Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[idav]

Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

Of course not. He just doesn't particularly care about the existence of human babies, one way or the other. It's pathetically arrogant to think that a god would even find the existence of human beings worth noticing.

Cause gods are whores going after humans, zues, yahweh all of them.

 

[Magic Man]

Since that of course is non-sense why would you think he is bound by our faulty relationship with our emotions. We did not assign human qualities to God.

Your second statement is false, which would explain why you'd ask the first question. We assign human emotions to God (or since God is the one who "wrote" the Bible through humans, he assigned them to himself). Therefore he can be held to the human standard for those emotions.

It does not work as a hypothetical any better. The only place that logic works is for a person who thinks God does not exist but just to make sure hates him if he does, and justifies that belief at all costs. Including logic and reason.

The only way it works is as a hypothetical, because the point is your god makes no sense. The entire point of the argument is to point out that the list of qualities you assign to your god can't possibly co-exist, meaning he is a logical impossibility.

Find me a standard which is sufficient to indicate when God actually did something wrong. God does not tell us about moral truths he found. His nature defines morality to begin with. He does not chose morality, he is morality. Exactly what standard has the capacity to judge him? Where did you get it? How does it exceed the authority of God? It is an exercise in futility.

Well, I'm going by what the Bible tells us and what we know about emotions and actions. The standard is how humans would react to certain situations. God, according to the Bible, doesn't even meet the standards for a good human being, much less a perfect god.

Instead tell me how you can demonstrate that God has ever done anything of any type that is wrong? It was your claim and your burden anyway.

God slaughtered every human being on earth aside from one family. That is wrong.

So we have enough weapons aimed at each other to wipe out life as well know it, are morally insane to the point we have almost done it at least twice that I know of, in 5000 plus years of history about 300 have been peaceful, we kill human lives in the womb by the tens of millions because for our own mistakes (we do this on right we demand for ourselves but deny the fetus), many of us demand the right to endanger the rest of humanity so they can gratify sexual lust in ways nature nor God intended, then demand others should pay when it goes horribly wrong, we have constructed enough weapon grade chemicals and germs to eradicate life on the planet for a millennium and some have even used it in primitive forms, currently secularism has taken power from Christianity in the last great nation of history, drug abuse is up, teen pregnancy is up, our debt is up, and our school system once no.1 is now far lower and is full of gangs, drugs, and teachers having sex with students. You look at all this and the hundred thousand things I did not mention like the great atheistic utopias that killed tens of millions, and even race supremacy regimes using Darwin who killed 50 million and say everything is great, a success, a moral paradigm of excellence? I have no idea what to say next.

That was a lot of words for an irrelevant argument and strawman. None of that is relevant to the fact that we can judge God according to morality. The funniest part is that you condemn humans for killing millions of other humans, but then give God a pass when he does the same thing only on an even bigger scale.

So the people that judge a God that created life, has all the information possible on that life, has complete sovereignty over all life, and places the children immediately in heaven as evil, and are the exact same people that demand the almost sacred right to deny life to innocent unborn human beings as a moral god and you do not see the problem with it or the relevance of it. Again I do not know what to say that. Killing innocent lives in the womb by the millions for convenience is not imperfect it is moral bankruptcy.

Your ridiculous position on abortion aside, this is just an argument from the position that we can't judge god because he's perfect. It's circular logic and doesn't work.

Whatever happened to the Nietzsche's and Hume's. Atheists at one point had rational arguments? Where have they gone?

Right here. You're doing a very poor job responding to the rational arguments too.

 

[1robin]

Cause gods are whores going after humans, zues, yahweh all of them.

We appear to have a great schism in the God resenting camp. One says God is so disinterested in humans he could not care less about babies, the other says he cares so much he whores after them (whatever that even means). Well at least you guys are consistent, not.

 

[1robin]

Your second statement is false, which would explain why you'd ask the first question. We assign human emotions to God (or since God is the one who "wrote" the Bible through humans, he assigned them to himself). Therefore he can be held to the human standard for those emotions.

