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

[Anttjuan]

Everyone who has died will resurrect. "...there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust" (Acts 24:15). But I don't know where you get the idea that God has preordained them to die.

 

[cottage]

A. I didn't say that God had to create. I suggested that all things were created without malicious intent. Human suffering is largely a result of not being informed and/or indifferent to how life operates and to how our actions affect those we share this world with. Natural disasters, disease, and whatnot are not evils in and of themselves. They're not pleasant, but then they likely serve a greater purpose. I don't know and won't pretend to.

You are saying nothing in response to the argument I’ve given you, other than to confirm the contradiction. It isn’t part of my argument that there was any malicious intent, and to say ‘suffering is a result of how life operates’ is stating the obvious! And to suppose that disasters and disease serve a greater purpose is to nonsensically say that disaster and disease is a good thing!

B. What I do know is that existence is omnipotent over all existing things. The laws that govern us are intrinsic to God, thus God is subject to be who God is and create according to those laws. My contention is your insistence that existence (God) should be able to create anything not subject to that which is intrinsic to God, and inherent to God's quality of being ... namely the laws that govern all things.

Your first sentence in that passage makes no sense at all. And as I’ve already explained, the laws that govern us are caused by God; they are not ‘intrinsic to God’, since he can change or amend them. The only attributes necessary to God are the ones I’ve already given you, which define the concept of a Supreme Being.

God is bound to be who God is. That's one point where we differ in understanding. We are bound by the same inherent laws that bind God. God is law, principle, and truth (what is real). It is law (God) that holds everything together in the cosmos, which then enables life on earth. Take away the inherent law in existence (God) and we'd be left with chaos unable to foster life.

If there is a God then we are bound by his laws, by which he sustains the universe, but God is the cause of them and is not bound by his own laws of the universe. Think about it! For if that were the case he would be finite, mortal and imperfect, just like his creation!

Take away that part of God's being (law) and there would be no universe at all. It is through the laws inherent to God's being that life was able to be formed. Without law there would be no known existence for humans to perceive. God is subject to himself, which would still make God omnipotent and unlimited in power. Take that away and maybe then you could suggest that God is not omnipotent ... that's not the case, however. God is omnipotent even unto himself.

For the umpteenth time, there are no laws inherent in God; the laws of the universe are given by God, but he is not subject to them because laws affecting the natural world are contingent whereas God is a necessary being. And yes, without those God-given laws the world couldn’t operate, but that would make no difference to God’s omnipotence since that state of affairs could only come about with God’s will.

Note that in my responses I am only assuming God exists for the sake of argument.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The law of polarity is one. Everything has a pair of opposites. Opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree of vibration, which then corresponds on all levels of being (physical, mental, and spiritual).

What's the opposite of AmbiguousGuy?

I'm sorry, but I still find you to be wandering in a bunch of words. At least, I really can't make sense of what you are saying.

 

[1robin]

Define your God's morals because I have defined them well. Morality is relevant to mankind not to god.
You spoke earlier about moral absolutes yet absolutes do not exist although I know you use circular fallacies to conclude so.

It is a constant complaint among theological scholars that it is impossible to keep a non-theist on the subject if it is moral ontology. No matter what we do they are going to turn it into a epistemological debate. Why is this? I think I know why but wandered if you do.

1. Moral ontology does not require listing what specific morals are. It is a foundational claim only. If God exists then moral can be founded in absolute truth. If he does not no morals whatever so ever are actually true. It appears you grant this which is both logical and sad at the same time as I will show.

For now I will assume you agree that morals are founded in opinion and preference without God and only have an objective reference point with God. Which one is the true? Well on my side virtually all humans act as if objective moral truth exists including you. If I followed you around for a day or so unless you are psychopath you will refer to objective morals many times regardless what your "official position is". It is simply human nature. I have the witness of our moral conscience (God given?) which perceives an objective moral realm. I also have the fact that most human legal institutions considers some acts against the moral nature of the universe it's self. I have by far the best case but since it is impossible to actually discuss ontology let's move on.

You asked for specific morals. I can't supply an entire list. Here are a few. killing without justification is wrong. We should revere God and Christ. We should not lie. Etc......

