Jump to content

God Can't Be Good, And The Case Of The Bible God, Can't Then Exist. (Thoughts Criticisms, Etc)


Guest Valk0010
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Valk0010

Goodness as I understand it, entails the prevention of evil when possible and when you can effect the situation.

 

A really good test case in evil prevention is the kind of guy, who is swell enough to stop say, a rape from taking place or a women getting beaten up by a man. That is called being a good person. But hold on to the thought of what that does while I talk about something else for a moment.

 

I have been thinking about that within the context of the bible god, who, by most definition, if not all loving or maximally good, is just good. You know, had a good side. He also has his own will, cause if he doesn't he couldn't be god. I say that only to point out, that the creation of the universe by god would be a choice according to the bible.

 

But if that, example of a man stopping a rape or a women getting beaten up by a man is sound moral judgement then why didn't the god of the bible not do the same thing.

 

I am going to grant a couple things for the sake of argument here. This is the best of all possible worlds or this is the least bad off all possible worlds. This is the only way that god could have created a universe.

 

Now in regards to the man saving women analogy earlier, consider this. If the act of evil had been prevented then one less evil deed as occurred and there is less suffering experienced.

 

If god is any better then us (and if you believe in the bible you have to believe he is) then logically that action that hypothetical man did was immoral because its not the kind of thing god would have done in that situation. If our moral exemplar and law giver can't be good or a example to follow, then what? Christianity and Judaism become bankrupt.

 

I say this because god when faced with a similar situation choose to not prevent evils acts. He created the universe which allowed a increase of evil in the universe. If god decided not preventing the creation of evil was a moral action, or morally allowable then by all rights that man should have left the women to be raped. After all, the prevention of evil is not a form of moral goodness if one recognizes the existence of the god of the bible.

 

So this leaves us with a contradiction. I could end it here and say that, there is no way the god of the bible could exists. But there is more to this point.

 

If god is good, then we have a twisted understanding of goodness, and we should not stop the amount of evil in the world, or even allowing for the possibility of more evil.

 

If god is not good, then his law, which is supposedly by which we are judged becomes logically meaningless. There is also another contradiction there. A non-good god couldn't create good laws.

 

So there are contradictions from a logical perspective all around unless one is willing to drop a big part of being a good person. But evidence states that its a sound principal to stop evil when you can from occurring. We know this, by the thanks you and the lives that are improved by that principal. If god doesn't fit the evidence, god should be discarded. God in this case runs counter to what society needs to survive.

 

 

The only way to solve that contradiction is the write of the god of the bible to the bronze age, were, preventing evil was apparently not okay. If the god of the bible actually existed there would not be such lazy contradictions coming from the best author/giver/follower of logic is also supposedly the most intelligent being of all the universe. Also contradictions mean imperfection and the god of the bible is supposed to be perfect. Even if he is just the most perfect, his other attributes should be able to take care of contradictions. The fact that it doesn't means non-existence as far as I can see.

 

I will also point out a possible criticism here and why it fails. The appeals to god's plan, and god's rights and how the various old testament atrocities not being evil, don't count here. I am talking about the concept of evil in general. So unless one is willing to write off all of the worlds evil and suffering as good(or show how the prevention of evil can be a immoral action), then one has to answer to this contradiction. The only answer is god doesn't exist.

 

I can't see how one could say the prevention of evil can be a immoral action. There is no evidence for that being the case. Of course some Christian could say, well a evil action could lead to a better conclusion due to the evil action, then it still destroys the principal I started with. And we are supposed to follow gods ways right?

 

If all evil and suffering is good, then the god of the bible is still self refuting, because if there is no evil there is no failure and the standards of god become meaningless.

 

And criticisms of ridigity on my part are invalid because, practical matters like family and your own life and the various things that make people in this world decide to not prevent evil can't apply to god cause he is the most powerful being in all the land and has his own will and is still supposedly good.

 

So again, the only conclusion is the god of the bible doesn't exist. I don't expect everyone to be convinced by this, but its convincing to me. For example a pyschopath may disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think an omnipotent being can have free will, since it knows it's future action it has no ability to change them. I think to call a God good or bad is redundant, of course this means God is not a personal being and ultimately does not care about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

I don't think an omnipotent being can have free will, since it knows it's future action it has no ability to change them. I think to call a God good or bad is redundant, of course this means God is not a personal being and ultimately does not care about you.

