If there is a God, why is there evil?

[Belindi]

Fooloso4 wrote:

There may be a concept of a universal God but since there are many concepts of God there cannot be one universal concept of God

But the concept of universality always includes not only that which is but also all of those which are. Spinoza's natura naturans and natura naturata may turn to a theistic version which is the dual aspect God transcendent and immanent . I.e. the transcendent aspect of God is being, and the immanent aspect of God is the things or events that are.
Being is synonymous with potential power , and potential power is not therefore an attribute. Power cannot be an attribute of immanent universal God because power in this world is always relative and is therefore divisive. Goodness and wisdom, unlike power , are absolute in this world. I don't mean that any individual is absolutely good or absolutely wise; but that one sometimes sees pericopes of absolute goodness.

-- Updated July 15th, 2017, 3:41 am to add the following --

Fooloso4 wrote:

There may be a concept of a universal God but since there are many concepts of God there cannot be one universal concept of God

But the concept of universality always includes not only that which is but also all of those which are. Spinoza's natura naturans and natura naturata may turn to a theistic version which is the dual aspect God transcendent and immanent . I.e. the transcendent aspect of God is being, and the immanent aspect of God is the things or events that are.
Being is synonymous with potential power , and potential power is not therefore an attribute. Power cannot be an attribute of immanent universal God because power in this world is always relative and is therefore divisive. Goodness and wisdom, unlike power , are absolute in this world. I don't mean that any individual is absolutely good or absolutely wise; but that one sometimes sees pericopes of absolute goodness.

[Fanman]

F4 wrote:

That Belindi or anyone else does not share this view of God or of omnipotence does not mean that they err. Unless you can compare claims about God with God you cannot correctly claim that anyone errs, only that they hold to a different concept.

Here, I think that F4 has hit the proverbial nail on the head. No one's claims or ideas about the nature of God can be proven, as there's no means by which to test them and no means to falsify them. Some adopt the classical view of God whereas others have more unconventional ideas, like DM. Neither can be said to be wrong, in context, because it cannot even be proven that God exists. Hence, saying that someone “errs” in their conception of God I find both incorrect and misleading.

DM wrote:

“Omnipotence” is not “omnificence,” and “personal God” does not mean that God is a person. It means that God is the ground of everything personal and that he carries within himself the ontological power of personality. God is not a person, but he is not less than personal. “Personal God” may be a confusing symbol, but it is absolutely fundamental because man cannot be ultimately concerned about anything that is less than personal. The power of being, its infinite ground or “being-itself,” expresses itself in and through the structure of being. Therefore, we can encounter it, be grasped by it, know it, and act toward it even if we cannot conceptualize it.

This strikes me as conjecture. A theory which is supported only by belief, rather than anything tangible (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong DM) hence it can easily be dismissed. Nothing personal against DM, but I see no reason to believe that anything he says here has truth value - it has no veridical status to my mind, as I find with “top-down” ideas/concepts. Furthermore, it seems different to commonly held ideas about God. How can God be referred to as “The Father” if it is not a being of some kind? The very fact that “God” has a name implies a degree of personage. If God were to exist, I think that it would be some type of being, a being that we may not be able to fully understand, but a type of being nonetheless. I don't think my idea/concept can be called categorically wrong in reference to our discussion and referring to the point made by F4, it is a merely conjecture on my part. I am not sure if DM accepts that his expressed idea about God is a conjecture?

With regards to the problem of evil, I think that reality shows that if there's a God it is capable of both good and evil, since both exist. I think that every type of scripture shows that God or gods are willing to do whatever they feel is necessary to achieve their goals, even if that involves evil or allowing evil in the process. An example of this is the book of Job, where God allowed all manner of evils to befall Job in order to prove his point in a debate with Satan. Or, where God killed all the first born males in Egypt in order for the Israelites to be set free. These actions, I think were evil in nature. There are numerous ways they can be reconciled, such as Job having a happy-ending, the Israelites being free, or the Egyptians somehow deserving their fate, but they were in my opinion at least evil.

