God is not Omnipotent
December 15, 2007
Guest Commentary
Personally, I feel that most arguments for or against the existence of God are too rooted in normative conventions for my personal beliefs. In other words, I cannot accept arguments based on supposedly established conventions such as good, evil, right, wrong, etc., because those conventions were primarily established through man-made religions.
This is not to say that employing norms such as good and evil are not useful in arguing against the existence of a deity. Using religiously established conventions (Christian norms, in this case) of good and evil, and by understanding the hierarchy of God’s characteristics, we can show that the God that Christians imagine to exist contradicts himself, and therefore cannot exist.
The Christian tradition holds that God is many things: God is love, God is merciful, and so on. One characteristic, a seemingly unavoidable prerequisite to being a deity, is that God is omnipotent. God, according to the Christian tradition, is also good and cannot be or do evil.
The qualifiers that God are that he is A) Omnipotent and B) Good come into sharp contrast and contradiction. If God is in deed able to do anything, God would then be capable of doing evil, blatantly contradicting the assumption that God cannot do evil. Therefore, a God who can only be good and only does good is not omnipotent. A being who is not omnipotent is not God.
A more moderate and more readily acceptable set of qualifiers to the contemporary Christian is that God is A) Omnipotent and B) Capable of doing good or evil, but chooses only to do good. However, this also causes a stark contradiction with the Christian’s perspective of God. If the above is true, then there are still limits on God, rendering him subject to a greater force (and therefore not omnipotent).
First, if God has to be capable of doing only Good or Evil, then God himself must be subject to conventions of Good and Evil. If that is the case, then there is a higher power that reigns above God. This should not be surprising if God is in fact man made. A man made God would be expected to hold up human conventions of Good or Evil, and not the other way around.
If, however, God is the author of Good or Evil, then God himself cannot be Good or Evil, for he is the author. There is the possibility that God created Good and Evil and chose to follow only the conventions of Good, If that is indeed the case, then God, by his own design, is not omnipotent having chose to let his conventions of Good and Evil reign over him.
If the idea of God is shifted to allow him to do evil, then God is not good or evil; whether or not he is good or evil is relative. But if that is the case, then God is not in fact Good, nor is he love, nor is he merciful. God is omnipotent, therefore outside of any convention. If that is the case, he is indifferent to our plight as humans, indifferent as to whether or not we love him, and indifferent as to whether or not we spend eternity in pleasure or in eternal pain. But if he is subject to those conventions, then he can’t not love and can’t not care, and therefore he is not God, having allowed those conventions to rule over him.
- bry0000000
Entry Filed under: ~Guest. Tags: christianity, de-conversion, deconversion, faith, freethinking, god, Popular, religion, skepticism, spirituality.
1.
jmcrist | December 16, 2007 at 12:23 am
Perhaps I misunderstood your post. But as a Christian, I just want to put forth the way I see it: God is good, and He’s good because it’s His nature to be good. God cannot do anything that is not in accord with His nature. Therefore, God cannot do evil.
Just because there are some things God cannot do, such as an evil act, or a contradiction, such as create a square circle, this does not imply that He is not omnipotent. He can still have infinite power and authority. That’s all omnipotent means.
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on these things.
-Michael
2.
salient | December 16, 2007 at 12:37 am
Good grief, Michael.
3.
Thinking Ape | December 16, 2007 at 1:10 am
jmchrist,
what about 1 Samuel 18:10 and Judges 9:22-23 when Yahweh sends an evil spirit to Saul and between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem?
I’m not really interested in the philosophical aspect of this debate because the issue of God’s omnipotence has never convinced me either way. The fact of the matter is, however, that the Yahwist’s god is not omnipotent nor omnibenevolent. However, the distant God the Father of Christianity can be said since he really has no part in Christian’s lives (especially in America where “Jesus Saves” and the “Holy Spirit Lives” reigns supreme in the Tritheism).
4.
jim allen | December 16, 2007 at 1:41 am
Let me disclaim that I am a Christian, AND I find your observations to be valid comments and difficulties that the concept of GOD provides in a honest discussion, between the believer and non believer.
1) The scripture you refer to you are implying that GOD is evil because the “Spirits” are evil.
Let me ask you this:
If God has the power and desire to stop evil and suffering at 12:00 what would happen at 12:01? Why hasn’t he stopped it? What would be the implications?
I think that it would not take to long to find more examples where there are more specific areas where apparent evil is being directed from God. One that stands out in my mind is the “Noahs Arc” story…… In my mind this raises more QUESTIONS.
Good and Evil
Evil does not exist by itself, because it cannot exist apart from Good. For example, rot can exist in a tree only as long as the tree exists. There is no such thing as perfect rottenness. A rusting care and decaying carcass illustrate the same point. Evil exists as a corruption of some good thing, it does not have essence by itself.
Randomly
jim
5.
Thinking Ape | December 16, 2007 at 1:57 am
jim allen,
I am assuming that your response was directed at my comment due to the passages. In which case I must clarify that I did not mean to insinuate that because of the “spirits” that were send by God necessitate that God is evil. The Bible itself states that God is the author of both Good and Evil:
Philosophically speaking, God cannot have the power to stop suffering without taking away free will (which is why I don’t find the argument convincing). Suffering is not an entity in itself, just as pain is not - it is a relative term. Evil, likewise, despite the “advances” of medieval Christian theology, is not an entity either, even in Christian scripture (and especially not in the Jewish Tanakh).
This, of course, all leads me back to something I posted long ago - what about heaven? If, as you say,
, will there then be no good in heaven since there is no evil or vice versa? Or will we be stripped of our free will?
6.
thewordofme | December 16, 2007 at 3:03 am
Regarding the omnipotence of God, consider this:
Judges1:19
And the Lord was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Darn those pesky engineers. They are not supposed to make “God Defeating Machines.”
7.
JustCan't | December 16, 2007 at 3:05 am
Thinking Ape…..Amen brother! You can’t quote a specific part of the bible to justify your apologetics and then leave out the parts that completely contradict it, and in a definitive language to boot.
Thanks for keeping it “real”, we need more thinking apes in this world. A lot more.
-C
8.
kramii | December 16, 2007 at 3:57 am
bry0000000:
Thanks for the post. If nothing else, it has piqued my interest. The thing is, however: I really don’t think your post makes any sense at all. Perhaps I just misunderstand it.
As I read it, you view the statements “God is omnipotent” and “God can do only good” as contradictory, because an omnipotent being should be able to do evil?
If so, this is sheer nonsense.
What is omnipotence?. It is the power to determine the ultimate outcome of any process. By definition, there can only be one omnipotent entity in the universe: God.
So, what is Goodness? According to the Christian definition, it is fundamentally “doing that which God desires”. Vitally, goodness is *not* just being “nice”, by which I mean that human morals have little to do with it. Of course, Christians view human “niceness” as something that is sometimes compatible with God’s desires. On the other hand, human morals and God’s desires are, at times, absolutely and completely different. According to the Christain definition, then, God cannot do evil - not because he lacks capability - but because Goodness = Godness. From a Christian POV, God *is* good. This means that he is neither the subject of goodness, not beyond goodness.
What it all boils down to is this: Ultimately, omnipotence and goodness are actually two different words for the same thing. A god who does evil is no longer omnipotent, and is not God. And of “God” is not God, there is not goodness, no potency.
I’ll put this another way: The reason that God cannot make certain choices is because the choice itself becomes meaningless once made.
Another example of something that God cannot do is that he cannot choose not to exist. Why? Because God is the ground of all being, the source of all existence. Without God, there is not existence nor non-existence, no being nor unbeing. The choice becomes meaningless, for there is no nothing to choose.
9.
jmcrist | December 16, 2007 at 4:19 am
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7
“Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?” Amos 3:6
While we can get into the original Hebrew, I just want to point out that most versions do not translate into “evil” here. This is a rarity.
Second of all, you’ve made the same mistake with Lamentations 3:38, and another one: you’ve taken it out of context. Read verses 30 - 40, and you’ll see that the disaster spoken of is punishment of sins. God says verse 33 that He does not willingly afflict people, also.