I tend to find the Christian idea of middle knowledge, to be a persuasive rebuttal of that argument personally. Though personally I find if that god doesn't have free will, then he would have to have something power powerful then him. The reason I say this is because of causality, which determinism depends on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think an omnipotent being can have free will, since it knows it's future action it has no ability to change them. I think to call a God good or bad is redundant, of course this means God is not a personal being and ultimately does not care about you.

I tend to find the Christian idea of middle knowledge, to be a persuasive rebuttal of that argument personally. Though personally I find if that god doesn't have free will, then he would have to have something power powerful then him. The reason I say this is because of causality, which determinism depends on.

 

Also if God cannot commit evil then he has no free will or a lower form, making him impersonal and thus the Christian form of YHWH cannot exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

I don't think an omnipotent being can have free will, since it knows it's future action it has no ability to change them. I think to call a God good or bad is redundant, of course this means God is not a personal being and ultimately does not care about you.

I tend to find the Christian idea of middle knowledge, to be a persuasive rebuttal of that argument personally. Though personally I find if that god doesn't have free will, then he would have to have something power powerful then him. The reason I say this is because of causality, which determinism depends on.

 

Also if God cannot commit evil then he has no free will or a lower form, making him impersonal and thus the Christian form of YHWH cannot exist.

But free will, and what you do with that free will are two different things. I for example can't toss a tank with one hand but doesn't mean my free will has been violated. A person could only be capable of good actions but still have free will, but in that limited selection set.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but there is such a thing as omissive sin. This is when you DON'T do something when you could and by not doing something you are sinning. To me, god clearly does this all the time. But he gets to break the rules because he made them, but he can't break his own rules. So technically, he has no free will. He has made "promises" that have to be fulfilled. Its circular reasoning.

 

And what do we know we are puny humans and he is god we have a fixed, finite, incomplete set of knowledge and he doesn't (which I would argue); if we are so inferior to him then how can we claim to know his will or whether we are in favor with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think an omnipotent being can have free will, since it knows it's future action it has no ability to change them. I think to call a God good or bad is redundant, of course this means God is not a personal being and ultimately does not care about you.

I tend to find the Christian idea of middle knowledge, to be a persuasive rebuttal of that argument personally. Though personally I find if that god doesn't have free will, then he would have to have something power powerful then him. The reason I say this is because of causality, which determinism depends on.

 

Also if God cannot commit evil then he has no free will or a lower form, making him impersonal and thus the Christian form of YHWH cannot exist.

But free will, and what you do with that free will are two different things. I for example can't toss a tank with one hand but doesn't mean my free will has been violated. A person could only be capable of good actions but still have free will, but in that limited selection set.

 

Well i meant free will in the context of what his creation is supposed to have, but the thing is, if he cant commit evil acts then he is not powerful enough to do so, he is limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the christian argument would be that God has free will, and that what he does is the definition of good. Our own moral compass would be a lie. If god decides that killing infidels is good, then that's good. Our feelings on it wouldn't matter.

 

It's ridiculous, but it sounds like the argument that would be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the christian argument would be that God has free will, and that what he does is the definition of good. Our own moral compass would be a lie. If god decides that killing infidels is good, then that's good. Our feelings on it wouldn't matter.

 

It's ridiculous, but it sounds like the argument that would be made.

Its called the "sovereignty over creation" argument. The problem is, is God violates his own rules in the process, making an absolute contradiction of himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the christian argument would be that God has free will, and that what he does is the definition of good. Our own moral compass would be a lie. If god decides that killing infidels is good, then that's good. Our feelings on it wouldn't matter.

 

It's ridiculous, but it sounds like the argument that would be made.

 

this is the classic case of "is an action moral because its endorsed by god or does that fact that an action is moral mean its from god" this means killing can be given the green light simply because god says its ok.

I brought this up in sunday school and I got puzzled looks. People know that its a ciruclar argument. How can we have free will if he already knows everything? and the big question "does HE have free will? I say no if his future actions are already documented. If not, then like dan barker, that kind of god would get a kick out of sending all the christians to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Right but there is such a thing as omissive sin. This is when you DON'T do something when you could and by not doing something you are sinning. To me, god clearly does this all the time. But he gets to break the rules because he made them, but he can't break his own rules. So technically, he has no free will. He has made "promises" that have to be fulfilled. Its circular reasoning.

