Why Would God __________?

[Guest Rhino]

I'm new here so cut me a little slack.

 

 

As I've read through the posts I've noticed an inconsistency that perplexes me.

 

#1. On the one hand I see all kinds of posts with statments similar to "Why would anyone believe in a God who would let XYZ happen" or "Why would a loving God allow BLANK".

 

#2. On the other hand I see that amost everyone here is very logical and very rational. You can see this in all the "IF/THEN" posts where they give their own idea of a cause and effect.

 

Anyway, I'd be interested for some of you more logical thinkers to apply that logic to the effects of what would happen if God did step in and fixed XYZ from #1. Or what would life be like if God didn't allow the BLANK from #1.

 

I can think of all kinds of good stuff that would happen if God worked that way. But Christians talk about "free will" and how it would be squashed. What do you think about that? I tend to agree that you can't have a God that stops XYZ or doesn't allow BLANK and at the same time not reduce people to mindless slaves. So it bugs me when I see logical rational people using (what I percieve) to be irrational, illogical arguments.

 

Looking for some logic...

 

Thanks.

 

r

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

I completely agree even though I don't believe in your God. No one knows the nature of your God and can only guess or go by what others have said, including those who wrote the Bible (assuming your a Christian). God admits to allowing Satan to ruin Job's life as a test and seems to be able to do it only by God's permission so, (granting that the story is real) all bad things that happen to people are allowed and not prevented by God. If it is just somewhat unpleasant fiction then we are back to square one on "No one knows the nature of your God."

 

I think the nature of God arguments are silly anyway. It's all personal belief.

[nick5]

I tend to agree that you can't have a God that stops XYZ or doesn't allow BLANK and at the same time not reduce people to mindless slaves.

 

If he's all powerful then this isn't a problem at all. You can easily have both. How? I don't know, I'm not all powerful. But if god was good AND all powerful, that XYZ wouldn't happen and we'd still have our free will.

 

The christian explanation of free will isn't really free will though. It's like saying, give me your money or I'll blow your head off with my shotgun, your choice. That's what god is saying.

 

Also, why do rapist have the free will of raping little girls, but the little girl won't have the choice of being raped or not? Is the little girl evil?

[Asimov]

As I've read through the posts I've noticed an inconsistency that perplexes me.

 

#1. On the one hand I see all kinds of posts with statments similar to "Why would anyone believe in a God who would let XYZ happen" or "Why would a loving God allow BLANK".

 

#2. On the other hand I see that amost everyone here is very logical and very rational. You can see this in all the "IF/THEN" posts where they give their own idea of a cause and effect.

 

Anyway, I'd be interested for some of you more logical thinkers to apply that logic to the effects of what would happen if God did step in and fixed XYZ from #1. Or what would life be like if God didn't allow the BLANK from #1.

 

I can think of all kinds of good stuff that would happen if God worked that way. But Christians talk about "free will" and how it would be squashed. What do you think about that? I tend to agree that you can't have a God that stops XYZ or doesn't allow BLANK and at the same time not reduce people to mindless slaves. So it bugs me when I see logical rational people using (what I percieve) to be irrational, illogical arguments.

 

Looking for some logic...

 

Thanks.

 

r

 

I don't see any logical inconsistency.

 

P1. Theists claim God is loving and Good.

P2. God causes and allows evil things to happen.

 

C. God is claimed to be one thing yet clearly does another.

 

How does stopping bad things from happening negate free will?

[Antlerman]

I'm new here so cut me a little slack.

<snip>

I can think of all kinds of good stuff that would happen if God worked that way. But Christians talk about "free will" and how it would be squashed. What do you think about that? I tend to agree that you can't have a God that stops XYZ or doesn't allow BLANK and at the same time not reduce people to mindless slaves. So it bugs me when I see logical rational people using (what I percieve) to be irrational, illogical arguments.

 

Looking for some logic...

 

Thanks.

 

r

If I can take the liberty to restate your position? You are saying that the Christian teaching of free will addresses and resolves the ancient Epicurean Paradox, and that it is illogical to not see that this answers the dilemma? I assume from your wording above that you are.

