Morality of God

[Peregrine]

I believe Theta Orionis and Malchik have already covered free will pretty well, so I won't add much more. Just one little quote from you.

 

Soon again those humans forget that he exists. He told them to live on the whole earth, but instead they stay in one place and try achieve what we try to do now. God thinks that they aren't ready for such a power yet, so he gives them different languages and so the humans seperate in different nations and settle everywhere on this planet

 

Concession accepted. God directly enforces his will when free will doesn't produce the result he wants. It's not free will if you only have it when you do the "right" thing.

 

Oh, and add this to the list of God's crimes. Because of this single act of breaking up human society, God is guilty of every death from war since then.

 

You say that death penalty is far out proportion. How do you acctually know that this is the case? Do you say this because of some feeling inside you which tells you that such a thing is bad? Or is it reasoning? The argument of the bible seems more logical, because it isn't based on feelings. No crime=No punishment. Crime=punishment. Holy=has not sinned. Unholy=has sinned. Punishment=death. Why? Either you are guilty or you are not. You can't be half-guilty. Why then make multiple punishments, when everyone who commits a crime is guilty?

 

So if I steal $1 from someone I'm as guilty as someone who tortures and murders a thousand people? Any human system of justice that had those punishments would be considered (and is considered, for far less inequality) evil. The same applies to God. God's "justice" is the most barbaric, criminal form in history.

 

God is alive forever, because he is holy. He gave live to beings which were holy at the beginning (made after his image). They became unholy so therefore couldn't be alive forever anymore. Unholiness is the opposite of holiness. When you are unholy, then you must be everything that god isn't. He is alive forever. When you are the opposite of god, you can't live for ever anymore. Simple logic.

 

If you're a criminal sadist who insists on seeing everything in black and white. And of course with God as the only good side.... There's a good reason no civilized society lives by these standards.

 

God didn't state that he would strike you down imedialty (then you wouldn't have any choice at all).

 

Except when he does (the flood, war against unbelievers, etc). Or someone does it because of his orders. Here's a historical example:

 

Hitler killed very few people himself. Should we forgive him because he just gave the order, and someone else did the actual killing?

 

God does exactly this. Perhaps he does not personally strike down unbelievers, but he orders other people to do it. So not only is God a criminal sadist with an ego problem, he's too much of a coward to do the job himself.

 

Also what you said about the flood. God says in the bible that he did this. But he also says that he would never do such a thing again. And the fact is that we have no possibility (at least at the moment) to prove him right or wrong. And as long as we are "sitting in the dark" we still can make a choice.

 

If I put a gun to your head and order you to do something, you still have the choice not to. But can you honestly say that I'm giving you free will?

 

When someone keeps a gun in the house and clearly tells his children, not to touch this gun, then the parents aren't guilty, the children are when they don't obey, take the gun and shoot someone. When now this parent locked away this gun, those children wouldn't have a free will anymore.

 

If I hand a kid a loaded AK-47 and say "don't kill anyone with this," and the kid kills someone, I am guilty. Perhaps not by the courts, but morally I am responsible for the death. God is no different.

 

___________

 

Darnoc, here's a question for you... And yes, I know the situation I'm describing isn't true... assume it is for purposes of discussion:

 

Lets say the Canaanites had it right... God demands the sacrifice of children to him. This is unquesitonable truth, God himself has come down to earth and made this demand. Do you follow God's orders?

[Darnoc]

@Peregrin: Very interesting question indeed. I'll have to give you a honest answer to such a direct question.

 

I wouldn't. At least I think that I wouldn't. But this is because I have learned in all my live that god would never command such a thing and that to do such a thing is bad (as you also do think). When I would have learned the opposite that god demands sacrifice of children and that it is the only right way, then I would do it. So in the end it depends on what you have learned and what you are used to. That you can see in cultures where murder is considered a heroic act (some tribes in New Guinea had such customs), there nobody has a problem when someone says "I just killed my neighbour by louring him into a trap. Oh, man, this was bloody cool!" He would be considered the hero of the village. We have everything different. What we think is right is influenced by the laws written in the bible (at least in the west). So what this man just did would be murder here. One's hero is another's criminal. Honest enough, Peregrin?

