Okay Chris, after we agreed to disagree this reply may be useless. But I owed you this last one and since I was half through it anyway I thought I’d post it. You'll find me asking you stuff. Much of this has been written before we agreed to disagree and to drop our exchange. Feel free to answer anyway if you desire. You'll have the last word on this discours (not in the entire thread though
)
On omnipotence:
Actually, the bible doesn’t use those terms to describe God, theologians do
I didn’t know God’s omnipotence and omniscience was actually in question by believers. I thought this was unanimous. So thank you for pointing this out to me; another thing I've learned. However, what you said next, namely…
Therefore, this definition creates a False Dillemma, Circular Definition, and is minorly Begging the Question.
…is nothing but avoiding the point I was making. Many Christians (if not most) believe in God’s omnipotence and as I pointed out this raises important questions and brings about some trouble. You didn’t deal with any of them because you are undecided. Okay. But that doesn’t mean there is a logical flaw in my argumentation. At least I can’t see it at this point.
The problem we are facing here is the wide array of (secondary) belief. I am discussing this elsewhere with Josh.
Before I let you escape with your agnosticism* here, I’d like to ask you this: If we assumed for the sake of an argument, that God IS omnipotent and omniscient, would you agree with the consequences which I pointed out?
The same question goes out to you Josh, in case you read this. Cause you DO believe in God’s omnipotence, right?
*to use the term agnosticism for a Christian is somewhat misleading. Sure, you are an agnostic in many aspects of belief and you even are an atheist to Zeus or Vishnu. But maybe we should agree on a different term for this.
The bible (…) indeed lists things that God cannot do. He cannot lie (Titus 1:2) He cannot be tempted (James 1:13), He cannot deny Himself (2Tim 2:13). Logically speaking, God cannot create another like Himself, that would violate the negative principle of modality.
Wouldn’t that be proof that God isn’t really omnipotent? Why are you undecided? And what do you think about this, Josh?
There are other things that God can rightly choose not to do and not violate His loving nature, like not interfering with the free will of humans.
This is again touching the issue of secondary belief. If I got Josh right, he thinks that a) there is no complete free will and b) God manipulates the free will of people (although Josh wouldn’t agree on the term manipulation). I think the thread where we discussed this specific issue is “prayer vs. magic” or “on free will”? I can’t tell right now, free will is ever reappearing. Needless to repeat how questionable the existence of free will is and how much evidence, both scientific as well as philosophical, speaks against it.
But it is open for debate, we’re debating it right now. I’ve already shown that it’s not included in the definition because it is not necessary to agree with your definition. That’s called a Circular Definition.
Maybe it is unnecessary to go into that point, but... I just want to point out an example of how you wrongly stigmatize my arguments with supposed fallacies. So here goes:
We can’t expect that one knows all the existing definitions of a word. In case there is disagreement in the sources, we have to point them out and agree on a definition. The definition I worked with wasn’t my own. It was from a lexicon. If you look up Wikipedia, you’ll find the same definition:
Omnipotence (from Latin root Omni Potens: "all power") is unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence only to God.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OmnipotenceI can’t see the supposed mistake I was making.
Excluded Middle. You leave out the possibility that God has chosen to allow His creatures free will and I can understand why He would. You are totally leaving relationship out of this whole equation of yours.
That’s cause I honestly can’t see why the creator of the universe would want to have relationship with something as insignificant as humans. I would find that boring, just like you would find it boring to be married to a robot.
Alright, that’s just my opinion.
Mo:
"As far as God’s responsibility is concerned (I think Josh brought that up): If you (a human) know that your friend A is going to murder your friend B and you don’t do anything about it even though you could, you make yourself guilty. At least in Germany but I’m quite sure in the USA too. I’d like to see you in court saying: “Well, I knew that A was gonna kill B and I sure could have prevented it, but, you know, A has his free will and I think that’s the most important thing ever. So I let it happen.” What do you think the judge would say? God knew every sin, every murder, every rape, simply everything that would happen on this planet before he even created the planet. And he knew why it would happen." False Analogy. I believe you are falsely classifying God and humans together and this is a category error. God is infinite and immortal, humans are finite and mortal. God cannot be compared to humans and is not subject to any judge in any courtroom because He transcends creation. Therefore, He is not bound by human moral duties (notice I didn’t say morality) and is free to have a greater purpose for allowing, and even ordaining, suffering and death that in the end is good. There is no logical fallacy in that premise that I can see.
A couple of remarks here:
1. You’re applying double standards. Weren’t you the first one to compare God to a benign parent? And to a soldier? Now you’re saying God can’t be compared to humans.
2. Again you avoided my direct question. Please answer it. I started this thread because I think that Jahwe according to the Bible is a very unpleasant character. I say this from the human perspective. It’s the only one that I have. To assume that there are higher motives for his unpleasant actions is wishful thinking. There could just as well be base motives. What do you know about it? You haven’t delivered a plausible explanation of why God does all this so far (none of the participants in this thread have).You say you don’t have to know everything. That’s no answer for me. If you make up something like “God is good” you can’t get around explaining his actions. And this explanation has to be coherent. Why did Jesus have to go to the cross? For the sake of free will? I can’t see what one thing has to do with the other.