The Judges 1:19 isn’t understood correctly either, mainly due to poor translation. It should read “The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they [Judah] were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots.”
10.
Anonymous | December 16, 2007 at 4:32 am
God is his essence. If God is good, then he is totally good and there is no room for evil. If God is evil, then he is totally evil. There is no division or contradiction in God. How can God be perfect if there is division in God. Evil is a result of our choices and God chooses to still step into an evil world to redeem it through his infinite goodness. There was no evil in God’s actions when he was on earth in and through Jesus Christ.
11.
bry0000000 | December 16, 2007 at 5:37 am
12.
bry0000000 | December 16, 2007 at 5:38 am
I still don’t know how to use the blockquote function
Quoted Text for comment above: “God says verse 33 that He does not willingly afflict people, also.”
13.
Koji Oe | December 16, 2007 at 6:48 am
God exists. God doesn’t exist. Why are we wasting precious energy on things that we humans probably will never know?
Who cares.
14.
LeoPardus | December 16, 2007 at 11:35 am
I like the logic twisting that this inspires.
This relates well to a post I put in recently. Hope I make this link function work right.
15.
LeoPardus | December 16, 2007 at 11:36 am
Looks like I didn’t. Rats.
http://de-conversion.com/2007/11/05/reasons-why-i-can-no-longer-believe-1-god-is-we-know-not-what/
16.
OneSmallStep | December 16, 2007 at 11:59 am
Then this would be a rather dangerous idea of what “good” is, and it would be based on an assumption that God is always good and cannot do evil. How would you even go about defining what good is? We could end up in a position that stopping a murder is not good, because it’s not what God desires at that time.
17.
onemorecup | December 16, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Dear bry00000,
Response: Well, it is a good idea to put your biases right up front! Suggestion: Come to a working definition of ‘religion’. Depending on that outcome one can make a reasoned understanding that all religions are man-made.
Response: Goodness sakes! Please, when writing it is often a courtesy to apply the same standards to both. Insofar as not applying like standards to both is nothing but conjecture at best and terrible form at worst.
It seems as though I have been writing about this for years now; where artisans of language allege they know the hierarchy of God’s conventions, twist various notions (and I think potions as well) and come up with this: ‘Ah-ha!’ moment where they think the Christian God contradicts himself.
However, as poorly as this notion is designed, I will save real, scholastic and academic argument, for those who wish to see the issues on the same level playing field. (Btw, you don’t happen to be in Boise, ID?)
Response: Here again, an assumption is made about the character of God; moreover, this alleged character is again based on man-made assumptions. In addition, a working relationship of ‘evil’ might serve well in this postulate, vis-a-vie what may be evil to one, may not be evil to another.
This is getting worse that a Philosophy 101 course; furthermore, I’m not sure it even qualifies for ‘bad’ debate. Who is putting the qualifiers on God? Who may I ask it putting the limits on God? It seems to me that you are; moreover, if not you, then the evidence you are trying to submit is exactly the same bias used in the beginning of this piece.
Well I hope you’ve been able to convince yourself; I say this inasmuch as nothing, nothing that has been written here, whatsoever remotely convinces me of anything. Unless of course we can, and are allowed to say ‘good try’ re-read Nietzsche, and ad nauseaum.
Onemorecup
18.
meg | December 16, 2007 at 6:38 pm
om shanti
19.
meatish | December 16, 2007 at 8:24 pm
I agree with the above post that most of your “contradictions” have to do more with semantics than actually considering the nature of god. It is just impossible to put human constraints like this on an infinite god. Especially trying to use human terms such as “acts” or “will” or even the all-inclusive verb “do”.
You cannot make assumptions about the nature of God, and then use those arbitrary assumptions in a self-contained argument.
“Debating” god is pointless, as there is no evidence nor any philosophical constraint which can be applied to a God.
However, debating the origin of man, such as the FALSE and sadly misguided theory of Darwinian evolution, has applicable empirical evidence, and is therefore valid.
20.
The Barefoot Bum | December 16, 2007 at 9:21 pm
It is just impossible to put human constraints like this on an infinite god. Especially trying to use human terms such as “acts” or “will” or even the all-inclusive verb “do”.
You cannot make assumptions about the nature of God, and then use those arbitrary assumptions in a self-contained argument.
Indeed. The concept of “god” is completely meaningless.
However, debating the origin of man, such as the FALSE and sadly misguided theory of Darwinian evolution, has applicable empirical evidence, and is therefore valid.
Go talk to Shalini. She’ll school you good and hard.
21.
jmcrist | December 16, 2007 at 11:51 pm
OneSmallStep:
The word “ra” can have many meanings, just as many other Hebrew words, such as shalom, for example - which can me peace, well-being, contentment, integrity, etc.
The meaning of the word is determined by the context it falls in.
You said: “But the events occuring are still called “bad.” They aren’t seen as good things, and so God seems to be capable of doing “not good” things. If the bad things are ultimately good in the end, then doesn’t “bad” lose its meaning?”
When we speak of God not doing “evil,” we’re speaking in moral terms. We’re saying that God cannot do anything morally evil.
Do you see what I mean? Do you see the difference in saying “Man, that was bad,” or “Man, that was evil!”
The first could apply to the aroma of a nasty fart, but the second could only apply to something morally wrong, such as Hitler’s extermination of the Jews.
You said: But wouldn’t this imply that the Lord being with Judah wasn’t enough to overcome the iron chariots?
No, I don’t think so. It only implies that God didn’t want them to win the battle.
22.
Jersey | December 17, 2007 at 12:52 am
If God is only purely good and not evil, than how can Satan, who is only purely evil, exist?
Plus, Isaiah speaks that God is not the author of evil, but how can any of his creatures, angels and demons included, turn to evil?
Plus, how can Jesus speak that Satan can only speak lies, but clearly in Job Satan is not speaking lies, but asking God for tests of temptation…how can that be considered a lie?
23.
jmcrist | December 17, 2007 at 1:45 am
Jersey:
You said: “If God is only purely good and not evil, than how can Satan, who is only purely evil, exist?
Plus, Isaiah speaks that God is not the author of evil, but how can any of his creatures, angels and demons included, turn to evil?”
God gave us and the angels free will. This gives us the option to choose (would you want it otherwise?), and the capacity to do evil. If someone in their free will decides to murder another, does that mean God is responsible for the action? I don’t think so.
Satan was an angel who had free will. He chose to do evil.
How does it follow that because evil exists, God is not infinitely good?
You said: “Plus, how can Jesus speak that Satan can only speak lies, but clearly in Job Satan is not speaking lies, but asking God for tests of temptation…how can that be considered a lie?”
Where does Jesus say that Satan can only speak lies? Can you please cite the verse on this one?
24.
OneSmallStep | December 17, 2007 at 2:03 am
Jim,
I know — that’s why I asked if this was where you were going.
But then God can still do evil. Perhaps not moral evil, but clearly evil goes beyond just morals, or it wouldn’t need that qualifier in explaining the type of evil God can and cannot do. So then God can do natural evil. Which is still evil.
No, I don’t think so. It only implies that God didn’t want them to win the battle.
Then why not say that? Why give the impression that it was the iron chariots that were responsible for the loss? Why would God even bother being with them, if they weren’t supposed to win?
I don’t know the exact verse, but I believe this is from the gospel of John, in Jesus referring to Satan as a liar and the father of lies.
I honestly think this depends, because you were created with that free will. And in order to have free will, or the option of choosing, both options must hold equal attraction. And the only way to find both attractive is to be created with the ability to be attracted by evil. So I believe the idea behind this is that an infinitely good God cannot create any creature with the capaiblity of committing evil.
25.
Thinking Ape | December 17, 2007 at 3:28 am
Here is the entire problem - and it has nothing to do with semantic or even with philosophy: Yahweh is not God the Father. Simple as thought. The Yahweh of the majority of the Tanakh never was nor ever will be reconciled with the distant pseudo-philosophical Greek Idealist notion of “God.” You can sit around for two thousand years trying to justify this, but any normative or even heretical Jew will tell you it CANNOT BE DONE! Yahweh got down and dirty in the opening chapters of the original Bible. He had cups of tea with the patriarchs and walked on the mountains. As we get closer to the time of Jesus, towards the Book of Daniel (a major prophet for Christians, a totally insignificant “prophet” for Jews) Yahweh becomes an elderly giant as the “Ancient of Days.”