Ok, you want to insist on this then fine. This is a claim to knowledge and therefor your burden to PROVE. Good luck and until you do my claim stands.

The only way it works is as a hypothetical, because the point is your god makes no sense. The entire point of the argument is to point out that the list of qualities you assign to your god can't possibly co-exist, meaning he is a logical impossibility.

Another claim to knowledge without even an attempt at evidence or even an explanation. So again I await proof.

Well, I'm going by what the Bible tells us and what we know about emotions and actions. The standard is how humans would react to certain situations. God, according to the Bible, doesn't even meet the standards for a good human being, much less a perfect god.

What you said is diametrically opposed to Biblical doctrine. Again find me a standard by which God can be judged.

God slaughtered every human being on earth aside from one family. That is wrong.

I doubt your declaration is enough to actually make that true. I have explained why God was morally justified in wiping out a generation of purely evil people and you can find several examples of it in this thread alone. However you seem to be just winging it, never attempting proofs of anything, and never providing evidence of anything, until you do I can't justify explaining this event yet again. So instead of omnisciently claiming God is wrong try demonstrating he is.

That was a lot of words for an irrelevant argument and strawman. None of that is relevant to the fact that we can judge God according to morality. The funniest part is that you condemn humans for killing millions of other humans, but then give God a pass when he does the same thing only on an even bigger scale.

Where did we get that morality? Why is God bound by it or judgable by it. This is like a gnat telling Newton his calculus is wrong. Again what is this magical standard and where did we get it? You ever heard of divine command theory.

Your ridiculous position on abortion aside, this is just an argument from the position that we can't judge god because he's perfect. It's circular logic and doesn't work.

No it is not. We can't judge God because we lack 100% of the capacity by which to do so.

Right here. You're doing a very poor job responding to the rational arguments too.

I saw none. You are new to me and before I invest much time and effort into step by step exhaustive debates I must believe two things are true of the person I am debating. They have the capacity and background to know and understand the philosophic principles and arguments involved with these issues. They have a position based in reason and evidence, and not emotion. You have not demonstrated either and until you do I can't justify investing significant amount of time developing arguments if they will not be understood or with someone who decides truth by preference. Your clams about the flood narrative are demonstrably false, but it takes time to prove. Since you just declared what you have 0% access to was wrong and did not even bother to explain or invent false evidence for it I can't see any purpose for in depth theological and philosophical doctrine, law, and principle. You appear to have an emotionally based position in search of evidence and since it does not exist, it is simply assumed. Evidence and reason are powerless against cognitive dissonance.

 

[CG Didymus]

"Good" can be a difficult term to nail down exhaustively. A better way to look at it would be to put it in terms of suffering: rather than asking if God is "good," we could instead simply ask if God is malevolent -- that is, does God ever knowingly and intentionally share culpability for gratuitous suffering by a) potentiating it, b) causing it through action, or c) allowing it through negligence?

Many monotheists have the intution (or some say support from holy texts, or whatever) that the deity is at least not malevolent -- this is usually entailed by being "perfectly good," but we can avoid hairy definitions by just focusing on God being "never-malevolent."

Given the deity is omnipotent (has the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs by fiat), omniscient (at least knows all possible truths and believes no falsities), created the cosmos and all of its apparent contingencies, and that the deity is never malevolent; then there is a contradiction with the existence of suffering in the actual world due to God being culpable for it in terms of (a), (b), or (c) listed above.

Here's why, if we assume the deity has the properties listed above:

--------------------
a) Culpability through potentiating

What I mean by "potentiating" is this: the actual, existing world -- this one, according to the premises the one that God deliberately created -- has what appear to be contingencies that could have been otherwise. For instance, while there could never logically be a Euclidean square-circle, there is no apparent contradiction with a possible world where gravity repels instead of attracts: God could have made such an anti-gravity cosmos, but instead ostensibly to create a universe where gravity attracts. Just as a silly example.

The way this relates to culpability for suffering is because if God is omniscient, then God knows all different iterations of all possible worlds (all different arrangements of logically possible contingencies), and in order to actually create one of them (as, according to the premises, God did -- this one), it must be the case that God is culpable for the ramifications of its choice of contingencies since, being omniscient, God knowingly chose that specific set to make real rather than any of the other possible ones.

