I have also come to the conclusion that a "perfect" God cannot exist. But, not for "universe" reasons. If god were perfect then it could not create. For after creating it would no longer be perfect and the act of creating means the destruction of perfection. Perfection being uniform and unchanging.
the traditional concept of god is a human creation.
hmmm. I don't know about that. To paraphrase Descartes, where did we get the idea? This proposal is, I believe, central to the Secularization Project. I used to think it was true, but I have changed my mind.
That the idea of a perfectly good god contradicts itself means that it is impossible for a good god to exist. An amoral or immoral one could exist though. The evidence is suffering, pain and the unsuitability of the universe for peaceful life is rather a big hint, however, that God is not amoral, but is actually immoral and sadistically evil. Of course it is completely more obviously the case that there isn't a god of any kind, but if there was one, it wouldn't make sense to call it "moral", it'd have to amoral at best.
Is it possible for a perfectly evil god to exist?
Immoral and moral are completely subjective terms. Good or evil are just as subjective. They only come about because of what a particular society adopts and enforces them to be.
Our ability to "know" to "conceive", to "express" is "through a glass darkly". I think religious truth like scientific truth is tentative, partial and incomplete. Religion should be subject to revision and hopefully to evolve to progress to more closely approximate "truth" with time and experience.
I believe that the universe is ordered and mathematically expressible because Logos is the founding principle of the universe. I also believe that aesthetic appreciation, ethical principle, the tendency towards life, complexity, mind and higher levels of experience is an emanation of the transcendent or a manifestation of the divine. (telos). Religion is basically (mythos) our stories, parables, myths and methods of explaining the logos and the telos. Literal and fundamentalist interpretations of mythos fairly miss the point and the message at the same time. Mythos is a function of culture, society, history and worldview. Profound changes in worldview such as have occurred in the last 200-300 years necessitate a changed understanding or explanation of the unchanging reality which is the numinous, the sacred, the holy, the transcendent. Our religious symbols, rituals, and myths are pointers to a reality beyond our science, the material and beyond ordinary human experience. This is understood in the mystical tradition but mystics are a minority in the religious community.
There is wisdom in the ancient tradition which can be lost in the modern world. Among these are the concepts of logos, telos and mythos. I do not mean to come across as a person who wants to completely abandon traditional wisdom for the relativism of post modernism or the materialism of modernism. The problem however is that the supernatural (not the transcendent) and the anthropomorphic conception of deity that dominates the superficial face of religion is not tenable or coherent in the modern world. The deeper transcendent and immanent mystical tradition does have value even in the modern world and in many ways is not incompatible with a modern worldview.
It is true that it is primarily the process model that I use both in philosophy and in theology. I do not mean to use it to denigrate or to the exclusion of all other forms of understanding or all other models but it is the one that works for me and allows the construction of a coherent consistent worldview that corresponds well to reality as I experience it. So yes it is the view that I represent. It is important to be immersed in some religious tradition as opposed to just cafeteria style new age individualism.
There is a common core among the great religious traditions. Included in that core is compassion or empathy as the basis of ethics and god as rational, ordering and creative agent in sustaining the world.
the perfect god and evil god would both become extinct
god is to much of a pacifist to have any fight in it and therefore survive and the evil god is so aggressive as to wipe out any life and therefore survive
both are imblanced , and hence die out
But you are not even talking about religion at all anymore.
The mystical Christian understanding of the incarnation, the atonement and the resurrection is not at all the same as the literalist or fundamentalist understanding. They adhere to the practice, to the rituals, to the symbols as a path to the divine (one of many) but their understanding of the reality to which these things point is much different that the majority of practitioners of these religions.
Mystics do not argue about which tradition is the path to god or kill each other over differences in dogma, creed, doctrine, ritual or practice.
What is religion anyway? If I am not talking about religion what am I talking about? Religion attempts to provide answers to the fundamental existential questions of human existence, our relationship to the world, to the universe, and to each other. Not how but why?
Fair enough. But I don't think that last part is true. If you read interfaith dialogue between mystics of different religious traditions, in spite of their commonalities, there still remain non-dogmatic, yet drastic differences in the phenomenology of those experiences.
I was under the impression you were trying to throw everything into a melting pot. Sorry if I misinterpreted you.
I would probably respond that those differences are cultural, social, historical and traditional. It does not imply that they are experiencing or worshiping a different god or deity; just that the manner in which they can understand and express their experience is different because of their different traditions, worldviews, experiences, societies and cultures. There is one god who is called by many names. In most religions god is too small and too provincial. The enduring religous traditions are different paths to the same god; not different paths to different gods.
For me god dwells in the world and acts through natural process or god is not. God is not a person (anthropomorphism) and god is not a supernatural interventionist (contravention of the laws of nature). God is spirit. Divine perfection is not eternal, immutable changeless being but an endless process of creative advance into novelty and higher levels of experience (emmantion or manifestation). This view is not incompatible with science or with the mystical tradition of the worlds great and enduring religious traditions.
"A perfect god can not exist?" Only because our notion of "perfection" is itself flawed by our anthropomorphic and supernatural conception of god.
So it was permissible for WWII Germany to torture and exterminate 6 million Jews in the Nazi death camps just because Hitler thought it was the right thing to do? I seriously doubt that.
I have absolutely no idea how you failed to understand what I wrote. You are implying that I am saying what ever is decided it becomes universal. No. I did not say that what ever is decided as being good, does not mean it is accepted by everyone to be good. Same for evil.
But to answer your question. Pretty much many Germans supported Hitlers decision. So they must have thought it was alright. I mean Hitler didn't round them all up himself and kill them each by himself. He had thousands of people involved not only that but the creation of these camps with their chambers had to be designed and constructed. I would not be surprised if practically all of germany knew what was going on. Or they had some vague notion that something was happening. Information gets out rather easy on large scale plans.
If a large group of people decide on what is good or evil, generally they will adopt those ideals. However it does not make them universal.
Should I repeat for you again, or are you going to cherry pick my comments? Good and evil are completely subjective.
Again, if good and evil are merely relative to culture, then it is permissible for Hitler, for the Nazi party, and whatever participating german in the atrocities to do this. That's what subjective, or cultural relativism, is. Do you need a philosophical dictionary?
Well don't you see that the word "permissible" is just as subjective? Who is calling it permissible? Everyone? Or just a select group? If it is only a group then by all means it is not universal. It is their subjective decisions to call it permissible.
Unfortunately, much of this sounds too much like a hasty generalization to me. When you start characterizing the end goal of mystic experiences as "the same," you gloss over these differences. So I don't think these differences are merely historical, cultural, traditional, or social. I am talking about the phenomenology of their spiritual ascent.