I imagine you are going to amplify any problems that may or may not exist in applying them. However pay attention to this: God only adds to our moral perception and reference points. Even if you find a problem it is less a problem with God that without. God is a net gain and his absence a net loss as far as al moral aspects go. I have everything you have available to me (common sense, rationality, reason) plus I have a potential moral law giver that you do not. I have a potential foundation you do not. Atheism is so inferior to theism morally that it is easily argued we should assume God exist even if he didn't, and the deeds of modern atheist utopias prove that beyond doubt.

Let's review the Categorical Imperative where absolutes are taken into account. You love absolutes yet they existed before Christianity.

My faith and God existed long before Christianity as a covenant existed so I have no problem. Christ added no new moral precepts, he only amplified and clarified pre-existing ones. Men since they were endowed with a soul have had a God given conscience so there is no gap "before Godly morality" existed.

Is it an absolute moral obligation to help others?

It is a goal and a precept to meet legitimate needs. It is not a requirement or expectation that anyone will ever do so perfectly.

If so then whyshould you not help the rapist with his deeds?

What? God condemns rape. He insists we should resist such acts. There is no verse that states we should help everyone with anything. I thought you were going to be sensible so I did not point out the technical faults in your statements but unfortunately it is necessary. You will find no verse that states what you claimed. This is silly.

If you say God is a source of absolute morality then take into fact how you deemed the acts of genocide by him immoral or do you think killing virgin daughters and genocide are just?

God is not an adherent to his moral dictates given to humans. Humans (just as children are by us) given moral duties that reflect their weaknesses and lack of capacity. We cannot see the future, we do not know a persons heart in totality, we cannot place a person in heaven, we did not create the lives we take, we do not have sovereignty over creation, we do not know how history will play out. So we are restricted in our actions. God has perfect knowledge, absolute sovereignty, he created al life, he knows a person heart fully, can place them in heaven, and knows what impact his actions will have. He obviously will have less self imposed restrictions than we will. This is common sense and a dichotomy we practice with children every day.

Let me help you out here. You must show that God was morally unjustified to commit act X to have any point at all. Have at it.

You are either two things.......

An Intellectually dishonest and moral person.... or
A genocidal third party murderer.

What the heck are you talking about?

Please take your pick and do not beat around the bush as you have only two options

You are not God, are you? You do not make reality by declaration do you? I take a third option that leaves God with the attributes he has and us with ours and the moral truths and dynamics that apply. You should try it some time.

 

[1robin]

If you are referring to causation then the above is demonstrably false, whether or not any God exists. You seem to be confusing the terms “necessity” and “contingency”. If a thing is contingent then it is not logically necessary. Nothing distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction if denied, and the statement A causes B is contingent because it isn’t a necessary truth. For example, without the benefit of experience and experimentation (as per your last sentence), there is no way of telling whether a leaden object placed in water might be buoyant while an object made of cork might sink, and there is no logical contradiction implied by their doing so.

It gives me great pleasure to post partial agreement, maybe. Normally the cause of an effect could be necessary but the effect must be contingent. I would agree with you in every other case. However God is special. There was no time when he did not exist, and so there was no time when moral law did not exist. I find no reason to conclude he at some point created moral law. As Craig and many others say God is morality. He is the locus for all moral truth. It is part of who he is. If he existed then the law existed. Morality is God. So if God is a necessary being then moral law is not contingent.

 

[ZenMonkey]

What's the opposite of AmbiguousGuy?

I'm sorry, but I still find you to be wandering in a bunch of words. At least, I really can't make sense of what you are saying.

Physical is a polar opposite to spiritual. You are a physical being and a spiritual being. You're mentality rests somewhere in the middle. It's all you, but each aspect that is you varies in degree of vibration. Kinda like steam, liquid, and ice.

 

[ZenMonkey]

You are saying nothing in response to the argument I’ve given you, other than to confirm the contradiction. It isn’t part of my argument that there was any malicious intent, and to say ‘suffering is a result of how life operates’ is stating the obvious! And to suppose that disasters and disease serve a greater purpose is to nonsensically say that disaster and disease is a good thing!




Your first sentence in that passage makes no sense at all. And as I’ve already explained, the laws that govern us are caused by God; they are not ‘intrinsic to God’, since he can change or amend them. The only attributes necessary to God are the ones I’ve already given you, which define the concept of a Supreme Being.





If there is a God then we are bound by his laws, by which he sustains the universe, but God is the cause of them and is not bound by his own laws of the universe. Think about it! For if that were the case he would be finite, mortal and imperfect, just like his creation!





