The theodicy

[CoffeeCake]

Here's what I believe.

God is perfect. When He created the universe, it was good. The relationship between existence and goodness is a fundamental, basic rule of the universe. Evil decays goodness--existence. In God's grace, not every one and everything is immediately destroyed by this. But it has broken the world such that even the natural world--as beautiful as it can be--is a pale shadow of itself, giving rise to disasters and diseases.

God is in a curious situation: He hates evil because it tortures and destroys His creations (which He valued enough to sacrifice His Son for without obligation to anyone), but it has become part of the very nature of the humans He loves so much.

He has decided to do away with evil's influence decisively at some point in the future(i.e., The Battle of Armageddon and The "White Throne Judgment"), but He wants to give us a chance to get out of the way. The only way we can do that is by accepting Jesus' sacrifice as having paid the penalty(death for evil) that a corrupted humanity would naturally get. So, recapping: God hates evil and will do away with it decisively at some point, but He loves humans, won't revoke the free will He gave us, and wants to give us time to escape the punishment that comes with evil.

And it's easy--even natural--for all of human beings to ask why doesn't God immediately punish another person who we see doing evil even while we might pray that He goes easy on or pardons us.

It's mercy, luck, or "dodging karma" for us. It's injustice, negligence, cruelty, of evidence of absence when it's the other guy.

I understand this belief is offensive to many, but it is my answer to the question.

 

[Falcon]

You know, I had an answer all ready to be typed out, but @CoffeeCake pretty much got there before me.

Here's an analogy that's helped me:
A parent has already lived a great deal more than their child. They have learned things and been through things that have shaped them. They already know what the results of a lot of actions will be, and naturally they want to pass that wisdom and insight on to their child. The child however has a choice. They can either listen to the parent's advice and try to learn from them, or they can insist on learning everything for themselves on their own for better or worse. And like it or not actions have consequences.
Now the parent does have the power and authority to lock the child away and say everything has to be done a certain way for their own good, but what child would be happy with that? And if that were the case how would the parent know if the child had chosen to take their advice or not? Would the Parent be happy with it?

God is that parent, and though he knows what can and will happen he's opted to leave us with a set of instructions and let us choose how we want to learn for ourselves. We can either follow the instructions and trust in faith that it will turn out well in the end, or we can go our own way. Either way we don't know the result, and that's what makes it free will, and God has allowed us to have that. Nothing's changed about what he knows or his ability to do as he sees fit. What changed is our response.

 

[Hana]

"God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players [i.e. everybody], to being involved in an obscure and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time."
― Terry Pratchett, Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch

Um, hi? I have no groundbreaking opinions or ideas about God or what he thinks, not nearly enough to try and justify anything related to him. I can hardly know what to do with my own life at my age, how am I supposed to know why God, if he exists, does what he does???

 

[Asmodeus]

Because you're American. Try to keep up.

 

[Kaykay]

Here's what I believe.

God is perfect. When He created the universe, it was good. The relationship between existence and goodness is a fundamental, basic rule of the universe. Evil decays goodness--existence. In God's grace, not every one and everything is immediately destroyed by this. But it has broken the world such that even the natural world--as beautiful as it can be--is a pale shadow of itself, giving rise to disasters and diseases.

God is in a curious situation: He hates evil because it tortures and destroys His creations (which He valued enough to sacrifice His Son for without obligation to anyone), but it has become part of the very nature of the humans He loves so much.

He has decided to do away with evil's influence decisively at some point in the future(i.e., The Battle of Armageddon and The "White Throne Judgment"), but He wants to give us a chance to get out of the way. The only way we can do that is by accepting Jesus' sacrifice as having paid the penalty(death for evil) that a corrupted humanity would naturally get. So, recapping: God hates evil and will do away with it decisively at some point, but He loves humans, won't revoke the free will He gave us, and wants to give us time to escape the punishment that comes with evil.

And it's easy--even natural--for all of human beings to ask why doesn't God immediately punish another person who we see doing evil even while we might pray that He goes easy on or pardons us.

It's mercy, luck, or "dodging karma" for us. It's injustice, negligence, cruelty, of evidence of absence when it's the other guy.

I understand this belief is offensive to many, but it is my answer to the question.

In my opinion, that makes no sense. If he is omnipotent, changing the nature of humans would be simple. If he hated the torture and destruction of his creations, he could easily stop it. No ifs, ands, or buts, unless you want to say fictional characters like Kami Tenchi and Demonbane are more powerful than God, which would make him not omnipotent, and thus not an answer to the question.

Second, why wait? If he doesn't like it, there's no reason to wait. Time is meaningless to an omnipotent being, he could erase it from all points in time instantly, forever, with no negative repercussions. We wouldn't have to "get out of the way," he could blink and all evil would be gone.

Omnipotent means all powerful. You can do anything. Creating multiple universes and rewriting physics would be child's play to such a being. Defeating evil would be as easy to an omnipotent being as it is for us to blink.

 

[unanun]

How does one distinguish a good God from an evil one? Perhaps the universe is ruled by an evil God, who purposely built us this way so we can suffer from contradiction for all time.

 

[CoffeeCake]

In my opinion, that makes no sense. If he is omnipotent, changing the nature of humans would be simple.

For God, it is. According to the Bible, He does change the nature of everyone who truly believes, while still respecting our right to resist in this lifetime. It is referred to as a work that continues until we die, after which, we live on as a perfected version of ourselves, morally pure yet individual, immortal--forever free of everything we always complained about.

If he hated the torture and destruction of his creations, he could easily stop it. No ifs, ands, or buts, unless you want to say fictional characters like Kami Tenchi and Demonbane are more powerful than God, which would make him not omnipotent, and thus not an answer to the question.

We don't even oblige human beings to always do things immediately simply because they are capable and willing. We allow timing and the message one wants to send to be a factor in decisions of our fellow human beings and when they choose to act. Is God somehow entitled to less than the humanity He created?