Harold Bloom noted it best: the more powerful God gets, the more distant he is - so distant by Daniel’s time, that a new man-god was needed.
As for the attempt to repudiate my verses as “out-of-context,” I only reply in telling you to look closer at who your Yahweh is. He is a god who plays games with people’s lives, whether deserved or not. Any equation of God=Love or God=Love will be circular, since this god has no standard of love or goodness. Until Daniel, he is wildly unpredictable and madly jealous and escapes any attempt of theologizing. Afterwards, he is impotent and eventually succumbs all significance to Jesus and the Holy Spirit (especially in America).
…and if you continue to believe that God is in control of history and still cares one iota for his previous “Chosen people” - then you would have to believe that the Jews deserved punishment from God so much that 6 million should be slaughtered, which is exactly what many Jews think Christians believe since people like jmchrist have to explain certain evils, such as in comment 9 (the same comment which he/she attempts to change around scripture solely because it doesn’t work for him/her - just like how Christians decided to put Malachi at the end of the Bible instead of II Chronicles).
26.
kramii | December 17, 2007 at 6:35 am
OneSmallStep:
In #8 I wrote:
According to the Christian definition, it is fundamentally “doing that which God desires
In #16 you replied:
Then this would be a rather dangerous idea of what “good” is,
Agreed. It *is* a dangerous definition.
No, it is not. It is an assumption that human definitions of good and evil are inadequate to desctibe God. It is also an assertion that, form a Xian POV, “God is good” is a tautology rather than an evaluation of God’s moral character in human terms. We define the word “good” in a special way. When a Christian says that “God is good”, we certainly don’t mean that we everything He does is moral by human standards. Quite the contrary. We Xians agree that God does things that people don’t agree with. (Perhaps this is why we Xians find so much comfort in the Psalms. Like the authors of the Psalms, we take issue with God over all kinds of things - but ultimately, we recognise that accepting His will is in out best interests).
A very good question. Ultimately, we can’t - only God can. We can only know Good to the extent that we know God. We can only know God to the extent that He chooses to reveal himself.
Logically, I would accept this. I would clarify that logic by substituting “if” for “because”.
27.
OneSmallStep | December 17, 2007 at 7:02 am
Kramii,
And if those human definitions are based on Judeo-Christian values? Such as don’t kill, be kind to one’s neighbor, and so forth? How would you be able to find anything good or evil in the world? How would the Inquisition, or the Holocaust, be considered a moral evil, if it’s what God desired to happen? The very notions of good/evil become entirely subjective. All you have to describe this are human ideas of what good and evil is. As it is, they can’t be inadequate, or we couldn’t have a clear definition of what the fruit of the Spirit is, or how we would know the followers of Jesus.
Based on what? If you can’t evaluate God’s character on any sort of good/evil idea, then how can you even know you’re following a good God? You wouldn’t even be able to determine what God’s will is, because you can’t use notions of good/evil. If God appeared and ordered you to kill someone, how could you know that the order does not come from God? It can’t even be said that one can use the Bible to evaluate this, because the Bible can be used to justify a lot of horrendous positions.
28.
kramii | December 17, 2007 at 8:30 am
OneSmallStep:
In #26 I wrote:
In #27 you replied:
Some human ways of understanding Good and Evil are closer to God’s understanding than others. For a Christian, Judeo-Christian values are a good starting point. Nevertheless, they are still an interptetation of God’s intentions. Ultimately, people the flaws in our human nature get in the way of a full and accurate interpretation of God’s will. They are, therefore, inadequate. Useful, but not complete.
On reflection, when we Xians say that “God is good”, we are saying two things. (1) That true “Goodness” and true “Godness” are the same thing, and that (2) God’s goodness is broadly Judeo-Christian.
In (2), we recognise that we really don’t understand Goodness properly, but are making an approximation based on inadequate understanding.
My original point is that the statement “God is good” and “God is omnipotent” are the same thing is based on (1). Your insightful question has made me realise that there is more to it than that.
I also said:
You replied:
Experience. Revelation. Faith. Because we have spent time with Him and know Him. Because I have (at times) done what He has told me to do, and I saw the results.
I believe my parents had my best interests at heart when they disciplined me, sent me to school, denied me too many sweets, taught me to be polite, got my hair cut, gave me pocket money, etc. Why? Because I know then. I spent time with them. I listened to their reasons. I observed the results of acting on their commands.
It is much the same with God.
Because I define Good = God.
We can use notions of good and evil, but recognise that these notions are incomplete and subject to revision.
When I drive to a city I have never been to before, I set off in the right general direction and deal with the details en route. When I seek to obey God, I start off with what I do understand, and let Him adjust my understanding on the way.
Because I am not stupid! (Well, not that stupid, anyway).
Some people mis-read road maps and end up lost. Does that make maps useless? No. But I agree that you need more than a map. You need experience of map-reading, experience of interpreting the road. Perhaps even a guide. The same goes for the Bible.
29.
jmcrist | December 17, 2007 at 11:45 am
OneSmallStep:
You said: “I know — that’s why I asked if this was where you were going.”
If you knew beforehand that this argument doesn’t work, then why were you trying to use it? These are not the actions of one who sincerely seeks truth, but of one who only wants to win arguments.
You said: “But then God can still do evil. Perhaps not moral evil, but clearly evil goes beyond just morals, or it wouldn’t need that qualifier in explaining the type of evil God can and cannot do. So then God can do natural evil. Which is still evil.”
Evil is a moral word. If morality does not exist, then evil cannot exist either. You cannot say that God cannot do moral evil and still do evil. That doesn’t make any sense.
You said: “Then why not say that? Why give the impression that it was the iron chariots that were responsible for the loss? Why would God even bother being with them, if they weren’t supposed to win?”
I don’t know.
You said: “I don’t know the exact verse, but I believe this is from the gospel of John, in Jesus referring to Satan as a liar and the father of lies.”
Yes, John does say that Satan is the father of lies. But John does not say that Satan can “only” tell lies. I mean, if you haven’t read yourself in the Gospels that Satan can “only” tell lies, why were you saying that?
A lot of people think the Bible is a crock because they’ve never looked into it - they’ve never read it themselves. They’ve only read what other people say about it.
“I honestly think this depends, because you were created with that free will. And in order to have free will, or the option of choosing, both options must hold equal attraction. And the only way to find both attractive is to be created with the ability to be attracted by evil. So I believe the idea behind this is that an infinitely good God cannot create any creature with the capability of committing evil.”
I’m not sure I understand the above paragraph. What do you mean? Can you spell it out a little more for me?
Thanks!
30.
saintlewis | December 17, 2007 at 11:59 am
I would simply say that ‘good’ is defined by God’s nature and desires - evil, is the lack of God’s explicit, overt will taking place, not so much a thing in and of itself, as the lack of a thing (like cold is the lack of heat). As such, there is not need for a ‘evil’ whatsoever - it is only the LACK of a thing - and there’s no need to believe in a ‘good’ above that of God, as it is simply an expression of God.
31.
The Barefoot Bum | December 17, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I would simply say that ‘good’ is defined by God’s nature and desires - evil, is the lack of God’s explicit, overt will taking place, not so much a thing in and of itself, as the lack of a thing (like cold is the lack of heat).
This doesn’t make sense on two levels.
First, we have no way of directly knowing God’s nature and desires. The definition doesn’t help me at all in determining precisely what actually is good or bad. We disagree just as much — if not more — over what God’s nature and desires actually are as we do over what is actually good or bad.
Second, the metaphor of evil as a lack of good — irrespective of a specific theistic understanding — is so drastically counter-intuitive that it demands more than simple assertion. In what sense is the rape and murder of a child a lack of anything? In what sense is the death of hundreds of thousand people in a tsunami a lack?