3. Last but not least, to pick up the last part of your quote:
You wrote: “He transcends creation. Therefore, He is not bound by human moral duties (notice I didn’t say morality) and is free to have a greater purpose for allowing, and even ordaining, suffering and death that in the end is good. There is no logical fallacy in that premise that I can see.”
How about: begging the question and assertion?
Besides, if you carry your assertion out to its logical conclusion, don’t you also have every self-sufficient person in this world directly culpable for anyone starving to death? We all have the means of reaching in our pocket and giving them what they need to live. Do you not have an extra Euro or two you could give to the poor rather than buying that beer at the pub? Therefore, using your own logic, you are culpable for the death of the little girl in India that will die of starvation tonight because you could have done something about it. This, I believe, is Denying the Antecedent and it makes no sense to me.
I won’t deny the responsibility the West has for the suffering in the third world. There is no doubt we built a lot of our riches on their backs. However, the point I was making isn’t hypothetical. If you could prevent murder but didn’t, you will matter of factly be held responsible for it. And though we, that is you and me, can’t feed the entire world, God could.
On suffering in hell:
A very Catholic assumption IMO (which also spilled over into Protestant traditions). This is understandable given your background. But not all theologians agree on eternal torment in hell. I’m agnostic on this topic, but I believe there is good and rational reason to hope for Universal Reconciliation, which philosophically fits better with God’s revealed will and character IMO.
Again the problem of the array of belief.
Mo:
And even though he could have prevented everything, he chose to let it happen. Why? Why all the drama? Why the cross? Why the fall? Why the flood? Why all this blood? Why?? Yeah, because the Lord moves in mysterious ways! You’ll sure believe that, blue eyes. You’ll try to make up complicated reasons about love and free will in order to make it fit instead of seeing what’s probably easier: It’s just ancient make-believe. It’s irrational and ill-conceived.
How I wish you would just take a minute to really question it and think about it. From a rational perspective. Ad Hominem, Ad Absurdum, Argument from Ignorance (and solicitation thereof). I hope I don’t have to explain the Ad Hominem and Ad Absurdum because it’s obvious in your ridicule of my beliefs. It adds no force to your argument. That you don’t know “why” God does what He does, doesn’t make it “ancient make believe” or “irrational and ill-conceived”. Nor does it warrant your solicitation for me to enter into the same trap. That is called Argument from Ignorance.
Again you avoided the question. Let’s always keep in mind, that the Bible brings a lot of claims which aren’t observable in every day life. If I’m supposed to believe in it, there must be convincing answers to all those why questions. Maybe those questions don’t mean anything to you. Maybe it doesn’t bother you that there is no logical connection between what we are told about God’s ability and what we hear about his actions. But it bothers me. Those questions tore me apart from God. Note that I don’t randomly ask “why questions” I’m not asking “why did Jesus chose this mountain for his sermon and not the other one”. I’m asking: if God is love and powerful enough to create the entire universe, why did he have to sacrifice his son in order to absorbe sin? It makes no sense to me. Even I, with my limited human capacity, can think of ways of doing this without bloodshed. There are so much more questions that tackle God’s logic. And the decisive thing is, that there are more simple and persuasive answers than: God has higher purposes which we can’t understand. For example God isn’t really good. Or all this story about God isn’t true.
Mo:
You say God fulfilled his plan. So it was his plan to murder all those people at Sodom and Gomorrha and the Great flood? Was this a loving fathers’ pedagogical measure? What a stretch! All those attempts to compare deliberate mass murder and more than questionable morals (should we really stone somebody to death just because he worked on Sabbath??) to a benign father who has to be strict at times. You should hear yourself talk! God could easily have been really strict with the humans without murdering them. Or torturing them. He could have made them realize and stop their wrong ways without a single drop of blood. Again, Argument from Ignorance (and solicitation thereof), Begging the Question, Ad Absurdum. By the way, God told Abraham he’d spare Sodom and Gomorrah if he could find just 10 righteous people in it (Gen 18:32). Apparently Lot was the only one (and I don't consider him all that righteous, but God apparently did because of his faith).
Hm, on arguments from ignorance… wouldn’t you agree that the Bible almost entirely presents circumstantial evidence? If you don’t agree, maybe we can discuss this at the authorship thread.
And you didn’t answer my questions. I’ll ask them again without ad absurdum:
1. You say God fulfilled his plan. So it was his plan to murder all those people at Sodom and Gomorrha and the Great flood?
2. Was this a loving fathers’ pedagogical measure?
3. Do you think you can hold on to your comparison of God to a benign human father who has to be strict at times if comparing God to humans is “false analogy”?
4. Do you think that the mass murder of the flood and of Sodom and Gomorrah, and stoning to death are actions that fit to the picture of a loving person?
5. Do you deny that God could easily have been really strict with the humans without murdering them (for instance like he was strict with Adam and Eve without murdering them)?
