Why would God's ultimate power come with ultimate responsibility?

[Trailblazer]

That's quite a statement.
So God isn't a moral agent?

No, God is not a moral agent because God is not a person.https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-agent

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm.

Moral Agent - Ethics Unwrapped

God does not have to 'discern' right from wrong because God is all-knowing so God knows what is right and wrong.

Moral agents are subject to being moral or immoral.

God is not subject to being moral or immoral since God is all-good by His nature.

 

[Trailblazer]

An omniscient god that created all according to his plan and who knows what will happen before it happens, is ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING

That is completely illogical. God is only responsible for what He CAUSES.
So God is responsible for creating the world the way He did and God is responsible for our fate, which is anything we did not freely choose.
That is ALL God is responsible for.

KNOWING that something is going to happen before it happens does not CAUSE it to happen.
Does an astronomer's knowledge that an eclipse will take place on a certain date at a certain place CAUSE the eclipse to happen?

God did not have any plan.

plan
a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

languages.oup.com

Since God is not planning on achieving anything Himself, God does not have a plan.
Why would God need a plan if God already knows everything that is going to happen?

God has a purpose for humans both individually and collectively, a purpose He hopes humans will fulfill.
God's Purpose for humanity as a whole was ushered in by the latest Messenger of God but it is up to humans to bring that about.

“God’s purpose is none other than to usher in, in ways He alone can bring about, and the full significance of which He alone can fathom, the Great, the Golden Age of a long-divided, a long-afflicted humanity. Its present state, indeed even its immediate future, is dark, distressingly dark. Its distant future, however, is radiant, gloriously radiant—so radiant that no eye can visualize it............” The Promised Day is Come, p. 116

God’s Purpose

Suppose I am omniscient in that sense.
Suppose I and my wife plan on having a baby.
Suppose I know that if my wife and I have sex tonight we will get pregnant with a baby that will grow up to become Adolf Hitler who will be responsible for a world war and millions of deaths including one of the vilest act of racism known to human kind.
If however we would wait till tomorrow, the baby would not grow up to become that dictator.

Now suppose I still decide to go through with it and create that Adolf Hitler, knowing what will happen.

Wouldn't you consider me ultimately responsible for that world war and the millions of deaths that follow?

I sure would. In fact, I wouldn't go through with it at all.

What you fail to see is that it was not your knowledge of what would happen that CAUSED it to happen.
It was your actions (the sex act) that caused it to happen.

Likewise, God's knowledge of what will happen in the future doesn't CAUSE anything to happen.
The actions of men are what causes things to happen. God is completely out of the picture.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

Question.—If God has knowledge of an action which will be performed by someone, and it has been written on the Tablet of Fate, is it possible to resist it?

Answer.—The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization; for the essential knowledge of God surrounds, in the same way, the realities of things, before as well as after their existence, and it does not become the cause of their existence. It is a perfection of God...
Some Answered Questions, p. 138

 

[Trailblazer]

Because he knew what would happen and went ahead with it anyway.

I am not claiming that God is not responsible for creating the earth as He did.
I am only claiming that God is not responsible for everything that happened AFTER THAT, since God did not CAUSE those things to happen, humans did.

Why would God be responsible for freely chosen human actions?

If I spill a dangerous chemical somewhere while KNOWING some kid will be playing in that exact spot and die from the fumes later on - it matters not if it was the "free choice" of that child to play there or not. I am responsible for that kid's death. I knew what would happen and went ahead with it anyway. It is 100% my responsability.

God is not a human so God does not spill dangerous chemicals. Whenever you use analogies comparing human behavior to what God allegedly does that is the the fallacy of false equivalence because God is not a human. God does not even HAVE behavior, only humans have behavior.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia

The Meaning of Comparing Apples to Oranges When you're comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.
Comparing Apples to Oranges - Idiom, Meaning & Origin

Because supposedly, he knows what will happen before it happens.

Explain how KNOWING something will happen CAUSES it to happen.

If I know I am going to retire next year, does my knowing that cause me to retire?
No, my choosing to retire and filling out all the paperwork is what causes me to retire.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe you should stop using the same words for the entirely different things God would do then (or maybe you should just stop claiming to know things about God that you also claim can't be known by man). The is the fundamental contradiction in monotheism I'm referring to; On one hand, God is defined as a mystical super being that is totally beyond human understanding

I do not claim to know things about God that cannot be known by man. I believe that some things can be known by man, God's will for man and some of God's attributes, but God's intrinsic nature, e.g., how God thinks and operates, cannot ever be known by man.

but at the same time, God is depicted thinking and acting exactly like a human being, up to and including having imperfections and making mistakes.

The Bible that anthropomorphizes God, but the Bible is not my holy book. I think it is absurd how the authors of the Bible turned God into a human being.