That there is some evil that does appear to be a lack (indifference to others’ suffering, lack of compassion), but the notion that all evil can be shoehorned into this paradigm does not seem justifiable. One has to have more than a lack of compassion to rape and murder a child: One has to have the presence of the desire to do so. And I can’t for the life of me imagine what is specifically lacking from the presence of a tsunami. (Presumably, no one would be so vacuous as to start discussing lack as the absence of an absence.)
It really appears like the “evil is lack of good” construction exists for one and only one reason: To excuse god from culpability for the presence of evil. It seems to me that there are only two reasonable paths for the believers to take: The trivial assertion that “what happens, happens”, or the notion that everything that happens — including child murder and tsunamis — should be considered “good” and praised in every sense, and never condemned in any sense. If it happened, it must be “god’s will”, it must therefore be good, and if we feel bad about it, our feelings are irrational.
32.
saintlewis | December 17, 2007 at 2:54 pm
If Christianity IS a true, revealed religion, however, then God has TOLD us His nature and His desires, which is thus how we kno what ‘good’ is in any objective sense. In fact, apart from a divine concept of good, coming from the top, any concept of good can be no more than a largely agreed upon subjective idea, which can change and shift at the whim of the population, or those in power.
33.
saintlewis | December 17, 2007 at 3:00 pm
p.s. - Barefoot…
your 3rd paragraph could be refuted from so many angles that I don’t know where to begin…
Some ‘evangelical’ Christians would disagree with your premise that God is culpable for the presence of evil whatsoever, as it surprised Him just as it shocks you - they’re called ‘Openness Theologians’.
Others, believe they see good evidence in the Scriptures for a dual-will in God, one that desires one good, but for purposes we can’t always see or understand, allows certain ‘evils’ for a - down the road - ‘greater good’, and thus even ‘evil’ can be used ‘for good’. Even then, they would disagree that in those cases that evil IS good in those cases, even though in some secondary way, it is in God’s ‘permissive’ will.
And there, of course, is also a good number of other effective responses - middle knowledge, & etc - any of which make your case unapplicable.
34.
saintlewis | December 17, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Lastly, is - per your worldview - the death of many in a Tsumani actually ‘evil’? If so, why and how?
I don’t see it as EVIL, necessarily - just sad. If I were still a non-believer, however, I would perceive it as only sad, and ‘natural’.
35.
The Barefoot Bum | December 17, 2007 at 3:36 pm
If Christianity IS a true, revealed religion…
That’s a mighty big “if” there, pardner, and everything else depends on the answer. Prove that Christianity really is a true, revealed religion and we can go from there.
your 3rd paragraph could be refuted from so many angles that I don’t know where to begin…
Typical Christian bullshit. If you can refute my comments, do so. If you can’t, have a nice hot cup of STFU.
Some ‘evangelical’ Christians would disagree with your premise that God is culpable for the presence of evil whatsoever, as it surprised Him just as it shocks you - they’re called ‘Openness Theologians’.
That an omniscient deity could in any way be “surprised” would seem to do such violence to the ordinary meaning of “surprise” that one must suspect anyone proffering that line of reason of intentional, egregious bullshit.
[I]s - per your worldview - the death of many in a Tsumani actually ‘evil’?
Yes. Why shouldn’t it be? I’m an ordinary person, and I do in fact have empathy and concern for the well-being of other people. Their deaths are a tragedy. The loss and suffering of the survivors is a tragedy. It is evil in the sense that it is bad: had I the power to prevent the death and suffering the tsunami caused, I would have done so without hesitation.
(Of course, am simply an ordinary person and I do not have such power; one expects just a little more, however, from a deity whose followers claim is not only very powerful but all powerful, capable of not only creating but also suspending at will the laws of physics.)
To a naturalist, everything is natural, good and evil, happiness and suffering. Natural describes what is, not what we prefer or what we think should be.
36.
The Barefoot Bum | December 17, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Lastly is — per your worldview — the rape, torture and murder of a child actually ‘evil’? I mean, the child is going to heaven, and will escape perhaps decades of worldly suffering.
Was the rape and murder of women and children, the human sacrifice, the wars of aggression and conquest, the genocide of whole peoples, as described in the Bible actually good? Are rape and murder bad only when they is not specifically commanded by God? In other words, is it the action or the lack of authorization that is evil? Was Hitler wrong only because he was not acting on the orders of God?
These are not idle, hypothetical speculations: I’m referring specifically to actions clearly described in the Bible with simple, declarative language.
37.
The Barefoot Bum | December 17, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Oops… “Are rape and murder bad only when they are not specifically commanded by God?”
38.
OneSmallStep | December 17, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Jim,
I never said the argument doesn’t work. I brought it up to see if you were referring to the fact that ‘ra’ is used in both the tree of good/evil, and in the Isaiah verse as well. If so, I wasn’t going to go in that direction, because we’ve already made up our minds, and are familiar with the meaning of the word.
Except you qualified evil with God cannot be morally evil. If evil by default only refers to morality, then why explain the type of evil?
<blockquote? I mean, if you haven’t read yourself in the Gospels that Satan can “only” tell lies, why were you saying that?
I’m not sure if this was directed at me, but I wasn’t saying that, I was elaborating on what another blogger said, in terms of the statement Satan can tell only lies. For the record, I have read the Bible. Several times. And if you say that Satan is a liar, that can lead people into thinking that Satan only tells lies.
I’ll try. You say that God has given us free will, which is the ability to choose. This choice involves whether one decides for good or evil. However — say you are making a choice between pumpkin pie and apple pie. The apple pie holds no appeal to you, so you go with pumpkin. To me, if you didn’t want the apple pie, then you didn’t really make a choice, because in your mind, the apple pie wasn’t even an option.
If we apply this to good and evil, then in order to make a choice between the two, both must be appealing options. Evil must hold some sort of attraction, and the only way for evil to be attractive to us, to offer itself as something we might want to choose is for us to be designed to find evil appealing. So an infinitely good God would have created us to find evil appealing. Which means there is an abscence of “good.”
39.
jmcrist | December 17, 2007 at 10:13 pm
OneSmallStep:
Concerning evil, please consider this. If morality did not exist, then God couldn’t really do anything evil, could he? This is because if morality doesn’t exist, good and evil cease to exist. God might do some things that people just don’t like, but we could never say that what He was doing was actually immoral (or evil).
Evil is a moral term. When we say that God cannot do anything evil, we’re speaking of some kind of moral action that is not good!
My point in all this was that natural disasters and things that bring people death and suffering can still happen, and not somehow be inconsistent with the fact that God is good. Look, I don’t like suffering and death anymore than anyone else. And God’s purpose in all of this is to bring His kingdom on earth - the end of all sin, suffering, and death.
The argument (perhaps it was not yours) doesn’t work. Do you see what I’m saying?
You said: “I’ll try. You say that God has given us free will, which is the ability to choose. This choice involves whether one decides for good or evil. However — say you are making a choice between pumpkin pie and apple pie. The apple pie holds no appeal to you, so you go with pumpkin. To me, if you didn’t want the apple pie, then you didn’t really make a choice, because in your mind, the apple pie wasn’t even an option.
If we apply this to good and evil, then in order to make a choice between the two, both must be appealing options. Evil must hold some sort of attraction, and the only way for evil to be attractive to us, to offer itself as something we might want to choose is for us to be designed to find evil appealing. So an infinitely good God would have created us to find evil appealing. Which means there is an abscence of “good.”
First of all, I’m not sure I’m catching your drift on the whole freewill thing. I understood the paragraph, but I’m confused as to your view. Do you believe that you have free will?
Secondly, if you read the accounts of Genesis, Eve was tricked, or deceived into sinning. After that, our nature was corrupted, and fallen, and our desires were twisted and we became immoral creatures.
The deceit still continues today today. Do you not find it desirable to get completely smashed even though you know it damages your liver, impairs your judgment, and can destroy your relationships with those you love? Do you not find it easy to be enticed by your warped sexual lusts even though it might lead you into adultery, getting someone you don’t know pregnant, or contracting some kind of disease? I could go on and on with this.
We all know the good we ought to do and fail to do it. We rationalize and justify our sin - even though we know we oughtn’t.
There definitely is an absence of good in humanity - but it’s not God’s fault.
40.