A simple analogy is a carpenter who could build a house for someone who depends on him -- he has a choice among an infinite number of possible blueprints. Some are mansions, some are shacks, some don't have doors or windows, others are weirder still. Now let's say the family is totally dependent on the carpenter for their living space for some reason -- they have no other choice other than to live in whatever the carpenter builds, and the carpenter up and decides to build a house without a roof.

Is the carpenter culpable for the family getting sick or wet and miserable when it rains, given that the carpenter knows they have no other option than to live in the home he builds, and given that the carpenter knows that by leaving out a roof he has condemned them to unnecessary pain? Yes. The carpenter has potentiated their suffering by causing to exist a capacity for it in the very nature of their surroundings as a creative being, where there are otherwise other options which avoid said suffering (such as choosing blueprints with a roof).

So, back to God being the omnipotent, omniscient, never-malevolent creator of the cosmos. Consider something like... oh I don't know, hurricanes, or tornados, or simple discomfort from the cold, or leukemia. It's logically possible for there to be a world where these things don't happen, yet in which people could otherwise live out their lives just fine. This is essentially God neglecting to build a roof over the house it built for us, and so God is culpable for potentiating suffering.

(This is also the case for violence and most other "free will" attributable sources of suffering -- God still shares some culpability in that. However, that's a more convoluted argument, and for now it's sufficient to just understand what it means for God to be culpable through potentiating.)

--------------------
b) Culpability through action

Obviously a being is at least sometimes malevolent (and thus not "never-malevolent") if said being directly causes or sets in motion sources of suffering knowing full well that they would entail such. I don't see (b) being very controversial for that reason: if the theist simply shrugs and says "yeah, God is vengeful and wrathful etc." then they're simply implicitly dropping the original presupposition that God isn't malevolent.

--------------------
c) Culpability through negligence

This is tied pretty closely to (a), since in order for God to negligently allow suffering, it must first be potentiated in the first place. Thus any negligence attributable to the deity is something of a "double whammy" of culpability for the suffering in question.

Another silly analogy time: consider that the universe hypothetically consists of two rooms filled with people going about their business. Assume these two rooms are paradises such that there are no sources of suffering created in either of them. Now let's say I drop by one of them and place a loaded pistol in the middle of the room somehow, safety off.

First, note that I have just potentiated suffering already where previously there was none, and where otherwise none needed to exist. In one sense, I'm already guilty -- already culpable at least in part for anything that happens.

Secondly, since I know full well what could happen if someone were to pick it up and have an accident or get angry in an argument or something -- yet I left it there anyway -- I'm culpable in part for the suffering again through my negligence.

Now consider the contrast between the two rooms: one has a loaded pistol, the other does not. One has potentiated suffering (even if no one has picked up the gun yet, now there is the potential for it due to my actions) whereas the other does not.

Why on earth would any sane, rational, non-malevolent being up and decide to potentiate suffering when it otherwise doesn't have to be potentiated?

--------------------

Thus, given the premises, it's inescapable without engaging in fallacy that there is a contradiction with the premises that God is omnipotent, omniscient, creator of the cosmos, never-malevolent, AND that suffering of various types are for some reason potentiated in the actual world by a being which ostensibly otherwise could have chosen not to potentiate them.

Now that I've read the whole thing, I really like what you've said. I don't understand how it makes sense that God is said to have made creation perfect or at least good and then put the serpent and the tree in the garden knowing Adam and Eve would fail the test. All so he could send his son 4000 years later to "save" us? How'd that work for him? So now he's going to destroy this Earth and make a new one? A perfect one? Why didn't he do that in the first place?

 

[1robin]

"Good" can be a difficult term to nail down exhaustively. A better way to look at it would be to put it in terms of suffering: rather than asking if God is "good," we could instead simply ask if God is malevolent -- that is, does God ever knowingly and intentionally share culpability for gratuitous suffering by a) potentiating it, b) causing it through action, or c) allowing it through negligence?

