Your biggest intellectual compromise for faith

[Magic Man]

I answered this when i responded to Penguin please read all my responses so i dont end up repeating myself

All you said was that he put it off for later. Is God lazy now? If his intention was to eradicate evil later on, why not just do it then?

thats exactly what I mean, God is still here doing things the bible reports that, however you must deal with consequences of giving people space, heck there are even consequences of giving your child space, aka letting them come back you when they are ready.

I thought you said God went away. So, now he didn't? And those consequences only apply to humans, not to omnipotent beings. If I had God's power, I wouldn't have to wait for my kid to come back. I'd make him because I'd know it was the best thing for him and he'd be happiest that way.

i never said he was just good, thats silly rubbish your making up, that is one of his attributes, another one is his personalness, omniscene, omnipotience. thats a ridiculously silly statement.

OK, you either need to be clearer or not get so upset. You said if God was just good, he would have obliterated everything at the fall. Since he didn't, the assumption from that statement was that God is not just good. So, yes, you never said he was just good. I asked whether your statement meant he was not just good. So, let's try this again.

Is God just good, or is he not?

The reason he would have obliterated us at the bet go was because a completely godd being cannot tolerate evil, and would just have anihilated it, a good being does not need characteristics like mercy, which requires personal chacteristics to have.

OK, so he's not just good? Mercy is not a good quality?

again you only applying his good attributes and not his personal attributes to the situation.

Why are they mutually exclusive? Isn't mercy a good, personal attribute?

God wanted us to have freedom, which implies you must be able to make the wrong choices, so ultiamtely God did exactly what he wanted us to do, he didnt fail we just exercised our freedom when we sined.

OK, then he didn't make a move to get rid of the problem. I still don't understand why a loving, omnipotent, omniscient god would want us to have freedom.

 

[Magic Man]

Do you think it has been demonstrated?

Don't you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Don't you?

Probably not.

I think it takes as given the existence of objective morality, which I generally reject. The problem of evil requires some sort of external, objective yardstick against which to measure "evil". I don't think such a yardstick exists.

And now that I think about it, for Divine Command Morality adherents, the problem of evil isn't a problem at all: if good is defined by God's actions and words, then everything that God does is good by definition. By requiring an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God, the problem is focused at a fairly narrow range of theistic belief to begin with; when we exclude the Divine Command people from this range, there's not really that much left.

Edit: and all this assumes that the problem is applied honestly. I can't count how many times I've seen people try to use the problem of evil against people whose beliefs don't fit the premises of the argument, but the person asserting the argument tries to shoehorn that god into it anyhow.

 

[tarasan]

All you said was that he put it off for later. Is God lazy now? If his intention was to eradicate evil later on, why not just do it then?

again this is something ive already covered, just needlessly asking questions does not forward the conversation. he didnt eradicate it then because then he would have been eradicating us remeber he is good and at that stage we were underneath judgement just as much as everything else, he posponed it to give us the choice to come back to him.

I thought you said God went away. So, now he didn't? And those consequences only apply to humans, not to omnipotent beings. If I had God's power, I wouldn't have to wait for my kid to come back. I'd make him because I'd know it was the best thing for him and he'd be happiest that way.

im sorry thats probably my bad, i was using religious language, when we say he withdrew himself from the world we dont mean he went up and left, rather we mean in your terms "gave us space" im sorry for the crazy christian language

well even if you made him, who is to say he wouldnt do the same again? ultiamtely they must choose to make the change.

OK, you either need to be clearer or not get so upset. You said if God was just good, he would have obliterated everything at the fall. Since he didn't, the assumption from that statement was that God is not just good. So, yes, you never said he was just good. I asked whether your statement meant he was not just good. So, let's try this again.

yes i never made the statement and its a silly response, im sorry it just is, you can be omniscient and not good omnibenelivent and not good, omnipotent and not good.

Is God just good, or is he not?

he is I have never once rejected that.

OK, so he's not just good? Mercy is not a good quality?





Why are they mutually exclusive? Isn't mercy a good, personal attribute?

it may be a good quality to us (kind need it) but you dont need to be merciful to be good, at least as far as i understand it.