Thinking Ape | December 17, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Yet, if it was God’s fault, would you be capable of recognizing it?
The Mysterious Stranger
41.
Jersey | December 17, 2007 at 11:05 pm
jmcrist,
Okay, so I have misquoted John 8:44 (NIV):
44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
But I got a question for you…how is it that God exists, but there are so many versions of God? Why cannot God stand up for himself and tell us himself? I see his speaks from the skies in Matthew when he talks at the time of Jesus of Nazareth’s birth, and when he gets baptized by John in River Jordan…how come he hasn’t done such since, so that the whole world can here him and finally be justified of his existence? Or would he rather not so that man can simply believe, rather than accept?
I don’t mean to attack anything as well, but still, your defense on how God, creator of only good, could allow evil to exist, is poor. Either god is not purely benevolent (am I using the definition correctly here?), or he doesn’t exist. Or something in between. I don’t play only-black-and-white here. There is at least another 254 shades of grey somewhere in there.
42.
The Barefoot Bum | December 17, 2007 at 11:08 pm
To me, if you didn’t want the apple pie, then you didn’t really make a choice, because in your mind, the apple pie wasn’t even an option.
I don’t think this argument really works. I think this construction of choice is too limited, especially regarding moral choice. Should we say of a person who never much wanted to refrain from killing that he didn’t have a “choice”? Seems we would have to abandon the idea of choice as a morally relevant factor.
And, in the end, something causes a particular choice. In what sense is the counterfactual, “She could have chosen differently,” meaningful without the proviso, “had she wanted to”.
I think it’s much more general to define “choice” as having a causal history sensitively dependent on “intentional” brain states (with additional provisos, perhaps relating to foreseeability).
In any event, the whole Problem of Evil is really a disconnection between our own intuitive notions of good and bad, and the way the world actually works. Intuitively, most people would affirm at least that suffering is bad. Suffering is at times unavoidable, at least by us, and sometimes not the result of any intention, but it is still bad.
We would not, for instance, say to a person who got cancer by sheer bad luck that their suffering and sickness wasn’t bad. We can’t blame anyone, we can’t punish anyone because no intentional agent caused the cancer.
But this whole notion of “accidental” suffering goes out the window when we consider an omnipotent god. In this case, everything that happens is the result of an intentional, future-seeing entity. In fact, the counterfactual with the proviso, “He could have done differently had He wanted to,” is true by definition.
(And this is just an idealized god. It has nothing to do with the violent, psychopathic character of Yahweh in the anthology of ancient horror fiction known as the Christian Bible.)
43.
jmcrist | December 18, 2007 at 12:39 am
Jersey,
You said: “But I got a question for you…how is it that God exists, but there are so many versions of God? Why cannot God stand up for himself and tell us himself? I see his speaks from the skies in Matthew when he talks at the time of Jesus of Nazareth’s birth, and when he gets baptized by John in River Jordan…how come he hasn’t done such since, so that the whole world can here him and finally be justified of his existence? Or would he rather not so that man can simply believe, rather than accept?”
You know, I don’t think I have an answer that will satisfy you on this. But, if you sincerely want to know, you can ask Him like I did. Just say, “Look, God, if you’re out there, and this whole Christianity thing is right - I need you to show me, because I don’t see it.”
I’m not trying to use this as a cop-out. If you want my explanation I can give it, I just don’t think you’ll buy it so I figured I shouldn’t bother.
You said: “I don’t mean to attack anything as well, but still, your defense on how God, creator of only good, could allow evil to exist, is poor. Either god is not purely benevolent (am I using the definition correctly here?), or he doesn’t exist. Or something in between. I don’t play only-black-and-white here. There is at least another 254 shades of grey somewhere in there.”
I see you’re frustration with this, but you’ve got to realize, we’re the ones who shipwrecked the world - not God.
God wants a relationship with us. He wants us to trust Him, and love Him. If one of us decides we don’t want to, what’s God to do? “Make us” love Him? No! That’s not love!
Instead, He says “Fine, have it your way. See if it’s better.” And then off we run to suffering…
I mean, think about it. What sin in the Bible doesn’t lead to pain? Stealing, lying, adultery, greed - all of these things are a prison for ourselves. God doesn’t want us in the prison (and He’s provided a way out), but if that’s what we insist what is He supposed to do? Really?
How do you feel about it?
44.
OneSmallStep | December 18, 2007 at 7:10 am
Barefoot Bum,
We may be looking at this differently, but if we have someone who likes to kill, don’t we say there were psychological problems, then? Hence the whole “plea from insanity,” because the person wasn’t capable of thinking in a “normal fashion.” Plus, that would be allowing the killer to set his own moral code, and then excusing him by it.
Jim,
And that’s fine, I’m just going back to the fact that if this is how evil were defined, then saying “God cannot be morally evil” shouldn’t be necessary. You should just be able to say “God cannot do evil.” That’s what I’m getting stuck on: that evil requires that constraint, in order to argue that God is not evil.
If you cause a natural disaster that you know will bring pain and suffering, then you have done an evil act, though. We define evil as causing pain and suffering. It doesn’t matter what the intentions were — we don’t define the outcome based on intentions. I could have every intention not to hit someone with my car, but if I do, I’m not punished based on intentions, I’m punished based on the results.
Yes, but I’m not saying we don’t. I’m saying that it’s hard to say that God did not create us with evil, since to create us with free will would necessarily entail creating us to be attracted to evil.
But only because she found eating the tree a viable option — she was created to find that attractive. She was created with the ability to want to sin, to find what the serpent said apealing. Had she been created wholly good, she would not have eaten from the tree in the first place. Sin is the desire to go against God. Even she had decided not to eat from the tree, she still would’ve had the desire to eat from the tree. Who “installed” that desire in her?
No — I don’t drink. I never have.
No to this as well. I don’t find casual sex attractive.
(I do realize what you’re saying with this, in the basic sense. You don’t need to provide other examples).
45.
Anonymous | December 18, 2007 at 9:29 am
Barefoot…
You assume that your evolved mind can lead you to grasp truth, rather than simply ‘knowledge’ that gives you the evolutionary hand-up and enables you to survive. That is one point to begin at - an unprovable assumption, that most surely seems entirely reasonable to you, but is ultimately based on circular reasoning just as much as the next fellow’s theory. It is not different than beginning with the premise that a divine being exists, and trusting that He’s revealed Himself in history, which is documented in a text. This, too, seems entirely rational to me, and withing my world-view the pieces come together and make good sense.
Apparently what is a huge leap for you, isn’t for me, and for a great many others. I see God everywhere - His existence seems obvious. Even as one who studies science, I recognize that science is just one way of knowing, and scientific ‘facts’ (there’s a troublesome word, though I’m sure they do exist - the question is whether we can objectively recognize one) take on a very different meaning within different worldviews, and sadly, if God exists, He’s the only true objective observer. The rest of us as just trying to make the best sense out of things that we can.
So, looking at all the worldviews out there, and scanning over all of the beliefs and unbeliefs available, and looking at what I think I know about history, myself, and others - and reviewing the experiences I’ve had, and what I’ve seen ….no, Christianity being true, revealed religion doesn’t seem all that outlandish to me: not any more of a huge “if” than the phrase “If how my brain interprets the world my senses experiences actually corresponds to reality”. Everyone has to stand somewhere, and some of us recognize our circular reasoning, and some of us do not.
46.
amy | December 18, 2007 at 10:04 am
Okay. I’m coming late into the conversation, many excellent points have already been made, and I don’t necessarily consider myself to have the same high-level thinking/argument/writing abilities as most of the regular posters here, but several comments have gotten my attention and I feel the need to write some responses, so bear with me.
1. “Evil exists as a corruption of some good thing, it does not have essence by itself.” — Jim, from post #3
I have heard this time and again as an argument from Christians. Couldn’t good be said to be a “perfection of some bad thing?” Something else I don’t understand about the Christian understanding of free will and God as creator of only good things: How could Eve choose to do evil if evil didn’t exist? If something exists as a choice, it exists. To borrow someone else’s analogy (sorry, don’t remember whose), I can’t choose between apple pie and blikfjla pie, because blikfjla pie doesn’t exist. If God created everything that exists, and evil exists, then God created evil. Otherwise choices between good and evil wouldn’t be possible.