 

P.S. I should really consider studying Apoglogetics... (you know, the part of Theology which deals with the defence of faith). But then again, philosophy is more interesting. I'll probably stick with philosophy.

 

You're very good at discussions, Peregrin. As I said in another post, I didn't have such a challenge for some time. I really enjoy it :D

 

 

OK, you asked me a question. Now I ask you a question.

 

Let's say, everything that you think is right and just and good is in fact right and just and good. Let's also say that everything was created by god, that means also all those things you consider just, right and good. Because nothing can exist without its opposite, also everything that you think is wrong, unjust and bad exists. That means from the point where god created what you think is right, just and good also everything that is wrong, unjust and bad came into existence. You would agree that what is bad is everything that did something bad? When something is bad from the moment it did what is bad, then every being doing something bad is no longer good.

 

Now the problem is, those are opposites and therefore nothing can be both at the same time. So therefore also god can not be good and bad at the same time. So he must be either one of them. Now let's also assume that everything is truely god's word, what is written in the bible. God says that everything was good at the beginning that he created. Now, when everything was good when he created it, he also must be good, because good and bad are opposites. So when you create something good, you must be good. When you are bad, you can only create bad things.

 

Even when you did agree with everything until this point, you will imediatly see the flaw at the end. When every being is bad that commited something that is bad (and every human did something bad) then we shouldn't be able to do something good. But we are able to do good things. This shouldn't be possible, because this is a paradox. But it is possible, so therefore there must be one (or more than one) flaw in this theory of mine, correct?

 

So there are only two ways out of this dilemma:

 

Either we aren't bad at all. But when every being that commited something bad is bad, then what we consider to be bad can't be bad, because everyone of us did such a thing. This leads to another paradox and is therefore not the answer to the problem.

 

And now to the other way out of the dilemma. Every action we do and which is considered a good action, isn't in fact a good action when you truly consider all facts. Why do I give money to the poor? Perhaps someone sees my generosity and then people think better of me? It is not only the action which counts, but also the thoughts behind it. If I do something "good" (the action in itself may even be good) it is still corrupted by my selfish reasons. Even a person which looks like he/she has no selfish reasons at all, has some deep inside. Perhaps this person ran away from his/her problems instead of facing them? Who knows. In the end it comes to this: We can't do anything, even when it may look very good, without any selfish reasons or bad thoughts behind this actions. So therefore we still can't do anything good at all and the problem is solved.

 

Now in order to become "good" again, we can't do anything at all. We are just bad. And we certainly do not have any power to make our past actions undone (until someone invents a time machine). So someone else has to do something so that we can become good. Who does something? Certainly not a bad being. A bad being has no interests at all that we become good. So it must be a good being. Now how can this being do this? It certainly can't do anything against the law (because this would be bad), so it has to follow the rules in order to do this. Now the rule (we assumed that what is written in the bible is true) states that a life has to be given for another life. So, in order to take away our badness, this good being has to give away its life. Now this good being I am talking about is of course god. If god would break his own law, he wouldn't be good anymore. So he has to follow his own law and his law states that someone has to suffer the punishment instead of the one who should be punished in order to to take away the guilt from the guilty person. This is because the punishment has to be fullfilled and can't be just taken away (so it is written in the law). So this good being (god) must suffer the punishment, because it has an interest in us becoming good again (a good being wants that everything becomes good; a bad being wants the opposite) and because the law states that this is the only way to do this. So the good being is punished instead of the bad beings, the bad beings are now considered innocent in front of the law, because their punishment was payed. So therefore we aren't bad anymore, we are now good. And so we can make good actions from now on.

 

So, my question for you, Peregrin, is: Do you see any flaws in my logic here? If you do, correct me.

[Peregrine]

First, wrong answer. For purposes of this question, God does want it. God has unarguably commanded it. God has declared that this is the new definition of good an holiness. If you don't start the sacrifices, you burn in hell forever.

 

I'll answer the rest later, but stop dodging the question. And could you at least try to reply to my specific arguments, instead of just reposting the same general point you've made in every single post?