OK, then he didn't make a move to get rid of the problem. I still don't understand why a loving, omnipotent, omniscient god would want us to have freedom.

I dont know either that doesnt mean its illogical just that I dont know.

but if you wanted me to speciulate, Id say is personhood, he desired us to matter and have relevance remeber you arnt his pet, he wants you to stand next to him and be his friend. thats called giving someone dignitity. IMHO.

 

[tarasan]

Probably not.

I think it takes as given the existence of objective morality, which I generally reject. The problem of evil requires some sort of external, objective yardstick against which to measure "evil". I don't think such a yardstick exists.

And now that I think about it, for Divine Command Morality adherents, the problem of evil isn't a problem at all: if good is defined by God's actions and words, then everything that God does is good by definition. By requiring an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God, the problem is focused at a fairly narrow range of theistic belief to begin with; when we exclude the Divine Command people from this range, there's not really that much left.

Edit: and all this assumes that the problem is applied honestly. I can't count how many times I've seen people try to use the problem of evil against people whose beliefs don't fit the premises of the argument, but the person asserting the argument tries to shoehorn that god into it anyhow.

Im going to regret this later but I believe that its by Gods nature rather than an open decision that we define what good is, so rather its not what he decides but what he is.

if that made any sense at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

again this is something ive already covered, just needlessly asking questions does not forward the conversation. he didnt eradicate it then because then he would have been eradicating us remeber he is good and at that stage we were underneath judgement just as much as everything else, he posponed it to give us the choice to come back to him.

I've got to take issue with this bit.

You say that if God was only perfectly good, he would have eradicated humanity. This presumes that the eradication of humanity would be a good thing. Is this what you're trying to say?

but if you wanted me to speciulate, Id say is personhood, he desired us to matter and have relevance remeber you arnt his pet, he wants you to stand next to him and be his friend. thats called giving someone dignitity. IMHO.

But if a God who was perfectly good and nothing else would have eradicated humanity, this implies that human dignity is not intrinsically good or valuable. Is this your position?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Im going to regret this later but I believe that its by Gods nature rather than an open decision that we define what good is, so rather its not what he decides but what he is.

if that made any sense at all.

I think so. If I'm getting what you mean, it's Divine Command theory, only pushed back one step: God is perfectly good. Therefore, God's actions, being an expression of God's nature, are perfectly good as well.

Right?

 

[tarasan]

I've got to take issue with this bit.

You say that if God was only perfectly good, he would have eradicated humanity. This presumes that the eradication of humanity would be a good thing. Is this what you're trying to say?

I would say he would have the right to do it, I would say it would be just, but remeber God has given us an opertunity to repent, so to wipe out all of humanity? no because there are those who still have the opertunity to or have repented. Admintedly I dont have much education in theology so im very glad theologians are here to read this.....

But if a God who was perfectly good and nothing else would have eradicated humanity, this implies that human dignity is not intrinsically good or valuable. Is this your position?

well we ours punish our criminals right? but they still have human rights and dignity. To look at it from another angel, God thinks that what you do matters, which gives you imo quite a bit of importance and value doesnt it?

 

[tarasan]

I think so. If I'm getting what you mean, it's Divine Command theory, only pushed back one step: God is perfectly good. Therefore, God's actions, being an expression of God's nature, are perfectly good as well.

Right?

I believe so, yes

 

[Beaudreaux]

Probably not.

I think it takes as given the existence of objective morality, which I generally reject. The problem of evil requires some sort of external, objective yardstick against which to measure "evil". I don't think such a yardstick exists.

And now that I think about it, for Divine Command Morality adherents, the problem of evil isn't a problem at all: if good is defined by God's actions and words, then everything that God does is good by definition. By requiring an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God, the problem is focused at a fairly narrow range of theistic belief to begin with; when we exclude the Divine Command people from this range, there's not really that much left.

Edit: and all this assumes that the problem is applied honestly. I can't count how many times I've seen people try to use the problem of evil against people whose beliefs don't fit the premises of the argument, but the person asserting the argument tries to shoehorn that god into it anyhow.