I agree with you as to the definition of omnipotent, I'm glad to say. I tend to see that word thrown around a lot to describe powerful-but-limited all the time and a certain The Princess Bride quote comes to mind.


I believe God can do all those things you suggest, but let's consider the ramifications: a God who did that would basically be defeating much of the purpose of creating humanity by more or less rendering choice and consequence moot. Meaningful relationship with choice and the consequences, both good and bad, get removed from the board.

He already had relationship with the angels, but they already know what He is like. It isn't a matter of faith for them; it's just, "do I like Him or not?" They make a choice, and that's it. The human experience is so much more complex. I think that's one of the things He likes about us. I agree with the metaphor of likening the Christian God to an incredibly wealthy man who's used to people deferring to him simply because of his station. He meets a person who isn't so swayed by his position as others are, and of course, he still wants them to like him, but the fact that they could reject him in a way others don't makes the acceptance that much more valuable.

Second, why wait?

For one, there's the previous part I said about how WE tend to see mercy on other people--especially those who've wronged US--as apathy or cruelty on God's part while WE tend to want all the extensions and second chances we can get when we're in the hot seat. I think waiting is inevitably what happens when you try to be merciful to the whole world without taking the "rendering choice pointless" solution. I also mentioned in an earlier religious thread that I also suspect God is letting us experience first-hand what He already knows and that many of us still deny--that we can't solve all the world's problems ourselves. I believe that if He didn't let it play out, it's perfectly in-character that humanity would insist He just didn't give us enough time. "If you would have just given us a few thousand years more for technology to advance to a certain point, we'd be rid of evil ourselves!"

Omnipotent means all powerful. You can do anything. Creating multiple universes and rewriting physics would be child's play to such a being. Defeating evil would be as easy to an omnipotent being as it is for us to blink.

Exactly. It is. The issue, it seems, is more, "Is He obligated to act both as and when we say we might, were we in His place?"

How does one distinguish a good God from an evil one? Perhaps the universe is ruled by an evil God, who purposely built us this way so we can suffer from contradiction for all time.

The interesting thing about this: If the universe were created by a god who was evil, how would we know? To be aware of such a being's nature, where would we get our frame of reference by which we would recognize its actions as "evil"?

Would good, in such a world, be somehow a purely human creation? If the evil god in question created good just to sadistically enjoy watching its creations squirm in discomfort, how would such a fundamentally evil being devise such a thing as the concept of good?

And if it did somehow manage this, would it not end up corrupted(reverse-corrupted?/purified?!) by the good it originally intended to introduce to this hypothetical universe as nothing more than a cruel prank?

You may have just accidentally given me yet another RP idea-I'll-probably-never-actually-run.

 

[Brovo]

I suppose I can step in again and ask the questions and point out the conundrums. Help out @Kaykay since they seem a bit inexperienced at this philosophical diatribe stuff.

Exactly. It is. The issue, it seems, is more, "Is He obligated to act both as and when we say we might, were we in His place?"

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is He impotent. Is He able but not willing? Then is He malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" -David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

It's in the same way as if I were to watch a victim get brutally raped and killed, right before my eyes, and I had the power to stop it at absolutely no risk or detriment to myself, and I chose not to. At that point, I am taking the rapist's right to rape over the victim's right to live a peaceable life. No matter what I choose to do (or not do), someone's rights are violated. If I could easily cure cancer, again at no risk or detriment to myself, and I chose not to and allowed thousands of children to die pointless, painful deaths, would I not be evil? Remember that inaction can be just as horrifying atrocious as actions. If you stand by and watch innocent people die for literally no reason, that's the textbook description of a psychopath.

This is the conundrum to a God who is...

• All Loving.
• All Knowing.
• All Powerful.

He must lack one of these characteristics to justify pointless, and needless suffering. The question then becomes "would your worship Hitler if he promised you eternal bliss in exchange for turning a blind eye to his tyrannical, nightmarish, murderous rampages against his own people?" Even if the God of the Bible were real, he behaves like a morally bankrupt, cancerous, mentally disturbed, mass murderer. Worse still, that same God is the one who created the rapist, and created the circumstances under which he lived which made him who he is today, thus violating basic precepts of free will. Then, he damns that very same rapist who he all but programmed. Remember: "God works in mysterious ways" cannot exist at the same time as free will. It's either or, you don't get both, because a deterministic universe is the antithesis of a universe with free will.

In any result, even if that god was real, that's not a god worth worshiping.

That being said, this is speaking strictly of the Biblical God. If you want to get into "is there a higher power/deity of some sort?" Then I can't answer that. Nobody truthfully can. If there is a deity who made the universe, he is so far beyond us in every capacity as to make his motives entirely alien and incomprehensible, and we are likely a tiny byproduct of a much larger whole, rather than being "God's special children".

Hope you don't take offense, Coffeecake. I'm just engaging in the discussion as someone who's done this for too many years. If I sound hostile at all, think of me as a grumpy old man waving his cane at people.

 

[Kaykay]

I suppose I can step in again and ask the questions and point out the conundrums. Help out @Kaykay since they seem a bit inexperienced at this philosophical diatribe stuff.

Is it that obvious? But yeah I agree with your post in its entirety.

We don't even oblige human beings to always do things immediately simply because they are capable and willing. We allow timing and the message one wants to send to be a factor in decisions of our fellow human beings and when they choose to act. Is God somehow entitled to less than the humanity He created?

Well, that's because we have limited resources. Time means something to us. We only have so much of it. God has as many resources and as much time as he wants. It's not about entitlement, it's about why and how could he allow evil while he has infinite resources, infinite power, infinite goodness, and the desire to curb evil. Any human with that kind of power would instantly curb evil. Grant self omniscience, wipe out evil in the most efficient way possible.