2. “Some human ways of understanding Good and Evil are closer to God’s understanding than others.”
–kramii, from post #28
I often hear two different arguments about God from Christians, and the above touches on them. The first argument is that there is no way our finite minds can understand God. The other is that Christians do in fact understand God, and are better able than people from other religions at determining what God wants or does not want. So which is it? And why do so many different varieties of Christianity exist if it’s so clear what God wants of us?
3. “If God appeared and ordered you to kill someone, how could you know that the order does not come from God?” (onesmallstep, quoted by kramii in post #2
“Because I am not stupid! (Well, not that stupid, anyway).”
– kramii, from post #28
So, I guess Abraham was stupid, then, for going along with the whole sacrifice-his-son thing. Well, at least we agree on that.
4. “A lot of people think the Bible is a crock because they’ve never looked into it - they’ve never read it themselves. They’ve only read what other people say about it.” — jmchrist, post#29
jmchrist, if you’ve spent any time here at all, you would know that most (if not all) of the regular contributors here are former Christians, who have spent much time poring over the Bible. That argument isn’t really going to fly here.
5. “If Christianity IS a true, revealed religion, however, then God has TOLD us His nature and His desires, which is thus how we kno what ‘good’ is in any objective sense.” — saintlewis, post #32
Yes, like “do not murder.” However, the God of the Bible seems to have no problem murdering innocent children to make a point (plagues of Egypt). Why is that okay?
47.
jmcrist | December 18, 2007 at 2:53 pm
OneSmallStep,
You said: “And that’s fine, I’m just going back to the fact that if this is how evil were defined, then saying “God cannot be morally evil” shouldn’t be necessary. You should just be able to say “God cannot do evil.” That’s what I’m getting stuck on: that evil requires that constraint, in order to argue that God is not evil.”
The word ‘evil’ only needs the constraint because people don’t use it correctly. I don’t know what’s to blame for this - perhaps it’s the moral decline of western culture, in which moral terms lose value.
You said: “If you cause a natural disaster that you know will bring pain and suffering, then you have done an evil act, though. We define evil as causing pain and suffering. It doesn’t matter what the intentions were — we don’t define the outcome based on intentions.”
I disagree with your definition of evil. Based on this logic, a father punishing his son is committing an immoral act.
You said: “I could have every intention not to hit someone with my car, but if I do, I’m not punished based on intentions, I’m punished based on the results.”
The only reason I wanted to address this separately was to say that in the scenario above, no immoral act takes place - unless of course the wreck was intentional. But,… then maybe intentions do come into play?
You said: “But only because she found eating the tree a viable option — she was created to find that attractive. She was created with the ability to want to sin, to find what the serpent said apealing. Had she been created wholly good, she would not have eaten from the tree in the first place. Sin is the desire to go against God. Even she had decided not to eat from the tree, she still would’ve had the desire to eat from the tree. Who “installed” that desire in her?”
Satan tricked Eve into thinking that eating from the tree was good. The account reads “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.” Eve though it was GOOD for food, PLEASING to the eye, and DESIRABLE for gaining wisdom. Satan tricked her. Eve thought it would actually be a good thing to eat from the tree, not a bad thing - not an evil thing.
The only reason Eve had the capacity for sin was because God gave her free will. I mean, seriously, would you have it any other way? God didn’t design her to love sin, God designed her to be in love with Himself - to have relationship with Him. We’re like two puzzle pieces that fit together, us and God.
But, Satan, being more crafty than the man and at war with God, goes for what will hurt God the most. He deceives us, and tricks us into doing things that hurt God and us and other people. Satan says “This girl, right here, at this party - you two are in love. Who else will you find that likes the same songs, and can talk for hours on the same subject. You’ve only known her for five minutes, but don’t let that bother you - you’re soul mates! What does your heart tell you?” Or Satan says, “Your life really would be much better if you just had one of these CD Players. Too bad you don’t have the money… but you know, this big store will never know if you just took it. You won’t have to feel guilty about putting somebody’s livelihood in jeopardy by doing it either. This store makes MILLIONS a year - no one will feel the impact of just one CD Player.”
My point in the examples was this: I’m sure there are a number of things in your life which you know you oughtn’t do - but have a thousand justifications for them at the slightest accusation. You see? We’ve been tricked into thinking that the things we oughtn’t do we must, and the things we ought do we don’t need to. I’m no exception to this.
48.
Shannon Lewis | December 18, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Amy - this is SaintLewis…
what is wrong for us is not ‘necessarily’ wrong for God, as the SIN inherent in the act when we partake of it is the fact that we make ourselves out to be God. When we kill it is called ‘murder’ because we did not create the person we killed - we do not own them - they are not ours to treat as we will. If God kills a person, it is creator destroying his creation - a painter throwing away his own painting - a musicians choosing to record over his own song. Though it may make us sad when such a thing happens, especially if we particularly like the painting, or the song - is it morally wrong for an artist to do away with his own art? However, if I entered a gallery, and began trashing famous works of art, I would be a terrible criminal - that is, unless I owned it myself, outright.
49.
meatish | December 18, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Wow… this was actually a good, mature discussion until Barefoot Bum started using profanity and childish vitriolic remarks.
That doesn’t win any debates, it just shows your militant bias and therefore shows me that you are incapable of having an open-ended discussion and leaving an open possibility that you could be wrong.
You just hate Christians and want to slander and profane our culture because you are prideful and think yourself above our ‘naive’ world view.
As for another quote:
“But I got a question for you…how is it that God exists, but there are so many versions of God? Why cannot God stand up for himself and tell us himself? I see his speaks from the skies in Matthew when he talks at the time of Jesus of Nazareth’s birth, and when he gets baptized by John in River Jordan…how come he hasn’t done such since, so that the whole world can here him and finally be justified of his existence? Or would he rather not so that man can simply believe, rather than accept?”
God will not show himself definitively to the world because that would remove free will. If you know there is a cop pointing a radar gun at you, you won’t speed will you? Same thing, if you know God is watching and your actions have consequences beyond your mortal life, then you will not act according to your true nature.
I hope that makes sense,
Let’s keep this interesting discussion going guys, but please keep it mature and of course be open-minded and understanding. Thanks to both the atheists and creationists for an interesting read!
50.
Schizm | December 18, 2007 at 3:15 pm
jmChrist, not to mention “Just do it and then ask for forgiveness later” - I’ve fallen into that one more than once.
I am an Agnostic… , but only because I am Pro Life, I dont want to drink, I dont like smoking, and I have ethics very similar to those of Christians.
Do you tink that I have to be Christian to be pro-life, Not smoke, not like pornography, not drink?
I am all of those not because of a Bible, not becasue I am born again, but because I cherish life and am anti-nihilistic. I am a pro-contructinoist. AT the same time, I believe everyone should live out their lives as they want to (with the hard exception on abortion, but I dont want to debate abortion here please)
The problem I have, is that the trinity makes absolute no sense. THe God in teh old testemant ordered Rape, Genocide, Mass Murder, yet says dont klill. The God of the BIble is horrific. He tortures people that dont “choose to love him” or whatever that means. I coudl go on and on.
But yeah.. I dig the virtues of Christianity, I even go to church! There’s prboably a lot of guys like me at church, that think your Jesus is dead, and that he’s been dead, and they shake your hand and smile and go “Praise the Lord!”
Ya see I have morals, but then again, I also like to listen to music some christians say is evil, I like horror films. I hate porn though, I hate a lot of thnigs that christians consider vile. But at the same time I like horror films, I dont think cussing is wrong, and if it doesnt seem reasonable then I dont worrty about it.
So maybe I’m deceived, maybe I’m not. But Satan? Jesus? Resurrection? Bwahahaha that’s REDICULIOUS! At any rate, I continue going to church because, hey, I like a lot of things Christians do. Of course, the superstitions are RETARTED in my opinion.. but yeah.. it could be worse
51.
amy | December 18, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Shannon,
Thanks for responding. I’ll see if I can communicate clearly what I’m thinking here. A painter (or any artist) is human. Humans, according to Christianity, aren’t perfect. So it would make sense that the things humans create aren’t perfect (although I would say we don’t actually create things, we just rearrange the raw materials of earth into new things, whereas God by definition would have created the raw materials, so God = creator, human = re-arranger).
