The One they call "God"

[Bijo]

It is true that often there have been discussions and debates regarding "God", religion, science, philosophy, and so on, and this time let us do so again more or less. Only now I commence with a simple statement and an explanation for it to criticize the entity they call "God".

Statement: "If God exists, He must be a sadist or some underachiever."

Explanation: He is supposed to be all-powerful, almighty, capable of anything, for He is God, therefore since the world has been, is, and will be in such terrible state and He has ultimate divine power and is our overseer, He is evil for allowing evil to occur, for having it installed in nature, in us.
If He is NOT evil, but good, then He must not be allpowerful, almighty, and so on as He must be some kind of underachiever, for the world is in a terrible state as there's much evil.

[rvg]

He is evil for allowing evil to occur, for having it installed in nature, in us. If He is NOT evil, but good, then He must not be allpowerful, almighty, and so on as He must be some kind of underachiever, for the world is in a terrible state as there's much evil.

I disagree. Evil in nature simply does not exist, nature is neither good nor evil. As for humans, we choose to be evil, in a sense, we are abusing God's greatest gift to us, which is freedom.

Evil never comes from God.

[Lemur]

Bijo, I don't know if you're aware of it or not, but you're pounding down a well-worn path. The seeming paradox of an omnipotent, benevolent god in a world that contains manifest evil has been toyed with for millennia. Try the Book of Job, for starters.

Some theologies ascribe the existence of evil to Original Sin and the fall of man. Others theorize that God allows the world to go its own way as part of free will. Others suggest that aspects of our world shun God, and therefore fall outside his grace.

The Christian Scientists have the most logical, if hard to swallow solution: The material world is an illusion, as is all evil. Reality is pure love and God's grace, so if you can just see through the material veil, you can cause miracles to occur.

Of course, as South Park made clear, the Mormons are the only ones with the correct answer.

[Vladimir]

Those who seek to disprove God through science have only codified his laws. There is a divine being who's laws bind us all. We call it mathematics.

And that's not some scientology crap either. And stop with this endless circular debate; the only thing that matters are the actions that result from your belief.

[Ronin]

you mean Clapton(is God)?


I mean.....he sure had some tough times....with all the coke he was doing and stuff...

but I wouldn´t go as far as calling him evil....we all have our problems....

[Andres]

Most of the misery in the world is caused by us, humans. Don't blame God, blame humanity. God gave us a free will. It's up to us to do something good with it.

Would you prefer a constantly interfering God? That would mean the end of our own free will. For some of us, living a life with constant interference of a supreme being would be equal to living in hell...

Statement: "If God exists, He must be a (...) underachiever."

You are implying that if there is a God, he should be "Good". Why would you assume that if there is a God, he should be "Good"? After all, he is God. He doesn't need to respond to us, mere mortals. He can do (or not do) whatever He wants. Maybe He doesn't even know the difference between "Good" and "Evil". Maybe He doesn't even care. And if he's Evil, I wouldn't call him an underachiever. Au contraire...

[Bijo mode]Your statement is based on the assumption that God should be good. An assumption is not a fact. Discussing your statement is pointless. [/Bijo mode ]

[Sigurd]

HOLD YOUR HORSES!!!

There will be a debate on this soon (I have already sent my proposition)... Kukri will be opening a moderated thread in connection with this.

[Bijo]

Sigurd, are you telling us to wait? Please go on and let Kukri open a debate in connection with this thread if that's to be, that's fine, but I do want to respond to Andres.

Most of the misery in the world is caused by us, humans. Don't blame God, blame humanity. God gave us a free will. It's up to us to do something good with it.

Would you prefer a constantly interfering God? That would mean the end of our own free will. For some of us, living a life with constant interference of a supreme being would be equal to living in hell...



You are implying that if there is a God, he should be "Good". Why would you assume that if there is a God, he should be "Good"? After all, he is God. He doesn't need to respond to us, mere mortals. He can do (or not do) whatever He wants. Maybe He doesn't even know the difference between "Good" and "Evil". Maybe He doesn't even care. And if he's Evil, I wouldn't call him an underachiever. Au contraire...