For God, it is. According to the Bible, He does change the nature of everyone who truly believes, while still respecting our right to resist in this lifetime. It is referred to as a work that continues until we die, after which, we live on as a perfected version of ourselves, morally pure yet individual, immortal--forever free of everything we always complained about.

The problem I find here is: why is there the imperfect version of ourselves in the first place? He just wants to see if we'll like him or not? That seems more like a twisted experiment than being loving and good. It'd be like if I had a child and could have provided it the perfect life at no cost to anyone, but instead just decided to see if it'd listen to me, for fun. Sure, it may suffer, or get bullied, or get depressed, but it's my child, so I can do what I want with it.

Seems a bit messed up to me.

I believe God can do all those things you suggest, but let's consider the ramifications: a God who did that would basically be defeating much of the purpose of creating humanity by more or less rendering choice and consequence moot. Meaningful relationship with choice and the consequences, both good and bad, get removed from the board.

The problem is it doesn't even have to be that way. It is that way because God wanted it that way, which is a bit messed up.

For one, there's the previous part I said about how WE tend to see mercy on other people--especially those who've wronged US--as apathy or cruelty on God's part while WE tend to want all the extensions and second chances we can get when we're in the hot seat. I think waiting is inevitably what happens when you try to be merciful to the whole world without taking the "rendering choice pointless" solution

There is no such thing as inevitable when there's an omnipotent being. Everything would be as he wanted it. If he wants us to slowly suffer through an imperfect life, it will happen. If he doesn't, it wont. And as Brovo said, our choices are already somewhat pointless. A baby murdered by its parents never had a choice. It just came in to the wrong family and by no choice of its own died. Choice is already pointless. I do agree with your view on how we love mercy for ourselves and while not granting it to others, as humans are self-satisfying by nature, but I don't see the relevance to God here. Allowing me to do evil is just as cruel of God as it is to let anyone else do so.

I also mentioned in an earlier religious thread that I also suspect God is letting us experience first-hand what He already knows and that many of us still deny--that we can't solve all the world's problems ourselves. I believe that if He didn't let it play out, it's perfectly in-character that humanity would insist He just didn't give us enough time. "If you would have just given us a few thousand years more for technology to advance to a certain point, we'd be rid of evil ourselves!"

There's no point in "letting" us experience things. He could just grant us every experience immediately and there would be no reason to deny that fact. And that would be ridiculous. Only the most hard-headed people would take further technological advancement over omnipotence. That's simply illogical, even by human standards. Any educated person knows that we do not have unlimited resources and thus no way to continue forever. Not to mention the inevitable supernova that will wipe out our solar system.

Exactly. It is. The issue, it seems, is more, "Is He obligated to act both as and when we say we might, were we in His place?"

This is true, a higher being has no reason to adhere to human morals. But then how do we define good or bad? Is rape good now, since God lets it happen? I think not.

The interesting thing about this: If the universe were created by a god who was evil, how would we know? To be aware of such a being's nature, where would we get our frame of reference by which we would recognize its actions as "evil"?

Would good, in such a world, be somehow a purely human creation? If the evil god in question created good just to sadistically enjoy watching its creations squirm in discomfort, how would such a fundamentally evil being devise such a thing as the concept of good?

And if it did somehow manage this, would it not end up corrupted(reverse-corrupted?/purified?!) by the good it originally intended to introduce to this hypothetical universe as nothing more than a cruel prank?

You may have just accidentally given me yet another RP idea-I'll-probably-never-actually-run.

We wouldn't know. The God can just adjust our minds. When the being in question is omnipotent, discussing it is purely theoretical and impossible to prove anything about anything. Nothing has to end up as anything because, well, omnipotence. There is no room for inevitability or has-to-happen when it comes to omnipotence. There are no rules.

"Why is ___?" "Because omnipotence." I mean, the very concepts of good and evil would be its toys. It could adjust them at any time. We could suddenly all love murder, and murderers would be good while some people are compelled to try and stop murders. And somehow, murdering people would bring about new life so that the cycle can continue. Illogical by the current set of rules of the universe, but easily possible for an omnipotent.

 

[Brovo]

Is it that obvious? But yeah I agree with your post in its entirety.

I've been doing this for years, so I have most arguments on both sides rehearsed to a T. You've got the general ideas, it's just getting them... Out, that is hard. Personally, I'm trying to learn the ones the Muslims use, but half of them aren't in English, so that throws a bit of a wrench in my learning curve. The most functional argument the Christians have on their side of the pond is generally the fortress of faith, especially if they don't attempt Biblical literalism and agree that it's a man-made text susceptible to edits. At that point, assaulting with logic is fruitless, pointless, and a tad dickish.

But, if the argument strays into logic, or ethics, it's not very difficult to route it from a strictly skeptical point of view. So long as you stay on course with logos and avoid pathos, because Christians will nearly always win the pathos appeal.

 

[CoffeeCake]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is He impotent. Is He able but not willing? Then is He malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" -David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

I'm familiar with this quote. The fact that someone famous or even smart said the same thing doesn't circumvent the presumption inherent in the repeated suggestion that if God has the power to do something in a way we imagine He should, that He is obligated to prove it by doing that thing in exactly the way we would have Him do it.

It's in the same way as if I were to watch a victim get brutally raped and killed, right before my eyes,and I had the power to stop it at absolutely no risk or detriment to myself, and I chose not to. At that point, I am taking the rapist's right to rape over the victim's right to live a peaceable life.

The flaw in that analogy—I may have presumed too much familiarity with the doctrine I'm defending—is that no human being is purely a victim. We are all sinful even though sin harm us all. So we are all both victim and perpetrator. If any human being could be perfectly innocent, Jesus wouldn't have gone to the Cross. He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane that, if there were any other way to save humanity, God the Father would let Him skip going to the cross. If anyone of us mortals could, by God's perfect standard, "live a peaceable" life, God wouldn't have taken the action He already did. Religion as we know it would arguably not exist, as good humans would always automatically find their way to God, and their sinlessness would make them immortal anyway(death being a product of sin and Jesus only dying voluntarily by acting as a substitute for every person who'd ever accept it).