For the umpteenth time, there are no laws inherent in God; the laws of the universe are given by God, but he is not subject to them because laws affecting the natural world are contingent whereas God is a necessary being. And yes, without those God-given laws the world couldn’t operate, but that would make no difference to God’s omnipotence since that state of affairs could only come about with God’s will.

Note that in my responses I am only assuming God exists for the sake of argument.

Laws are not caused. They are inherent to existence. That is where your points fall flat. Prove that laws are NOT inherent to existence. The rest of your post is based on what you think God should be and not based on reality. Existence exists and has always existed as something. You said a great deal of nothing in your post, cottage. Somehow I envision you doing the following while reading my posts: :ignore:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Physical is a polar opposite to spiritual. You are a physical being and a spiritual being. You're mentality rests somewhere in the middle.

My 'mentality' rests somewhere in the middle of physicality and spirituality?

Can you define 'mentality' for me, in your own words?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You asked for specific morals. I can't supply an entire list. Here are a few. killing without justification is wrong.

Without justification according to whom?

 

[cottage]

Laws are not caused. They are inherent to existence. That is where your points fall flat. Prove that laws are NOT inherent to existence. The rest of your post is based on what you think God should be and not based on reality. Existence exists and has always existed as something. You said a great deal of nothing in your post, cottage. Somehow I envision you doing the following while reading my posts: :ignore:

Ahem! But you were arguing that laws are inherent in God! Of course laws are necessary for existence, and if God exists then it is he who causes and sustains them. The contrary position is that God didn’t cause them, and in which case God is not the omnipotent creator and the Supreme Being!

Your arguments, if they can be called that, are all over the place. Just look at that highlighted sentence of yours. It’s meaningless twaddle.

And again you haven’t answered a single point that I’ve made; I suspect that is because you’ve not understood what is being said. If there is something you don’t understand just ask for clarification and I’ll rephrase it in more simple terms for you.

 

[cottage]

It gives me great pleasure to post partial agreement, maybe. Normally the cause of an effect could be necessary but the effect must be contingent. I would agree with you in every other case. However God is special. There was no time when he did not exist, and so there was no time when moral law did not exist. I find no reason to conclude he at some point created moral law. As Craig and many others say God is morality. He is the locus for all moral truth. It is part of who he is. If he existed then the law existed. Morality is God. So if God is a necessary being then moral law is not contingent.

If there is not a single moral law that is demonstrably necessary then every single moral law is contingent. For example, to state that murder and rape are not wrong may be obscene and thought of as morally reprehensible, but there is no logical contradiction implied in denying any supposed moral truth. So if God is said to be moral truth then it has to be shown what is obectively and necessarily true of morality, that is to say why no contradiction is implied by its denial.

 

[kevin007]

When Adam and Eve sinned, sin and death entered into the World. Satan is the "prince and power of the air" for NOW. Until Jesus returns.

 

[1robin]

Without justification according to whom?

God ultimately. However we as a race define what is justifiable concerning killing another human being anyway. Adding God simply makes the justifications theoretically based on truth and an ultimate justice inevitable even if we did not receive justice on earth. A theist loses nothing by his theism. Theism gains immeasurably over atheism in even category. We evaluate justification with or without God but including God founds that justification on truth.

 

[1robin]

If there is not a single moral law that is demonstrably necessary then every single moral law is contingent. For example, to state that murder and rape are not wrong may be obscene and thought of as morally reprehensible, but there is no logical contradiction implied in denying any supposed moral truth. So if God is said to be moral truth then it has to be shown what is obectively and necessarily true of morality, that is to say why no contradiction is implied by its denial.

There most certainly is a contradiction in denying the truth of a true thing. If God exists then rape and murder are actually wrong and necessarily wrong. To deny that fact is to contradict our selves. As it always does, it comes down to only the question of whether God exist or not. If he does then his morals are necessary concepts that the denial of is a contradiction with reality.

This is conditionally true even if I had no evidence what so ever any God or any moral existed. It is just as true even if I have no way to prove objective moral values exist. The same way Pluto's physical characteristics were no less true regardless of our former ignorance of them.

I think it a very reasonable conclusion to believe objective moral values exist based on the fact the human race overwhelmingly believes they do and that the awareness of an objective moral realm is no less valid than the awareness of a physical realm, but this is unnecessary for my claim.