As a writer (the term is being used very loosely here), if I write something, and then decide it is lacking for whatever reason, I might choose to toss it. But God, being perfect, and good, by the Christian definition, would create only good things. So why would God want to destroy “his” creation? Why create a baby and then murder it?
52.
amy | December 18, 2007 at 3:28 pm
“God will not show himself definitively to the world because that would remove free will.” — meatish, post #49
Question: Can people choose to give up their free will? If not, is it really free will? And couldn’t a person choose to say to God, “I willingly give up my free will — please convince me you exist.”?
53.
amy | December 18, 2007 at 3:30 pm
…’cause I’ve tried that and got no convincing from God.
54.
confusedchristian | December 18, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I’ve never understood the notion of free will, neither have I understood the notion of predestination. I believe, that we all find ourselvse to be what our environment has made us to be. Being in the USA, I have the Christ on every corner.
With all these Jesus fishes and Crosses and churches, there still seems to be a ton of murder, rape, etc. Does that mean we don’t have free will over what we become because of our environment but we have free will not to murder or kill? What exactly is free will?
55.
Anonymous | December 18, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Anonymous said,
And if you were from Iran or Syria, you would be saying, “So, looking at all the worldviews out there, and scanning over all of the beliefs and unbeliefs available, and looking at what I think I know about history, myself, and others - and reviewing the experiences I’ve had, and what I’ve seen ….no, Islam being true, revealed religion doesn’t seem all that outlandish to me…
56.
Paul S. | December 18, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Sorry, that was my post above. Forgot to add my name before I hit “Submit.”
57.
kramii | December 18, 2007 at 4:54 pm
amy:
In #28 I said:
In #48 you replied (numbers in brackets added):
Logically, I see no contradiction between [1] God being unknowable and [2] the idea that some group or groups of people might understand God better than others. In fact, all knowlegde works like that. As a group, for example, geologists understand rocks rather better than most, but nobody knows everything there is to know about rocks. Similarly, bakers (as a group) know more about making bread than, say, computer programmers. Nevertheless, no one baker knows everything there is to know about making bread.
The only difference with God, as I see it, is in degree. God is more unknowable just because there is so much more to know about God than anything else. That is not to say, however, that developing a little knowledge is a bad thing. On the contrary, it seems to me that knowing God is a very worthwhile endevour indeed.
As to [3], Christians knowing more about God than anyone else, I have my doubts. Every world-view has its merits. Sometimes Hindus (to pick another religion at random) have insight into reality that Chritians lack. Indeed, the atheists that post to this blog are often more switched on to the truth than many of my fellow Xians. That said, Xianity does have one thing that other religions (and non-religious paradigms) lack. We have Jesus, whom we believe to be God’s most significant revelation of Himself to His creation. Not his only revelation, but the most important one.
So, [4] which is it? I have to say a qualified “both”.
As for [5] why do Xians have so many variations in our beliefs? Essentially, the same reasons that different scientists, bakers, programmers etc. have different views of their own areas of interest. We all come to Xianity with different life-experiences, different prejudices, hurts, desires, educational bakgrounds, expectations, etc. We have different opportunities for revelation. We find it easy accept different things. Essentially, then, because we are all different. However, all of us are bound by a common thread: Jesus.
Onesmallstep said:
In #28 I replied:
And you said:
You are quite right to pick me up on my comment. I was being unnecessarily flippant. Personally, howver, I don’t feel qualified to judge Abraham so harshly. To us, Abrahams actions might seem daft. From his POV, he had reason to believe that God directed him to sacrifice his son. Interestingly, it appears from the story that God had never intended for Abraham to go through with the sacrifice. And, at the end of the story, Abraham had a better understanding of God than at the start.
58.
meatish | December 18, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Amy-
“Question: Can people choose to give up their free will? If not, is it really free will? And couldn’t a person choose to say to God, “I willingly give up my free will — please convince me you exist.”?”
You can’t choose go give up something you really don’t posses. It is not as if you are pulling your free will around like a balloon and can simply let it go and become a robot. Every decision in some reference frame is made by free will. If you, say, choose to follow a dictator’s limitations on your actions, you do so willingly, because there are other alternatives, however unfortunate. However, if God revealed himself to you to exist beyond a doubt, (and you should decide for yourself what evidence God would need to provide in order to be ‘beyond a doubt’, because you could still submit that you were temporarily insane, and so on..) there would not be an alternative action of not believing, and therefore your free will in that frame of reference would not exist, and all of your actions would be dictated by that knowledge. I hope that makes sense.
As for the second part, you could very easily say that to God. But God does not act contingent upon your requests. He is not accountable to anyone. I believe that you cannot really “ask” god for things, when you pray for them. Not even asking for the end of hunger or suffering. All you can pray for is for God to influence the physical extension of the Holy inside you, that is, the Holy Spirit. Through this he may give you strength of character, perseverance, wisdom, and so on, but in the present day and age he will not physically act on your prayers.
So, I guess what I’m saying is that even if you willingly give up your free will, which is a contradiction of semantics I’d rather not address, God cannot even begin to address your request unless you have the holy spirit, and even then he will not do something contradictory to the nature of the Holy Spirit, although I am not a representative of God, this is just what I think.
59.
Paul S. | December 18, 2007 at 7:13 pm
God is either a) knowable; or b) unknowable. If He is knowable, then some may have better knowledge of Him (i.e. understanding) than others (of course, how one can quantify one’s understanding of God is another topic).
Its been my belief for some time that God is not only unknowable, but the mere concept of God is incoherent.
So when you say things like this:
kramii said,
I have to ask how you can claim to know this? And if humans are unable to get a full and accurate interpretation of God’s will, what good does that will do us?
60.
amy | December 18, 2007 at 7:55 pm
kramii,
You wrote “…but nobody knows everything there is to know about rocks.”
Granted, and I think I get the point you’re making, but not knowing about rocks, or baking or whatever isn’t going to place you in hell. Not accepting (knowing) that Jesus was resurrected, according to the Christian faith, will place you in hell. A bit different than rocks or baking. I know you weren’t speaking of knowledge of the resurrection specifically (at least not in the quote above, though you mention Jesus later), but still, it is knowledge about God.
I agree that there is no way to know everything about God, just as you say there is no way to know everything about anything. What I’m saying is that it’s difficult to know anything at all about God, including God’s very existence. That doesn’t mean I don’t think God exists, it just means I have no idea what God is like if God exists.
Also: “As to [3], Christians knowing more about God than anyone else, I have my doubts. Every world-view has its merits.”
Agreed. Just because I don’t believe Christianity (or other religions, for that matter) doesn’t mean I think there is nothing of merit there.
As for the other points (differences among Christians in belief, the whole Abraham thing), I’m going to let them go for now. Maybe I’ll have more energy for them tomorrow.
61.
OneSmallStep | December 18, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Then there are quite a few people in the Bible who had their free will removed. And this argument doesn’t work, because there are people out there who if they see a police officer, might still speed for the fun of it.
But this is conflating two ideas of belief. God could show Himself to me tomorrow with no holds barred, no confusion, I know 110% that God exists. That doesn’t mean I’d give allegience to God, or trust God, or any of that. There would not be an alternative to knowing that God *existed.* It does not follow that I would then still love God, or follow God “correctly.”
The other complication with this comparison is that in order for it to be “okay” that God kills people, people must be reduced to no more than a painting. Or a piece of music. Humans then become two-dimensional, and lose any sort of value or worth. Imagine telling someone who just lost their family “Well, they were nothing more than paintings anyway.” I would fully expect anyone who uttered that to a grieving victim to be slapped.
This is one of the things that bothers me about this type of justification – in order for it to work, you have to remove yourself from the suffering of the situation, and watch from a great distance.
