculation.

In the second part, I merely sought to express an insight that I had received pertaining to the benevolence of the Supreme Being during an Ayahuasca vision. After experiencing both extreme bliss and extreme pain only to discover that these are merely illusory polarities of a single underlying principle that is of an absolutely blissful nature, I was then given the impression that the undeniable evil and suffering that we experience only exists on the Physical Plane (or lower planes) and that it's just a game, not fundamental reality. The pain is only temporary, even illusory. Of course, as I previously conceded, my Ayahuasca vision was a subjective experience and may or may not be valid.

Do you see my point? What do you think? Aren't these valid points?

Yes, I see your points. One could argue that evil must exist within the Supreme Being since it's a part of the Creation. That would seem logical to the rational mind.

However, it could also be that the Supreme Being in its original state is solely composed of good and must actively deprive itself of its own goodness in its lower emanations in order to experience duality. That would entail a privatio boni interpretation of evil.

There are various possible interpretations.

[88jose88]

The basic error of all theisms and neoplatonism,sankhya,Hinduism is that they posit a still mover.that is hindu epistemology all derived from sankhya.a still cause cannot exist.but neither something moving or still can have inherent existance.

Get the independent existance out of your head and you will see reality clearly.there is no God,it's an absurd concept.there is no inherent soul or self either.

What is your position then? How do you explain reality and the universe and existence? What perspective are you coming from?

If there's no god then how is it that everything is intelligently designed? For example the human brain and human DNA are vastly more complex than any computer. Bill Gates admits this. But we know that a computer cannot be created by random forces colliding together randomly. Only intelligent design can create a computer. This is common sense. Atheists never explain it. But even a child can understand this. You have to be dishonest to deny it. How do you explain that? Even Einstein said that the universe must have some divine intelligence that ordered it.

Also the chicken and egg cycle is a closed loop. Neither can be the first mover. So something OUTSIDE the loop must have began the cycle. That's one of the basic arguments of theists. How do you explain that?

Also isn't it an extreme claim to say that god doesn't exist or the soul doesn't exist? You cannot prove a negative right? And how can you know anyway? You can't expect physical proof of something metaphysical or non-physical.

Past present future cannot exist.Evolution is the answer guided by karmic forces .

Read the mulamadhyamikakarika.reality is one big illusion.

[Winston]

Question for everyone and anyone: What's the evidence that God is all good and zero bad/evil? No one has ever given me any. The only thing people have is "Everyone says so, so it must be true". Isn't that super weak? Is there any other argument besides that? How come everyone draws a blank when asked this? Why can't anyone give an answer? Why does everyone run away from such a simple question? Strange. Is everyone even real? lol. You gotta wonder.

[88jose88]

The basic error of all theisms and neoplatonism,sankhya,Hinduism is that they posit a still mover.that is hindu epistemology all derived from sankhya.a still cause cannot exist.but neither something moving or still can have inherent existance.

Get the independent existance out of your head and you will see reality clearly.there is no God,it's an absurd concept.there is no inherent soul or self either.

What is your position then? How do you explain reality and the universe and existence? What perspective are you coming from?

If there's no god then how is it that everything is intelligently designed? For example the human brain and human DNA are vastly more complex than any computer. Bill Gates admits this. But we know that a computer cannot be created by random forces colliding together randomly. Only intelligent design can create a computer. This is common sense. Atheists never explain it. But even a child can understand this. You have to be dishonest to deny it. How do you explain that? Even Einstein said that the universe must have some divine intelligence that ordered it.

Also the chicken and egg cycle is a closed loop. Neither can be the first mover. So something OUTSIDE the loop must have began the cycle. That's one of the basic arguments of theists. How do you explain that?

Also isn't it an extreme claim to say that god doesn't exist or the soul doesn't exist? You cannot prove a negative right? And how can you know anyway? You can't expect physical proof of something metaphysical or non-physical.

Consciousness is dependant on multiple factors like the 5 skandhas and an object of consciousness,it cannot be inherent ergo no atman exists.its simple.madhyamika is the deconstruction of all inherent views.

[Winston]

The basic error of all theisms and neoplatonism,sankhya,Hinduism is that they posit a still mover.that is hindu epistemology all derived from sankhya.a still cause cannot exist.but neither something moving or still can have inherent existance.