God is said to have created everything which exists, if that was the case God cannot be simply absolved of the existence or responsibility of evil without rigorous examination, or by the moniker that beings with “free will” are the cause of evil, because God is the universal creator. Theists (in my experience) tend to do this, something which I have been guilty of in the past, but I think that critical thinking causes the problem of evil to be unresolved. The points I've made can be dismissed, but I think they bring up questions about the nature of God and it's ethics. If the problem of evil could be resolved, for all the thousands of years that it has stood and been discussed by educated minds - theist, atheist and agnostic, wouldn't there be a clear and known resolution to it? It may create dissonance for theists, that an all-good God could be capable of evil, but the reality is that evil exists whether God exists or not. If evil exists in the face of an all-good God who is abundant in ability to stop it from occurring, why does evil persist?

[Londoner]

With regards to the problem of evil, ...

First we would need to say what we think 'evil' might be.

...but the reality is that evil exists whether God exists or not.

It seems odd that we are so doubtful about God is real, but then consider it obvious that this mysterious stuff 'evil' exists. What is the method by which we determined this?

[Fooloso4]

Belindi:

But the concept of universality always includes not only that which is but also all of those which are. Spinoza's natura naturans and natura naturata may turn to a theistic version which is the dual aspect God transcendent and immanent . I.e. the transcendent aspect of God is being, and the immanent aspect of God is the things or events that are.

This is at odds with the version DM is promoting even though both contain the terms transcendent and immanent. It is also at odds with the Jewish religious authorities who censured and excluded Spinoza.

Being is synonymous with potential power …

Tillich rejects this, therefore DM rejects this and faults anyone who does not reject it. Tillich rejects it both because he claims that God transcends being and because he does not think that the distinction between actual and potential applies to God.

My point is not to deny Spinoza’s version or replace it with some other version, it is, rather, to say that when there are various versions of a universal God and no referent to compare them to the notions of a universal God are not universal notions.

Fanman:

Nothing personal against DM, but I see no reason to believe that anything he says here has truth value …

In addition, it does not have faith value except to those who, in Tillich’s words, have made this their “ultimate concern”. As you point out, most seek something more of the God of their faith. Tillich is DM’s current go to authority on matters of God and faith even though he usually quotes him without any indication that this is who he is quoting. Many see this as a philosophical abstraction about which they have little or no concern let alone it being their ultimate concern.

Londoner:

First we would need to say what we think 'evil' might be.
It seems odd that we are so doubtful about God is real, but then consider it obvious that this mysterious stuff 'evil' exists. What is the method by which we determined this?

What mysterious stuff? You say that first we need to say what we think evil might be but instead of looking at what he said you introduce this notion of mysterious stuff and challenge him to disclose the method by which “we” determined this.

[CuriousB]

F4 wrote:

That Belindi or anyone else does not share this view of God or of omnipotence does not mean that they err. Unless you can compare claims about God with God you cannot correctly claim that anyone errs, only that they hold to a different concept.

Here, I think that F4 has hit the proverbial nail on the head. No one's claims or ideas about the nature of God can be proven, as there's no means by which to test them and no means to falsify them. Some adopt the classical view of God whereas others have more unconventional ideas, like DM. Neither can be said to be wrong, in context, because it cannot even be proven that God exists. Hence, saying that someone “errs” in their conception of God I find both incorrect and misleading.

DM wrote:

“Omnipotence” is not “omnificence,” and “personal God” does not mean that God is a person. It means that God is the ground of everything personal and that he carries within himself the ontological power of personality. God is not a person, but he is not less than personal. “Personal God” may be a confusing symbol, but it is absolutely fundamental because man cannot be ultimately concerned about anything that is less than personal. The power of being, its infinite ground or “being-itself,” expresses itself in and through the structure of being. Therefore, we can encounter it, be grasped by it, know it, and act toward it even if we cannot conceptualize it.

This strikes me as conjecture. A theory which is supported only by belief, rather than anything tangible (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong DM) hence it can easily be dismissed. Nothing personal against DM, but I see no reason to believe that anything he says here has truth value - it has no veridical status to my mind, as I find with “top-down” ideas/concepts. Furthermore, it seems different to commonly held ideas about God. How can God be referred to as “The Father” if it is not a being of some kind? The very fact that “God” has a name implies a degree of personage. If God were to exist, I think that it would be some type of being, a being that we may not be able to fully understand, but a type of being nonetheless. I don't think my idea/concept can be called categorically wrong in reference to our discussion and referring to the point made by F4, it is a merely conjecture on my part. I am not sure if DM accepts that his expressed idea about God is a conjecture?

