If God Controls Everything...

[idav]

Some believe that God controls everything, and that everything happens according to His will. They will go as far as to refuse medical treatment, blood transfusions, etc. Their attitude is that if it is God's will, then they will be saved, cured, not robbed, not in a car crash, etc. So here is a question...

According to Revelation 20:11-15, the dead are raised from their graves and judged according to their deeds [actions]. But if God controls everything, why is a judgment necessary since He would be judging what He caused in the first place? Are humans really nothing more than automatons...mere robots?

Something to think about.

If God controls everything then he makes the bad things happen and should punish himself. Could be, God knows it will happen but doesn't will otherwise and just watches bad things take place.

 

[Glaurung]

Yes, but how is that related with my question?

It's not about miscarriages specifically, but it has everything to do with the deeper question. Why does God allow suffering? In short, there are as many reasons for suffering as there are people on the earth and the only answer is profound faith in God, because the insistence that the world ought to pan out according to the limited perspectives of human fairness is far too simplistic. It's not our place to be privy to the "reason" behind every little thing that happens in our world, but to live virtuously regardless of what we think we ought to understand.

He's going to use Job to show how this "all loving" God constantly brings down untold anguish and horror on his people, and needs no justification to do so. But your miscarriage question is an excellent one. Seems odd God is so angry about abortions, yet causes thousands of miscarriages and still births every day. Mysterious ways I guess.

Typical, shallow atheist rhetoric. It's much deeper than that, but to appreciate it you have to pull your head out of your ideological backside.

 

[Neo Deist]

and the only answer is profound faith in God...

Nah, not the only answer.

Another answer is what deists tend to believe: God created the universe, set it in motion, and things happen because nature works that way, or humans make a choice to do something.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Either God is omnipotent or God is not. Either God knows who will do what or God doesn't, and if God does know, that means God would then be culpable in that God would not have striven to help that individual see how wrong their choice might have been. Say one is a murderer. That would mean God allowed that person to murder. What is the point of that?

In order to be free agents (as understood in a theological sense), we necessarily require the capacity to do that which God does not wish us to. We must also have agency, of course, and therefore the ability to act, and to choose to act in particular ways. "Before" creation (whatever that might mean), where only God existed and the cosmos did not, there was no morality. Not only were there no agents around who could act at all, such that an act might be immoral or moral, there were also no moral "rules". This no longer is true (for an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good God) once the Cosmos exists. There is the capacity for things which we think of as immoral to occur (murder, genocide, etc.). Barring Ned Flanders, there are not many philosophers who would find Homer's question ("could God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?") or similar "limitations" actually limitations at all. A less well-known (relative to Homer's question) is Swinburne's proposal: it is not a limitation of God to assert "that if he is to keep Jones a bachelor he must keep him an unmarried man" or, put another way, that God is compelled to make Jones unmarried if Jones is a bachelor. That Jones is unmarried if Jones is a bachelor flows independently of God, but not in any way that limits God's omnipotence. It is simply to say that a thing is what it is.

Before the Cosmos, moral laws had no parallels to tautologies, logical validity, etc. We are left with "dummy variable" morality: "if x has the moral property y, then it is necessarily true that x has the moral property y." However, God then created as universe in which there would be humans. Humans feel pain. They can be harmed in any number of ways. Creating humans with the capacity to act freely and to be able to do wrong (even if given a sense of what is right), including e.g., burning another human alive, entails certain logical truths: it is true that if a human is burned alive, they will die in agony. This is not a necessary truth in and of itself, in that (in a creationist cosmology) God could have created drones incapable of pain, free will, and/or evil acts. However, it becomes a necessary truth which is contingent upon the manner in which humans experience things like being burned.

In order to have agents capable of doing that which God does not want, or that which God does not approve of, these agents must have some properties such that they can act in ways contrary to God's desire (if they could not, they would not have free will). So, in any possible world God creates, free agents must have some property x which allows them to commit some act y such that God does not approve.
Necessary morality is independent of God, but God of course approves of moral behavior. If God creates agents incapable of immoral behavior, God has ensured that these agents are bound to do whatever God wants and only that which God wants. They are thus not free.