The general idea that there is something special that fundamental separates humans from (other) animals. This entire thing is largely about people not wanting to believe we're all just an irrelevant speck to the universe so if we want our lives to have meaning, we need to make it ourselves (which ironically, the religious end up doing anyway).

I believe that there is something special that separates humans from (other) animals, and that is the soul.
Other animals have an animal spirit but not a soul.

If we want our lives to have meaning, we need to make it ourselves. The only difference between an atheist and a believer is that believers believe that God reveals to us the purpose for which we were created, so our life's meaning is tied in with that purpose.

Why did you bring it up then? And of course, if having a soul isn't necessarily for free will, wouldn't that imply that (other) animals have it too.

The soul animates the physical body allowing it to function and that is why it is necessary.
Likewise, animals have a spirit that animates their bodies, allowing them to function.

Having a soul is necessary for free will, in order to make moral choices. Other animals have volition but they operate on instinct, not on morality.
My cat does not decide whether it is right or wrong to eat all the cat food. I have to lock him in the bathroom to prevent him from eating everything on the plates, leaving no food for any of my other cats! Then when there is only a little food left I let him out so he can eat the amount he should be eating. That cat really needs to be on a diet.

Most things can't be proven but we can study, understand aspects and construct logically consistent theories.

Alternatively, I could just say I know based on faith and dismiss any logical contradictions out of hand, but that would be ridiculous wouldn't it?

It would be ridiculous. I do not want to believe anything that is not logically consistent, so I analyze everything.
I use both faith and reason. If a belief makes no logical sense to me I toss it in the scrap heap.

Something being unpleasant to think about is a terrible reason not to believe it. If it wasn't, we could all wander around in blissful ignorance (until we were killed by something we refused to believe in).

I agree that something being unpleasant to think about is a terrible reason not to believe it, especially if there is evidence that it exists, but there is no evidence that shows that humans are merely programmed robots. It makes no logical sense that humans are programmed robots, whether God exists or not. If were were no more than programmed robots then we could not make any of our own choices, in which case we could not be held accountable for any of our choices and actions, and there would be no justice system. The justice system is predicated on the assumption that man is a moral agent who has free will to choose between right and wrong.

The fundamental nature of science and religion aren't matters of belief, they're matters of fact. Religion describes sets of beliefs and practices (which could be about literally anything - remember that the word includes all the faiths that fundamentally contradict your own too). There is nothing about it that necessarily answers any questions. Science describes a principles and procedures for understanding reality. It is specifically intended for asking and answering questions in a structured manner.

Science describes and pertains to the physical reality, the world in which we live. Religion describes and pertains to spiritual reality, what lies beyond the physical reality. Religion also teaches us morals and principles by which to live harmoniously with other people and everything else in the physical world.

Science is a matter of fact, but why do you think that religion is a matter of fact?
Facts are subject to proof, but no religion can ever be proven to be the truth from God because God cannot ever be proven to exist.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

Nothing in a religion is a fact unless we know it took place, such as some of the history in the Bible or the Baha'i Faith, but the existence of God or Messengers of God/Prophets is not a fact since it can never be proven.

fact
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence: Compare question of fact, question of law.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

Science could be (and in some cases probably has been) used to study the various concepts and ideas labelled "soul" (of which yours is just one). You can't unilaterally declare that anything "can't be known" and again, you certainly can't do that while claiming to know things about it! A self-confirming belief is less than meaningless.

I am not unilaterally declaring anything. Regarding the soul, I go by what is in my scriptures.

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him.”
Gleanings, pp. 158-159

This scripture does not mean that science will never unravel some things about the soul. I think it means we can never know the entire mystery of the soul, not that we cannot know anything about the soul.

I do believe (not claim) I know a lot about the soul, since Baha'u'llah wrote a lot about the soul, its function and its eternal destination. It is the nature of the soul we cannot know about.

All of this is clearly related to but drifting away from the core assertion you opened this thread with though, and the core inconsistency between the district concepts of God as the all-powerful, all-knowing mystery being and the guy who is just a step up from the Kings and Emperors, laying down laws and punishing those who break them.

I am not sure what you are getting at but I believe that God is all-powerful and all-knowing, not just a guy who lays down laws and punishes people.

To bring us back to the core assumption that started this thread, the atheist on the other forum who instigated me to post this thread said:

Nothing you said addresses that with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility. The only argument you could make is that God is either not all powerful, not all knowing, or not perfectly good. Which is it?

I never revealed my answer on the other forum but I will reveal it now.

I said:

Ultimate responsibility does not come with ultimate power.
God can have infinite power and not be responsible for everything. God is only responsible for maintaining the universe He created, which He does, but God has NO responsibilities towards humans. Zero, zilch, nada. God gave us everything we need, a world to live in, a brain and a mind, and and free will to make our own decisions and thereby live life.