 

First to address the free will question: It can be argued that if I do not have omnipotence, then I truly do not have free will. I have no choice but to allow that hunk of volcano to smash down upon my family. It would take God to stop that, and He does not.

 

Additionally, the choices we make are not - contrary to what Christian pseudo-scientists claim - always dictated by free will alone. Genetics, cultural conditioning, abuse, psychiatric disorders, etc all play a factor into the types of choices we make. Again, God has not given us free will. We are a product of biology, culture, and chemistry, along with highly influenced and subjective choice.

 

Personally, I think the argument from Augustine of Hippo makes slightly more sense that the above answer to the Epicurean Paradox that in part teaches that "evil" is relative, that it is part of good that God is allowing it for a good "purpose". But this is a weak argument also in that the "lesson" that could be learned through suffering, could be done with less suffering that what happens. To allow suffering to continue, serves no purpose and to say God has a plan why 15,000 people needed to die in an earthquake, instead of 14,999, is as you would observe - quite illogical.

 

There is nothing in the human experience that can justify a God who is capable of intervention, not doing so.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Rhino,

 

Welcome to ExC.. As for *slack*, well, there usually is enough given to let a poster swing as long and as deep as they can do so.

 

Dunno why we worry so much about the "what if's" and "where for's" when the daily strive for living and doing well is tough enuff.

 

I'm at point in life where the contextual problems don't bother me, if may sound rude, but the attitude is "Big fuckin' deal".

 

After spending enough time buring the mental clutch pack and ending up with not much more than hurt equipment and lots of smoke, the best plan for this mean_old_man is to "let things pan out, they will anyway".

 

I guess I could fire off a mulitpage treatsie on the things I think are *more correct*, and engage you on several differing levels, and try to box you into a discussioneering corner...

However amigo, the sun shines, the mower works and the weeds aren't waiting, good weather this beautiful spring calls for daFatman to get off his ass..

 

Learn to live with less hardcore answering, and let life be what it is.

 

kL

[Taphophilia]

I'm new here so cut me a little slack.

 

 

As I've read through the posts I've noticed an inconsistency that perplexes me.

 

#1. On the one hand I see all kinds of posts with statments similar to "Why would anyone believe in a God who would let XYZ happen" or "Why would a loving God allow BLANK".

 

#2. On the other hand I see that amost everyone here is very logical and very rational. You can see this in all the "IF/THEN" posts where they give their own idea of a cause and effect.

 

Anyway, I'd be interested for some of you more logical thinkers to apply that logic to the effects of what would happen if God did step in and fixed XYZ from #1. Or what would life be like if God didn't allow the BLANK from #1.

 

I can think of all kinds of good stuff that would happen if God worked that way. But Christians talk about "free will" and how it would be squashed. What do you think about that? I tend to agree that you can't have a God that stops XYZ or doesn't allow BLANK and at the same time not reduce people to mindless slaves. So it bugs me when I see logical rational people using (what I percieve) to be irrational, illogical arguments.

 

Looking for some logic...

 

Thanks.

 

r

 

If I knew that my child were in danger and it were in my power to protect them and I did nothing, I would be a neglectful and bad parent. It would not negate their free will simply because I am doing my job as their parent to protect them. If God is supposed to be our Heavenly Father and does nothing to keep his children from unneeded suffering than what kind of father is he. If he teaches lessons by abuse he is not worthy of respect. The simple conclusion is that god allows BLANK because god does not exist.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

If I knew that my child were in danger and it were in my power to protect them and I did nothing, I would be a neglectful and bad parent. It would not negate their free will simply because I am doing my job as their parent to protect them. If God is supposed to be our Heavenly Father and does nothing to keep his children from unneeded suffering than what kind of father is he. If he teaches lessons by abuse he is not worthy of respect. The simple conclusion is that god allows BLANK because god does not exist.

 

I have heard of a sect of Christianity that doesn't believe in medical attention. Their second child died sometime last year and could have EASILY been saved and the parents had to go to court. I can't think of the details but I think they were found not guilty of neglect on religious grounds. I'm sure the story is on the net somewhere if anyone wants to look.