Many monotheists have the intution (or some say support from holy texts, or whatever) that the deity is at least not malevolent -- this is usually entailed by being "perfectly good," but we can avoid hairy definitions by just focusing on God being "never-malevolent."

Given the deity is omnipotent (has the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs by fiat), omniscient (at least knows all possible truths and believes no falsities), created the cosmos and all of its apparent contingencies, and that the deity is never malevolent; then there is a contradiction with the existence of suffering in the actual world due to God being culpable for it in terms of (a), (b), or (c) listed above.

Here's why, if we assume the deity has the properties listed above:

--------------------
a) Culpability through potentiating

What I mean by "potentiating" is this: the actual, existing world -- this one, according to the premises the one that God deliberately created -- has what appear to be contingencies that could have been otherwise. For instance, while there could never logically be a Euclidean square-circle, there is no apparent contradiction with a possible world where gravity repels instead of attracts: God could have made such an anti-gravity cosmos, but instead ostensibly to create a universe where gravity attracts. Just as a silly example.

The way this relates to culpability for suffering is because if God is omniscient, then God knows all different iterations of all possible worlds (all different arrangements of logically possible contingencies), and in order to actually create one of them (as, according to the premises, God did -- this one), it must be the case that God is culpable for the ramifications of its choice of contingencies since, being omniscient, God knowingly chose that specific set to make real rather than any of the other possible ones.

A simple analogy is a carpenter who could build a house for someone who depends on him -- he has a choice among an infinite number of possible blueprints. Some are mansions, some are shacks, some don't have doors or windows, others are weirder still. Now let's say the family is totally dependent on the carpenter for their living space for some reason -- they have no other choice other than to live in whatever the carpenter builds, and the carpenter up and decides to build a house without a roof.

Is the carpenter culpable for the family getting sick or wet and miserable when it rains, given that the carpenter knows they have no other option than to live in the home he builds, and given that the carpenter knows that by leaving out a roof he has condemned them to unnecessary pain? Yes. The carpenter has potentiated their suffering by causing to exist a capacity for it in the very nature of their surroundings as a creative being, where there are otherwise other options which avoid said suffering (such as choosing blueprints with a roof).

So, back to God being the omnipotent, omniscient, never-malevolent creator of the cosmos. Consider something like... oh I don't know, hurricanes, or tornados, or simple discomfort from the cold, or leukemia. It's logically possible for there to be a world where these things don't happen, yet in which people could otherwise live out their lives just fine. This is essentially God neglecting to build a roof over the house it built for us, and so God is culpable for potentiating suffering.

(This is also the case for violence and most other "free will" attributable sources of suffering -- God still shares some culpability in that. However, that's a more convoluted argument, and for now it's sufficient to just understand what it means for God to be culpable through potentiating.)

--------------------
b) Culpability through action

Obviously a being is at least sometimes malevolent (and thus not "never-malevolent") if said being directly causes or sets in motion sources of suffering knowing full well that they would entail such. I don't see (b) being very controversial for that reason: if the theist simply shrugs and says "yeah, God is vengeful and wrathful etc." then they're simply implicitly dropping the original presupposition that God isn't malevolent.

--------------------
c) Culpability through negligence

This is tied pretty closely to (a), since in order for God to negligently allow suffering, it must first be potentiated in the first place. Thus any negligence attributable to the deity is something of a "double whammy" of culpability for the suffering in question.

Another silly analogy time: consider that the universe hypothetically consists of two rooms filled with people going about their business. Assume these two rooms are paradises such that there are no sources of suffering created in either of them. Now let's say I drop by one of them and place a loaded pistol in the middle of the room somehow, safety off.

First, note that I have just potentiated suffering already where previously there was none, and where otherwise none needed to exist. In one sense, I'm already guilty -- already culpable at least in part for anything that happens.

Secondly, since I know full well what could happen if someone were to pick it up and have an accident or get angry in an argument or something -- yet I left it there anyway -- I'm culpable in part for the suffering again through my negligence.