[Bijo mode]Your statement is based on the assumption that God should be good. An assumption is not a fact. Discussing your statement is pointless. [/Bijo mode ]

Wait a minute there, old boy. What is in question is the statement in the first post. What matters is whether the statement is true or false.

You are stating the misery and so on is caused by us humans? Are you forgetting it is the one they call God who is supposedly the Creator of us humans? Why create us in such a way that we are corrupt, evil, and so forth? Does this not testify of an evil divine entity (if He exists and how He has been, is, and will be perceived)? Why design us mere mortals with terrible flaws? He is God and supposedly almighty. It only indicates He is evil.

And maybe if He is NOT evil, he is not that almighty at all. Or maybe He is evil AND not totally almighty.

Bottom line: the first statement seems correct and true. You are to oppose it and counterargument it. So far it holds true.

[rvg]

Why create us in such a way that we are corrupt, evil, and so forth? Does this not testify of an evil divine entity (if He exists and how He has been, is, and will be perceived)? Why design us mere mortals with terrible flaws?

We are not born evil.

[Husar]

I'm sure Sigurd's debate will be...better, longer, but here goes my short rebuttal anyway.

Well, he gave us free choice, that means if we do evil, it's us not him, what you want is no free choice, but that wouldn't be perfect.
The other thing is quite silly, if he is not all-powerful and cannot make the world better, then he isn't an underachiever as it is not possible for him to make things better, or would you consider yourself an underachiever because you cannot fly when naked without any tools?

[Crazed Rabbit]

It is true that often there have been discussions and debates regarding "God", religion, science, philosophy, and so on, and this time let us do so again more or less. Only now I commence with a simple statement and an explanation for it to criticize the entity they call "God".

Statement: "If God exists, He must be a sadist or some underachiever."

Explanation: He is supposed to be all-powerful, almighty, capable of anything, for He is God, therefore since the world has been, is, and will be in such terrible state and He has ultimate divine power and is our overseer, He is evil for allowing evil to occur, for having it installed in nature, in us.
If He is NOT evil, but good, then He must not be allpowerful, almighty, and so on as He must be some kind of underachiever, for the world is in a terrible state as there's much evil.

Free will.

To explain, if we are to have free will, than we must be free to choose the evil path.

CR

[Odin]

Statement: "If God exists, He must be a sadist or some underachiever."

God and his devine plan is a metaphor for human judgement. You see we all have the ability to make a bad decision, a failure. The metaphor in scripture is right there for all to see. I think its Isaiah(I havent brushed up on it in some time) but essentially it states the lord will provide a sign and a woman shall concieve a son.

That son was the Christ, supposedly promised to the jews to reunite judah. So what happened? Christ was not accepted by the Jews, therefore god failed.

Now some like to call it a devine plan, but its clear that this son was meant for the jews exclusively. Hence the metaphor for the human condition we are all susceptable to fail.

What greater failure has there been then god having a son to unite the israelites and him being spurrened by the chosen people?

Religion is filled with metaphor of the human condition Bijo.

[JimBob]

Bijo, did your father stop you from making every mistake you ever made? Did he constantly hover over your shoulder and correct you and stop you from failing at every turn? Did he help you when you came to him for help? Or when you'd made a mistake?

[Geoffrey S]

Besides, who are we to judge what is good or evil to God?

[rvg]

Besides, who are we to judge what is good or evil to God?

Well, the 10 commandments come directly from God, so we do have some idea regarding what God approves or disapproves.

[master of the puppets]

A human is not evil, you would be very hard pressed to find an utterly evil person among the masses, and most of us realise we could not stomp a baby or blow up a building. Neither is humanity good. as a whole we are panicky, stupid, ill-tempered and vain. But this does not stem from evil.

