Well, the above was basically me trying to expand on the theorist above me. I am still not sure what his point was, but I thought I might explore the possibility of a god that does not "evil" but merely stands back.

I guess it depends on your definition of "evil." I can't call a god who created cancer "loving," but I can intellectually understand it as a productive environment.

The problem I ran into -- that my little essay above begins to explore -- is that once you imagine a God who lauds free will, and who has created a world with challenges for the exercise for intelligence, you take the stated purpose of religions out of the picture.

It seems obvious such a world was designed for the benefit of those in that world. We apply our free will and our intelligence towards improving our lots, and the conditions of all humanity (and, perhaps, one day, towards creatures further down the sentience chain as well).

There is no reason to apply that energy and intelligence towards some theoretical life after death.

But even more; in setting up such a set of ground conditions, our theoretical God makes himself unnecessary to the process at all. The world operates without need of a God. The world could even have come to its present shape without need of a god.


Free will, if extrapolated far enough, frees you from requiring a Sky Fairy in the first place.