 

[cottage]

There most certainly is a contradiction in denying the truth of a true thing. If God exists then rape and murder are actually wrong and necessarily wrong. To deny that fact is to contradict our selves. As it always does, it comes down to only the question of whether God exist or not. If he does then his morals are necessary concepts that the denial of is a contradiction with reality.

This is conditionally true even if I had no evidence what so ever any God or any moral existed. It is just as true even if I have no way to prove objective moral values exist. The same way Pluto's physical characteristics were no less true regardless of our former ignorance of them.

I think it a very reasonable conclusion to believe objective moral values exist based on the fact the human race overwhelmingly believes they do and that the awareness of an objective moral realm is no less valid than the awareness of a physical realm, but this is unnecessary for my claim.

If no moral law is necessarily true, then no argument to God can be made to any such law. This is what you said previously: ‘So if God is a necessary being then moral law is not contingent.’ There is no moral law, since every example, and without exception, can be denied without contradiction. Therefore any supposed moral law is contingent and may be either true or false.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

God ultimately. However we as a race define what is justifiable concerning killing another human being anyway. Adding God simply makes the justifications theoretically based on truth...

Sure. That's why theistic morality can be so corrupt and evil. A guy plasters "GOD" onto his personal justification and thereby removes all his personal responsibility.

Scary stuff.

A theist loses nothing by his theism. Theism gains immeasurably over atheism in even category.

Except for the 'rational debate' category. Anyway, I don't worry about whether the Inquisitor gains or loses. I worry about his victims. God save us all from a man who wields his sword in the name of his God.

We evaluate justification with or without God but including God founds that justification on truth.

Yeah. Those who fear to take personal responsibility for their decisions often claim the backing of "God's Truth".

 

[1robin]

Sure. That's why theistic morality can be so corrupt and evil. A guy plasters "GOD" onto his personal justification and thereby removes all his personal responsibility.

Theistic morality can certainly be corrupt, however the reasons I gave are not why, but if you wish to see true diabolical corruption look no further than the atheistic utopias of the last century.

Scary stuff.

What truly is scary and has killed more than anyone who ever claimed to be a Christian all added together is the moral insanity that uncouples morality from an objective foundation. This allows it to be plugged into any place an extremely fallible race in it's insanity desires, or at least the most powerful elements of that race. This has produced the refusal to execute guilty murderers and killed hundreds of millions of innocent lives in the womb. It has made a sexual practice that is done by 4% of us and that produces 60% of the aids cases, a sacred right. Not to even mention the Stalin's Pol Pot's and mao's of the world. To make it even worse modern moral ambiguity is so baseless that this is called progress. Well you can have it but I will insist it be called what it is as it consumes us.

Except for the 'rational debate' category. Anyway, I don't worry about whether the Inquisitor gains or loses. I worry about his victims. God save us all from a man who wields his sword in the name of his God.

First in the four hundred years of the inquisition only 4000 people died. The atheistic Stalin called that, breakfast. Regardless without God no justification is even possible for condemning the inquisitors. There exists no criteria available to determine whether the inquisitors opinions were actually right or your preferences are unless God exists. Your having to amputate your head to save your big toe.

Yeah. Those who fear to take personal responsibility for their decisions often claim the backing of "God's Truth".

There are no traditionally admitted morally accountable people as Christians. In the land of admitted guilt we are king.

Let me ask this. Which one is easier to justify.

1. Taking the life of a creation personally made by an omnipotent being, which was endowed with absolute objective worth, value, and equality at inception. Who is known by God and that is the same God we will all answer to and to who's sovereignty we all dwell within.

Or.

2. To cease the functionality of a bag of atoms arbitrarily stuck together by natural law. Which has no inherent worth, no actual rights, no sanctity, no equality, and no objective value what so ever.

That is why the 19th centuries great genocidal leaders first had to get rid of God to devalue human life to the point where taking out 20 million of them meant nothing.

As Nietzsche said: because writers and poets killed God in the 19th century a general madness will rule the twentieth and it will be the most bloody century in history.

Not only was it, it was bloodier than all the preceding centuries combined. Not only does madness rule but Nietzsche himself went insane. Not only even this. Hitler presented Nietzsche's book to both Mussolini and Stalin. Two committed suicide after killing millions and another died insane after killing millions. Nice work, idiots. Now your promoting the same insane ideas he had.

 

[1robin]

If no moral law is necessarily true, then no argument to God can be made to any such law. This is what you said previously: ‘So if God is a necessary being then moral law is not contingent.’ There is no moral law, since every example, and without exception, can be denied without contradiction. Therefore any supposed moral law is contingent and may be either true or false.