Now consider the contrast between the two rooms: one has a loaded pistol, the other does not. One has potentiated suffering (even if no one has picked up the gun yet, now there is the potential for it due to my actions) whereas the other does not.

Why on earth would any sane, rational, non-malevolent being up and decide to potentiate suffering when it otherwise doesn't have to be potentiated?

--------------------

Thus, given the premises, it's inescapable without engaging in fallacy that there is a contradiction with the premises that God is omnipotent, omniscient, creator of the cosmos, never-malevolent, AND that suffering of various types are for some reason potentiated in the actual world by a being which ostensibly otherwise could have chosen not to potentiate them.

Let me ask something. If all these ideas are true of humanity why would you think they are applicable to God? What is morally binding on a finite creature would not be on one with infinite knowledge. The same is true of morality as applied to kids and it's inapplicability to adult sin many cases. I am sure al of this is reasonably justifiable in evaluating our own actions. I do not see how anyone would know that they apply to the creator of the universe. The same as applying Newtonian physics to quantum entities would not work.

 

[psychoslice]

When you shove god up on a pedastal and believe him to be perfect in every way, you then set yourself up to be miserable. I kicked god of his pedastal years ago, I no longer cling to such childish stories, I see all as life being life, death is part of life, there are times when we don't like what happens, but still that is life.

My deeper realization is that there really is no death, yes the body dies but we are not the body, we are life itself, when the body dies we as life continue onwards, not as The ego from the body but as pure Consciousness, this pure Source animates through all there is, you can experience it through such things as meditation, once you have truly experienced this you will never need to ask such questions, such as god being good or whatever.

 

[adi2d]

We appear to have a great schism in the God resenting camp. One says God is so disinterested in humans he could not care less about babies, the other says he cares so much he whores after them (whatever that even means). Well at least you guys are consistent, not.

I'm so glad you thiests are so consistent. I can read your beliefs and know you all believe the same.

Oh wait. That never happens. From creation to life after death you all have different interpretations of the truth
I guess noone really knows or there would be answers instead of endless questions

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me ask something. If all these ideas are true of humanity why would you think they are applicable to God? What is morally binding on a finite creature would not be on one with infinite knowledge.

Let me ask you something: why would a Christian think that humanity doesn't have the same knowledge of good and evil as God? Wasn't that the whole point of the Genesis story? If Adam and Eve didn't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (either metaphorically or literally), then wouldn't Christ's sacrifice be unnecessary?

 

[Magic Man]

Ok, you want to insist on this then fine. This is a claim to knowledge and therefor your burden to PROVE. Good luck and until you do my claim stands.

What exactly do you want me to prove? It's right there in the Bible. God is assigned human emotions. If that's the case, then he can be held to at least the human standard for such things. If you're asking for specific text from the Bible, I can provide it, but I didn't realize it was a question as to whether the Bible talked about God's human emotions.

Another claim to knowledge without even an attempt at evidence or even an explanation. So again I await proof.

This entire thread is an explanation. I thought that was obvious. God is supposedly perfect and all-loving, and yet he killed every human being except for one family. That's a contradiction. Logically those qualities and that action can't co-exist in a being.

What you said is diametrically opposed to Biblical doctrine. Again find me a standard by which God can be judged.

In other words, you'll just deny anything you don't like. Why would I give you other examples when you're obviously just going to deny them, even though they're plain to see?

I doubt your declaration is enough to actually make that true.

Oh, it's definitely not. But it does have the backing of the words from the Bible, along with logic and reason. Those are the things that make it true.

I have explained why God was morally justified in wiping out a generation of purely evil people and you can find several examples of it in this thread alone.

Right, so when God does it, he had good reason, but when humans do it, it's disgusting and 100% morally wrong. That's special pleading. The main problem is you're going with the assumption that every human being was evil, which is ridiculous. Even if it wasn't ridiculous to think that every adult was evil, you'd still be asserting that every child was evil. That's just plain silly. Besides, even with that as the case, a loving parent would choose any other path than killing their children.