We Are SELFISH!

to our very core every human desires foremost in there hearts to be, comfortable, loved, and honored. Whether you choose to attribute this to the flaws imbued in man when he took the apple in the garden because he and eve were convinced they desired it. or whether biosocialogicly speaking we are all still animals who care only for ourselves and our offspring. Either way this selfish desire to be rich(theres a war), powerful (a couple of wars i think), correct (2 crusades and a jihad), are what is running the world. Those who ignore these desires and suffer to bring them to others are what we call heroes and inspirations, there not inherently good, they just care about others more than themselves

and don't say that the world is in bad shape, come on, the world has always been in bad shape. For as long as man has attributed might to right there have been wars, famine, religious wars, greed. the only thing that is changing is the numbers. the numbers born, the number killed, the number lost, the amount gained. thats it.

[caravel]

Fear the camel god, fear him as do the horses!

[Geoffrey S]

Well, the 10 commandments come directly from God, so we do have some idea regarding what God approves or disapproves.

That depends on how much faith you put in reliability of development of the Bible, which was written and passed down by man.

[Kagemusha]

How can one judge something, one does not know? Lets take an example from something that we can observe. Is Sun evil or good? Without Sun there would not be life on this planet we call earth. Also if nothing else before, the Sun will ultimately destroy everything on this planet, the planet itself included. So its basically predetermined to destroy us. Does these facts make Sun good or evil compared to us?

[rvg]

How can one judge something, one does not know?

If you release that mod, I will declare you divine.

[Kagemusha]

If you release that mod, I will declare you divine.

Well unless there will be divine intervention that should happen sooner or later.

[Big_John]

all of the hand wringing in this thread can be reduced very quickly. either 1) the description of god as both omnipotent and omni-benevolent is flawed, or 2) our definition/understanding of potency/benevolence is flawed, or 3) god is an absurd concept.

of course, i lean hard towards 3, but most bible-type theists out there seem to think 2 is the best solution, as evidenced by phrases like, "god acts in mysterious ways". but another way to say that would be to say, "the infliction of 'evil' on humans by other humans is god's will", or, "when a pedophile rapes and murders children, or a tyrant gases millions, this is simply an aspect of the divine path for humanity".

otherwise, if those examples are not coherent with the will of god, then god cannot be both omnipotent and omni-benevolent. an omnipotent god would have the ability to stop 'evil', and an omni-benevolent god would always choose to. hence, god is either weak or sadistic at least some of the time (or, option 3, is an absurd concept).

free will is a scapegoat that is as problematic in a divine frame as it is in the material world. an omnipotent god, through both action and inaction, negates the possibility of 'free will' as strongly as causality in the physical universe. especially if that god is the creator of existence.

this issue is about as dead as a horse can be. believers will believe, and the rest of us won't.

note: the idea that 'reality' is an illusion and we're all just souls sitting in gods waiting room is a fairly clever escape. it allows for no real suffering in the world, and more-or-less loopholes the whole problem of evil (perceived suffering is abundant, but meaningless, i guess). but, it feels more like clever semantics than a meaningful philosophy to me, though not an impossibility.

[Ironside]

HOLD YOUR HORSES!!!

There will be a debate on this soon (I have already sent my proposition)... Kukri will be opening a moderated thread in connection with this.

Bah, you're debating whatever God exist or not, much funnier to debate whatever if it's worth worshipping him if he would exist.

Here's some nice ones:

After God decided to end his perma-ban on the whole of humanity after thier ancestors messed up (and that the all-seeing eye was obviously not seeing it...), he sent Jesus that showed some people the true path to heaven.
Of course he missed informing most of the human population on anything on the matter, condemning them all to hell, or at least limbo. If you claim that you don't need to belive in God to go to heaven, just live a fair life, then why the injustice on informing some and not the rest?

Then he goes around convincing Moses that he should say "let my people go, or I send God to kick your ass. And your subjects" to Pharao. He then proceeds to convince Pharao to say "No." And then repeats this quite a few times, all very good signs of a benevolent god.

I a child is born without evil, isn't the ultimate sacrifice infanticide? You will probably end up in hell, but your child enters heaven. I'm quite certain that a considerble amount of parents finds that a fair deal.