 

And what do we know we are puny humans and he is god we have a fixed, finite, incomplete set of knowledge and he doesn't (which I would argue); if we are so inferior to him then how can we claim to know his will or whether we are in favor with him.

Arguement from ignorance fallacy. Unless you could prove why we couldn't figure that out, your position is fallacious. That has always been my problem with what is called the "skeptical theism" theodicy. You can't go from, just ignorance, to a conclusion. You could establish why we couldn't know(in fact there are some things were this could be done like say quantum physics). But I am not convinced that, this situation is one of those cases. We should know. And also you don't need know every single detail to know something is shitty. That is the case here.

 

And it also dovetails the question totally. You would have to establish that, he had his hands tied to whatever actions he wanted, pre creation. And also, there is the if everything it determined it needs a cause problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

I don't think an omnipotent being can have free will, since it knows it's future action it has no ability to change them. I think to call a God good or bad is redundant, of course this means God is not a personal being and ultimately does not care about you.

I tend to find the Christian idea of middle knowledge, to be a persuasive rebuttal of that argument personally. Though personally I find if that god doesn't have free will, then he would have to have something power powerful then him. The reason I say this is because of causality, which determinism depends on.

 

Also if God cannot commit evil then he has no free will or a lower form, making him impersonal and thus the Christian form of YHWH cannot exist.

But free will, and what you do with that free will are two different things. I for example can't toss a tank with one hand but doesn't mean my free will has been violated. A person could only be capable of good actions but still have free will, but in that limited selection set.

 

Well i meant free will in the context of what his creation is supposed to have, but the thing is, if he cant commit evil acts then he is not powerful enough to do so, he is limited.

Sure but omnipotence is typically defined, as, god being able to do anything, but logical countradictions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think an omnipotent being can have free will, since it knows it's future action it has no ability to change them. I think to call a God good or bad is redundant, of course this means God is not a personal being and ultimately does not care about you.

I tend to find the Christian idea of middle knowledge, to be a persuasive rebuttal of that argument personally. Though personally I find if that god doesn't have free will, then he would have to have something power powerful then him. The reason I say this is because of causality, which determinism depends on.

 

Also if God cannot commit evil then he has no free will or a lower form, making him impersonal and thus the Christian form of YHWH cannot exist.

But free will, and what you do with that free will are two different things. I for example can't toss a tank with one hand but doesn't mean my free will has been violated. A person could only be capable of good actions but still have free will, but in that limited selection set.

 

Well i meant free will in the context of what his creation is supposed to have, but the thing is, if he cant commit evil acts then he is not powerful enough to do so, he is limited.

Sure but omnipotence is typically defined, as, god being able to do anything, but logical countradictions.

 

Yes, of course, my point was dealing with the contradictions in Gods personalism compared to his definition of absolute morality, any way you cut it God cannot be what the Christians think he is.

 

For example God repeatedly commits evil acts in the bible, yet the bible, his absolute word, inscribes those to not kill. If the bible is absolute morality, and God is absolute in everything, in fact he is the standard of absolute, then by definition he violates his own limited free will by committing evil acts, making himself a contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thought occurred to me, if God is absolute in his mortality, then how is it he can create a universe with the potential for evil and not violate his limited free will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but there is such a thing as omissive sin. This is when you DON'T do something when you could and by not doing something you are sinning. To me, god clearly does this all the time. But he gets to break the rules because he made them, but he can't break his own rules. So technically, he has no free will. He has made "promises" that have to be fulfilled. Its circular reasoning.

 

And what do we know we are puny humans and he is god we have a fixed, finite, incomplete set of knowledge and he doesn't (which I would argue); if we are so inferior to him then how can we claim to know his will or whether we are in favor with him.

Arguement from ignorance fallacy. Unless you could prove why we couldn't figure that out, your position is fallacious. That has always been my problem with what is called the "skeptical theism" theodicy. You can't go from, just ignorance, to a conclusion. You could establish why we couldn't know(in fact there are some things were this could be done like say quantum physics). But I am not convinced that, this situation is one of those cases. We should know. And also you don't need know every single detail to know something is shitty. That is the case here.

 

And it also dovetails the question totally. You would have to establish that, he had his hands tied to whatever actions he wanted, pre creation. And also, there is the if everything it determined it needs a cause problem.