[Ouroboros]

Probably JW. It's against their belief to do most of medical procedures. (IIRC)

 

I guess the Doctor is from the Devil, since he saves lifes against God's will.

Sounds like the Good Samaritan should be considered evil... or?

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Probably JW. It's against their belief to do most of medical procedures. (IIRC) I guess the Doctor is from the Devil, since he saves lifes. Sounds like the Good Samaritan should be considered evil... or?

 

I'm going to go look for it, I think it was a group I hadn't heard of before, and believe me I have heard of more than most, I keep a list of them.

[Ouroboros]

I'm going to go look for it, I think it was a group I hadn't heard of before, and believe me I have heard of more than most, I keep a list of them.

Goddamn! That must be a long list! So you're the one causing the deforestation in South America?

[Taphophilia]

Probably JW. It's against their belief to do most of medical procedures. (IIRC) I guess the Doctor is from the Devil, since he saves lifes. Sounds like the Good Samaritan should be considered evil... or?

 

I'm going to go look for it, I think it was a group I hadn't heard of before, and believe me I have heard of more than most, I keep a list of them.

 

Christian Scientists don't believe in medical treatment. JW's don't beleive in Blood Transfusions, but have relaxed this to include Plasma for hemopheliacs, as long as it's not red blood cells.

 

Taph

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Damn, on my first search return I found it. And it is a group I have heard of before, First Church of Christ, Science also know as Christian Science.

 

http://us.geocities.com/robbi01/child-abuse.html

 

Good call Taph.

 

And just so no one thinks this happens every once in awhile.

 

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-14-2005-71580.asp

[Ouroboros]

Christian Science?! Really. Gosh. So much for being scientific. Hah!

[AtheistMommy]

I'm new here so cut me a little slack.

 

 

As I've read through the posts I've noticed an inconsistency that perplexes me.

 

#1. On the one hand I see all kinds of posts with statments similar to "Why would anyone believe in a God who would let XYZ happen" or "Why would a loving God allow BLANK".

 

#2. On the other hand I see that amost everyone here is very logical and very rational. You can see this in all the "IF/THEN" posts where they give their own idea of a cause and effect.

 

Anyway, I'd be interested for some of you more logical thinkers to apply that logic to the effects of what would happen if God did step in and fixed XYZ from #1. Or what would life be like if God didn't allow the BLANK from #1.

 

I can think of all kinds of good stuff that would happen if God worked that way. But Christians talk about "free will" and how it would be squashed. What do you think about that? I tend to agree that you can't have a God that stops XYZ or doesn't allow BLANK and at the same time not reduce people to mindless slaves. So it bugs me when I see logical rational people using (what I percieve) to be irrational, illogical arguments.

 

Looking for some logic...

 

Thanks.

 

r

 

Quote from Epicurus

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot, or he can, but does not want to... If he wants to, but cannot he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"

 

I think that most Atheists don't take "What if' God" seriously because God is nothing more than a mythology. I know I don't.

[Taphophilia]

Damn, on my first search return I found it. And it is a group I have heard of before, First Church of Christ, Science also know as Christian Science.

 

http://us.geocities.com/robbi01/child-abuse.html

 

Good call Taph.

 

And just so no one thinks this happens every once in awhile.

 

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-14-2005-71580.asp

 

Does anyone know what's up with all those Christian Science Reading Rooms? What are they reading about?

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Here you go Taph.

 

http://www.myopendoors.com/myopendoors/lit...tpage2005.jhtml

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Christian Science?! Really. Gosh. So much for being scientific. Hah!

 

AMEN!

 

Basic ideas include

• God is divine Love, Father-Mother, supreme

• The true nature of each individual as a child of God is spiritual

• God’s infinite goodness, realized in prayer and action, heals.

 

Ten million copies sold since its publication in 1875

 

This is basically their second Bible.

 

Topics in their book.