I am not sure if I understood this. It appears to be another semantic technicality. I see only one possible point here. Are you saying that it is illogical to for instance praise God for being good because he had no choice?

Let me restate my claim and you can clarify a bit based on that.


I claim morality is an intrinsic characteristic of God inseparable from his being. If his being is a necessary one then the constituents of that being would be necessary as well. Now if you were claiming that produces some conflict with claims about law then you may have a point but I made no claim here about law. If God exists then his moral nature is necessary and dictates what is good from what is evil. So far I see no conflict or contradiction. That might modify what is meant by law but I see no reason to consider law meaningless. Anyway I will wait for clarification.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Theistic morality can certainly be corrupt, however the reasons I gave are not why, but if you wish to see true diabolical corruption look no further than the atheistic utopias of the last century.

I see you continue to confuse politics and religion. When Christians had unchecked political power, their slaughter and evil were unchecked. When a non-religious guy had unchecked political power, same thing.

Look at Muslim countries. They function much like Christian countries did 500 years ago. But we in the west are declawing our Abrahamists. We are taming the beast.

What truly is scary and has killed more than anyone who ever claimed to be a Christian all added together is the moral insanity that uncouples morality from an objective foundation. This allows it to be plugged into any place an extremely fallible race in it's insanity desires, or at least the most powerful elements of that race. This has produced the refusal to execute guilty murderers...

Wow. You really are on the wrong side of history, just as the US slavers were 150 years ago. They railed against the secular morality which was responsible for letting slaves out of the cotton fields. You rail against a secular morality which lets convicts avoid execution. Goodness.

Regardless without God no justification is even possible for condemning the inquisitors. There exists no criteria available to determine whether the inquisitors opinions were actually right or your preferences are unless God exists.

Nonsense. I can debate you into the dirt on the issue without raising a sweat.

Just because you can't see the criteria -- that doesn't mean it isn't there.

There are no traditionally admitted morally accountable people as Christians. In the land of admitted guilt we are king.

Yes, an unhealthy theology... that original sin stuff.

That is why the 19th centuries great genocidal leaders first had to get rid of God to devalue human life to the point where taking out 20 million of them meant nothing.

Nonsense. They got rid of God for selfish reasons. They didn't want any competition from other puppeteers, so they discouraged belief in God.

Not only even this. Hitler presented Nietzsche's book to both Mussolini and Stalin. Two committed suicide after killing millions and another died insane after killing millions. Nice work, idiots. Now your promoting the same insane ideas he had.

Nah. I reject both of those Christian gentlemen and their rabid ways.

 

[cottage]

I am not sure if I understood this. It appears to be another semantic technicality. I see only one possible point here. Are you saying that it is illogical to for instance praise God for being good because he had no choice?

Let me restate my claim and you can clarify a bit based on that.


I claim morality is an intrinsic characteristic of God inseparable from his being. If his being is a necessary one then the constituents of that being would be necessary as well. Now if you were claiming that produces some conflict with claims about law then you may have a point but I made no claim here about law. If God exists then his moral nature is necessary and dictates what is good from what is evil. So far I see no conflict or contradiction. That might modify what is meant by law but I see no reason to consider law meaningless. Anyway I will wait for clarification.

There are a number of real difficulties with the above. I see no reason at all why it should be insisted that God is a moral being, either from an ontologically necessary standpoint or from general experience. The theist explanation for morals and morality seems to veer between God and popular consent, but with no logical explanation as to the supposed ‘moral truth’ in either case. If God is a moral being then we need to know exactly what is meant by the term. Why is God a moral being when there is nothing in the bare bones concept of Supreme Being that is logically necessary to the concept in those terms? And since there isn’t, that can only mean the notion of what we call ‘morality’ has come from we humans, who project onto a supposed God our generally accepted view of what is right, based on a need to safeguard ourselves and our kin and to co-exist harmoniously with our neighbours for our own security. Take the statement “Murder is wrong’. Why is it wrong? It isn’t - other than on the terms I’ve just described? There is certainly no logical impediment in stating ‘murder is not wrong’.

So it isn’t an argument to say there is an objective moral law because God is a moral being, for that’s just a matter of faith or belief that begs the question, not a self-evident proposition. And which case the term ‘morality’ is just a human construct, self-serving but essential for the continuity of the human race. And ‘God’ is not required for that!