[ThetaOrionis01]

The flaw in your logic is that you are making a lot of assumptions about the nature of good and bad - concepts which you, as a mere human, cannot possibly hope to understand in their entirety, if they are viewed as the absolute concepts that you are calling upon for your examples. You are therefore arbitrarily defining 'good' and 'bad' to suit your purpose. And an argument based upon arbitrary definitions, while it may be inherently logical, is fundamentally flawed.

 

The conclusion, that if you are good you can only create good things and if you are bad you can create only bad things is not a logical conclusion - it is an assumption on your part.

 

Another conclusion you have reached is

 

...that what is bad is everything that did something bad? When something is bad from the moment it did what is bad, then every being doing something bad is no longer good.

 

No. One 'bad' action does not automatically mean that whoever carried out the action is no longer 'good'. 'Good' intentions can have bad consequences, and a 'bad' action can be carried out with the noblest of purposes in mind. 'Bad' acts can be committed unwittingly - if I sneeze and so pass on a germ to a person who happens to have low immunity to this type of germ, and the person falls ill and dies, does that make me bad? To be 'bad' or 'evil' or whatever you wish to call it requires that the person committing these acts has to be a) aware that their actions are 'bad' or 'evil' and B) carry them out of their own free will. And we have already established that god does not allow free will.

 

 

 

In the end it comes to this: We can't do anything, even when it may look very good, without any selfish reasons or bad thoughts behind this actions.

 

Another assumption on your part, and another illogical one. You cannot possibly know the intentions of every single person who ever lived. Your argument is therefore based on a conclusion which is not based on fact, and therefore invalid.

 

 

I could continue pointing out the flaws in your logic, but they all boil down to the same thing - you are presenting assumptions as facts. This invalidates any conclusions you may draw from these assumptions. Sophistry, nothing more.

[Breton Thief Oriana]

@Peregrin: Very interesting question indeed. I'll have to give you a honest answer to such a direct question.

 

I wouldn't. At least I think that I wouldn't. But this is because I have learned in all my live that god would never command such a thing and that to do such a thing is bad (as you also do think). When I would have learned the opposite that god demands sacrifice of children and that it is the only right way, then I would do it. So in the end it depends on what you have learned and what you are used to. That you can see in cultures where murder is considered a heroic act (some tribes in New Guinea had such customs), there nobody has a problem when someone says "I just killed my neighbour by louring him into a trap. Oh, man, this was bloody cool!" He would be considered the hero of the village. We have everything different. What we think is right is influenced by the laws written in the bible (at least in the west). So what this man just did would be murder here. One's hero is another's criminal. Honest enough, Peregrin?

 

P.S. I should really consider studying Apoglogetics... (you know, the part of Theology which deals with the defence of faith). But then again, philosophy is more interesting. I'll probably stick with philosophy.

and what if god constantly changes his mind just to trap you? you might not believe he would, and then he tells you he would, and switches between back and forth. and, then, if by some ironic twist, may GOD have mercy on your souls.

[hundinman]

I think this whole debate is fundamentally flawed.

 

If you do believe in a god who is omnipotent and omnipresent, creator of the universe and everything within it etc etc, then you must automatically concede that such a being has an understanding of everything, and a perspective of everything, which dwarfs that of any human. So, by acknowledging the god entity's divinity, you acknowledge that this entity is a superior being whose motivation is outside any human understanding.

You can therefore only approach the concept of this entity's morality from a human viewpoint - IMO to define the divine in human terms is not possible, and even the attempt verges on blasphemy (how can any human hope to enter god's mind?). It would be akin to drawing a picture of a 5-dimensional object - it is not possible, as humans are not capable of picturing 5 dimensions. Even as your interpretation of this 5-dimensional object is only a flawed interpretation, so is your explanation and justification of the god entity's actions and morality flawed from the outset since you cannot possibly understand it.

 

 

If on the other hand you believe, as I do, that gods are an invention of humankind, and that the bible was written by humans, then you are not debating the morality of god, but that of a fictitious entity - and, consequently, the morality and agenda of the people who created this entity.