 

 

A caution about hypnotism

Misuses of mental power

How to develop and maintain inner peace

The universality of scientific, spiritual laws

Natural phenomena as governed by divine Mind

How Christianity is scientific

Theology based on Truth

The mental nature of disease and cure

Divine Mind the true medicine

The mind-body connection

The relationship between diagnosis and disease

Health not based on diet

Caring for your body

Preventing disease

 

The whole list, and some chapters seem quite absurd, can be found here

 

http://www.spirituality.com/cor/tour_the_book.jhtml

 

 

 

 

Some of them are quite laughable.

[Guest Rhino]

Thanks for the replies.

 

I think I missed my mark, or miscommunicated or something. I'm not taking any sides right or making any declarations. All I'm saying is that some of the logic that the Christian's give makes sense to me. Obviously it doesn't to some of you.

 

I'm curious about where the logic path splits for us. For example:

 

If I knew that my child were in danger and it were in my power to protect them and I did nothing, I would be a neglectful and bad parent. It would not negate their free will simply because I am doing my job as their parent to protect them. If God is supposed to be our Heavenly Father and does nothing to keep his children from unneeded suffering than what kind of father is he.

 

I agree whole heartedly. However IF (1)the Bible is true and we are eternal beings and this life is just a "mist", "vapor", "blink" whatever you want to say to indicate it is short compared to eternity. AND (2) we know that in times of crises people turn to God (look at church attendance after 911). THEN it makes sense to me that God would allow a (relatively)short term suffering in order to bring you back to Him.

 

Now I'm not claiming or defending any of the assumptions made in the statement above. I'm just saying the logic makes sense to me.

 

 

If I can take the liberty to restate your position? You are saying that the Christian teaching of free will addresses and resolves the ancient Epicurean Paradox, and that it is illogical to not see that this answers the dilemma?

 

Dude, I don't know if you've got my "position" right or not cause I don't know what you're talking about :-) You're going to have to keep it a little more "layman's terms".

 

Quote from Epicurus

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot, or he can, but does not want to... If he wants to, but cannot he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"

 

Short answer, I don't know for sure. But since I'm looking at logic, here is the logic as I understand it:

 

God wants to and can. He chooses not to because to do so He'd have to control someone's behavior. If He's going to control behavior, where does he stop?

 

Here is a question I struggle with. Why did God do it? Why did He create all of this? If he's going to control behavior then the "Why did He create us" question gets even bigger. I can kind of see some logic in Him creating us if it is about us choosing Him. I loose that logic when/if He were to jump in and also control behavior. If that were the case then the whole exercise seems like a big waste of time to me.

 

I think that most Atheists don't take "What if' God" seriously because God is nothing more than a mythology. I know I don't.

 

And the whole point in my post is to clarify the logic behind why you think He's a myth. Just saying He's a myth or saying He's not a myth doesn't make either statement true.

 

FYI - I'm going to be out of town for a few weeks and won't have internet access. I'll check in when I get back.

 

r

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

However IF (1)the Bible is true and we are eternal beings and this life is just a "mist", "vapor", "blink" whatever you want to say to indicate it is short compared to eternity. AND (2) we know that in times of crises people turn to God (look at church attendance after 911). THEN it makes sense to me that God would allow a (relatively)short term suffering in order to bring you back to Him.

 

Bring us to Him for what?

Does God's inaction, though He is capable of action, mean that He wills it to happen if all things happen according to His will?

 

God wants to and can. He chooses not to because to do so He'd have to control someone's behavior. If He's going to control behavior, where does he stop?

 

According to the Bible, he does, has, and can control human behavior. Pharoah?

 

Here is a question I struggle with. Why did God do it? Why did He create all of this? If he's going to control behavior then the "Why did He create us" question gets even bigger. I can kind of see some logic in Him creating us if it is about us choosing Him. I loose that logic when/if He were to jump in and also control behavior. If that were the case then the whole exercise seems like a big waste of time to me.

 

If it were all about having followers he could have created us to just follow him. Now, I don't believe in God but I can see his human qualities shining through if some of the stories are ASSUMED to be accurate. I could make up a plausible story using information found inside and outside of the canonical texts.