Therefore, given any possible world, God's free agents must necessarily be able to act immorally. They must be able to act in a manner which has the property of being immoral. However, the particular nature of these properties is contingent upon God's choice. Depending upon the manner of creation, God could create a world in which being burned alive is pleasant or horrific, or even a world in which physical pain does not exist. However, there must be ways in which humans can act immorally, or God has not created free agents. Likewise, as God is benevolent, ensuring that agents are only capable of benevolent actions is again to deny them free agency by ensuring they do only that which God desires. So agents must be able to act malevolently. Once more, the ways in which acts become malevolent or not are contingent upon the manner of creation, but they are necessary components of it.

Or at least this is one answer to the Euthyphro dilemma that not only relates to why evil exists but absolute morality dependent upon God.

 

[JoStories]

I take your point, but the same principle applies here does it not? I'm sure your daughter didn't always appreciate the love behind your intentions right?

So too we are children to God, as long as we are on Earth, we have lessons to learn. Which means we must have the free will to fail and suffer the consequences- as we all do to some extent.

Your morals quite likve ely are based on the Bible, perhaps not, but where did your parents and grandparents get the morals they passed onto you?

My father was an atheist to the day he died. He taught me much. My mother is Native American and taught me those ways. My cousin, a great guy, was Quaker and taught me that, My next door neighbors were Jewish and taught me some of that. And so on. My parents tried to expose me to every kind of faith, including the lack thereof, they could find. Similarly, they also taught my children much of the same.

 

[rusra02]

While I agree with you about predestination, I don't agree about Satan ruling this world. My God is all powerful, and for Satan to rebel and rule over this world means one of two things: God allows it, or the concept of Satan in traditional Christianity is false.

I believe God has allowed Satan to rule the world, in order to settle forever the moral issues with which Satan challenged
Jehovah. Satan told Eve she would be better off without God and accused God of being unjust and claiming God lied to the first couple. Satan also raised the issue of man's integrity to God, claiming that he, Satan, could get Job to curse God to his face. The passage of time has settled these issues, IMO, proving that Jehovah's rulership is the only solution to mankinds problems and that Satan is a monstrous and evil liar. I believe Jesus Christ settled these issues by keeping perfect integrity to God, and providing the ransom needed to undo the harm Satan caused. All this took time and most of mankind even today reject God's rulership. But now, with the moral issues settled, the time has come for God to remove human rulership once and forever, and remove Satan from causing further harm. (Daniel 2:44, Revelation 20:1-3)

 

[Demonslayer]

I believe God has allowed Satan to rule the world, in order to settle forever the moral issues with which Satan challenged Jehovah

LOL. I just can't imagine waking up every morning with this kind of idea rolling around in my head. There is a Good Cosmic Overlord who, due to some nonsense, has agreed to let the Bad Cosmic Overlord "rule the world."

Where are these guys located, these invisible dictators? Sitting in a place called Heaven and a place called Hell, sitting on thrones like Heat Miser and Snow Miser?

But now, with the moral issues settled, the time has come for God to remove human rulership once and forever, and remove Satan from causing further harm.

When is this going to happen?

 

[Neo Deist]

I believe God has allowed Satan to rule the world, in order to settle forever the moral issues with which Satan challenged Jehovah.

When did that happen?

Satan told Eve she would be better off without God and accused God of being unjust and claiming God lied to the first couple.

I think you mean the serpent, who was the adversary...which is the properly translated term of ha-satan. It is obviously not literal, as snakes don't talk.

Satan also raised the issue of man's integrity to God, claiming that he, Satan, could get Job to curse God to his face.

Actually it was God that brought up Job for testing and put Satan up to it. It was also God that set the rules for the test.

I still say that an omnipotent being that created the universe (and Satan) could simply snap His divine fingers and uncreate Satan, thus cutting through the red tape and saving everyone a bunch of trouble.

 

[Thief]

I typically post.....'serpent' is a description of character...in the book of Genesis.

and no one lied in the garden.

 

[Demonslayer]

as snakes don't talk

What about flaming shrubbery?

 

[Thief]

as snakes don't talk

What about flaming shrubbery?

yeah.....that's a tough one.
did see a scientist offer a particular bush in proximity to a lit gas fissure.
and the demonstration looked do-able.

did God do it?
I wasn't there.


and I edited my previous post

 

[Etritonakin]

I think there is a talking mule or something in the bible.... Lemme see.....

Numbers 22:
22And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ***, and his two servants werewith him. 23And the *** saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the *** turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ***, to turn her into the way. 24But the angel of the LORD stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side. 25And when the *** saw the angel of the LORD, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall: and he smote her again. 26And the angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. 27And when the *** saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the *** with a staff. 28And the LORD opened the mouth of the ***, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? 29And Balaam said unto the ***, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. 30And the *** said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ***, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.