With regards to the problem of evil, I think that reality shows that if there's a God it is capable of both good and evil, since both exist. I think that every type of scripture shows that God or gods are willing to do whatever they feel is necessary to achieve their goals, even if that involves evil or allowing evil in the process. An example of this is the book of Job, where God allowed all manner of evils to befall Job in order to prove his point in a debate with Satan. Or, where God killed all the first born males in Egypt in order for the Israelites to be set free. These actions, I think were evil in nature. There are numerous ways they can be reconciled, such as Job having a happy-ending, the Israelites being free, or the Egyptians somehow deserving their fate, but they were in my opinion at least evil.

God is said to have created everything which exists, if that was the case God cannot be simply absolved of the existence or responsibility of evil without rigorous examination, or by the moniker that beings with “free will” are the cause of evil, because God is the universal creator. Theists (in my experience) tend to do this, something which I have been guilty of in the past, but I think that critical thinking causes the problem of evil to be unresolved. The points I've made can be dismissed, but I think they bring up questions about the nature of God and it's ethics. If the problem of evil could be resolved, for all the thousands of years that it has stood and been discussed by educated minds - theist, atheist and agnostic, wouldn't there be a clear and known resolution to it? It may create dissonance for theists, that an all-good God could be capable of evil, but the reality is that evil exists whether God exists or not. If evil exists in the face of an all-good God who is abundant in ability to stop it from occurring, why does evil persist?

Very well said.

Because he is called "The Father", sometimes I think it makes sense to analyze God through the lens of a father. If there was no evil or suffering whatsoever, I think we'd be running around with a bunch of spoiled children. It seems to me like we have all these people who don't understand why God would't stop evil from occurring. They're probably the reason why Millennials think and act like the way that they do.

There was a time when I use to judge very harshly on people who got sick. I would think of my Co-workers who called out sick as weak, whiny little cry babies. Then one day I got sick for like a week. I couldn't even lift up my head like two inches before I had to puke. In consequence, I'm now very compassionate when people get sick and possibly over-nurturing. It sure taught me a lesson, and therefore, I believe that suffering is one of the greatest teachers of all. Of course, no one really discusses this or understands this because for some reason any kind of anthropomorphizing is taboo and people are afraid of appearing like they don't know what they are talking about.

I can't even imagine a world without suffering. Can it even be conceptualized? Has a story (worth reading) ever been written without including any kind of suffering or any reference to suffering? If so, I'd like to know about it. Would free-will even exist? Can you even really get to know someone without free-will? Can God truly know what is in your heart? Would if you completely took out suffering from this world, then what would you have? I would probably say Heaven then what would be the reason of us coming here.

[Londoner]

What mysterious stuff? You say that first we need to say what we think evil might be but instead of looking at what he said you introduce this notion of mysterious stuff and challenge him to disclose the method by which “we” determined this.

Yes, we do, but it is not for me to say. I have no idea what it might be. Fanman, who I was responding to, is the one says 'the reality is that evil exists' and the OP asks 'why is there evil?'

Presumably they have some reason for asserting there is this stuff 'evil', but perhaps they don't.

It seems a bit of a double standard to simply declare that some sort of undefined metaphysical entity 'exists', but get all picky when theists assert the same sort of thing about God.

[Dark Matter]

Belindi wrote:

But the concept of universality always includes not only that which is but also all of those which are. Spinoza's natura naturans and natura naturata may turn to a theistic version which is the dual aspect God transcendent and immanent . I.e. the transcendent aspect of God is being, and the immanent aspect of God is the things or events that are.
Being is synonymous with potential power , and potential power is not therefore an attribute. Power cannot be an attribute of immanent universal God because power in this world is always relative and is therefore divisive. Goodness and wisdom, unlike power , are absolute in this world. I don't mean that any individual is absolutely good or absolutely wise; but that one sometimes sees pericopes of absolute goodness.

Very good! I wouldn't change a word.