 

[CG Didymus]

That's quite a statement.
So God isn't a moral agent?



Moral agents are subject to being moral or immoral.

Has TB quoted something from Baha'u'llah that supports that?

 

[Trailblazer]

Has TB quoted something from Baha'u'llah that supports that?

No, TB did not. #25

God is not moral or immoral since morality does not apply to God.

God is not a person. Only a person can be moral or immoral.
God is not subject to being good or bad or evil since God is all-good by His nature.
God sets the standards and reveals laws for human morality since humans need to discern right from wrong.

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm.

Moral Agent - Ethics Unwrapped
ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu › Moral Agent

Below is something from Baha'u'llah that supports that.

“God hath in that Book, and by His behest, decreed as lawful whatsoever He hath pleased to decree, and hath, through the power of His sovereign might, forbidden whatsoever He elected to forbid. To this testifieth the text of that Book. Will ye not bear witness? Men, however, have wittingly broken His law. Is such a behavior to be attributed to God, or to their proper selves? Be fair in your judgment. Every good thing is of God, and every evil thing is from yourselves. Will ye not comprehend? This same truth hath been revealed in all the Scriptures, if ye be of them that understand.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 149-150

 

[blü 2]

Nobody will depart from what God foresaw only because God has perfect foreknowledge of what we will choose to do.

BUT it's exactly that way because an omnipotent god wanted it to be exactly that way, AND there's nothing we can do about it, and any efforts we make regardless have already been perfectly foreseen and have always been God's will.

We can choose a or b or c, and whichever one of those we choose will be what God foresaw.
What God foresaw is not what God intended, it is what God knows we will choose.

No no no no no. WE each are exactly what our omnipotent omniscient God perfectly foresaw and intended, good deeds, bad deeds, smarter, dumber, raised in genteel or criminal environments, saving lives or cutting throats, or falling asleep at the wheel and killing someone, the whole lot. Had God wanted something else to happen, something else would have happened.

Nobody can ever blindside God. God has always known what we would choose to do, from the beginning of creation.

And that's the demonstration that we have no theological free will. We can never do anything but that which God perfectly foresaw and set up causality to bring about, We just roll down [his] groove for us, thinking we're not rolling down a groove, thinking we're to some greater or lesser extent in charge. Silly us, for not thinking it through, since it's necessarily an illusion.

Science cannot disprove that we have free will, not any more than religion can prove we have it.

In the last two or three decades, science has told us quite a lot about how the brain makes decisions. You're probably aware of the experiments from around 2008 which showed that our conscious brain is the last to know what our nonconscious brain has already decided we'll do. The gap can be small, but it can also be up to ten or eleven seconds.

As to the mechanisms and procedures involved in the brain's decision making, these have been the subject of much illuminating research too. I may have mentioned before Mariano Sigman's The Secret Life of the Mind.

And the brain is an extremely complex biochemical / bioelectrical device which indeed has evolved procedures for dealing with things, whether thinking, or picturing in advance what our spear will do as well as coordinating all the muscles we'll use to throw it. Think of pro golf, pro tennis, the lot, as well as tying your shoelaces or picking up a knife.

 

[Trailblazer]

BUT it's exactly that way because an omnipotent god wanted it to be exactly that way, AND there's nothing we can do about it, and any efforts we make regardless have already been perfectly foreseen and have always been God's will.

You can keep repeating that but I am going to keep coming back and repeating myself because that is so illogical, and one thing I cannot stand is illogical statements.

If God wanted things to be the way they are, with murders and rapes and adultery, and all the things that are contrary to God's laws, God would not have revealed laws to prevent people from doing the things that are contrary to God's laws.

But that is not the main reason it is illogical. The main reason it is illogical is because just because God knew what was going to happen that does not mean God wanted it to happen.

NOTHING could be more illogical!

Just because something was foreseen by God that does not mean it was God's will (i.e., what God wanted). There is no logical connection whatsoever.

If humans did not have any free will and God had predestined everything then you would be right, we could not do anything about it regardless of our efforts. But such is not the case. Humans make choices and act on them. The entire justice system hinges on free will and the ability to choose.

No no no no no. WE each are exactly what our omnipotent omniscient God perfectly foresaw and intended, good deeds, bad deeds, smarter, dumber, raised in genteel or criminal environments, saving lives or cutting throats, or falling asleep at the wheel and killing someone, the whole lot.

WE each are exactly what our omnipotent omniscient God perfectly foresaw - good deeds, bad deeds, smarter, dumber, raised in genteel or criminal environments, saving lives or cutting throats, or falling asleep at the wheel and killing someone, the whole lot -- but everything that we are is not what God intended for us to be. ONLY if something was predestined by God was it intended by God. Anything we chose by virtue of our free will was not intended by God, it was intended by us.