God work in mysterious ways you say, but then comes the question on why you should still consider him good. I mean if a leader would condemn me to eternal torture (life in a nasty prison should be quite enough) for no particular reason except that it somehow fits his plans, I might consider him competent, but there's no way I would consider that good.

And if God isn't good why worship him? He's not exactly good at punishing the disbelivers, making worship out of fear hardly worth it and worshipping someone evil that can punish you anyway is'nt a good deal. You would rather do the opposite.

And that's not even touching the questions that shows up if you go outside the Christian God and touches the more blurry God as the creator of universe etc, etc. Can put up some if anybody wants it though.

[Fragony]

Now I am no real believer or anything, but it never ceases to amaze with me how how much passion athiests want to convert those that believe in something and how they never seem to notice that about theirselves. Must be lacking something, somewhere, and they can't stand that they have to denounce it, break it.

[Myrddraal]

omni-benevolent god would always choose to.

free will is a scapegoat that is as problematic in a divine frame as it is in the material world. an omnipotent god, through both action and inaction, negates the possibility of 'free will' as strongly as causality in the physical universe. especially if that god is the creator of existence.

These two statements are not logical. God is omni-powerful; he can stop or start anything he likes. God is omni-benevolant; he wants what is best for all of us.

These two statements can be both equally true if combined with the simple statement; Free will is what is best for all of us.

This way, God, who is all powerful, refrains from stopping evil deeds, because he will not take away the best gift he has given us, independent consciousnesses and the freedom of choice.

All other discussion about whether this is true will go nowhere. I think Bijo was asking the question from an abstract logicl and philosophical perspective; is it possible, given an omni-potent god, for that got to be omni-benevolant, and vica versa.

Clearly, it is possible. End of an old and much repeated discussion.

[RoadKill]

Is it that hard to figure out. If any of you actually understand the meanings in the bible. God gives man freewill, God can not prevent evil, as evil is produced by humans not God. And because we have freewill there will always be evil on this earth.

[Big_John]

These two statements are not logical. God is omni-powerful; he can stop or start anything he likes. God is omni-benevolant; he wants what is best for all of us.

this only holds true if we admit that we have no real understanding of 'good' and 'evil'. the 10 commandments, as mentioned before, lay out a few basic rules, which are routinely violated by humanity. if god wanted what was "best for us", and is omnipotent, then the torture and murder of babies, for example, is what is best for us? care to explain how? or are god's 'mysterious acts' inscrutable?

These two statements can be both equally true if combined with the simple statement; Free will is what is best for all of us.

without presupposing a metaphysical world, free will is, so far as we can tell, nonsensical. and in a metaphysical world ruled by an omnipotent benevolence, we run into the same old problem.

so a man freely choosing to exterminate a bunch of 'innocents', for example, is best for all of us. ok. so can we just throw out the 10 commandments then? should there be only 1 commandment, "do... whatever you want."

This way, God, who is all powerful, refrains from stopping evil deeds, because he will not take away the best gift he has given us, independent consciousnesses and the freedom of choice.

so god is choosing the lesser of two evils? i expect more from omnipotence. a god that does not stop evil is either not omnipotent (inability to stop evil) or not benevolent (not inclined to stop evil). i see no way around that, unless free will is the only good, and the only evil is not to exercise our free will... so again, our actions shouldn't be sanctioned by any divine rule other than to 'act freely'.

All other discussion about whether this is true will go nowhere. I think Bijo was asking the question from an abstract logicl and philosophical perspective; is it possible, given an omni-potent god, for that got to be omni-benevolant, and vica versa.

Clearly, it is possible. End of an old and much repeated discussion.

clearly.

[Myrddraal]

without presupposing a metaphysical world, free will is, so far as we can tell, nonsensical. and in a metaphysical world ruled by an omnipotent benevolence, we run into the same old problem.