However you seem to be just winging it, never attempting proofs of anything, and never providing evidence of anything, until you do I can't justify explaining this event yet again. So instead of omnisciently claiming God is wrong try demonstrating he is.

I already have. Your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't change that fact.

Where did we get that morality?

From logic, reason and empathy.

Why is God bound by it or judgable by it.

Because he should at least be held to a human standard of morality. If not, you're saying anything god does is moral. Meaning, if he had an abortion or killed an innocent child, it would be moral just because he said so. Yet, you would not accept the same thing for a human being. That's inconsistent.

No it is not. We can't judge God because we lack 100% of the capacity by which to do so.

No, we have 100% of the capacity to do so. It's quite easy actually, when you drop the special pleading for him.

I saw none.

I think you misspoke. You saw them; you just chose to deny them.

You are new to me and before I invest much time and effort into step by step exhaustive debates I must believe two things are true of the person I am debating. They have the capacity and background to know and understand the philosophic principles and arguments involved with these issues. They have a position based in reason and evidence, and not emotion.

Why do you expect more from your opponents than you do from yourself?

You have not demonstrated either and until you do I can't justify investing significant amount of time developing arguments if they will not be understood or with someone who decides truth by preference.

In other words, you're not interested in an actual give-and-take, because you're too committed to your beliefs to think logically or reasonably about them. Got it.

 

[CG Didymus]

Good and evil exists in the world. Natural disasters just happen. They hurt and kill people. Viruses and bacteria can cause humans to get sick and even die. Supposedly, an all-knowing, all-loving God created everything. Therefore, God made things and put things into motion that would cause people to suffer. He, supposedly, made us. But made us just dumb enough to doubt and disobey him? He made us just dumb enough to love doing things he clearly told us are evil? And then blames us for being that stupid?

 

[Meow Mix]

Let me ask something. If all these ideas are true of humanity why would you think they are applicable to God? What is morally binding on a finite creature would not be on one with infinite knowledge. The same is true of morality as applied to kids and it's inapplicability to adult sin many cases. I am sure al of this is reasonably justifiable in evaluating our own actions. I do not see how anyone would know that they apply to the creator of the universe. The same as applying Newtonian physics to quantum entities would not work.

Well, if you're saying that our notion of "good" isn't sufficient to describe God, then God isn't "good." God is something else. You're painting yourself in an epistemic corner by essentially meaning "an unknowable being does unknowable things in an unknowable way" when you say "God is good," which means essentially you haven't really described anything at all.

In any case we know enough to know what "malevolence" is, and God simply fulfills that definition if existent with the premises laid forth.

-----------

Keep in mind this is a logical conundrum, not an emotional one. The point isn't to say "wah, God's mean!" but rather to point out an inconsistency with God *not* being malevolent (with the rest of the premises).

 

[Meow Mix]

Now that I've read the whole thing, I really like what you've said. I don't understand how it makes sense that God is said to have made creation perfect or at least good and then put the serpent and the tree in the garden knowing Adam and Eve would fail the test. All so he could send his son 4000 years later to "save" us? How'd that work for him? So now he's going to destroy this Earth and make a new one? A perfect one? Why didn't he do that in the first place?

Those are indeed problematic for the overall picture that an "omnimax" deity paints.

In fact, the whole notion of having a "plan" at all is absurd for an omnipotent, omniscient being: plans are a means to an end; and all possible ends are immediately available to such a being by fiat.

Such a deity should never have to do anything "in order to...," because the whole "in order to" bit already implies impotence (relative to omnipotence).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well at least you guys are consistent, not.

Why would two people with totally different views be consistent? Now what's actually interesting is your inability to maintain a sense of logical consistency within the span of a single post. Of course, this isn't uncommon to people who get lost in the complex irrationaliy of their own untenable positions.

 

[Meow Mix]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin
If a being with perfect foresight didn't care enough to prevent some offensive act in the first place, why would he get all angry and wrathful after the fact?

By this logic God is not allowed (by a faulty and finite human being of all things) to make any non-optimal beings. That would mean he must only make exact copies of himself. Now that is logic for you.

