In relationships between equals, one's responsibility for oneself extends from one's authority over oneself. These are "free-will" relationships. In relationships between sovereigns and subjects, such as between Creator and creature or author and character, the character's responsibility for themselves extends from the author's authority over them. Of course, this reveals the author's intellect, emotions and volition. The characters make choices, but they don't choose from undetermined possibilities - and neither do we. God's creation is God's revelation of God. Creatures are characters with material being. Good is what God is. Evil is what God is not. God reveals both good and evil, both what He is and what He is not, because anything, even God, is revealed just as much by what it is not as it is by what it is.
But it's always humans who are doing the deciding on what actually constitutes good and evil, so God isn't expressing anything. If God does exist, he is a dispassionate observer, who may have long ago lost interest in this universe and moved on to others for all we know and can tell.
God can no more do what you propose than can an author. Creatures make decisions, so do characters, but neither choose from undetermined possibilities. An "observer" comes to know. God has no potential to come to know, come to emote, come to will, come to be or not be. God has no potential at all. God is simple actuality; He is what He is. We are a complex of actuality and potentiality. We actually exist and we have the potential not to. We come to know, come to emote, come to will, come to be and not be. We are defined by our changes. God is defined by His holiness. Holy means inviolate, unchangeable, without-potential. What you propose has no resemblance to a sovereign God.
That assumes that the creator has automatic authority over the created. This is an assumption without basis. How do you know that God is good? God may be evil. If you look at the world, there is little evidence to suggest that he is actually good. At best, he seems disinterested in the plight of humanity.
So clearly humans cannot be blamed for any wrongdoing, since they had no sovereignty in the first place. All blame must go to the author. Nice opinion. I invite you to prove it.
Then by that logic, God cannot be "all things" because evil is something God is not. But only something God "reveals". Revealing is not a form of anything useful by that definition. So by that epistomology, it is not even clear that anything "being" can actually be evil...if God cannot be all things.
Anything, even God, is revealed just as much by what it is not as it is by what it is. The knowledge of what a thing is not, is consequent of knowing the extent of that thing. In other words, if you find the extent of a thing, you also find out what it is not.
An author has no potential of losing authority over their character. God is what God is with no potential to be anything else, and He calls it good. "Good" is calibrated according to characteristics attributable to God. I can write a character that is left to believe that I don't actually exist or that I am something other than I am. I can write a character that knows I'm its author, and I can write a dialog with it. But that dialog is a condescension, not a conversation. God condescends to us; we pray to him, but He is the author of both sides of the dialog, just like an author.
I can potentially create an intelligent robot. The robot may then turn around and kill me. The creator has just lost control over the creation. Your argument that god is good because god says so...sorry--just don't buy that. You could write a character who is more moral, better behaved, and a much better human being than you. You character isn't necessarily a condescension of yourself. He/she could be an elevation.
An effect can destroy its direct cause, but it cannot destroy its efficient-cause, and no effect can transcend its cause. You can refer to the characteristics attributable to God as good, evil or chicken soup for all I care. The rest of us call those characteristics "good". I can understand your disposition. I'm sure that, if I were you, I would see things exactly the same way. I guess the biggest difference between us is that I've occupied your position. We're all left to believe something, and there's always more than one way to look at anything. Although there are objects and ideas that look the same no matter which way one looks at them, I don't believe that anything is well understood from only one point of view. (Blue print reading 101)
you can call god good, but that is insulting to the word "good". You can call a chicken a horse, but that doesn't mean the chicken is a horse. Based on how the world is , there is little evidence to suggest that god is "good," God is apathetic, at best. And I've also occupied your position. Used to be devoutly religious. So we're even. hah.
You are lying. That can be proved by your inability to answer even basic questions about the bible, koran or hadith. You are not learned at all. Stop now before your lack of depth is revealed. Just move on. Start your own thread. This one is over your head. You're set to ignore.
I always have to laugh at the pretentiousness of people when they start claiming to know what 'God' is, or 'God' wants or expects of those who 'believe' in 'God'. Especially when 'God' has never revealed 'himself' or 'herself' or whatever 'self' or 'form' 'God' is to any living human being...let alone talk to them. Their so-called 'claim' can only be explained as nothing more than a bunch of hooey, period.
Can we stop with the "revealed" nonsense? "Revealed" is an existential relationship between a narrative* and knowledge. The narrative* may aquire knowledge unfounded, but it can only be "revealed" as "knowledge" if it is falsifiable and tested. Anything "revealed" is special pleading, until it has falsifiable proof. Don't word soup me, Bro. Knowledge isn't an absolute. And it can't be shared between narratives* to be absolute even without falsifiability. A girl has no name. Knowing a thing is not done. It is never done. Only know what a thing is not...is...is. *I refer to soul/consciousness/self as "narrative". Because it is the only word that correctly describes the continuity required for it to exist.