 

Take this one for example. God was in his dimension and created the angels. They were followers. God decided that he wanted more than just to be worshipped because he programmed his current creation to worship him so he gives the angels free will and let them eat from both of the sacred trees (trees being a metaphor). One of them, we will call him Lucifer, says to God, "If you were to create a people who did not have our power or direct knowledge of you, would they worship you freely?"

 

God thought that this was an interesting question so he did just that.

 

So, we are basically lab animals, ok, more than just lab animals but you get my drift. I could go into thoughts on why Lucifer was cast out, but with this line of thinking you can see why it is a sin to "tempt" God and why Lucifer would be ticked at having to bow to humans, the product of his wager.

 

The problem with the Bible and other sacred texts could be that some of it could be real, if God were real and plausible, but it is so polluted with human interference and ideas of second century writers that it takes away from it and clouds it all in doubt. If I cared enough to put effort into it, I am sure I could find a reasonable story hidden within the old texts.

 

 

So now, why the threat of Hell? Because that was either one of the pollutions or just like cleaning out your refridgerator you throw away the bad food, or a combination of the two. It could be punishment for proving Lucifer right and are tossed down in there with him, or it could just be that we are sent into oblivion since we are of no use to God's need to be worshipped.

 

Free will can be an illusion to those who argue for it or against it. It's not free will because you have the choice between burning in Hell or worshipping god but it can be the free will of not choosing God and not having a punishment as well. The only reason I can figure for the punishment idea is because of the Argument from Morality which is useless to debate. If we know that morality is relative to every situation then God does too. If we know that the there are current generations that don't believe in God because of the corruption of man, or just ignorance of his existence, then God does too.

 

Absolutism in everything is misguided nonsense. Assuming that someone is absolute in everything is nonsense. Assuming that someone is relative in everything just because they call themselves "relativists" is nonsense. Assuming that God, if he exists, is any different psychologically,or in knowledge and awareness of philosophy is nonsense. There is Fundamentalistic Christianity and there is Fundamentalistic Atheism. Both, in my book, are nonsense. If people don't want to know your beliefs then don't share them. If you want your beliefs to be criticized, tell people, and don't get defensive when they do like Fundamentalist, Missionary, Evangelizing pricks. The same goes for non-believers.

 

My beliefs have changed a lot since coming here, I have learned a lot from this community. I still don't believe in God but the idea of arguing for or against his existence has become pointless for me. I think that if I met a Christian who was doubting their faith but still wanted to believe, I would try to help him believe. If it was someone who didn't want to, I would help him there too. It doesn't have to be about criticizing or proving anything. It can just be about helping others to get where they WANT, instead of where you think they NEED to be.

 

I'm done ranting now.

[Ouroboros]

(Hypothetical speaking here)

God facilitated sin and evil, by being the first cause of everything, he is the first cause of evil and sin. He created Satan, he created the fruit and the law to not eat it and he created desire (which is a main component of the free will, we do what we want to do, not what we do not want to do). In the big plot God made sure humanity would fail, but then he sets the condition that if it fails it will be punished. Example: drop your dog from the third floor, and if he survives you kill it as punishment for falling, but if it dies, you say it was the dogs own fault. That is God's behavior for you.

 

(I wrote this before I read JGJ's response. I'll read your response later, and I suspect you said similar things.)

[Taphophilia]

Thanks for the replies.

 

I think I missed my mark, or miscommunicated or something. I'm not taking any sides right or making any declarations. All I'm saying is that some of the logic that the Christian's give makes sense to me. Obviously it doesn't to some of you.

 

I'm curious about where the logic path splits for us. For example:

 

If I knew that my child were in danger and it were in my power to protect them and I did nothing, I would be a neglectful and bad parent. It would not negate their free will simply because I am doing my job as their parent to protect them. If God is supposed to be our Heavenly Father and does nothing to keep his children from unneeded suffering than what kind of father is he.

 

I agree whole heartedly. However IF (1)the Bible is true and we are eternal beings and this life is just a "mist", "vapor", "blink" whatever you want to say to indicate it is short compared to eternity. AND (2) we know that in times of crises people turn to God (look at church attendance after 911). THEN it makes sense to me that God would allow a (relatively)short term suffering in order to bring you back to Him.