The ONLY reason we are what God foresaw is because the all-knowing God foresees everything we are or will ever be!

Had God wanted something else to happen, something else would have happened.

Something else would have happened only if humans chose something else or if God overrode their choice.

And that's the demonstration that we have no theological free will. We can never do anything but that which God perfectly foresaw

No, we will not do anything except what God foresaw, because God perfectly foresaw everything we will ever do, but we can do anything we are capable of doing, and whatever we do will be what God foresaw.

This really isn't that difficult.

and set up causality to bring about,

Tell that to the judge and jury. God set up the causality so I am not guilty! I did not choose to murder my wife! See how far that gets you in court.

 

[blü 2]

If God wanted things to be the way they are, with murders and rapes and adultery, and all the things that are contrary to God's laws, God would not have revealed laws to prevent people from doing the things that are contrary to God's laws.

Therefore God is NOT omnipotent, NOT omniscient, IS NOT in total control, CAN be blindsided.

But that is not the main reason it is illogical. The main reason it is illogical is because just because God knew what was going to happen that does not mean God wanted it to happen.

Just because something was foreseen by God that does not mean it was God's will (i.e., what God wanted).

Given omnipotence and omniscience, of course it does. [He] created the universe having decided in advance exactly how EVERYTHING that will ever happen was going to happen, good, bad, boring or irrelevant.

If humans did not have any free will and God had predestined everything then you would be right, we could not do anything about it regardless of our efforts.

Exactly. We might think we can avoid this or that negative outcome but God has known for 14 bn years exactly how it will in fact turn out ─ just the way [he] designed it before [he] made the universe.

But such is not the case. Humans make choices and act on them. The entire justice system hinges on free will and the ability to choose.

The entire justice system doesn't have to deal with concepts of theological omnipotence or omniscience. If they did, they'd have no choice but to find God personally responsible for every crime, every natural disaster, every plague, famine, extinction event, every car crash, every lost left shoe, every happy day, every grateful act, every dang thing that ever has happened, is happening or will happen.

The justice system does however have to deal with scientific understandings of how humans desire, decide, initiate, follow through, and weigh all the things that went into the mix that produced crime X and criminal A. And I've already pointed you to scientific studies of the brain's evolved decision-making processes.

 

[HonestJoe]

I believe that some things can be known by man, God's will for man and some of God's attributes, but God's intrinsic nature, e.g., how God thinks and operates, cannot ever be known by man.

I think we've been around this loop before and I don't want to repeat that, but in this context, if you have beliefs you can't support in any way (literally by definition), I don't think you can apply them to factual discussions like this one. What you believe about (your) God is irrelevant, we're talking about how a god could potentially exist, even where those possibilities directly contradict your beliefs (indeed, especially where they do).

The Bible that anthropomorphizes God, but the Bible is not my holy book. I think it is absurd how the authors of the Bible turned God into a human being.

The Bible certainly takes it to an extreme (Jesus being the most obvious example) but that doesn't mean you're not to a lesser extent. Just the idea of attributing desires, preferences and emotions to God is anthropomorphising. And it is perfectly possible for a god to have such characteristics, the question is whether they could have them and also be all-powerful and all-knowing. My position is that is fundamentally logically inconsistent.

I believe that there is something special that separates humans from (other) animals, and that is the soul.

Again, things you believe but can't (or won't) support in any practically or logical manner are irrelevant here.

Having a soul is necessary for free will, in order to make moral choices.

Why? What is you basis for making that bold assertion?

I use both faith and reason. If a belief makes no logical sense to me I toss it in the scrap heap.

You can't use faith with reason, they are directly contradictory. Faith is literally believing things despite a lack of reason. And no, you're not tossing your illogical beliefs, you simply redefine them as being beyond the scope of our logical understanding.

I agree that something being unpleasant to think about is a terrible reason not to believe it, especially if there is evidence that it exists, but there is no evidence that shows that humans are merely programmed robots.

If you put it in such a simplistic and negative terminology, it makes it much more difficult to have a rational discussion about these difficult concepts (which is intentional, consciously or not). The simple fact is that everything we have observed is subject to cause-and-effect (not withstanding some elements of quantum mechanics we're still not clear on) and there is zero logical reason to assume human behaviour is anything special in the universe. Cause-and-effect automatically implies a form of predeterminism but that doesn't mean our perception of free will isn't real or relevant because we can't ever know or understand the complex chain of causes behind our actions.

How humans commonly believe our decisions work, and thus how we developed things like justice systems, is irrelevant. See, it's not just your beliefs I'm dismissing.

Science describes and pertains to the physical reality, the world in which we live.