King Nebuchadnezzar was also given the mind of an animal for some time...

Daniel 4:
28All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar. 29At the end of twelve months he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon. 30The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty? 31While the word was in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee. 32And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. 33The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.

Nebuchadnezzar's Restoration

34And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:

 

[viole]

It's not about miscarriages specifically, but it has everything to do with the deeper question. Why does God allow suffering? In short, there are as many reasons for suffering as there are people on the earth and the only answer is profound faith in God, because the insistence that the world ought to pan out according to the limited perspectives of human fairness is far too simplistic. It's not our place to be privy to the "reason" behind every little thing that happens in our world, but to live virtuously regardless of what we think we ought to understand.

Well, yes. God tested Job faith, apparently. There are several tests God performs. A little too many for an omniscient God who should know the results of the tests to start with.

Where I see a problem is pain inflicted to people who have no clue about the Abrahamigc God. Does He want to test the faith in the great Juju at the bottom or the sea or Apollo?

Where I see another problem are unnoticed miscarriages. Who is the system under test in this case?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Demonslayer]

yeah.....that's a tough one.

I think there is a talking mule or something in the bible.... Lemme see.....

King Nebuchadnezzar was also given the mind of an animal for some time...

For these reasons and many more, I think any literal Bible believers have disfunctional mental processes. A talking snake? Walking on water? Healing lepers with the touch of a finger? DEMON PIGS?

Want to talk about using the stories of Jesus to frame ideas of good behavior? Fine. Want to talk about attendence at a local church providing comfort and friendships and a common bond among people? Fine.

But belief in the stories of the Bible as actual, factual truth is insane to me. How so many people go through life with visions of zoo-boats and talking snakes in their heads is beyond me. You'd think at some point common sense would take over, but early indoctrination is a very powerful thing.

 

[rusra02]

When did that happen?

In the garden of Eden.

I think you mean the serpent, who was the adversary...which is the properly translated term of ha-satan. It is obviously not literal, as snakes don't talk.

The Bible reveals that Satan used the serpent as a way to communicate with Eve.
Revelation 12:9 reveals that a spirit creature was responsible for challenging Jehovah, and says that he is misleading the entire inhabited earth.

Actually it was God that brought up Job for testing and put Satan up to it. It was also God that set the rules for the test.

Jehovah simply asked Satan; "Have you taken note of my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth. He is an upright man of integrity, fearing God and shunning what is bad.” (Job 1:8) it was Satan who defiantly slandered Job and raised the challenge that he could make Job curse God.

I still say that an omnipotent being that created the universe (and Satan) could simply snap His divine fingers and uncreate Satan, thus cutting through the red tape and saving everyone a bunch of trouble.

Yes, he could have done that, but had he done so, destroying all the rebels, we would never have had the opportunity to live. And the slanderous challenges Satan raised would still be unanswered. And God's purpose to have the earth filled with Adam's offspring would have been defeated by Satan's rebellion. Really, Jehovah handled the matter with transcendent wisdom and love, IMO.

 

[Neo Deist]

Yes, he could have done that, but had he done so, destroying all the rebels, we would never have had the opportunity to live.

Rebels? What rebels?

Humans would live no matter what.

And God's purpose to have the earth filled with Adam's offspring...

Genetics has already shown that we do not descend from one original couple. To account for all of the diversity in the human race, there would need to be an estimated 10,000 original people. That and people incorrectly assume that the Hebrew term "adam" (אָדָם) is the name of the first human male, when in fact adam refers to mankind...the human species, not a singular person.

 

[JoStories]

I believe God has allowed Satan to rule the world, in order to settle forever the moral issues with which Satan challenged
Jehovah. Satan told Eve she would be better off without God and accused God of being unjust and claiming God lied to the first couple. Satan also raised the issue of man's integrity to God, claiming that he, Satan, could get Job to curse God to his face. The passage of time has settled these issues, IMO, proving that Jehovah's rulership is the only solution to mankinds problems and that Satan is a monstrous and evil liar. I believe Jesus Christ settled these issues by keeping perfect integrity to God, and providing the ransom needed to undo the harm Satan caused. All this took time and most of mankind even today reject God's rulership. But now, with the moral issues settled, the time has come for God to remove human rulership once and forever, and remove Satan from causing further harm. (Daniel 2:44, Revelation 20:1-3)

I would ask you this: Why would God do this? Why would God allow Satan to rule this world if God is omnipotent? Does it not negate the idea that God loves us all and wants us to be in heaven? Your faith claims that God knows all. Why would God do this to us if God already knows if we are going to be murders, or dney your faith at all?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I would ask you this: Why would God do this? Why would God allow Satan to rule this world if God is omnipotent? Does it not negate the idea that God loves us all and wants us to be in heaven? Your faith claims that God knows all. Why would God do this to us if God already knows if we are going to be murders, or dney your faith at all?