That doesn't follow. God doesn't have to change the non-optimal free beings in order to prevent suffering. For instance, suppose God sets physics up in some actual world in such a way that whenever harm should befall a person, it instead doesn't: an attempted stabbing turns the knife to butter (or removes its inertia, or whatever), a falling branch instead swerves to the side, fire becomes room temperature on contact with flesh, so on.

There's no reason why God couldn't actualize a world with conditional physics, like a program. If it's possible for a programmer to make a world in which suffering doesn't occur, then it's possible for God to actualize a real world like that. No, God wouldn't have to change the agents or their free will (assuming we're granting such a thing exists) -- this goes back to God potentiating suffering. If God simply doesn't potentiate it, then there will be no suffering even though the agents are free.

 

[1robin]

Well, if you're saying that our notion of "good" isn't sufficient to describe God, then God isn't "good." God is something else. You're painting yourself in an epistemic corner by essentially meaning "an unknowable being does unknowable things in an unknowable way" when you say "God is good," which means essentially you haven't really described anything at all.

I usually say God is right not good. I believe I have the God given conscience to determine he is good, but in a debate you must show that your standard apply to God. Yours are probably valid but until you show they can be used to judge God they are not useful in doing so. How do you know that what any human has ever thought about right and wrong is actually true?

In any case we know enough to know what "malevolence" is, and God simply fulfills that definition if existent with the premises laid forth.

No we know what we consider malevolence and you can't how he was using that standard either.

1. You must first show that your or anyone's definition of wrong is actually objectively true.
2. You must then show that you know what God did.
3. You must then show that you know enough about why God did it to condemn him.

1 and 3 are impossible to know and 2 is possible if the Bible is accepted.
-----------

Keep in mind this is a logical conundrum, not an emotional one. The point isn't to say "wah, God's mean!" but rather to point out an inconsistency with God *not* being malevolent (with the rest of the premises).

Let's just forget you can't do 1 and 3 above and instead pick a action God took and prove it is malevolent. You pick, pick your best. I will give you one hint. There is one that I have no capacity to defend but it is obscure. Anyway Good luck. I will even assume you could know #1 for this exercise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me ask something. If all these ideas are true of humanity why would you think they are applicable to God? What is morally binding on a finite creature would not be on one with infinite knowledge.

Why would "infinite knowledge" exempt an individual from morality?

Having perfect knowledge would allow an individual to have perfect foreknowledge of the consequences of his decisions, which would allow him to do a better job at making moral choices, but that's not the same thing as morality not applying.

And "infinite knowledge" has another implication: if we're absolutely sure that God has perfect knowledge and is perfectly good, then we can be sure that we'll be moral if we follow his example. If a perfectly good being kills babies, then we can be sure that killing babies is morally good, no?

 

[CG Didymus]

[/i]



That doesn't follow. God doesn't have to change the non-optimal free beings in order to prevent suffering. For instance, suppose God sets physics up in some actual world in such a way that whenever harm should befall a person, it instead doesn't: an attempted stabbing turns the knife to butter (or removes its inertia, or whatever), a falling branch instead swerves to the side, fire becomes room temperature on contact with flesh, so on.

There's no reason why God couldn't actualize a world with conditional physics, like a program. If it's possible for a programmer to make a world in which suffering doesn't occur, then it's possible for God to actualize a real world like that. No, God wouldn't have to change the agents or their free will (assuming we're granting such a thing exists) -- this goes back to God potentiating suffering. If God simply doesn't potentiate it, then there will be no suffering even though the agents are free.

I wonder why God would create "non-optimal" beings? Doesn't that imply they have some flaws? So what was his plan? To slowly, over time, teach us the truth? But, what is the truth? That we are to love and respect each other? No, that's not the truth. The real and only truth is that we have to give our hearts to Jesus and let the Holy Spirit guide our lives. Unfortunately, we can't do that perfectly, because we're flawed. We have a sin nature that came from the first humans disobeying God. It's all right there as plain as day in Scripture. They were tempted and listened to a talking serpent who was really the devil in disguise. But that's okay. It's all part of his perfect, loving plan.