Sorry, but that is wrong. Science can be applied to anything that can be observed (and not just what can be currently observed by human beings). Limitations on what we are able to study are entirely down to our limitations, not anything fundamental to the concept of science. We couldn't study Pluto until we developed the telescopes capable of observing it but Pluto never existed outside the scope of science.

Religion describes and pertains to spiritual reality, what lies beyond the physical reality.

Again, sorry, but no. Religion defines sets of beliefs and practices. Not all religions necessarily relate to gods or anything "spiritual" nor are they necessarily about understanding anything (especially ones that declare some things fundamentally beyond human understanding ). What your religion and your personal beliefs relate to are exclusive to you.

Science is a matter of fact, but why do you think that religion is a matter of fact?

Reality is a matter of fact. If I'm trying to establish facts in reality, why would I consider religion, especially if you're (now) declaring it isn't even about fact?

Facts are subject to proof, but no religion can ever be proven to be the truth from God because God cannot ever be proven to exist.

Do you not see the fundamental contradiction in that statement? You're stating a fact about something that you're saying doesn't relate to fact. Unless you're just stating a belief here, and I hope you're working out what we're doing with beliefs here.

Nothing you said addresses that with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility. The only argument you could make is that God is either not all powerful, not all knowing, or not perfectly good. Which is it?

I think the core problem is conflating the concepts of "moral responsibility" and "practical responsibility". If I press the button that triggers the bomb, I am practically responsible for the resultant explosion. That is simple cause-and-effect. The moral responsibility is more complex because involves all sorts of elements around what I knew, the effects of the explosion, the related actions of other people etc. Morality is an whole topic of it's own, so I think we just need to focus on the latter first.

If a being has complete power and control over everything, and especially if they also have perfect knowledge and understanding of all of the cause-and-effect involved, how could they not be practically responsible for everything that happens within that scope?

 

[CG Didymus]

BUT it's exactly that way because an omnipotent god wanted it to be exactly that way, AND there's nothing we can do about it, and any efforts we make regardless have already been perfectly foreseen and have always been God's will.

Yes, what's the point? This God is supposed to be perfect and all-knowing and is beyond having morals or behavior? This God can only do good.

But, for some reason, he dreams up a physical world that has good and evil in it. This world has natural events that can hurt or kill people. Things that this God put into this physical creation of his.

This God knows exactly who is going to do what and when. But somehow, doesn't cause people to do what they do? I still think it's like a scripted movie. The writer knows what is going to happen and could have changed any part of it. In God's script, he keeps telling us that there is a happy ending... for those that do his will.

Now all that could be true. But what also could be true is God is that God is made-up. He is a fictional being invented to explain this physical world and universe. That he was invented to explain why we are here. And people over the centuries have had several varied ideas about what and who God is. Why would the Christian version, or the Baha'is version or any of them be exactly how it really is?

In this very possibly make-believe concept of God, sure God is not responsible. In my make-believe concept of God, He is responsible. He made things the way they are. There's pain and suffering, because he wanted people to experience pain and suffering. There is joy and happiness, but lots of things that bring us joy and happiness, that other concept of God says don't do those things. Or that physical pleasures or finding happiness with material things is not true happiness.

This make-believe God created by some religions wants people to reject the physical world and live for some "spiritual" world that can't be seen or known. But each religion tells us contradictory things about the spiritual world... and about God.

So, what's the point? Except to start a thread, again, about how some people's concept of God is supposedly not responsible for the evil people do. As if that God actually exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, what's the point? This God is supposed to be perfect and all-knowing and is beyond having morals or behavior? This God can only do good.

But, for some reason, he dreams up a physical world that has good and evil in it. This world has natural events that can hurt or kill people. Things that this God put into this physical creation of his.

On another forum someone said that blaming humanity for the existence of suffering is absolutely asinine. If humanity were to be wiped off the face of the Earth tomorrow, suffering would still exist.

I responded:

If humanity were wiped off the face of the earth, who would be left to suffer? Animals would still suffer, but that is not what we are talking about.

Some suffering is caused by human free will choices and the ensuing actions and humans are responsible for that suffering.

Some suffering is fated/predestined by God and God is responsible for that suffering.

Natural disasters, accidents, injuries, and diseases and things we do not plan and carry out, but rather they happen to us, are our fate, and God is responsible for these.

God created a world in which He knew suffering would exist, so God is responsible for that. This fact flies right over the head of believers, and then they drag out all their apologetics that say suffering is beneficial, and that is why it exists. It might be beneficial for some people at some times but all suffering is not beneficial, it simply exists for no good reason.

God created a world in which He knew joy and happiness would exist, so God is responsible for all the things that you enjoy such as food and sex, and anything else that is part of creation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I am an avid believer, but I think logically, so God is not off the hook. I try to believe that God is all-good in spite of all the suffering in this world, my own included, but it is difficult at best. As for God being all-loving, that is a real stretch.