No matter what I choose to do (or not do), someone's rights are violated. If I could easily cure cancer, again at no risk or detriment to myself, and I chose not to and allowed thousands of children to die pointless, painful deaths, would I not be evil? Remember that inaction can be just as horrifying atrocious as actions. If you stand by and watch innocent people die for literally no reason, that's the textbook description of a psychopath.

Not to nitpick, but I can't ignore some of the loaded language in that argument. I'm not defending a God who does things "for no reason" and "pointless[ly]" I give the reasons and points I believe in. If they don't satisfy you, that's fine. If you view the God I do describe, as sadistic, it is your right, but don't expect me to defend a different god framed as the same one.

God does intervene. Some people recover. Some people survive things they should have likely died from. Close calls and reversals happen all around us. Part of the experience of faith is deciding if we'll acknowledge those as evidence of God or dismiss them, somehow having the gall to be upset that they don't happen more often despite our ingratitude for the ones that do happen.

Also, this was critical for me when deciding if I'd be a Christian or not: A big part of how one perceives God has to do with how much value one assigns to this current, temporary life. It is a precious thing, and yet, its priority in Christian doctrine is presented as secondary and in service to preparation for the unending one to follow. Now, if one, even professing Christianity, is dismissive or unconvinced of the priority of the afterlife, it all sort of falls apart. Even the Apostles said, "If Christ has not risen from the dead, then we are to be pitied above all men." It's true. If all the stuff about eternal life and getting to meet and spend time with God face to face, no more mysteries and all that, is false, then Christianity is a pointless waste of time. If death, for the believer experiencing it, isn't reduced to a doorway to something that will surpass anything in this life, then letting us experience TEMPORARY suffering is horrible.

This is the conundrum to a God who is...

• All Loving.
• All Knowing.
• All Powerful.

He must lack one of these characteristics to justify pointless, and needless suffering. The question then becomes "would your worship Hitler if he promised you eternal bliss in exchange for turning a blind eye to his tyrannical, nightmarish, murderous rampages against his own people?" Even if the God of the Bible were real, he behaves like a morally bankrupt, cancerous, mentally disturbed, mass murderer. Worse still, that same God is the one who created the rapist, and created the circumstances under which he lived which made him who he is today, thus violating basic precepts of free will. Then, he damns that very same rapist who he all but programmed.

That's not what I posited.

I'll elaborate on MY argument—not your reframing. Did Hitler love humanity? Was Hitler perfect? Without even getting into the contrast between the Christian God's relationship with the Jews and Hitler's, this reframing is absurd. If I did believe in the god you describe, I wouldn't worship him either.

And sidestepping the emotionally charged condemnations of god-neither-one-of-us believes-in, combining accountability and the absence of free will, whether in theistic or purely humanistic context, makes no sense. Why would humans get angry at people for bad behavior when no one can help themself?

Also, remember that my previous posts refer to a God who gives, values, and won't revoke free will. If we're discussing other beliefs too, that's fine. But I would appreciate it if you might avoid casting things I say that I don't believe as though they were things that I do.

Remember: "God works in mysterious ways" cannot exist at the same time as free will. It's either or, you don't get both, because a deterministic universe is the antithesis of a universe with free will.

That's easy. I don't believe in a deterministic universe. "Mysterious ways" doesn't equal determinism though anyway.

Hope you don't take offense, Coffeecake. I'm just engaging in the discussion as someone who's done this for too many years. If I sound hostile at all, think of me as a grumpy old man waving his cane at people.

For me, religion is about pursuit of truth. If there's an argument that can shatter my faith, I should hear it, lest I continue wasting time in delusion.

 

[Kadaeux]

The flaw in that analogy—I may have presumed too much familiarity with the doctrine I'm defending—is that no human being is purely a victim.

.
That is flat out bullshit.

Please, feel free to provide evidence showing that all rape victims deserved what they got. Feel free to show all murder victims deserved what they got. Feel free to show what the Jewish people slaughtered by the Nazi party did to deserve it.

Someone who is raped or murdered is purely a victim.

We are all sinful even though sin harm us all. So we are all both victim and perpetrator.

.
False. You'll provide evidence over what evils newborn children did to deserve molestation, or drowning, let alone that a poor week old baby who was killed and EATEN by his mother.

We are not "all victim and perpetrator" that is an absolutely inhuman thing to believe.

If any human being could be perfectly innocent, Jesus wouldn't have gone to the Cross. He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane that, if there were any other way to save humanity, God the Father would let Him skip going to the cross. If anyone of us mortals could, by God's perfect standard, "live a peaceable" life, God wouldn't have taken the action He already did. Religion as we know it would arguably not exist, as good humans would always automatically find their way to God, and their sinlessness would make them immortal anyway(death being a product of sin and Jesus only dying voluntarily by acting as a substitute for every person who'd ever accept it).

.
And yet his final words were "Oh lord god, why have you forsaken me." (In whatever language it was to begin with.)

Not to mention the bizarre assertion that religion as we know it wouldn't exist, what with religions like Islam, Hindus and many many more. Indeed, if it weren't for Christianity's (and Islam) genocidal activities there would remain MORE religions.

 

[Holmishire]

@Kadaeux, you seem to misinterpreting Cake's arguments.

The point made was not that each individual deserved the punishment they received, just that they too perpetrate sin—even if to a lesser degree. The rape victim is only purely a victim in the context of the rape, not in the context of their entire life. Even newborns bear sins, such as greed, when they demand nourishment while considering neither the needs nor the desires of their mother. This does not mean that the newborn is at fault, per say—they do not deserve punishment—but they are perpetrating a sin.