Get the independent existance out of your head and you will see reality clearly.there is no God,it's an absurd concept.there is no inherent soul or self either.

What is your position then? How do you explain reality and the universe and existence? What perspective are you coming from?

If there's no god then how is it that everything is intelligently designed? For example the human brain and human DNA are vastly more complex than any computer. Bill Gates admits this. But we know that a computer cannot be created by random forces colliding together randomly. Only intelligent design can create a computer. This is common sense. Atheists never explain it. But even a child can understand this. You have to be dishonest to deny it. How do you explain that? Even Einstein said that the universe must have some divine intelligence that ordered it.

Also the chicken and egg cycle is a closed loop. Neither can be the first mover. So something OUTSIDE the loop must have began the cycle. That's one of the basic arguments of theists. How do you explain that?

Also isn't it an extreme claim to say that god doesn't exist or the soul doesn't exist? You cannot prove a negative right? And how can you know anyway? You can't expect physical proof of something metaphysical or non-physical.

Past present future cannot exist.Evolution is the answer guided by karmic forces .

Read the mulamadhyamikakarika.reality is one big illusion.

What evolution? You mean Darwin evolution? How do you know? There is no real evidence for it. Their only argument is "The scientific authority says so, so it must be true". However there is no scientific method experimentation that can prove macro-evolution. So it's falsely declared a fact as a form of mind control, as part of the atheistic agenda on the masses. Dr. Kent Hovind and Dr. Frank Turek have debunked and destroyed evolution many times before. Watch their lectures and debates and see.

It may be true that reality is an illusion though, depending on how you define "real" and "illusion". Matter may be mostly empty space, but we can't verify that. But even if reality is an illusion, you still feel pain. If you drop a rock on your foot it will still hurt.

Karma alone can't explain intelligent design. What do you mean by that? That sounds like a vague Buddhist answer that explains nothing. Are you coming from a Hindu perspective? If so, then what about Brahma? Isn't he your God?

[88jose88]

The basic error of all theisms and neoplatonism,sankhya,Hinduism is that they posit a still mover.that is hindu epistemology all derived from sankhya.a still cause cannot exist.but neither something moving or still can have inherent existance.

Get the independent existance out of your head and you will see reality clearly.there is no God,it's an absurd concept.there is no inherent soul or self either.

What is your position then? How do you explain reality and the universe and existence? What perspective are you coming from?

If there's no god then how is it that everything is intelligently designed? For example the human brain and human DNA are vastly more complex than any computer. Bill Gates admits this. But we know that a computer cannot be created by random forces colliding together randomly. Only intelligent design can create a computer. This is common sense. Atheists never explain it. But even a child can understand this. You have to be dishonest to deny it. How do you explain that? Even Einstein said that the universe must have some divine intelligence that ordered it.

Also the chicken and egg cycle is a closed loop. Neither can be the first mover. So something OUTSIDE the loop must have began the cycle. That's one of the basic arguments of theists. How do you explain that?

Also isn't it an extreme claim to say that god doesn't exist or the soul doesn't exist? You cannot prove a negative right? And how can you know anyway? You can't expect physical proof of something metaphysical or non-physical.

Past present future cannot exist.Evolution is the answer guided by karmic forces .

Read the mulamadhyamikakarika.reality is one big illusion.

What evolution? You mean Darwin evolution? How do you know? There is no real evidence for it. Their only argument is "The scientific authority says so, so it must be true". However there is no scientific method experimentation that can prove macro-evolution. So it's falsely declared a fact as a form of mind control, as part of the atheistic agenda on the masses. Dr. Kent Hovind and Dr. Frank Turek have debunked and destroyed evolution many times before. Watch their lectures and debates and see.

It may be true that reality is an illusion though, depending on how you define "real" and "illusion". Matter may be mostly empty space, but we can't verify that. But even if reality is an illusion, you still feel pain. If you drop a rock on your foot it will still hurt.

Karma alone can't explain intelligent design. What do you mean by that? That sounds like a vague Buddhist answer that explains nothing. Are you coming from a Hindu perspective? If so, then what about Brahma? Isn't he your God?

Atomism is rejected by Buddhist epistemology.everything is a series of shared cognitions due to familiar karma and impressions in the mind continuum.we reject God.