 

Christian: We can go from ignorance to a conclusion. We have scripture that tells us it can be figured out. Though we dont know gods mind or have ALL of the pieces of the puzzle we are given enough data that we can fill in the blanks. we have been given pieces of it by the "holy spirit".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think an omnipotent being can have free will, since it knows it's future action it has no ability to change them. I think to call a God good or bad is redundant, of course this means God is not a personal being and ultimately does not care about you.

I tend to find the Christian idea of middle knowledge, to be a persuasive rebuttal of that argument personally. Though personally I find if that god doesn't have free will, then he would have to have something power powerful then him. The reason I say this is because of causality, which determinism depends on.

 

Also if God cannot commit evil then he has no free will or a lower form, making him impersonal and thus the Christian form of YHWH cannot exist.

But free will, and what you do with that free will are two different things. I for example can't toss a tank with one hand but doesn't mean my free will has been violated. A person could only be capable of good actions but still have free will, but in that limited selection set.

 

Well i meant free will in the context of what his creation is supposed to have, but the thing is, if he cant commit evil acts then he is not powerful enough to do so, he is limited.

Sure but omnipotence is typically defined, as, god being able to do anything, but logical countradictions.

 

but dont take just the single attribute omnipotence. You have to remember omnipresent and omniscient. So if he knows that its not best to do something then he can omit action simply because he knows it not the best move. the rest of the rebuttal gets into the problem of evil which ive addressed in the other thread.

 

Good job. What are you preparing for a debate or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is not good for humanity because god is only concerned about himself--he wants everything his way, demands really stupid and senseless worship ceremonies, including chopping off foreskins to prove one's faith in his omnipotence. Ow! He treats humanity worse than humanity treats itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

I believe the christian argument would be that God has free will, and that what he does is the definition of good. Our own moral compass would be a lie. If god decides that killing infidels is good, then that's good. Our feelings on it wouldn't matter.

 

It's ridiculous, but it sounds like the argument that would be made.

 

this is the classic case of "is an action moral because its endorsed by god or does that fact that an action is moral mean its from god" this means killing can be given the green light simply because god says its ok.

I brought this up in sunday school and I got puzzled looks. People know that its a ciruclar argument. How can we have free will if he already knows everything? and the big question "does HE have free will? I say no if his future actions are already documented. If not, then like dan barker, that kind of god would get a kick out of sending all the christians to hell.

The part about good and morals being beyond god, works here too. The part of about god's morality being adhoc, doesn't but for different reasons then this arguement. This arguement is intended assume as a given that, the response "of morality being part of gods nature" is somehow valid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

I don't think an omnipotent being can have free will, since it knows it's future action it has no ability to change them. I think to call a God good or bad is redundant, of course this means God is not a personal being and ultimately does not care about you.

I tend to find the Christian idea of middle knowledge, to be a persuasive rebuttal of that argument personally. Though personally I find if that god doesn't have free will, then he would have to have something power powerful then him. The reason I say this is because of causality, which determinism depends on.

 

Also if God cannot commit evil then he has no free will or a lower form, making him impersonal and thus the Christian form of YHWH cannot exist.

But free will, and what you do with that free will are two different things. I for example can't toss a tank with one hand but doesn't mean my free will has been violated. A person could only be capable of good actions but still have free will, but in that limited selection set.

 

Well i meant free will in the context of what his creation is supposed to have, but the thing is, if he cant commit evil acts then he is not powerful enough to do so, he is limited.

Sure but omnipotence is typically defined, as, god being able to do anything, but logical countradictions.

 

but dont take just the single attribute omnipotence. You have to remember omnipresent and omniscient. So if he knows that its not best to do something then he can omit action simply because he knows it not the best move. the rest of the rebuttal gets into the problem of evil which ive addressed in the other thread.

 

Good job. What are you preparing for a debate or something?

Well for the sake of this arguement, because i want to avoid the "bible is the big book of multiple choice problem" I pretend he is just maximally intelligent rather then omniscient, that is more for not letting me get off easy, but also because the arguement works, in both instances. If god knows exactly what is going to happen because of his actions that only makes the problem worse.

 

I also tend to agree with christians who use molinism to get around the free will, omniscience issue. So that criticism has never really bugged me. However the idea, either way, of a god not having free will seems to me to be self refuting because it leads to causality issues. What caused him to act then? See my point.