6. Don’t you think he could have made them realize and stop their wrong ways without a single drop of blood? Just like you can educate your sons without bashing the brain out of them.
7. Why do you lock your guns?
Mo:
I’ll take the actual Constitution and social convention of my country. That’s fine, but it still rather arbitrary without a some standard as a starting point. Where did your country’s constitution and social convention come from? Since you're in Europe, I might have a good guess.
For a discussion of where morality comes from, click here:
www.aletheia.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=moralityI’ve answered to #1 and #2 so far. There’s also a reasonable explanation of moral being a product of evolution by Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion. I think morality or morals or however we wanna call it, can be explained persuasively without God.
I do agree that the devil maltreated Job. But I also know that Job already knew God was letting it happen (Job 13:15).
Job was tortured by the devil with God’s permission. I find that brutal.
Mo:
I browsed the scripture you quoted and it just increases the nonsense. I’m sorry. I really don’t want to use these pejorative terms all the time. But it makes no sense. Seriously! If he’s omni, he knows why people don’t shake off their evil ways. It’s hypocritical to stand there and say: “it’s no pleasure for me to watch you drown in the mess I created for you. I knew you would drown in the mess but I created you and the mess anyway. I know you won’t shake off your evil ways and I know why. After all I wanted it that way. I could help you, but I won’t. I’m gonna watch you die and suffer. But believe me, that’s no pleasure for me! No Sir! HA!” Please state the logical fallacy here in terms we can understand without the ridicule.
Okay. Given God’s tremendous power I don’t see why he would make people suffer if that isn’t exactly what he wanted. The explanation of free will has the fallacy of “false cause”. It also has the fallacy of “assertion” and “slippery slope”. To me, it rings most illogical, because I can think of better ways of handling things, given Gods power and knowledge. I estimate all this from the human perspective. I repeat that this is the only perspective we have. To watch it from a divine perspective means to leave the path of what is visible, touchable and experienceable and to merely guess. In my opinion, this is not a reasonable way to approach the truth.
Mo:
I don’t understand that. Why does that make sense? Why would you have to give birth to a son just to sacrifice him because you love the world? Why? Especially when you could have it any other way? The guy is omnipotent for crying out loud! It’s like the story with the Werewolf and the silver bullets. This isn’t logical. Again, you haven’t demonstrated the logical fallacy here…only that you disagree with the choice.
The logical fallacy is “false cause” and “slippery slope”.
Here’s the definition of both by the website you provided:
False cause: A causes B (without real proof that this causal relationship actually exists).
Slippery Slope: The Slippery Slope is a series of statements that have a superficial connection with one another, and which lead into what is usually a rather far-fetched a conclusion.
Use it when you are in relatively unsophisticated company where such obvious lack of logic will go unchallenged. In more thoughtful company, you will need a more subtle approach.
It is being said that Jesus took away the sin of mankind by his sacrifice. I see no relationship between the suffering of one man and the guilt of another man. The conclusion seems to be rather far-fetched. My werewolf example indicated just the same: It is assumed that only silver bullets can kill a werewolf. Nobody knows how this is supposed to make sense. Yet, it is accepted. The only difference is that the werewolf is fictional and the suffering of Jesus is supposedly a fact.
God is not bound by death like we are. If I kill someone, there’s nothing left that I can do to redeem that. But if God does it, He has time and ability on His side to make that into something beneficial to not only the recipient of the suffering, but to mankind as well
Good point. But it doesn’t answer the question. Maybe in Gods perception of time, our suffering is a minor factor. Something that is easily redeemed. But to us, in our perception of things, suffering is terrible. And we don’t even know if God exists, which doubles the pain.
I personally see no excuse for God to allow suffering just because he can redeem the pain.
Can you repeat that please? I never said I “reject” human perspective, only that it’s inadequate to answer all the questions. I add to my human perspective the Divine perspective and things become much clearer IMO.
The divine perspective, the way I understand it, is only hypothetical and adds very little to the truth.
Something about sin requires redemptive actions according to scripture. Even if that something is left untold.
Why? How? I know you find those questions pointless, but the statement makes no sense to me without a logical coherence. I find the avoidance of such questions negligent.
As Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of the universe, God has the moral freedom and right to allow, and even ordain, human suffering for the sake of greater plan.
I’m not willing to give him that leap of faith so easily. The Bible reveals enough reasons to assume that God isn’t pure love but rather a being with the traits of a human (like jealousy). That doesn’t mean that he is entirely evil. But he seems to be as merciless as merciful.
To me, the most plausible explanation of this matter is that Jahwe doesn’t exist. He is the product of an ancient society, projecting ancient views, desires and morals into him. I think this makes much more sense than redemption through the cross.
I believe I have adequately dismantled your logical objections and rightly placed them into the category of mere disapproval on your part by pointing out the logical fallacies of your arguments (I realize you will disagree with that).
Surprise, I really DO disagree. I can’t see where you dismantled anything. But we agreed to disagree. So….