God had no other way to show us how wonderful he is, and how great it will be to be with him forever in a heaven, without us going through a little pain and suffering here on Earth. It makes perfect sense doesn't it? Anyway, if you disagree the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. Why? Because me and my God said so. So there.

Oh wait, I lost my head there for a minute. What I meant to say was that I love you and everything you've said. You're the best Meow Mix.

 

[1robin]

Why would "infinite knowledge" exempt an individual from morality?

I did not say it did. I said it may make us (who are finite and have an infinitely small amount of the fact involved) incapable of judging it. If God hilled Hitler at 1 year old his mother might have said God was evil. If she had Penguin in her name she certainly would have. However because she has no access to the fact God saved 50 million lives she would be wrong. Ants can't tell Newton calculus is wrong, children are almost always wrong in judging their parents, bushman in the Congo can't debate nuclear theory because of ignorance. Same with us and God to a large extent.

Having perfect knowledge would allow an individual to have perfect foreknowledge of the consequences of his decisions, which would allow him to do a better job at making moral choices, but that's not the same thing as morality not applying.

I did not say morality does not apply. I said our capacity to identify and understand the morality t hat would apply is faulty.

And "infinite knowledge" has another implication: if we're absolutely sure that God has perfect knowledge and is perfectly good, then we can be sure that we'll be moral if we follow his example. If a perfectly good being kills babies, then we can be sure that killing babies is morally good, no?

Not even close. What is true of a being that knows everything, created all life, can rectify any injustice that took place, place them in heaven before their parents can disqualify them from it, and has complete sovereignty over everything is not true of a puny finite race of morally insane people. The insanity can be seen in the fact that even without any of those attributes we do kill babies and deny call the one that does have them evil. Insanity is no basis for action or equivalence. I must have made this same point with you a dozen times. Why am I doing so if your just ignoring every time? There is not a hint of fault in the above reasoning yet you will make the same point again in a day or two. Why?

 

[1robin]

[/i]



That doesn't follow. God doesn't have to change the non-optimal free beings in order to prevent suffering. For instance, suppose God sets physics up in some actual world in such a way that whenever harm should befall a person, it instead doesn't: an attempted stabbing turns the knife to butter (or removes its inertia, or whatever), a falling branch instead swerves to the side, fire becomes room temperature on contact with flesh, so on.

That is an independent issue. Requiring optimality from God is one thing. What creatures with freewill means is another. If God allows freewill he must allow wrong choices, allowing wrong choices mandates suffering. The most common mistake non-theists make concerning God is they include some irrational derivatives based on his attributes but never include purpose and will. God created the universe and man for a purpose. He wants beings who will freely chose to love him. That necessitates freewill, freewill necessitates wrong choices, wrong choices necessitates suffering, sufferings purpose is to indicate right from wrong. God's purpose mandates the existence of suffering as a part of his passive will. He allows it, he does not desire it, but just as a circle must be round, his purpose mandates freewill and so on. The fact he eliminates suffering, death, sin, etc... in heaven indicates he does not like suffering but that it has a function given his purpose.

There's no reason why God couldn't actualize a world with conditional physics, like a program. If it's possible for a programmer to make a world in which suffering doesn't occur, then it's possible for God to actualize a real world like that. No, God wouldn't have to change the agents or their free will (assuming we're granting such a thing exists) -- this goes back to God potentiating suffering. If God simply doesn't potentiate it, then there will be no suffering even though the agents are free.

He could do so. He could not do so and still meet his purpose. It is one of the most futile things I can imagine to sit around and try and think of ways God could have done better given purpose, and especially when purpose is ignored. God's purpose was not to maximize happiness, human flourishing, luxury, and comfort in this life. It was to reveal himself, his nature, the nature of morality, and allow free choice based on comprehension of those things. Who would believe in sin if sin had no effect? Who would believe in God if God did not judge? Who would believe in love if love was al there was? Up is meaningless unless down exists. Left is meaningless unless right exists. Right is meaningless unless wrong exists.