Morality of God

[Jesugandalf]

we assume that god exists and that what is written in the bible is true

But it is already demonstrated that what is written in the Bible is not ALWAYS true.

 

It cannot be. Something written over 50 years after the actual events happened cannot be completely true and completely detailed. It is impossible. And we have to bear in mind that the Bible was written by men, and men are not perfect.

 

So maybe this whole discussion is sustented in wrong pillars... :huh:

 

This last sentence was a joke, don't panic! :D

[Darnoc]

@JesusGandalf: But it is not the point of this discussion. This discussion is not about to find out if the bible is to be taken literally true. This discussion is about if god is moral or unmoral, assuming that he exists and that what is written in the bible is true.

[Eltiraaz]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but is it not entirley possible for both statements (free will - God, all knowing) to be true at the same time?

 

It could work like this:

 

We have free will, we can do whatever we want. If there is a pen on the ground, we can choose not to pick it up or to pick it up. You get the point. God knows from the beginning of when he created time that that you will choose not to pick up that pen. That doesn't mean that he made the choice for you. It simply means that he knows what your choice will be.

 

I may have brought this up before. I still think its sound, however.

[Peregrine]

Eltiraaz:

 

No, it isn't sound at all. Read my entire posts.

 

God, because he is omnipotent, could create any universe he wishes. A universe in which you pick up the pen is just as easy to make as one in which you don't.

 

God, because he is omniscient, knows every result of his act of creation, no matter how minor or remote in time. As soon as he decides to create the universe, he knows whether you will pick it up or not. If he has created universe A, you do. If he has created universe B, you don't.

 

Your entire "decision" is based on whether God created A or B. Once God made that choice, all free will you have is an illusion.

 

Now lets say you "decide" to pick it up. Well God already knew you would, because he created universe A. The only way you could choose not to is if he had created universe B. You think you have a choice, but in reality you are merely following God's script.

 

 

Jesugandalf:

 

Yes, I am aware that the bible is flawed and should not be taken literally. But if you allow that argument, the debate is no longer about the morality of the God presented in the bible, but about the accuracy of it.

 

You could argue that all the descriptions of his evil acts are poor translation/human additions/etc. Or I could argue that God doesn't really exist, so he has no authority to justify his evil.

 

But none of these arguments would be relevant to the God the bible describes, and that all of Christianity is based off of.

[Darnoc]

Thanks for clearing this matter, Peregrin. But now I would like an answer to my post. Look at my arguments and tell then, if they are flawed or not. It is the second post on the 8th page of this thread.

[Eltiraaz]

2. You are wrong

 

This means, a. and b. can exist at the same time, but we do not understand how this can work. It is above our understanding. Since the other conclusions are leading to a paradoxon, this one must be the true one (assuming that everything written in the bible is true and that god therefore exists).

 

 

There is nothing else to understand in this scenario. As long as you understand the meaning of the words in that statement and their implications, they mean exactly what they say. That God is all-knowing and that God gives us free will.

 

The only thing I can think of then is that God did not tell the whole truth (he perhaps intentionally left it a mystery for us to wonder about, or to filter the weak of faith from the chosen), or that perhaps the writers of those segments of the bible misinterpreted or did not understand God's complete message on the matter. After all they were written by two different human beings at two different times in the history of the world.

[Peregrine]

OK, let me make it clear:

 

It states in the bible that a. god is allknowing and b. that god has created us with a free will. Now you say that it is a paradoxon when a. and b. are true at the same time. It is not possible.

 

God created us with the illusion of free will.

 

Now there is a conflict between God's omniscience and his claim to have given us free will. Omniscience is an unarguable quality of God. Free will is only a claimed action of God. If one must be false, free will is the only one that can be false while still making God a God.

 

1.1 God lied

 

This is again a paradoxon. The being god is defined by the following:

 

- He is everywhere at the same time

- He possess all powers

- He knows everything

- He is absolute holy

- He is absolute good

- Everything is possible for him (there are no limits for him)

- He is perfect

 

1-3) These are unarguable fact.

 

4) God claims to be absolutely holy. And in fact he is, by his definition. But his biased definition is not the correct one.

 

5) Again, God claims to be absolutely good, and by his definition he is. But his definition is an inappropriate one, and subordinate to a higher law.

 

6) Definition of omniscience.

 

7) He is perfect by his definition. But his defintion is a flawed one that is subject to judgement by a higher law.

 

 

If any of these is no longer true, he is not god (by the way: This means if god is unmoral, he is not god anymore). So therefore, when he lies, he is no longer holy and good, so he is no longer perfect, so he is no longer god.

 

All of these are still true by God's definition (the one stated in the bible). But a necessary condition of this debate is that we can judge God, therefore his definition is not the only one. By that definition, God is immoral, barbaric, and a criminal sadist.

 

This leads to a next paradoxon: If we assume that everything written in the bible is true, then god must be god. So if we say that god is not god, the bible is no longer true and our whole discussion is in vain.

 

For the ten millionth time, the bible is an entirely true objective historical account. Every event described in the bible happened exactly as stated. Genesis is litearl truth despite evidence otherwise, etc. What is notautomatic truth is any interpertations/judgements of these events.

 

Example:

God said "I am good and this is a good act." Then he murdered a million of his believers and sent them to hell so he could hear their screams of pain.

 

Definite fact: God murdered and said he was good exactly as stated.

 

Not definite fact: God's actions were good.