Fanman wrote:

This strikes me as conjecture. A theory which is supported only by belief, rather than anything tangible (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong DM) hence it can easily be dismissed. Nothing personal against DM, but I see no reason to believe that anything he says here has truth value - it has no veridical status to my mind, as I find with “top-down” ideas/concepts. Furthermore, it seems different to commonly held ideas about God. How can God be referred to as “The Father” if it is not a being of some kind? The very fact that “God” has a name implies a degree of personage. If God were to exist, I think that it would be some type of being, a being that we may not be able to fully understand, but a type of being nonetheless. I don't think my idea/concept can be called categorically wrong in reference to our discussion and referring to the point made by F4, it is a merely conjecture on my part. I am not sure if DM accepts that his expressed idea about God is a conjecture?

I think this is important and I want to respond by saying I have always been interested -- obsessed, really -- by the question of being (why something rather than nothing) and why things are the way they are. "God did it" and "random fluctuations" are, to me, very unsatisfying. They are non-answers. So, yes, my answers are conjecture, but based on fact and constantly evolving.

For example, when I say the weirdness of quantum mechanics is the transition between essence (or nothing) and existence, that's not mere conjecture as anyone versed in the subject knows. What follows from that is my attempt to understand why things are the way they are, and mind does seem to be a fundamental feature of the universe. (Physicist Paul Davies believes that the presence of mind somewhere in the universe is no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. Needless to say, he got a lot of heat from other physicists for saying so.) I want to go beyond that. Does that mean more conjecture? Yes, of course. And it's even more uncertain than maintaining mind as a fundamental feature of the universe.

I am attracted to the doctrine of divine simplicity because Dawkins does have a point if we think of God (or essence) as complex. So the question for me is how we get from there, absolute oneness, to the diversity and complexity of things and beings? Whatever the answer, the PoE is a space-time phenomenon that's completely irrelevant in my considerations. It's just an inevitable part of the process of becoming or evolution.

Now, my style may convey the idea that I believe it's my way or no way, but that's not the case. I am, however, disappointed by the reluctance of many of the members here to say 'this is the way I believe things are and why I believe it.' Ontology, the study of the nature of being and existence, is conjecture by nature and maybe that's the reason, but it does give us a frame in which to think -- a place to hang our hat, so to speak.

[Fooloso4]

Londoner:

Yes, we do, but it is not for me to say. I have no idea what it might be. Fanman, who I was responding to, is the one says 'the reality is that evil exists' and the OP asks 'why is there evil?'

But you are, perhaps inadvertently saying what it is when you refer to it as “stuff”. Would you say that pain is or is caused by mysterious “pain stuff” or misery is or is caused by mysterious “misery stuff” or suffering is or is caused by mysterious “suffering stuff”?

It seems a bit of a double standard to simply declare that some sort of undefined metaphysical entity 'exists' …

There you go again, defining evil as a metaphysical entity. Fanman gave two examples. The first from the story of Job where the evils that befell on him were all things that any of us might suffer - loss, death, pain, disease. While it is true that in the story this is brought about by the “adversary”, adversity does not presuppose an adversarial entity. The point of the story, as I see it, is that we cannot find a satisfactory answer as to why there is evil or suffering. In the second example, it is an act of God not an evil metaphysical entity (unless you define God as an evil metaphysical entity) that caused the death of all the firstborn of Egypt.

[Dark Matter]

Fanman wrote:

With regards to the problem of evil, I think that reality shows that if there's a God it is capable of both good and evil, since both exist. I think that every type of scripture shows that God or gods are willing to do whatever they feel is necessary to achieve their goals, even if that involves evil or allowing evil in the process. An example of this is the book of Job, where God allowed all manner of evils to befall Job in order to prove his point in a debate with Satan. Or, where God killed all the first born males in Egypt in order for the Israelites to be set free. These actions, I think were evil in nature. There are numerous ways they can be reconciled, such as Job having a happy-ending, the Israelites being free, or the Egyptians somehow deserving their fate, but they were in my opinion at least evil.

Being the ultimate source of finitude and its inevitable consequence, the possibility of evil, is not to be its cause. And I don't give a damn what the Bible or any other scripture says about any god inflicting or demanding harm to others. That's utter nonsense.

God is said to have created everything which exists, if that was the case God cannot be simply absolved of the existence or responsibility of evil without rigorous examination, or by the moniker that beings with “free will” are the cause of evil, because God is the universal creator.