 

 

Thoughts?

very good concept. to tell you the truth we are not as smart as we think we are (humans in general) and we may be misunderstanding everyhting we learn from the Bible. God has such a higher authority and complex mind than humans do. He is perfect (my opinion cause I believe it. Forcing beliefs on nobody!) So, we do not know God's plan for us and we can't judge him by the way he punishes his people. He has every right to punish HIS CREATIONS. If you created a robot world with people and plants, etc. and you designed them to follow you would you like it if they decided to follow your worst enemy? What would you do in this sitution?

 

These are questions that I would like anwers to!

[Malchik]

For Darnoc; my comment was that if you are judging the morality of god by accepting the bible as literal, the only conclusion that anyone could come to is that he is a criminal sadist. In giving the get out of saying that the bible is a seriously flawed source I allow that god may be something quite different. However if that is the case, belief is impossible as no one knows what they are believing in.

 

For hundiman, if god created everything, he deliberately created his own worst enemy. He also created human beings so that some would want to follow this 'enemy'. To punish anyone for something you make them do is perverse. So perhaps god made a mistake in creating his worst enemy? In that case he becomes fallible and ceases to be a perfect being and not someone who can be believed in. Either way he is seriously flawed morally.

[Darnoc]

@Malchik:

 

For hundiman, if god created everything, he deliberately created his own worst enemy. He also created human beings so that some would want to follow this 'enemy'. To punish anyone for something you make them do is perverse. So perhaps god made a mistake in creating his worst enemy? In that case he becomes fallible and ceases to be a perfect being and not someone who can be believed in. Either way he is seriously flawed morally.

 

Let's say that you are right and that the bible isn't to be taken litterally. So perhaps all those passages which indicate that he is a sadist are perhaps later on additions by other peoples.

 

Now if god made everything, he also created those beings you consider evil (his worst enemy, you mean Satan with this, don't you?). Those beings weren't evil from the beginning, they became evil by their choice later on. When nothing can exist without its opposite and god is one side (the good side) automatically also evil must exist. Evil is therefore a "necessary evil" in order to give us free choice and to be like he is (he created us after his image, so we have free will and also the ability to choose between evil and good). Even when evil exist and was created when god created everything else, it is still no excuse for us to do it. Without shadow there is no light, without lies there is no truth. So without evil there is no good. And without evil we would never come to understand what "good" really is. So that we can become the perfect image of god, we have to learn the meaning of good and evil, then he also knows it.

But in order to keep evil in its barrier (so that it can't become even more stronger), laws have to be made and punishment. God made these, those laws are a protection from ourselves and a protection for other people from us. Without them evil could just be everywhere. So in order to help good to keep the upper hand against evil, god has to make laws and punish those who break them. Because we humans are flawed by our own choice (we choose to do evil) we can't jugde ourselves, it has to be done by someone who is not evil. I'm against any rule of humans over humans. Humans are all the same and so no human can jugde and rule over another human. Only some one higher up can do this, someone without the evil we have (because this being has rejected evil), this is god. Of course we have no other choice than to rule ourselves, but at least we should try not to give one person or a group of person too much power.

[Malchik]

A bit chicken and egg, isn't it? There is no evil until people (human beings) decides a thing is evil. Therefore ritual sacrifice amongst the Aztecs was not evil to them. If god has decided his own arbitrary definition and placed it on humanity designed not to have any prior concept, he is not asking people to choose he is forcing the government line, as it were.

 

You cannot 'believe' under a regime of fear. You are forced to do so 'or else'. This is not belief, it is taking the coward's option, doing what you are told too afraid of the consequences of refusing. As that is the ethic the 'christian' god enforces, he/she/it is seriously flawed morally.

[Greywolf]

Of note: Free-will the ability to choose, an action not a noun, you do not escape the consequence of the choice you make, of your actions. You plant potatoes you harvest potatoes, you plant thistles you get thistles, you perform evil you get punished.

 

Of note: If God is our Judge then he can not be judged for sentencing our actions with punishment. That is like judging the supreme court for giving a murderer a death penalty.

 

Of note: When you are omnipotent, omniscient and entirely just and holy, then YOU can judge god.