I'm not saying this justifies their stance in this issue—on that, I remain impartial for now. However, I felt your rebuttal failed to address the points raised as they were raised.

@CoffeeCake, if I myself misinterpreted your meaning, feel free to correct me.

 

[Brovo]

I'm familiar with this quote. The fact that someone famous or even smart said the same thing doesn't circumvent the presumption inherent in the repeated suggestion that if God has the power to do something in a way we imagine He should, that He is obligated to prove it by doing that thing in exactly the way we would have Him do it.

Actually, no. It's plainly and bluntly putting out that God has a massive character flaw: He can't be all loving if the very basic characteristics of an all loving person are violated by his very inaction. In the same way that you can't keep calling me a good person if I create a thousand rapists and unleash them upon the world, then stand by and watch as they go about raping people and ruining lives. You can't be a good person if you are the originator of all evil, by virtue of creating all things, and stand by and do nothing while evil flourishes. If governments were to operate under this same principle, we'd have no police officers, no firefighters--arsonists and murderers could go about their day unimpeded, because we might violate their free will by stopping them or punishing them for going through with their actions.

Do you see? God cannot simultaneously be all loving, and the creator of all things, and be all knowing, and then stand by and watch evil happen. That is a fatal character design flaw, and in any story, that'd be considered a plot hole. He's the one who created the arsonist who lit the house on fire. He's already created evil, he's already done horribly terribly wrong things. Therefore, God, by virtue of his own actions, repeatedly recorded in the Bible, is not a good character. He drowned the entire planet for not loving him enough.

The flaw in that analogy—I may have presumed too much familiarity with the doctrine I'm defending—is that no human being is purely a victim. We are all sinful even though sin harm us all. So we are all both victim and perpetrator. If any human being could be perfectly innocent, Jesus wouldn't have gone to the Cross. He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane that, if there were any other way to save humanity, God the Father would let Him skip going to the cross. If anyone of us mortals could, by God's perfect standard, "live a peaceable" life, God wouldn't have taken the action He already did. Religion as we know it would arguably not exist, as good humans would always automatically find their way to God, and their sinlessness would make them immortal anyway(death being a product of sin and Jesus only dying voluntarily by acting as a substitute for every person who'd ever accept it).

This doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure how children dying of cancer are perpetrators... Should they have not been born with cancer? It also strikes another flaw in the all loving arc of the character: He created an impossible test in the Garden of Eden that was predestined to fail (when you have literally infinite time to fail, by statistical odds, you have a 100% chance of failure at some point), then punished all of his creation with human flaws and suffering and evil... Then he drowned the entire planet for the suffering and evil he created, started over, and somehow, his perfect creations remained horribly imperfect. So with Jesus, he created a second impossible test, because the creatures he designed personally, which he knows are absolutely fallible and will at some point in their lives sin no matter how miniscule it may be or how apologetic they may be about it afterwards, must somehow live perfect lives.

He literally goes "live a perfect life or I'll torture this random jewish son I have to death."

This violates the "all loving" character trait so hard that it starts to make one's head spin. Especially when God decided that the only way he could forgive all of the creations he created to be flawed for their flaws, was to take his only mortal son... And brutally murder him. Consider this is the character that is supposed to know everything, and be all powerful, so... Why does he have to resort to murder to get things done? Especially since he loves his creations, wouldn't it just make... Infinitely more sense to, like, send a patch out to every human brain? If you respond with "that'd violate free will", well, he already did. Several times. Like that incident where he literally murdered everyone on the planet for not loving him enough. Pretty much the entirety of the old testament, really. Samson & Delilah is rife with examples of god apparently not giving a shit about anyone's free will. Jonah too. Moses, even. I'm pretty sure god didn't care about the free will of the peoples living in Sodom & Gomorrah.

I'm not sure if you've read my earlier posts so I'll quickly restate that, since I'm not a believer, I tend to view this as a character dissection. I'm going off of what I can read from the Biblical text. If we're going into the realm of "I feel God is X", I can't fight that, and I don't think it'd be particularly right for me to do so either. I'm arguing purely from what I can derive from the text.

Not to nitpick, but I can't ignore some of the loaded language in that argument. I'm not defending a God who does things "for no reason" and "pointless[ly]" I give the reasons and points I believe in. If they don't satisfy you, that's fine. If you view the God I do describe, as sadistic, it is your right, but don't expect me to defend a different god framed as the same one.

God does intervene. Some people recover. Some people survive things they should have likely died from. Close calls and reversals happen all around us. Part of the experience of faith is deciding if we'll acknowledge those as evidence of God or dismiss them, somehow having the gall to be upset that they don't happen more often despite our ingratitude for the ones that do happen.

Also, this was critical for me when deciding if I'd be a Christian or not: A big part of how one perceives God has to do with how much value one assigns to this current, temporary life. It is a precious thing, and yet, its priority in Christian doctrine is presented as secondary and in service to preparation for the unending one to follow. Now, if one, even professing Christianity, is dismissive or unconvinced of the priority of the afterlife, it all sort of falls apart. Even the Apostles said, "If Christ has not risen from the dead, then we are to be pitied above all men." It's true. If all the stuff about eternal life and getting to meet and spend time with God face to face, no more mysteries and all that, is false, then Christianity is a pointless waste of time. If death, for the believer experiencing it, isn't reduced to a doorway to something that will surpass anything in this life, then letting us experience TEMPORARY suffering is horrible.

Again, though, I have to call into question: How can you tell where god intervenes? Why does god only intervene for certain people? Why is it always vague miracles that could just as easily be explained as lucky draw or statistical anomaly? Does god love certain people more than other people? Why? "God works in mysterious ways" violates free will, just as a reminder.