 

 

1.2 You are right, but you missunderstood the biblical text

 

Meaning that you didn't understand the bible correctly and god never really stated that a. and b. does exist at the same time. But this can not be, because 1) we assume that what is written in the bible really happened and 2) therefore god must have lied and this leads to our former paradoxon.

 

God's actions are clear. Since you obviously don't get these basic concepts, let me explain this to you:

 

1) The bible says God committed genocide and said it was justified.

 

2) By the conditions of this debate, we are able to judge God.

 

3) Any reasonable judgement says genocide is evil.

 

4) God is both evil and a liar.

 

2. You are wrong

 

This means, a. and b. can exist at the same time, but we do not understand how this can work. It is above our understanding. Since the other conclusions are leading to a paradoxon, this one must be the true one (assuming that everything written in the bible is true and that god therefore exists).

 

THEN PROVE ME WRONG.

 

Let me make this very clear. I have presented two proofs of our lack of free will. Either find a flaw in them or concede.

 

 

=====================================

 

There is nothing else to understand in this scenario. As long as you understand the meaning of the words in that statement and their implications, they mean exactly what they say. That God is all-knowing and that God gives us free will.

 

Except that if you would bother to read my arguments, I have proved in two different ways that both of these statements can not be true. And free will is the only one that can be false without redefining God.

 

So I give you the same choice as Darnoc. Either find a flaw in my proofs or concede.

 

The only thing I can think of then is that God did not tell the whole truth (he perhaps intentionally left it a mystery for us to wonder about, or to filter the weak of faith from the chosen)

 

Is it really that hard to understand? God for some reason felt like giving us the illusion of free will. We have the same "free will" as a toy in the hands of a child. An appropriate description considering God's immaturity....

 

or that perhaps the writers of those segments of the bible misinterpreted or did not understand God's complete message on the matter. After all they were written by two different human beings at two different times in the history of the world.

 

Translation: I can't present a reasonable case if the bible isn't flawed. Therefore since I must be right (God says so!), the bible must be wrong.

 

Concession accepted. Your case is hopeless if you have to ignore the conditions of the debate to salvage some partial victory.

[Eltiraaz]

Translation: I can't present a reasonable case if the bible isn't flawed. Therefore since I must be right (God says so!), the bible must be wrong.

 

That is not how I'm implying that. I am simply proposing another alternative to argue my case, I am not ignoring conditions of the debate. Must you drop to such petty conclusions like the one just mentioned?

 

There is nothing else to understand in this scenario. As long as you understand the meaning of the words in that statement and their implications, they mean exactly what they say. That God is all-knowing and that God gives us free will.

 

 

 

Except that if you would bother to read my arguments, I have proved in two different ways that both of these statements can not be true. And free will is the only one that can be false without redefining God.

 

So I give you the same choice as Darnoc. Either find a flaw in my proofs or concede

 

Again, you misinterpret my meaning. I am not challenging your proofs! My point actually supports them! I was not implying that they are true, just arguing Darnoc's suggestion of us "not being able to comprehend" the meaning of the statement. It is quite simple.

 

 

The only thing I can think of then is that God did not tell the whole truth (he perhaps intentionally left it a mystery for us to wonder about, or to filter the weak of faith from the chosen)

 

 

 

Is it really that hard to understand? God for some reason felt like giving us the illusion of free will. We have the same "free will" as a toy in the hands of a child. An appropriate description considering God's immaturity....

 

Your comment has perfectly nothing to do with my point. Those particular parts of the bible were orated or recorded by a primitive man, not you, who is so cleary all-knowing. I would imagine it would be quite simple to misinterpret the meaning of the most powerful being in the universe.

 

Of coarse there is also the possibilty that the key to this puzzle was simply lost in translation of the bible from text to text, from tongue to tongue. Especially considering that the original version of the old testament was written by a people who had no vowels in their alpabet, no puncuation whatsoever, and no spaces between their words.

 

Note: I am not retreating behind walls, or whatever you may think about the way I am presenting my arguements.

[Peregrine]

That is not how I'm implying that. I am simply proposing another alternative to argue my case, I am not ignoring conditions of the debate. Must you drop to such petty conclusions like the one just mentioned?

 

It's a perfectly valid point.... in another debate. To keep this related to the morality of God and not the accuracy of the bible, the bible is an unarguable historical account. If you want to argue the bible is flawed, make a new topic or post it in one of the other religion threads.

 

Again, you misinterpret my meaning. I am not challenging your proofs! My point actually supports them! I was not implying that they are true, just arguing Darnoc's suggestion of us "not being able to comprehend" the meaning of the statement. It is quite simple.

 

Ok, point understood. By "there is nothing else to understand" I thought you were quoting his argument to agree with it.

 

But you still say God gives us free will... how can you say this and agree with my proofs at the same time?

 

Your comment has perfectly nothing to do with my point. Those particular parts of the bible were orated or recorded by a primitive man, not you, who is so cleary all-knowing. I would imagine it would be quite simple to misinterpret the meaning of the most powerful being in the universe.

 

Of coarse there is also the possibilty that the key to this puzzle was simply lost in translation of the bible from text to text, from tongue to tongue. Especially considering that the original version of the old testament was written by a people who had no vowels in their alpabet, no puncuation whatsoever, and no spaces between their words.

 

But for purposes of this debate, the bible is an unarguable historical account. I've explained this elsewhere... if you can question the accuracy of the bible, this debate is impossible.

[Eltiraaz]

Ok, I misunderstood the boundaries of this debate I have never been very active in it before.

 

God gives us free will... how can you say this and agree with my proofs at the same time?

 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone yet. Simply putting out facts.