 

Now I'm not claiming or defending any of the assumptions made in the statement above. I'm just saying the logic makes sense to me.

 

Even if it's like a blink of an eye or a vapor compared to eternity, it's still a lifetime to us. This Christian belief is a carry over from the middle ages where life was know as "the veil of tears". It didn't matter if their limbs rotted off from Ergot poisoning or they had to bury all 15 children in infancy. This life was just temporary.

 

Many people also lost their faith in God after 9/11, but ABCBSNBC and FOX didn't care, so you didn't hear about it.

[Guest Servant]

Many people also lost their faith in God after 9/11, but ABCBSNBC and FOX didn't care, so you didn't hear about it.

 

OK I'm not saying that your wrong about people losing faith because of 9/11 but to imply that the news decided to favor Christianity is pretty close to illogical. At what point has the media tried to back Christianity?

[Taphophilia]

Many people also lost their faith in God after 9/11, but ABCBSNBC and FOX didn't care, so you didn't hear about it.

 

OK I'm not saying that your wrong about people losing faith because of 9/11 but to imply that the news decided to favor Christianity is pretty close to illogical. At what point has the media tried to back Christianity?

 

They don't care about Christianity, they care about ratings. Touchy feel good stories that most people want to hear make good ratings. Depressing stories about losing hope and faith would get the channel changed. How much of the war in Iraq do you hear about on TV anymore?

[Antlerman]

If I can take the liberty to restate your position? You are saying that the Christian teaching of free will addresses and resolves the ancient Epicurean Paradox, and that it is illogical to not see that this answers the dilemma?

 

Dude, I don't know if you've got my "position" right or not cause I don't know what you're talking about :-) You're going to have to keep it a little more "layman's terms".

Sorry, I thought you were familiar with the Epicurean Paradox since this was what was being presented. I'll try to clarify. Another poster quoted from Epicurus:

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot, or he can, but does not want to... If he wants to, but cannot he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?

This is what is known as the Epicurean Paradox which I referred to. The points you brought up are two of the classic Christian's apologetic response to this paradox, and my responses were the answers to those responses. In short:

 

Point 1: No one has free will if they don't have omnipotence. A natural disaster is outside the control of a human and has nothing to do with free will. We are not capable of acting up these situations by choice, but God is capable of saving us and does nothing. This has nothing to do with free will.

 

Point 2: If God allows these to happen for a "purpose", again, what lesson is learned by 15,000 people being killed in an earthquake, instead of only 14,999? There is nothing more learned by that one extra death that God was fully capable of saving, but chose not to. This can be applied to almost any painful situation that is allowed to continue. The fact that an evil which had no purpose whatsoever for it happening was allowed by an all powerful, all loving God, completely destroys any possibility of good reasons behind God's inaction. We are left with the paradox.

 

The reason these two apologetic arguments fail to convince my logical mind, is because they are poorly reasoned. They sound much more like excuses to continue to believe, than any sort of credible answers. That is why they are rejected as fallacious.

 

And the whole point in my post is to clarify the logic behind why you think He's a myth. Just saying He's a myth or saying He's not a myth doesn't make either statement true.

This is a huge question but I'll try to keep it brief: The fact that God defies rationality and any sort of possibility of validation through objective natural methods makes him "supernatural". He is therefore by default of classification, "mythological". By calling something a myth, is not the same as saying "it is a lie". That's how the Christians misuse that term when they apply it to what they see as competing mythologies. The fact is all supernatural beings qualify as mythologies: Pink Unicorns; Leprechauns; Angels; Demons; Jehovah; Ishtar; Jesus; Mithras; Easter Bunny; etc. Jehovah is not a horse, a human being, or a tree. He is mythological by definition.

 

No one has ever shown "God" to be otherwise in any sort of tangible, scientific way that would make him natural. "Proofs" of God are always through subjective experiences, or twists of "logical illogic". That is my logic behind seeing God as a mythology.