My late husband was also an avid believer but he defended God tooth and nail. I told him that God does not need a lawyer. More than once when we had these discussions, he would tell me I should become an atheist, and I told him I would if I could, lol.

 

[Trailblazer]

This God knows exactly who is going to do what and when. But somehow, doesn't cause people to do what they do?

Why would God's knowledge of what we will choose to do do cause us to do anything?
There is absolutely no logical connection between what God knows and what people choose to do.
God knows everything but God's knowledge is not the cause of anything.

I still think it's like a scripted movie. The writer knows what is going to happen and could have changed any part of it. In God's script, he keeps telling us that there is a happy ending... for those that do his will.

God is not like the writer who wrote the script. God knows what is IN the script because God is all-knowing, but the script is acted out by humans. God knows what humans will do right up until the ending but God's knowledge is not the cause of anything that we do.

 

[Trailblazer]

Therefore God is NOT omnipotent, NOT omniscient, IS NOT in total control, CAN be blindsided.

God is omnipotent, omniscient, IS in total control, but God CANNOT be blindsided, since God knows everything start to finish.

Given omnipotence and omniscience, of course it does. [He] created the universe having decided in advance exactly how EVERYTHING that will ever happen was going to happen, good, bad, boring or irrelevant.

Given omnipotence and omniscience, God created the universe KNOWING in advance exactly how EVERYTHING that will ever happen was going to happen, good, bad, boring or irrelevant.

God KNEW what would happen but God did not DECIDE what would happen.
Humans decided what would happen and they carried it out, causing it to happen.

Exactly. We might think we can avoid this or that negative outcome but God has known for 14 bn years exactly how it will in fact turn out ─ just the way [he] designed it before [he] made the universe.

Yes, God has always known the outcome, but God's knowledge does not CAUSE anything to happen.

The entire justice system doesn't have to deal with concepts of theological omnipotence or omniscience. If they did, they'd have no choice but to find God personally responsible for every crime, every natural disaster, every plague, famine, extinction event, every car crash, every lost left shoe, every happy day, every grateful act, every dang thing that ever has happened, is happening or will happen.

The justice system doesn't have to deal with concepts of theological omnipotence or omniscience, but if they did weigh in on that it would be nothing more than a personal opinion, which is all you and I have.

The justice system doesn't deal with theology and personal opinions about it, it deals in facts. The fact is that when a person commits a crime they are guilty or not guilty. God is never guilty because God does not commit crimes (except in the ridiculous anthropomorphic stories in the OT).

God is not a person, so God is not 'personally responsible' for anything.
That said, God is responsible for some things that happen in the world, but not for everything.

Some things are caused by human free will choices and the ensuing actions and humans are responsible for those.

Some things are fated/predestined by God and God is responsible for those.

Natural disasters, accidents, injuries, and diseases and things we do not plan and carry out, but rather they happen to us, are our fate, and God is responsible for those.

 

[CG Didymus]

So, what's the point? Except to start a thread, again, about how some people's concept of God is supposedly not responsible for the evil people do. As if that God actually exists.

That's the point. Some people's concept of God has him interacting and causing things to happen. Others create an evil lesser God that causes all the bad stuff and tempts people to do evil and disobey God.

So, which concept of God is real? I'd rather have a God that if I asked for help, he'd lend a hand. The Christian God supposedly does that, but he also causes bad stuff to happen to get people to turn to him for help.

 

[blü 2]

I still think it's like a scripted movie. The writer knows what is going to happen and could have changed any part of it.

Well put.

In my make-believe concept of God, He is responsible. He made things the way they are. There's pain and suffering, because he wanted people to experience pain and suffering. There is joy and happiness, but lots of things that bring us joy and happiness, that other concept of God says don't do those things. Or that physical pleasures or finding happiness with material things is not true happiness.

This make-believe God created by some religions wants people to reject the physical world and live for some "spiritual" world that can be seen or known. But each religion tells us contradictory things about the spiritual world... and about God.

So, what's the point? Except to start a thread, again, about how some people's concept of God is supposedly not responsible for the evil people do. As if that God actually exists.

Perhaps the point is that once God is omnipotent and omniscient, theological freewill is impossible, and once God is NOT omnipotent and omniscient [he]'s bouncing around in the dark like the rest of us.

 

[blü 2]

God KNEW what would happen but God did not DECIDE what would happen.

Eh? Quoi? Ché? Cad é? Was?

This God made the universe, omnipotent so able to make it any way [he] pleased, and omniscient so knowing every consequence of [his] actions in advance, and went ahead on that basis ─ having perfectly foreseen everything everyone will ever do.