I gave you an answer. Why don't you respond?

 

[JoStories]

I gave you an answer. Why don't you respond?

Honestly speaking Legion, long posts make my eyesight get worse much earlier in the day, which is counterproductive for me. However, here you go:

In order to be free agents (as understood in a theological sense), we necessarily require the capacity to do that which God does not wish us to. We must also have agency, of course, and therefore the ability to act, and to choose to act in particular ways. "Before" creation (whatever that might mean), where only God existed and the cosmos did not, there was no morality. Not only were there no agents around who could act at all, such that an act might be immoral or moral, there were also no moral "rules". This no longer is true (for an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good God) once the Cosmos exists. There is the capacity for things which we think of as immoral to occur (murder, genocide, etc.). Barring Ned Flanders, there are not many philosophers who would find Homer's question ("could God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?") or similar "limitations" actually limitations at all. A less well-known (relative to Homer's question) is Swinburne's proposal: it is not a limitation of God to assert "that if he is to keep Jones a bachelor he must keep him an unmarried man" or, put another way, that God is compelled to make Jones unmarried if Jones is a bachelor. That Jones is unmarried if Jones is a bachelor flows independently of God, but not in any way that limits God's omnipotence. It is simply to say that a thing is what it is.

You speak here of free agents and the ability to do what God would not want us to do. If God is omnipotent, God would know what we were going to do and therefore, if it against God's will, God is culpable. For example, if you have a child and know that child is going to do something harmful, you, as the parent, would of course, stop them. Why would you allow a child to place their hand on a burning stove, for example, knowing it would burn them? Then you speak of 'before the cosmos' when only God existed. How do you know this? This is pure speculation on your part.

Therefore, given any possible world, God's free agents must necessarily be able to act immorally. They must be able to act in a manner which has the property of being immoral. However, the particular nature of these properties is contingent upon God's choice. Depending upon the manner of creation, God could create a world in which being burned alive is pleasant or horrific, or even a world in which physical pain does not exist. However, there must be ways in which humans can act immorally, or God has not created free agents. Likewise, as God is benevolent, ensuring that agents are only capable of benevolent actions is again to deny them free agency by ensuring they do only that which God desires. So agents must be able to act malevolently. Once more, the ways in which acts become malevolent or not are contingent upon the manner of creation, but they are necessary components of it.

If God is benevolent, as you state here, God would not have created a world with pain at all. Nor would God have created the possibility of acting contrary to what God would want. Its like teaching a child not to do something that is harmful and then letting them harm themselves. I know I would not allow my child to choose to harm themselves simply because they want to. I strongly disagree that we must have the ability to choose to act immorally, based on the Christian dogma. In my faith, I would say that we do have the choice to do something wrong but that is based on learning the lessons we have for this life before we go to the next. Your faith does not teach this.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Honestly speaking Legion, long posts make my eyesight get worse much earlier in the day, which is counterproductive for me. However, here you go:


You speak here of free agents and the ability to do what God would not want us to do. If God is omnipotent, God would know what we were going to do and therefore, if it against God's will, God is culpable. For example, if you have a child and know that child is going to do something harmful, you, as the parent, would of course, stop them. Why would you allow a child to place their hand on a burning stove, for example, knowing it would burn them? Then you speak of 'before the cosmos' when only God existed. How do you know this? This is pure speculation on your part.



If God is benevolent, as you state here, God would not have created a world with pain at all. Nor would God have created the possibility of acting contrary to what God would want. Its like teaching a child not to do something that is harmful and then letting them harm themselves. I know I would not allow my child to choose to harm themselves simply because they want to. I strongly disagree that we must have the ability to choose to act immorally, based on the Christian dogma. In my faith, I would say that we do have the choice to do something wrong but that is based on learning the lessons we have for this life before we go to the next. Your faith does not teach this.

YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED NOR ANSWERED THE ARGUMENT I PROVIDED IN ANY SENSE/AT ALL