 

Debate? No. I am just mulling over and trying to refine my views in a more sophiscated manner, because if I am going to out myself to that doubting cousin of mine. I need to be succinct but thoughtful, which is hard for me to pull off. I also pretty decent with how the theodicies suck. Really, in many ways, I am trying my damdnest, to circumvent the whole, bible says God is X not Y problem you can get with the regular old problem of evil and its various variations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Right but there is such a thing as omissive sin. This is when you DON'T do something when you could and by not doing something you are sinning. To me, god clearly does this all the time. But he gets to break the rules because he made them, but he can't break his own rules. So technically, he has no free will. He has made "promises" that have to be fulfilled. Its circular reasoning.

 

And what do we know we are puny humans and he is god we have a fixed, finite, incomplete set of knowledge and he doesn't (which I would argue); if we are so inferior to him then how can we claim to know his will or whether we are in favor with him.

Arguement from ignorance fallacy. Unless you could prove why we couldn't figure that out, your position is fallacious. That has always been my problem with what is called the "skeptical theism" theodicy. You can't go from, just ignorance, to a conclusion. You could establish why we couldn't know(in fact there are some things were this could be done like say quantum physics). But I am not convinced that, this situation is one of those cases. We should know. And also you don't need know every single detail to know something is shitty. That is the case here.

 

And it also dovetails the question totally. You would have to establish that, he had his hands tied to whatever actions he wanted, pre creation. And also, there is the if everything it determined it needs a cause problem.

 

Christian: We can go from ignorance to a conclusion. We have scripture that tells us it can be figured out. Though we dont know gods mind or have ALL of the pieces of the puzzle we are given enough data that we can fill in the blanks. we have been given pieces of it by the "holy spirit".

My response would be, reminded them, we were created by the guy who either supposedly created logic, or logic flows from. We were also made in his image and likeness. So therefore, while we don't know everything, it doesn't mean we can't figure out something. So one would still have to prove why we can't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

A thought occurred to me, if God is absolute in his mortality, then how is it he can create a universe with the potential for evil and not violate his limited free will?

Now your getting it!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

I don't think an omnipotent being can have free will, since it knows it's future action it has no ability to change them. I think to call a God good or bad is redundant, of course this means God is not a personal being and ultimately does not care about you.

I tend to find the Christian idea of middle knowledge, to be a persuasive rebuttal of that argument personally. Though personally I find if that god doesn't have free will, then he would have to have something power powerful then him. The reason I say this is because of causality, which determinism depends on.

 

Also if God cannot commit evil then he has no free will or a lower form, making him impersonal and thus the Christian form of YHWH cannot exist.

But free will, and what you do with that free will are two different things. I for example can't toss a tank with one hand but doesn't mean my free will has been violated. A person could only be capable of good actions but still have free will, but in that limited selection set.

 

Well i meant free will in the context of what his creation is supposed to have, but the thing is, if he cant commit evil acts then he is not powerful enough to do so, he is limited.

Sure but omnipotence is typically defined, as, god being able to do anything, but logical countradictions.

 

Yes, of course, my point was dealing with the contradictions in Gods personalism compared to his definition of absolute morality, any way you cut it God cannot be what the Christians think he is.

 

For example God repeatedly commits evil acts in the bible, yet the bible, his absolute word, inscribes those to not kill. If the bible is absolute morality, and God is absolute in everything, in fact he is the standard of absolute, then by definition he violates his own limited free will by committing evil acts, making himself a contradiction.

We agree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

I believe the christian argument would be that God has free will, and that what he does is the definition of good. Our own moral compass would be a lie. If god decides that killing infidels is good, then that's good. Our feelings on it wouldn't matter.

 

It's ridiculous, but it sounds like the argument that would be made.

Then I would ask for evidence that it would be a lie, and without evidence, the claim that our compass is deciving us could be dismissed.

 

You can't argue with the effects of what you see generally. Unless you live in fairy tale land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thought occurred to me, if God is absolute in his mortality, then how is it he can create a universe with the potential for evil and not violate his limited free will?

Now your getting it!!!

your are forgetting why we have evil in the first place. thats not gods doing. thats his REBELLIOUS creation's doing. apart from god there is no good. so if creation used its free will to obey god, there would be no evil in the creation. the universe is amoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.