I'm not sure if this has been proposed before (it probably has, and undoubtedly by someone much more articulate and well-versed in philosophy than I am), but I've been toying with the idea of an alternative to the standard idea of a Christian god for monotheists that solves the question of "why does evil exist in a world created by a being who the Bible says is a perfect good?".

That solution is this: God is, in fact, a meta-ethical relativist-- that is, God believes as fact that morality is inherently normative and that no set standard of ethics can or should ever exist. This explains not only the existence of what some perceive as "evil", or objective wrong, but also the apparent incompatibility of human beings being created in the image of a benevolent God but being capable of committing "evil" without being punished on the mortal plane. It also provides an answer to Epicurus' "God and Evil" question in that it does not posit that God is inherently good or that an objective good even exists.

I have a lot more to say about this, but I'm not sure how to put it in writing. Feel free to ask questions or poke criticism at my thoughts-- I usually respond better to questioning than I do just writing without provocation.

I suppose that would explain why God was such a dick in the old testament. Back then people were a lot more evil than compared to now.

As far as I know a christian could say: "the evil exists because Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command not to touch the untouchable tree" you know this story, right? But we draw near to an interesting point, do you want to follow someone that makes you pay for the mistakes of others?

I think you're missing the point-- if God is indeed a relativist, good and evil are not objective truths, and therefore don't exist. A given action is not evil or good-it simply is.

Well, the 2 main things that I see as wrong about your argument is that it requires both of these to be unarguable truths:

A. The existence of such a God

B. A static definition of good and evil.

As Oyster said, good and evil are not objective truths, what one person sees as evil, another can see as good, and vice versa.

If God was a relativist according to the Bible, then the universe would still be pure chaos. So christianity doesn't really make sense, if there was a good-bent omnipotent being, good being the opposite of what we refer to as sin, there wouldn't be any evil in the first place. Actually, I can't imagine there being anything at all if the overlord of the universe was an extremist to either side of the good-bad chart.

As I mentioned in the OP, this God is meant to be an alternative to the Christian God, not a complement. Also, moral relativism doesn't imply chaos-- just the understanding that moral values have no absolutes and that God (and by extension, humanity) should serve their own needs and wants as a collective by any means necessary, which is why each culture and society has their own set of mores.

That's quite an interesting point you are making there, but, in my oppinion, this idea still has some flaws in it...
If God believes that there is no good and no evil, then why would He create humans with a sense of justice? Or how can we determine wether a person is good or bad?

Mostly people understand the word "bad" as something unpleasant. So basicly an action performed to harm any other being in any way can be considered as evil. It really fits to the main idea of 10 commandments ( love to God and love to humans). But oh well... This is meant to be an alternative to the christian God, which means that this theory probably isn't based off bible or anything like that, so these are most likely just your thoughts, thus it is just an another theory that can't be proven...


P.S. I may have expressed some of my thoughts incorrectly, due to lack of my knowledge in english language.

That "sense of justice" is a biological imperative, not some supernatural sense bestowed upon us by God. Actions that harm other human beings are, by definition, detrimental to our survival as a race, and we've therefore invented a set of moral guidelines that make it socially unacceptable to kill or injure other human beings. I personally don't believe in any deity, but the concept of God as a meta-ethical relativist allows that biological imperative to serve as an explanation of the existence of morality without contradicting the idea of a benevolent God with an interest in our continued survival.

Fancy terms to define something that only exists because one wants it to.
God didn't create us. We created "God".

Feel free to argue, but I'm giving another side of the argument. As Hyde said;

As I see it, and this is a very narrow point of my beliefs, spiritualism, etcetera, "we" (the human race) created "God" for various reasons; there's no need for me to go into detail. We then say "God" created, or embodies, or symbolizes "good." Therefore, we created good. And, of course, there must be opposites. We couldn't have light without dark, so we created "evil"- the little brother of "good" who always gets screwed over in the end.

So do good and evil exist? Only because we want them to.

To go into further detail about my beliefs, I consider myself an atheist, though many people say my views reflect points of LaVey's Satanism. Long story short, we (individuals) are our own gods. I am my god, you are your god, and so forth. Before you jump to conclusions, listen to how this ties into god creating good and evil. Who decides what is "good" and "evil" for themselves? That individual. I may think dogs are evil. But perhaps you, a person with a strong dislike for cats, finds canines to be next to heavenly. Your good is my evil, and this can go for anything. Treatment of women, vegetarianism, underage sex.. The list goes on. I'm sure you get the idea.