As for the last paragraph, yeah no I'm not arguing with you about that. If there is a God, and if he does work in mysterious ways, then I am absolutely acknowledging the fact that I would be completely unable to understand him. He's so far beyond me that I'm basically an ant staring up at humans building massive structure as far as the eye can see, turning to my friend, and going "why must they pour concrete and murder us?!" I'm just an ant. I don't know what the fuck humans do or why the fuck they do it. The same applies as a human attempting to ascertain the motivations of a deity, or the methods of a deity. The Bible is also comprised of multiple books written by multiple men over the course of a few hundred years, translated multiple times, compiled into a single work by the Catholic Church at conventions like the Council of Nicea... And, it's quite possible, that God had a coherent message that would have made total sense, but thanks to human editing over the course of 2,000+ years, it no longer does.

However, speaking as a non-believer, speaking as a skeptic, I'm examining what little evidence I do have--his book. And his book depicts the tale of an insanely jealous man in the sky who has schizophrenic episodes in which murders people. A lot. Often painfully. When he could probably use a thousand different other methods than murder to get his point across. To creations he is supposed to love. Completely, and absolutely.

I'll elaborate on MY argument—not your reframing. Did Hitler love humanity? Was Hitler perfect?

No, but the reason I make the comparison to Hitler is because both are imperfect, jealous, and vindictive, to the level of orchestrating mass genocide because people wouldn't do what they told them to do... No offense. I really don't mean to offend.

Without even getting into the contrast between the Christian God's relationship with the Jews and Hitler's, this reframing is absurd. If I did believe in the god you describe, I wouldn't worship him either.

Aye, which is why I typically separate the Biblical God with one's personal God. Anyone who follows the Bible to the letter would quickly turn into a rabid bloodthirsty maniac who slaughters people for working on sundays or wearing mixed cloth, or not paying the tax man his due--all of which I won't insult your intelligence by implying you would ever consider righteous or ethical. Keep in mind that when I question the god of the book, I'm not questioning you.

And sidestepping the emotionally charged condemnations of god-neither-one-of-us believes-in, combining accountability and the absence of free will, whether in theistic or purely humanistic context, makes no sense. Why would humans get angry at people for bad behavior when no one can help themself?

Because people can help themselves generally? Unless they have a crippling mental disorder. It's why we consider, say, school shootings, to be tragedies--we failed to stop something terrible. Even if there was no way for any human to know and stop the tragedy from occurring, we'll still generally feel pretty badly about it. When we do awful things and hurt each other, we often apologize and depending on the severity of the event, offer reparations--even in the course of this giant blob of semi-coherent rambling I'm posting to you, I'm repeatedly appealing to your better nature. Because I know this topic is very personal for you, you sincerely believe, and I don't want to offend or upset, but in some ways I feel it may be unavoidable in order for me to properly express my opinions.

It's... Empathy. We're flawed, certainly, but what makes life unique and special is that we're forced to be held accountable for our actions explicitly because we presume we have free will. It's also why most modern courts of law have special kinds of punishments for crimes committed under duress or because of a mental disorder. If, there is a deity, and if, he created everything and knows everything, this strips us of our free will. We're nothing more than a simulation or a dream that a vastly superior entity cooked up. This devalues our actions, this inevitably means that, if a rapist rapes or a murderer murders, it's because they were destined to do that. They were created by a God who knew they would end up committing those actions, who did it anyway.

If I drop a spider and an ant in the same bin, I shouldn't be surprised the next morning if the ant was eaten by the spider, and I would be directly responsible for the death of the ant. To imply that a deity should be absolved of the responsibility for his creations, who do exactly as he created them to do, makes little sense.

Also, remember that my previous posts refer to a God who gives, values, and won't revoke free will. If we're discussing other beliefs too, that's fine. But I would appreciate it if you might avoid casting things I say that I don't believe as though they were things that I do.

As said above, if we're speaking of a personal god, or who you feel god is: I won't argue that. I can't argue that, it's not right for me to argue that. If we're talking of the Biblical god however, he repeatedly violates free will, so many times, and on such a grand scale as resulting in the deaths of hundreds or even thousands, it makes little sense. I also have to wonder...

God does intervene. Some people recover. Some people survive things they should have likely died from.

How can a god respect free will, if he openly interferes in the lives of individual people, whether for good or for ill? If he interferes in the lives of any one particular person, why not more? Why only that one person? This only seems to imply a god who gives arbitrary and random value to certain persons for little coherent reasoning beyond schizophrenia.

That's easy. I don't believe in a deterministic universe. "Mysterious ways" doesn't equal determinism though anyway.

If God made and knows everything forever: Then everything we do is something god already knows we'll do, meaning that our free will is just as much of an illusion as that of video game characters going through a cutscene. If you look closely, you can see the puppet strings.

For me, religion is about pursuit of truth. If there's an argument that can shatter my faith, I should hear it, lest I continue wasting time in delusion.

I appreciate it. I hope you see that I meant no harm in inquiry, repudiation, and discussion. As part of good faith, I'll let you have the last word in this discussion if you would like.

 

[Kadaeux]

@Kadaeux, you seem to misinterpreting Cake's arguments.

The point made was not that each individual deserved the punishment they received, just that they too perpetrate sin—even if to a lesser degree. The rape victim is only purely a victim in the context of the rape, not in the context of their entire life. Even newborns bear sins, such as greed, when they demand nourishment while considering neither the needs nor the desires of their mother. This does not mean that the newborn is at fault, per say—they do not deserve punishment—but they are perpetrating a sin.

I'm not saying this justifies their stance in this issue—on that, I remain impartial for now. However, I felt your rebuttal failed to address the points raised as they were raised.

@CoffeeCake, if I myself misinterpreted your meaning, feel free to correct me.

.
It addressed it. The fact there IS such a belief is utterly inhuman.

 

[CoffeeCake]

Well, that's because we have limited resources. Time means something to us. We only have so much of it. God has as many resources and as much time as he wants. It's not about entitlement, it's about why and how could he allow evil while he has infinite resources, infinite power, infinite goodness, and the desire to curb evil. Any human with that kind of power would instantly curb evil. Grant self omniscience, wipe out evil in the most efficient way possible.