Divine command is a perfectly good solution to the problem of evil. It takes away the statement "God is good" and replaces it with "Good is God".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Boy this thread is going 90miles an hour

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would say he would have the right to do it, I would say it would be just, but remeber God has given us an opertunity to repent, so to wipe out all of humanity? no because there are those who still have the opertunity to or have repented. Admintedly I dont have much education in theology so im very glad theologians are here to read this.....

But before, you didn't just say that God would have the right to wipe out humanity, you said that he would have done it... if he were only perfectly good without being merciful.

I'm a bit hesitant to bring the Bible into this because I want to keep things general, but still: both you and C.S. Lewis are Christians. In Genesis, when God looks over his creation, he declares it "good" - is this not an element of your beliefs? Is it good to destroy that which is good?

well we ours punish our criminals right? but they still have human rights and dignity. To look at it from another angel, God thinks that what you do matters, which gives you imo quite a bit of importance and value doesnt it?

... but you said that this was because of his other attributes like mercy, didn't you? If goodness alone is not enough to make God value human dignity, then doesn't this mean that human dignity is not good?

 

[tarasan]

But before, you didn't just say that God would have the right to wipe out humanity, you said that he would have done it... if he were only perfectly good without being merciful.

I'm a bit hesitant to bring the Bible into this because I want to keep things general, but still: both you and C.S. Lewis are Christians. In Genesis, when God looks over his creation, he declares it "good" - is this not an element of your beliefs? Is it good to destroy that which is good?

it got corrupted by sin remeber when adam and eve sinned, and there would have been nothing wrong with him wiping us out he did though because of his personal qualities.

... but you said that this was because of his other attributes like mercy, didn't you? If goodness alone is not enough to make God value human dignity, then doesn't this mean that human dignity is not good?

hmmm clearly i overstepped the mark i apologise God goodness also gives us dignity. like I said im not so good at teh theology thing quite yet.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

awesome im glad you agree.

Not a good tactic, my friend.

 

[tarasan]

Not a good tactic, my friend.

im sorry im tired that was immature of me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

im sorry im tired that was immature of me.

:foryou:

 

[Magic Man]

Probably not.

I think it takes as given the existence of objective morality, which I generally reject. The problem of evil requires some sort of external, objective yardstick against which to measure "evil". I don't think such a yardstick exists.

Why do you think it takes that as given? It doesn't seem necessary for the problem of evil to me. We can all agree that little children having their legs chopped off is suffering and pain. To me that's all that's necessary.

And now that I think about it, for Divine Command Morality adherents, the problem of evil isn't a problem at all: if good is defined by God's actions and words, then everything that God does is good by definition. By requiring an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God, the problem is focused at a fairly narrow range of theistic belief to begin with; when we exclude the Divine Command people from this range, there's not really that much left.

OK, but then the problem is considering something good just because God does it. That's a logical problem itself.

 

[tarasan]

Are you talking about the false dilema of Gods goodness? cause it been shown to be false, rather than saying god is good because he wills it we say that Gods is good because it is his nature to be. It isnt what he decides rather it is what he is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you think it takes that as given? It doesn't seem necessary for the problem of evil to me. We can all agree that little children having their legs chopped off is suffering and pain. To me that's all that's necessary.

You realize that you appeal to objective morality right in this statement, don't you?

OK, but then the problem is considering something good just because God does it. That's a logical problem itself.

I'm not sure it is. I don't think that Divine Command Morality is particularily useful, but I don't see how it violates any rules of logic.

And you're getting into another spot where you need to make a positive claim (and therefore take on the burden of proof) to get anywhere: to show that Divine Command Morality poses a logical problem, you would need to show that it's contradictory: i.e. that it calls objectively bad things "good" or vice versa. In order to do this validly, you first have to establish that some other, proper standard for objective morality exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you talking about the false dilema of Gods goodness? cause it been shown to be false, rather than saying god is good because he wills it we say that Gods is good because it is his nature to be. It isnt what he decides rather it is what he is.

Simply saying that goodness is part of "God's nature" doesn't actually resolve the Euthyphro dilemma.