I agree, and this is why I said that while God is omnipotent, he is not omnificent -- he is not the doer of everything that is done. Who knows how many layers there are in 'the Great Chain of Being'? While there is indeed a true 'First Cause,' we must not forget that there are also the possibility of a host of subordinate causes, or "demiurges," both associate and secondary causes. We can think of God as the 'ultimate delegator,' divesting himself of himself (everything personal) and bestowing himself on others. In religious parlance, the 'eternally begotten Son of God' is the original "Word." In this way, God escapes the limitations of unqualified infinity.

Theists (in my experience) tend to do this, something which I have been guilty of in the past, but I think that critical thinking causes the problem of evil to be unresolved. The points I've made can be dismissed, but I think they bring up questions about the nature of God and it's ethics. If the problem of evil could be resolved, for all the thousands of years that it has stood and been discussed by educated minds - theist, atheist and agnostic, wouldn't there be a clear and known resolution to it? It may create dissonance for theists, that an all-good God could be capable of evil, but the reality is that evil exists whether God exists or not. If evil exists in the face of an all-good God who is abundant in ability to stop it from occurring, why does evil persist?

As I stated, the PoE is completely irrelevant. Finite things and beings are compounds consisting of being and potential, more formally called act and potency. It is in this potency we (and everything that exists) have freedom and an undetermined future. If you don't like the way things are, it is up to you, a minor demiurge, to make it better.

[Londoner]

But you are, perhaps inadvertently saying what it is when you refer to it as “stuff”. Would you say that pain is or is caused by mysterious “pain stuff” or misery is or is caused by mysterious “misery stuff” or suffering is or is caused by mysterious “suffering stuff”?

No, I wouldn't. I would say of somebody 'they are suffering'; it is descriptive of the condition of the person. I do not think that the 'suffering' exists, independently of the person.

But I am told that evil is not like that; I'm told that evil exists.

There you go again, defining evil as a metaphysical entity. Fanman gave two examples. The first from the story of Job where the evils that befell on him were all things that any of us might suffer - loss, death, pain, disease. While it is true that in the story this is brought about by the “adversary”, adversity does not presuppose an adversarial entity. The point of the story, as I see it, is that we cannot find a satisfactory answer as to why there is evil or suffering. In the second example, it is an act of God not an evil metaphysical entity (unless you define God as an evil metaphysical entity) that caused the death of all the firstborn of Egypt.

I don't know why you keep suggesting I think evil is some sort of entity; I don't, which is why I do not think it makes sense to say (as Fanman does) that 'the reality is that evil exists'.

In what sense does it 'exist'? It is presumably not as a physical object, so if we say it exists then it must be in other sort of metaphysical form, a form which I say is mysterious because those who say evil 'exists' do not explain it.

Personally, I am quite happy saying that the word 'evil' is just a sign that somebody does not approve of something. But if we go with that, then we can't use it as an argument about the existence of God. To say that 'God cannot exist because there are certain things which I don't like', seems a bit egotistic as an argument.

I'm not really bothered about interpretations of Bible stories since interpretations are just that. I would have thought that if we understood God as good, but a story seems to indicate that he isn't, then we should assume that we must be misunderstanding either the story or the concept of goodness. There are no end of commentaries that on that subject.

[Belindi]

Fooloso4 wrote:

My point is not to deny Spinoza’s version or replace it with some other version, it is, rather, to say that when there are various versions of a universal God and no referent to compare them to the notions of a universal God are not universal notions.

But Spinoza's version embraces all the modes of being i.e. all the natura naturata, so doesn't that imply that all the modes of being don't resemble some paradigm?

The problem of evil is best addressed by suffering as absence of good. I envisage lacunae in this world of suffering.

-- Updated July 15th, 2017, 2:25 pm to add the following --

How lacunae of good in the matrix of suffering fits with Spinoza's ontology and ethics is as follows.

It's not necessary to be all Continentally rational and deductive. Inductive reason, and mammalian sympathy, together can show the good lacunae.

[Fooloso4]

DM:

As I stated, the PoE is completely irrelevant.

Your argument is that God is not the cause of evil. That is not what the problem of evil is about, it is only one aspect of the problem. Even if we conclude that God is not the cause of evil it still leaves open the question of why God does nothing about it.

If you don't like the way things are, it is up to you, a minor demiurge, to make it better.