This strikes me as odd. Because time means something to us WE should be the ones acting as quickly as possible instead of sometimes never using our capability to perform an act.

Also, consider a stakeout or sting operation in which, mortal humans with limited lifespans, will hold back from busting the first criminal they can convict so that they can gain more evidence and catch even more criminals and, sometimes, get information that allows them to catch even more!

The problem I find here is: why is there the imperfect version of ourselves in the first place?

Adam and Eve. Also, on a daily basis, we all behave imperfectly.

There's no point in "letting" us experience thing

I fear for your children, with this stance.

He could just grant us every experience immediately and there would be no reason to deny that fact.

Why do anything then? You're entitled to that view, but I find it a dismal one.

And that would be ridiculous. Only the most hard-headed people would take further technological advancement over omnipotence. That's simply illogical, even by human standards. Any educated person knows that we do not have unlimited resources and thus no way to continue forever. Not to mention the inevitable supernova that will wipe out our solar system.

Search for the words "transhumanism", "post-scarcity", and "post singularity." For some people, it's all just fun sci-fi, but for others, they have hope that we can achieve unlimited resources, immortality, and possibly even omniscience and omnipotence through advances in technology and human knowledge.

Choice is already pointless.

I believe our disagreement on this key. I believe choice is the most important thing.

But then how do we define good or bad? Is rape good now, since God lets it happen? I think not.

I think not.
The idea that things are good simply because they happen is unBiblical. Back to my first reply--God hates a lot of what's happened, what happens, and what will happen. He intervenes, to a limited degree out of respect for our choices, which is mind-blowing. An infinite being beyond the ken of the greatest human minds who holds galaxies between His fingers, cares about human choice! He is described as patient and longsuffering. But that patience has an end, and when it comes, that will be it. The "Your will be done, in Earth as it is in Heaven" part of the prayer exists for a reason.

He just wants to see if we'll like him or not? That seems more like a twisted experiment than being loving and good. It'd be like if I had a child and could have provided it the perfect life at no cost to anyone, but instead just decided to see if it'd listen to me, for fun. Sure, it may suffer, or get bullied, or get depressed, but it's my child, so I can do what I want with it.

Not "just." Note that I said I agreed with the rich-man metaphor as a demonstration of one aspect of what I repeatedly called a complex relationship.
I lead with the main point that I believe that, without revoking free will, He holds back from completely wiping out evil right now because that would mean the condemnation of numbers of people He apparently finds unacceptable.

It seems the crux of our disagreement involve free will. I'm never going to satisfy the two of you with argument as my beliefs involve free will as a thing of great value and God being a reference point for good.

These counterarguments seem dismissive of it--that it is a thing to be discarded in the interest of an immediate, choice-nullifying solution.


I'm not sure there's much more fruit to come my continued involvement in this discussion.

We wouldn't know. The God can just adjust our minds. When the being in question is omnipotent, discussing it is purely theoretical and impossible to prove anything about anything. Nothing has to end up as anything because, well, omnipotence. There is no room for inevitability or has-to-happen when it comes to omnipotence. There are no rules.
"Why is ___?" "Because omnipotence." I mean, the very concepts of good and evil would be its toys. It could adjust them at any time. We could suddenly all love murder, and murderers would be good while some people are compelled to try and stop murders. And somehow, murdering people would bring about new life so that the cycle can continue. Illogical by the current set of rules of the universe, but easily possible for an omnipotent.

Now, this we view similarly.

 

[Kestrel]

Even newborns bear sins, such as greed, when they demand nourishment

Wanting to live is greed.

Gotcha.

This argument is wrong on so many levels. If instincts to survive boil down to sin (because infants don't have the conciousness to make informed decisions, therefore the argument of choosing to sin is irrelevant) then everything does. Almost any mother will feed their child willingly as an act of love. Often this what you see as a minor inconvenience to the mother, is enjoyed as a blissful moment. Maybe not so much when the teeth start to set in, but hell. If wanting to live is a sin even if the means to are provided willingly, then why does the entire world not fucking burn yet? Almost everything you do in order to survive will inconvenience some kind of party in some way or another. While you're typing this (or reading) think of all the productive things to society you could actually do. Are you going to feel like you should make a confession about reading a reply instead of helping the homeless or collecting money for charity later? I don't think so.

I don't really want to get involved with the debate as a whole, because I know I am not nearly patient enough for that, but this had to be addressed as it is absolutely ludicrous. Please tell me I misinterpreted your post. Please. Because as it stands, I cannot see this idea of yours as anything other than harmful and wrong, as it denotes everything we ever do as harmful and wrong.

 

[Kaykay]

This strikes me as odd. Because time means something to us WE should be the ones acting as quickly as possible instead of sometimes never using our capability to perform an act.

Also, consider a stakeout or sting operation in which, mortal humans with limited lifespans, will hold back from busting the first criminal they can convict so that they can gain more evidence and catch even more criminals and, sometimes, get information that allows them to catch even more!

It's because we have to take the time to decide what exactly we want to do. We may have the desire for it now, but will we in, say, 5 years from now? Or perhaps we want to do something, but would rather do something else. God would not have that problem. He can do everything, all the time.

I don't know what a stakeout or sting operation is so I'll ignore that for now.

Adam and Eve. Also, on a daily basis, we all behave imperfectly.

Why are we all punished for the sins of two ancient people who ate a fruit? I didn't get the choice to make them not eat it. That one choice punished the rest of us, even though we had nothing to do with it? Would you kill a baby that has done no wrong because its mother was a serial killer? I think not.

I understand we behave imperfectly but I don't see the relevance to my statement.

I fear for your children, with this stance.

