This claim can be phrased in many strong or weak ways. Let's start with a harder one.

As phrased by Tyrannical and named in honor of a great watch,

• Good and evil are related to the level of function within society – i.e. societies must function.
• Therefore, we observe (determine) that things which help a society function are things which we would consider to be good.

We then say that God is not “good” (or maximally good?) because he is not involved in the world in general, or not involved in our societies.

In what ways would you say God is not involved in societies, in what way, minimally or otherwise, would he need to be involved to satisfy a level of functionality, i.e. good?

“I would choose not to have a hand in it…” that is de-ontology.

Because one has the ability to recognize they have the ability, the decision not to be involved is a decision in and of itself. “The decision not to act is equivalent to choosing to allow (the person to die).” – It is not a matter of neglect, it is a matter of choosing not to do something. “Am I fully aware that flipping the switch, will cause the train to switch…”

acceptance or rejection of 'the causality of neglegence' – holding that neglegence is the relation of a decision – there are such things as unpreventable deaths. Respnse: But neg. has a relation to failure– there is a difference between failing to do something and not being capable of the responsibility in the first place. ((This is now a cain and abel argument). Ex. choosing not to take care of your child – but what about the situation in which they are unable vs. unwilling? Then the nature again becomes not the negation of choice but the choice not to do something. The responsibility is upon the one who has the capacity to know and the capacity to act – thus a decision is created to act or not to act, not just to act in one way or another. Inaction is also a choice.

In the “The Avengers” (a 2012 film) Iron Man (Tony Stark) moves an atomic bomb which was about to destroy New York through a portal or wormhole onto an alien ship, destroying it and killing at least one alien. Thus we propose it is obvious, self-evident, that the reason why Iron Man is considered “good”, a hero, etc, is because he expressed effort into the decision to cause (a lesser number), (a less-deserving) (being) to die versus a large number of otherwise “innocent” human beings (versus non-humans). In short the case has been heavily pushed in both directions; a large number of innocent countrymen, in fact very nearly all of them, versus possibly as few as one alien queen, a non-human and self-evidently (defined as) a irredeemable, completely corrupt and/or evil entity. Thus, it is “good” to take this action. Not being involved would not be acceptable; it would require a lack of self-preservation, which is against the principles of many religions and the idea of a “functionalism” as previously described. So we reject the idea, ultimately, that a lack of

Because God is aware of evil being committed in the world, then, AND he chooses not to act upon it, this then is the choice (by God) to allow evil. Therefore God allows, and in fact endorses evil because he has the capacity to both predict it and act upon it to change it).

It is not the responsibility of the Employer to do the job of the Employee; it is his function to be a manager. I would be careful not to introduce the “Zeus/Jupiter” heresy, where (Zeus) is too busy to be invovced in the affairs of daily men, and then delegate the responsibility

This again resolves to the cain and abel argument.

Thus looking at evil itself, could evil even theoretically exist if there were no humans?

So in the many possible worlds idea, (worlds which are logically possible but not necessarily actual) – there would always theoretically/hypothetically/possibly be a human who sinned, therefore it is impossible for God to create a world without sin. But this is in fact a sort of emanation heresy, where we overlay our human limitations onto god and then say “therefore God cannot…” – This is a sort of “law of fives” where “if you think it, it's real”.

The problem of evil is not a valid objection – it attempts to infer an internal contradiction and it fails to do so (if you project your metaphysical worldview then critique it… assumes a persons metaphysical worldview then critiques them from there)

fixme

god is a canvas, argument from contingency, almost like a playground,

1. God is a maximally functional apparatus representing reality; Manimally functional means it has maximal utility.

2. We observe that having maximal functionality at least implies maximal truth if not maximal morality (why does not maximal functionality imply maximal morality?)

3. It is observed that God is not maximally good, due to the fact that it is possible to observe evil in the world.

4. Therefore God is not God (not maximally functional?)

The essential point here is that it appears as if God has created evil, or acts in an evil way, or otherwise endorses evil in one form or another, and therefore cannot be the same “God” that is described by “religious people” or “the bible”

needs clarification fixme

I would posit a question; is it possible for evil to exist in the world

Why did god create temptation to do evil, if it was his express desire that we not commit evil acts?

fixme

fixme

fixme