How then can [he] NOT have intended everything that ever happens? How is it possible for [him] NOT to have ultimate responsibility for [his] own acts?

 

[Trailblazer]

I think we've been around this loop before and I don't want to repeat that, but in this context, if you have beliefs you can't support in any way (literally by definition), I don't think you can apply them to factual discussions like this one. What you believe about (your) God is irrelevant, we're talking about how a god could potentially exist, even where those possibilities directly contradict your beliefs (indeed, especially where they do).

Nothing pertaining to God is factual, since God is not a known fact, so discussions like these are not about facts, they are about opinions and beliefs.
How a God could 'potentially exist' is not factual, it is only a matter of opinion or belief. Why isn't my belief as good as your opinion?

The Bible certainly takes it to an extreme (Jesus being the most obvious example) but that doesn't mean you're not to a lesser extent. Just the idea of attributing desires, preferences and emotions to God is anthropomorphising. And it is perfectly possible for a god to have such characteristics, the question is whether they could have them and also be all-powerful and all-knowing. My position is that is fundamentally logically inconsistent.

Yes, I admit that my religion anthropomorphizes God to some degree, such as when it says God desires certain things and that God is loving, etc.

So, why do you think it is logically inconsistent for a God who is all-powerful and all-knowing to have certain attributes such as Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient, which humans also have?

Again, things you believe but can't (or won't) support in any practically or logical manner are irrelevant here.

I have beliefs, you have opinions. What is the difference? Can you support your opinions in a logical manner?
I could support my beliefs about the soul in a practical and logical manner, but they would still be beliefs, not facts.

Why? What is you basis for making that bold assertion?

What I said is based upon my religious beliefs, it is not an assertion. It cannot be proven that humans have a soul that functions as I said.
As I said, even if we have no soul we would still have a brain which causes us to choose and act on our choices.

You can't use faith with reason, they are directly contradictory. Faith is literally believing things despite a lack of reason. And no, you're not tossing your illogical beliefs, you simply redefine them as being beyond the scope of our logical understanding.

No, faith and reason are not contradictory, not if the faith is a reason-based faith.
Faith is believing in things that can never be proven to exist, such as God or Messengers of God, and believing in some things they reveal, such as about the soul and the afterlife.

My beliefs are not beyond the scope of logical understanding. If you think my beliefs are illogical you will have to explain why they are illogical.

If you put it in such a simplistic and negative terminology, it makes it much more difficult to have a rational discussion about these difficult concepts (which is intentional, consciously or not). The simple fact is that everything we have observed is subject to cause-and-effect (not withstanding some elements of quantum mechanics we're still not clear on) and there is zero logical reason to assume human behaviour is anything special in the universe. Cause-and-effect automatically implies a form of predeterminism but that doesn't mean our perception of free will isn't real or relevant because we can't ever know or understand the complex chain of causes behind our actions.

Cause-and-effect does not automatically imply predeterminism because nobody knows if the effect is established or decided in advance.
We can't ever know or understand the complex chain of causes behind our actions.

Predeterminism is a belief, not a fact, just as free will is a belief and not a fact. These are philosophical ideas, matters of opinion.

predeterminism
the belief that all events, including human actions, are established or decided in advance.

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

languages.oup.com

How humans commonly believe our decisions work, and thus how we developed things like justice systems, is irrelevant. See, it's not just your beliefs I'm dismissing.

Why would the way that the all the justice systems function all over the world be irrelevant to humans? Do you think that punishments for crimes are only based upon a whim? No, they are based upon the belief that humans have free will to choose.

I would suggest you read this article. It is very good.
Free WIll, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System

Sorry, but that is wrong. Science can be applied to anything that can be observed (and not just what can be currently observed by human beings). Limitations on what we are able to study are entirely down to our limitations, not anything fundamental to the concept of science. We couldn't study Pluto until we developed the telescopes capable of observing it but Pluto never existed outside the scope of science.

That's true. Science can be applied to anything that can be observed in the physical reality, including the world in which we live.
However, science cannot be applied to what cannot be observed, such as God or a spiritual world.

Again, sorry, but no. Religion defines sets of beliefs and practices. Not all religions necessarily relate to gods or anything "spiritual" nor are they necessarily about understanding anything (especially ones that declare some things fundamentally beyond human understanding ). What your religion and your personal beliefs relate to are exclusive to you.

I said that religion describes and pertains to spiritual reality, which is what lies beyond the physical reality, but I did not say that is all that religion pertains to. Religion also pertains to life in the physical world, defining beliefs and practices, moral ways of living.

What I said was within the context of comparing science to religion and their scopes. Religion describes and pertains to spiritual reality as well as physical reality, but science only describes and pertains to physical reality..

Reality is a matter of fact. If I'm trying to establish facts in reality, why would I consider religion, especially if you're (now) declaring it isn't even about fact?