There are a great many things that are not in our power. If it is in God’s power and God does nothing about it then the option is that God “doesn’t give a damn”is still on the table. Also on the table is God does care but either a) cannot or b) does not do anything about it. Option ‘a’ is not resolved by definition of omnipotence, the question of whether God can do anything about it remains. If God can do anything about it but does not then the question remains unresolved.

Londoner:

But I am told that evil is not like that; I'm told that evil exists.

So does suffering. No doubt evil has been reified by some, but the problem of evil can be restated as the problem of suffering. This is entirely consistent with the history of the problem of evil.

Belindi:

But Spinoza's version embraces all the modes of being i.e. all the natura naturata, so doesn't that imply that all the modes of being don't resemble some paradigm?

I am not objecting to his version, just pointing out that it is not compatible with Tillich's notion that God transcends being and nature. In Tillich’s version God transcends all modes of being which includes natura naturata.

[Dark Matter]

F4:

You sound angry because the world is not the way you want it to be. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and do something about it. You have the power. You're a demiurge, even if you are a minor one. God acts through you and it is your first duty and highest responsibility to be God's ambassador to the universe of space and time. It should be your highest ambition. Every impulse of every electron or thought is an acting unit in the whole universe. The universe is a whole; no thing or being exists or lives in isolation so there is no reason to feel diminished because, existentially, you share the power to act with others, high and low.

-- Updated July 15th, 2017, 4:52 pm to add the following --

Londoner said:

Personally, I am quite happy saying that the word 'evil' is just a sign that somebody does not approve of something. But if we go with that, then we can't use it as an argument about the existence of God. To say that 'God cannot exist because there are certain things which I don't like', seems a bit egotistic as an argument.

I'm impressed. It seems I underestimated you. I'm sorry.

-- Updated July 15th, 2017, 5:48 pm to add the following --

F4 said:

Even if we conclude that God is not the cause of evil it still leaves open the question of why God does nothing about it.

After hundreds of posts, F4 still insists on arguing that God is a being alongside other beings only bigger and more powerful. Why is that?

[Fanman]

Londoner,

I think that what is defined as “evil” can be a matter of perspective. I think that suffering can be described as evil if it is caused by an agent. Or if an agent has abundant ability to stop suffering, but allows it to continue. As CuriousB points out, suffering can be a teacher, but it is a harsh one. I view suffering as part of the human condition, which I don't hold to be inherently evil, unless certain criteria are fulfilled. Having a severe flu isn't evil, cancer isn't evil, but they do cause suffering. Evil need not be some mysterious metaphysical entity, it is something negative that is caused by agents. In short, I would say that there is no evil without agency.

---

CuriousB,

You bring up some good questions. The reality of a world without suffering is something that is almost unimaginable, because suffering is such an embedded and prominent feature of the world. We are conditioned by suffering and generally seek to avoid it, we are an intelligent species, but as a whole we seem to progress slowly. Its difficult to say if we will ever develop to a stage where human suffering, that is suffering we can do something about will be eliminated. Some look to a higher power to end suffering, but I think the reality is that if suffering is to end, it won't be a religious doctrine that ends it (if it could I think that would have happened already), indeed interpretations and manipulation of religious doctrines have been the cause of suffering. The end of suffering may be caused by some type of human necessity which arises in the future, but it seems unlikely.

---

F4,

As I have experienced first hand. When God is the ultimate concern, abstractions and conjectures about the nature of it's existence flow more freely than wine at a wedding party. I don't know whether this is right or wrong, given that the nature of such a being may be beyond our capacity to even imagine, let alone formulate valid ideas about. The search for a ground to belief in God is such that when it is thought that one is found, it is (at least in my experience) something worthy of celebration. Although theists may say that having a ground is not necessary for belief, I think it is human nature to search for a ground to one's beliefs – otherwise there is doubt and dissonance.

---

DM,

I think that the concept of something from nothing is counter-intuitive, because our experience is that something is always the cause of something else. But even with the concept of cause and effect, there is the counter-intuitive problem of infinite regression. The concept of “first cause” also seems counter-intuitive (to me), but it would seem from my level of understanding that one of these conditions may be the case. My issue is, where in any of those scenarios does a creator become a necessary contingent? From an empirical perspective, an eternal “being” that is not contingent upon anything, yet everything is contingent upon seems unlikely, what would such a being be-like, ontologically speaking?