This is the logical problem with your argument. You say: if god is omni-potent, then free will cannot exist. This is not true, the ability to do something does not force him to (that would hardly be omni-potent now would it)

So to spell it out in full:


Step one:

Can a god be omni-potent and we have free will. Logical answer: Yes, if he chooses to leave us to choose our own actions.

To draw an analogy: if I had a gun and pointed it to your head, I could force you to do anything, I am omni-potent (not really ;) I hope you see the analogy). However, I could allow you to do whatever you wanted, and never shoot you. You would be free of danger, and free of my power, but only because I choose to allow this to be so. I am still omni-potent.


Step 2:

Can an omni-benevolent god allow evil. The logical answer is: if free will is the best thing in the world, the greatest gift, a fundemental good if you will, then god will allow us to choose to be evil, because he cares for us.

You say that the lesser of two evils is not good enough. We are trying to be logical here right? You realise that the phrase "the lesser of two evils" describes a situation where one two exclusive outcomes is better than the other. If you expect better from God, you expect him to destroy logic (and therefore all creation as we know it).


As for the rest of your post:

then the torture and murder of babies, for example, is what is best for us? care to explain how? or are god's 'mysterious acts' inscrutable?

Sensational language; you are describing the acts of free men, not of any god.



So basically, you argument is 2 points:
1. An omni-potent god means free-will is not possible. I hope my analogy cleared this one up.
2. The lesser of two evils is not good enough. This one is also a logical fallacy. Is there any one thing which is infinitely good? No, and there are things that are better, and things that are worse. When two things are mutually exclusive, choosing the outcome which gives the best result is the benevolent thing to do. God can be omni-benevolent and choose the lesser of two evils, more than that; if he is truely omni-benevolent, then he always will.


Seriously, this argument can be answered by simple logic. There are much more interesting debates we could have. Ironside named one with the revelation of Jesus only to the jews.

Another more interesting and more difficult debate might concern the miracles of the Bible (if we are to accept for the sake of argument they are true). When God intervenes to help someone in life, does he have an obligation to then go on helping that person? Can God choose to save the jews once, but not the second time they need saving?

[Big_John]

Can a god be omni-potent and we have free will. Logical answer: Yes, if he chooses to leave us to choose our own actions.

by giving us free will, god has weakened his own influence, and hence cannot be considered infinitely powerful.

Can an omni-benevolent god allow evil. The logical answer is: if free will is the best thing in the world, the greatest gift, a fundemental good if you will, then god will allow us to choose to be evil, because he cares for us.

nope. only if free will is an overriding good, a force that clears all evil before it (an infinite good, essentially) does this make any sense. you can try to disregard the 'lesser of two eveils' analysis, but it still stands. either murder, for example, is evil, but a lesser evil than taking away our free will to murder others, or murder is no evil at all.

Seriously, this argument can be answered by simple logic.

i admire your daring, but more capable men than you and i have tried dealing with this question before. if it was such a clear-cut case, we wouldn't be talking about it.

[Myrddraal]

by giving us free will, god has weakened his own influence, and hence cannot be considered infinitely powerful.

At any moment this god can remove our free will. His power is still infinite. Letting somone else make a decision is not a reduction in power if you can always overrule that decision. Like my analogy of the man with the gun.

nope. only if free will is an overriding good, a force that clears all evil before it (an infinite good, essentially) does this make any sense. you can try to disregard the 'lesser of two eveils' analysis, but it still stands. either murder, for example, is evil, but a lesser evil than taking away our free will to murder others, or murder is no evil at all.

No, because the lesser of two evils is equivalent to benevolence! You have not addressed this point at all! Murder is evil, but a benevolent man will always minimise 'evil', and maximise 'good'. This does not change the fact that murder is evil, but neither does it change the fact that free will is good, and neither does it change the fact that benevolence means, by definition, always wishing the best for others.

So while what you say about evil is logical, it does not affect the definition of benevolance!

i admire your daring, but more capable men than you and i have tried dealing with this question before.

You are right of course, excuse my arrogance , but at the same time, I cannot see the fault with my logic. Your issues with my thought process just don't apply...