Religion is not a fact because it cannot be proven true, but that does not mean it is not reality.

Fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

Reality

• the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
• the state or quality of having existence or substance.

reality means - Google Search

Do you not see the fundamental contradiction in that statement? You're stating a fact about something that you're saying doesn't relate to fact. Unless you're just stating a belief here, and I hope you're working out what we're doing with beliefs here.

I was stating my 'opinion' about facts and religion:
I said "Facts are subject to proof, but no religion can ever be proven to be the truth from God because God cannot ever be proven to exist."

According to my definition of fact above, God is not something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
Since religions are based upon revelations from God, religions are not factual.

Morality is an whole topic of it's own, so I think we just need to focus on the latter first.

Morality does not apply to God because God is not a person and God does not have behavior. God sets the standards fror human behavior, God is not subject to them. Some people ask why God would not be subject to His own standards and be required to live up to them, and my answer is that God is not a person who has bahavior!

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

If a being has complete power and control over everything, and especially if they also have perfect knowledge and understanding of all of the cause-and-effect involved, how could they not be practically responsible for everything that happens within that scope?

If a being has complete power and control over everything, and especially if they also have perfect knowledge and understanding of all of the cause-and-effect involved, why would they be responsible for everything that happens within that scope?

God has complete power and control over everything, but that does not mean that God always chooses to exercise that power.

God is responsible for some things that happen in the world, but not for everything that happens.
God is responsible for what He causes or predestines, not for what He knows. Knowledge does not cause anything to happen.
Some things are fated/predestined by God and God is responsible for those.
Natural disasters, accidents, injuries, and diseases and things we do not plan and carry out, but rather they happen to us, are our fate, and God is responsible for those.

Some things are caused by human free will choices and the ensuing actions and humans are responsible for those.

 

[CG Didymus]

Eh? Quoi? Ché? Cad é? Was?

This God made the universe, omnipotent so able to make it any way [he] pleased, and omniscient so knowing every consequence of [his] actions in advance, and went ahead on that basis ─ having perfectly foreseen everything everyone will ever do.

How then can [he] NOT have intended everything that ever happens? How is it possible for [him] NOT to have ultimate responsibility for [his] own acts?

At least the Baha'i version of God isn't as bad as the born-again Chrisitan version. In that one God creates a lot of people that he knows will reject him and intends to send them to hell. He creates some people that hear his word but and that try to live up to it, but they can't. But as long as they know how imperfect they are and keep believing in Jesus, they should be alright.

Some people just get born into the wrong place at the wrong time, and it makes it very unlikely that they will hear the correct message about the salvation offered by Jesus. They'll probably be sent to hell. The same thing that get born in some place that has some other religion. They believe it. They might be pretty good people, but too bad... They don't believe in the saving grace of Jesus. They get sent to hell.

This God also knows all. He knew who would reject him and who would accept him. Yet, he put all of here on Earth to live it out anyway.

Now the Baha'i version of God doesn't have a hell. Everybody moves on to some spiritual world and can still progress from there. The best of us get to be closer to God, whatever that means. And the worst of us, further from God. So, this life was just a placement test. But this God still knew who would do well and who would fail the test. And probably most of us just did average.

Now in this spiritual world... What's this God's plan? Everyone keeps getting better? And closer to him? Until when? Until everybody is perfected and now lives for God and loves and obeys him? What again was God thinking? What was his purpose in putting us all through this?

And how much different is that from the religions that believe their concept of God sends souls back into human bodies until they are perfected? And they get to live in spiritual bliss.

Actually, I like that God the best. If we're going to be tested, test us all in situations and conditions that really get us to learn from our experiences.

But still, are any of those concepts of God real?

 

[Trailblazer]

The Babi's and Baha'is in the 19th century valued not repenting their faith to losing their physical life. There were also Christians in the early centuries that also valued not repenting their faith to losing their physical life. All of these people did believe there was a reward for doing this that wasn't physical. I think you are thinking of physical life.

We were talking about giving up your life for money like in a holdup.

@Trailblazer said:
Case in point: If a man holds you up in a dark alley and says"give me your money or I will kill you" the person being held up has a choice to give the man the money or risk being killed

@Ajax said:
No, he has no real choice, but to give his money because life is of the utmost importance for anyone. There is no real freedom of choice when someone presents you with two choices only, and one of the two choices has severe consequences for you.

@Trailblazer said:
It is still a choice.
Some people value money more than life.
Some people value their freedom to believe whatever they want to more than they value the possibility of getting to heaven.


I just saw a TV program the other day where a man was in a bank and the hostage holder told the man to give him the money he just withdrew. The man refused to give him the money so the hostage holder shot him dead. It was so very sad. Granted that was a fictional program, but I am sure it has also happened in real life.