For example, when I say the weirdness of quantum mechanics is the transition between essence (or nothing) and existence, that's not mere conjecture as anyone versed in the subject knows. What follows from that is my attempt to understand why things are the way they are, and mind does seem to be a fundamental feature of the universe. (Physicist Paul Davies believes that the presence of mind somewhere in the universe is no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. Needless to say, he got a lot of heat from other physicists for saying so.) I want to go beyond that. Does that mean more conjecture? Yes, of course. And it's even more uncertain than maintaining mind as a fundamental feature of the universe.

I think that essence is something, a precursor to being perhaps. QM does give us a weird view of how reality operates which is not conjecture, but it doesn't give us an “ought” as far as I'm aware. I don't think QM has a bearing on theism, even though it may give us some interesting ideas about ontology. Mind as a fundamental feature of the universe, in what respect? Mind is an emergent feature of the universe, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that it is fundamental. If it was a fundamental feature, the universe would somehow be affected by it's absence, but I don't see anything which points towards that being the case. Stipulating universal purpose implies universal agency, but what is the purpose of Mind? If you can't define a purpose, couldn't that mean that there isn't one, and Mind is a property of the universe as stars are a property of the universe, without any intrinsic purpose except for the things they perform? What is your view here?

As I stated, the PoE is completely irrelevant. Finite things and beings are compounds consisting of being and potential, more formally called act and potency. It is in this potency we (and everything that exists) have freedom and an undetermined future. If you don't like the way things are, it is up to you, a minor demiurge, to make it better.

I don't think so, the PoE highlights a major problem with the existence and nature of an all-good God. You may not see it's importance, but it isn't irrelevant.

[Fooloso4]

Dark Matter:

You sound angry because the world is not the way you want it to be.

I am not at all angry. Perhaps you are really just projecting. The fact that I point out problems with what you say does not mean I am angry, even though it may make you angry.

Stop feeling sorry for yourself and do something about it. You have the power.

More projecting? I don’t feel sorry for myself. I am not talking about myself, I am talking about the problem of evil. Whatever evil may befall me is not the issue. My life is at present is actually relatively trouble free. The same cannot be said of those who do suffer. Certainly I could do more for them but no matter how much I do there will still be suffering. If everyone did as much as they could there would be less suffering but there would still be profound suffering in the world. This is not an excuse for not doing more but rather to point out that it is beyond the power of human beings to end suffering, only diminish it. Until or unless it is eliminated the problem of evil remains.

You're a demiurge, even if you are a minor one.

Even if were true that we are all demiurges we still cannot eliminate suffering only lessen it.

God acts through you and it is your first duty and highest responsibility to be God's ambassador to the universe of space and time. It should be your highest ambition.

This kind of thinking may lead to some good results but it can also lead to a great deal of harm or evil. All kinds of atrocities have occurred throughout history by those who believe they are servants of God doing God’s will.

After hundreds of posts, F4 still insists on arguing that God is a being alongside other beings only bigger and more powerful. Why is that?

First of all I have not made any arguments about God, I have only pointed various beliefs and claims about God that others have made. My argument is that if there is a God (or per Tillich defined out of existence), it is beyond our limited knowledge to say anything that can be determined to be true of God.

Second, many people believe God is a being alongside other beings. They approach the problem of evil from this perspective. If we cannot say anything that can be determined to be true about God, for the same reason we cannot say that this belief about God is false.

Third, the agency of God does not require that God be a being alongside other beings. If one accepts the notion of God’s agency then the problem of evil remains. If one does not accept a notion of agency or accepts one that does not include acting in the world, then the unadorned answer to the problem of evil is that God does not do that sort of thing. Whether you or anyone else finds that answer satisfactory there are many who don’t. Their ultimate concern may be tied to a God who does do that sort of thing or could do that sort of thing if that is his will. A God who is so remote and removed is not their God.

You keep trying to sidestep the problem by denying something that is not relevant to the problem. Tillich does not argue that God is a being alongside other beings and yet Tillich acknowledges the problem of evil. I have invited you several times to discuss what he has to say about it but you have for whatever reason declined. I have pointed out before that other theologians you cite also acknowledge the problem of evil even if they too think of God as the ground of being. Your only response so far has been that you do not believe everything they say. That’s fine, but if they deny that God is a being and still acknowledge the problem of evil then the problem of evil does not become completely irrelevant by rejecting the idea that god is a being.