You cut out the rest of my statement and ignored the context. I am not God. I can't just immediately provide my children with all the experience they need. Not letting my children experience things would have only negative repercussions. An omnipotent being like God, however, can.

I'm beginning to think I offended you, and I'm sorry if I did so.

Why do anything then? You're entitled to that view, but I find it a dismal one.

Good question, but I can't answer it objectively. Dismal or not, what matters to me is the truth.

Search for the words "transhumanism", "post-scarcity", and "post singularity." For some people, it's all just fun sci-fi, but for others, they have hope that we can achieve unlimited resources, immortality, and possibly even omniscience and omnipotence through advances in technology and human knowledge.

Oh, we can certainly push past human limits. Though I have no idea how it would happen it's entirely possible. But there is no room for "we" in omni-anything. There is but one summit. And given that I had to google these things, I assume these are not the majority's opinions.

I believe our disagreement on this key. I believe choice is the most important thing.

I have to ask why here. Our supposed choices, in my opinion, are just the inevitable culmination of what has transpired beforehand. To make choice the most important thing, I would require an explanation for my aforementioned example about the baby being murdered by its parent(s). It never got a choice. It was just born into the wrong place at the wrong time and was killed without a chance to make its own choice. Do you think it could have somehow just "chosen" better and it would've avoided that death?

I think not.
The idea that things are good simply because they happen is unBiblical. Back to my first reply--God hates a lot of what's happened, what happens, and what will happen. He intervenes, to a limited degree out of respect for our choices, which is mind-blowing. An infinite being beyond the ken of the greatest human minds who holds galaxies between His fingers, cares about human choice! He is described as patient and longsuffering. But that patience has an end, and when it comes, that will be it. The "Your will be done, in Earth as it is in Heaven" part of the prayer exists for a reason.

Mind-blowing or not, it doesn't really make sense. If he hates it and is all-loving, surely it must be bad. If it is bad, it should be erased. What's the point of his supposed patience? Our free will? It seems more like he takes amusement from it than like he actually cares. Surely you wouldn't just let your 6 year old run onto a highway to play catch just because you respect his choice, would you?

But okay, then let's use a different example. Starvation.

Does it somehow violate our free will to make food more plentiful? If so, how? If not, why are there children starving for no reason but they were born to a poor family in a poor country?

I lead with the main point that I believe that, without revoking free will, He holds back from completely wiping out evil right now because that would mean the condemnation of numbers of people He apparently finds unacceptable.

But the condemnation comes from God himself. He can easily wipe out evil without condemning anyone. Nothing has to lead to anything, as we have already agreed on absolute omnipotence. If God doesn't find something acceptable, he can just change the way it works.

It seems the crux of our disagreement involve free will. I'm never going to satisfy the two of you with argument as my beliefs involve free will as a thing of great value and God being a reference point for good.

These counterarguments seem dismissive of it--that it is a thing to be discarded in the interest of an immediate, choice-nullifying solution.

Perhaps the differing views are part of it, but the other part of it is God's actions simply not making any sense. Starving children chose to starve? We chose to make Adam and Eve eat that fruit? Murdered infants chose to get murdered? These all seem to contradict free will. If God favored free will so much, why would there be so many situations which inhibit it? Why are there wage gaps? We didn't choose to be born into whatever monetary class of family we ended up in. Rich people have it easier, poor people have it harder. Kids born into whatever kind of family didn't choose to do so, they just ended up there.

Assuming choice exists, it is somewhat important. But no more important than the environment and circumstances around you. With no opportunities and no talent, no amount of hard work and perseverance matters. That is reality, like it or not.

Sure, some solutions may seem choice-nullifying. But as aforementioned, God already nullifies tons of choices through our very circumstances. Nobody chooses to be born into an abusive household. Our brains are already set up so that certain things just aren't possible, like how we won't just suddenly grow wings and fly.

And well if God is the reference point for good, there's no need for a justice system or jails. Whatever God lets happen is what's good and is his plan. Unless you want to say it's good to just sit back and watch your creations struggle for no reason other than "I feel like it and it's totally just their free will, my lack of helping them has nothing to do with it."

 

[Asmodeus]

Diana doesn't promote my roleplays. She is evil. She tells me she is busy, but she's the admin - it's her job to promote my roleplays. Maybe she hates me. So surely she loves the ones who don't pester her. But some of their roleplays die too, and Diana just let's it happen, even though she has the power to stop it. I send requests to her inbox, so she has total knowledge of what I want. My roleplays are good and can help Iwaku. Maybe she doesn't have time. But she loves Iwaku and works from home - what else could she possibly be doing? Why create a roleplay forum where the possibility exists for roleplays to fail? I have witnessed her total power - in the old days when she would change the entire forum and select chosen ones to spread her word. But it has been so long since she proved her power with these miracles. Diana must demonstrate her love and her goodness by saving my roleplay right now. But instead she will say that some tragedies are meant to be, and that perhaps it was my fault all along.

I no longer believe in Diana.

 

[Kaykay]

Diana doesn't promote my roleplays. She is evil. She tells me she is busy, but she's the admin - it's her job to promote my roleplays. Maybe she hates me. So surely she loves the ones who don't pester her. But some of their roleplays die too, and Diana just let's it happen, even though she has the power to stop it. I send requests to her inbox, so she has total knowledge of what I want. My roleplays are good and can help Iwaku. Maybe she doesn't have time. But she loves Iwaku and works from home - what else could she possibly be doing. Why create a roleplay forum where the possibility exists for roleplays to fail? I have witnessed her total power - in the old days when she would change the entire forum and select chosen ones to spread her word. But it has been so long since she proved her power with these miracles. Diana must prove her love and her goodness by saving my roleplay right now. But instead she will that some tragedies are meant to be, and that perhaps it was my fault all along.

I no longer believe in Diana.

Admin != Omnipotence

You don't really have a point here. I'm not even gonna dissect this because it's just a terrible example.