Jim,
The definition of causing injurious or deadly harm is one of the means of describing evil, per the dictionary. One of the ways to define it is “causing deadly harm.” I was not clear in that, in the pain and suffering area. But it was meant to be attached to a natural disaster, which would meet the definition of “evil” as it causes deadly harm.
And people can do evil acts without evil intentions. We see that throughout history.
It doesn’t matter that she thought it was good, it was still a sin. And it doesn’t matter that she thought it was good — Eve *knew* that she wasn’t suppose to eat of the tree. She *knew* that disobeyed God, and yet still desired to eat of it after talking with the snake. She knew it wouldn’t be a good thing. And yet she still found the fruit attractive. She still wanted to eat it. That is what sin is. And that’s being justified by the fact that the serpent tricked her. And how this a trick when God says, in no uncertain terms, “Do not eat of the tree.” That’s not a trick, that’s convincing someone to do what s/he already knows is wrong. If it works here, then we can say, in your CD example, that Satan tricks us into thinking it’s good, and thus we can’t be judged by God – we thought it was good.
I apologize if this is overly harsh. I’ve had a long day, and can’t quite read my own tone at the moment.
But then you have to want to choose evil – otherwise, there is no “free” choice between the two, you just automatically pick one. Why would I choose something that doesn’t appeal to me? However, this would mean that I wasn’t designed to be consistently good, or consistently loving or any of that. I was designed with some sort of flaw. I was certainly not designed to be perfect. If God is perfect, and that perfection means that God lacks the ability to sin, then I was created imperfectly.
I actually think the free will defense doesn’t work, because it’s not consistently true. People don’t have free will in every situation: people don’t choose to be murdered or abused. Free will seems to get elevated to this status of what God loves above all else, regardless of the consequences. Not even we respect free will that much – we have limits on it. It especially doesn’t work for me if sin entails a desire that goes against God, because you can’t control your desires. I don’t make an active choice to feel jealous or hatred. I have a choice as to how I respond to those feelings. But not starting or stopping those feelings.
Kramii,
I missed your response the first time around, so I’ll comment here.
Why not? We would judge people harshly today if they killed their children based on God’s orders. Or if they attempted to, and then said God stopped them at the last minute. That child would be removed from his/her parent. Yet Abraham’s situation is justified, which seems to be morally relative .
My point with the killing someone example is that you would know it’s not from God because you are not stupid – which you answered correctly :). And yet we see instances of God ordering that in the Tanakh, and that is not seen as “ bad.” I often see the response here that it’s the Tanakh, or we don’t have to worry about that, or God was justified in doing so. But then I can’t use the idea of it being stupid as a reason why it’s not from God, because it wasn’t stupid at one point. My reasoning can’t be “God doesn’t order us to kill.” It would have to be “God doesn’t order us to kill *anymore.*” If good=God, then killing people was good at one time.
And if I am understanding you correctly, you know that God is good because God = good. However, isn’t this like saying, ‘I know the Bible is true because the Bible says so?”
That’s also not “knowing.” You would know I was good (this is an example, please don’t respond with “we aren’t good, we’re all sinners) if I was kind to people. Or helped people. That is empircal evidence to determine my “goodness.” We lose that type of firmness when evaluating God Himself.
62.
amy | December 18, 2007 at 8:26 pm
meatish,
You wrote, “However, if God revealed himself to you to exist beyond a doubt…there would not be an alternative action of not believing…”
I agree, as far as believing goes. But I would then have a choice of accepting or rejecting God (in terms of whether or not to follow God). As it stands, I can’t follow a God I can’t see.
You wrote, “As for the second part, you could very easily say that to God. But God does not act contingent upon your requests. He is not accountable to anyone.”
Fine. But why would God not want me to know him, to know the Christian religion is true? I would think that would be God’s will for everyone. Either God loves everyone, or not.
Also, “…in the present day and age he will not physically act on your prayers.”
Wow. Is that a Christian doctrine I missed the last 15 years of my life? I don’t recall seeing it in the Bible. Care to point me to it? I mean I agree with you, I don’t think God physically acts on prayers, but I don’t believe in Christianity either.
63.
OneSmallStep | December 18, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I don’t think I was quite clear in this section. I’m told that she was tricked, and thought that eating the apple was good. Yet that was a sin, but if she thought that eating the apple was good, then she wasn’t choosing to go against God, she was choosing to do good, which is choosing God. How can she then be punished for this? She didn’t choose to act against God, she choose what she thought was good. Where’s the intention to sin here? Intention to sin first requires desire to choose the option that goes against God. Yet she was not choosing to go against God, if she thought this was good.
HOwever, if she did deliberatly follow a desire to go against God, then I’m back with who installed that desire in the first place? It can no longer be a trick if she went into this with her eyes wide-open. And if there was that desire, then she still would’ve sinned, even if she never ate the fruit.
64.
The Barefoot Bum | December 18, 2007 at 9:37 pm
OneSmallStep
You’re not understanding the legal definition of insanity. Legally, a person has to be able only to understand that society considers an action wrong to be considered legally sane. After that, it’s considered given that criminals as a whole don’t think “normally”.
I mean quite the opposite. In your sense, no one ever has any choice: we can decide only one way, and we must conclude that we didn’t really want the other way. Want can be inferred only from choice.
Anonymous:
I assume no such thing. You appear to be considering “truth” to be some sort of mystical quantity that cannot by definition be empirically verified. I simply define my knowledge as the best grasp on truth that I presently have and work from there.
Obviousness is a big cop-out. “I don’t need to explain it, it’s obvious.”
meatish
Grow up, lad. Grown-ups are talking here.
65.
bry0000000 | December 18, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Actually, Barefoot, I kind of agree with meatish. Not that I don’t understand you; I used to be, and unfortunately, can still be, pretty militant against Christianity.
Sorry for not having commented. Poor internet and such. It will come soon.
66.
OneSmallStep | December 18, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Barefoot Bum,
Isn’t the plea also used in terms of emotional insanity? The person wasn’t thinking in a clearly for a period of time, or didn’t understand it for a period of time.
I know what you’re saying in terms of moral choice. If we go back to the killer, and he doesn’t want to not kill, we could say that there wasn’t a choice, because “not killing” held no appeal. Bear with me on this. But on top of this choice is the awareness that killing people leads to jail time, and the killer really doesn’t want to go to jail. So now the choice has become complex, because it’s blended between either killing people, or not going to jail. In this case, he has a want in both areas, but one want supercedes the other. So he has made a selection between two desires. This can get very interwoven, so you can see why I went with the pie metaphor. In the case of Eden, it was to eat the fruit or not eat the fruit. In the case of the killer, the choice is no longer around the same object: it’s between two different objects.
I’m not saying that no one ever has a choice — but that a choice must entail a pull towards all the options that are an outcome of that choice.
67.
bry0000000 | December 18, 2007 at 11:56 pm
I hate not having an online connection :). So much to catch up on…
Saintlewis:
“If Christianity IS a true, revealed religion, however, then God has TOLD us His nature and His desires, which is thus how we kno what ‘good’ is in any objective sense. In fact, apart from a divine concept of good, coming from the top, any concept of good can be no more than a largely agreed upon subjective idea, which can change and shift at the whim of the population, or those in power.”
If we choose to accept this, then we must accept that God is the architect of Good and evil. But if this is to be true, then God is outside the realm of Good and evil and is neither. If, hypothetically, there was another ‘god’ being that co-existed with God and had a different outlook on what good and evil were, the traditional Christian God would, in this other god’s eyes, be neither good nor evil, given that he exists outside his own construct of good and evil. Given that, we can conclude that God is not good as he is good’s architect. In order to be good, God would have to submit to the convention of good. That’s not a trait of an omnipotent.
But I guess the overall point is that our idea of God, the God that is presented to us in the Bible, the God that contemporary Christianity presents to us, is self-contradicting, exposing him as manmade. This is definitely not the work one would expect from an atheist I think; an agnostic may be more likely to have written this, concluding that a non-contradicting God could exist.
ThinkingApe said that God’s omnipotence didn’t convince him in his decision to deconvert. I would have to agree with him that God’s omnipotency is irrelevant when questioning whether or not he is the creator. It does, however, expose the logical inconsistencies in the God that is presented to us by most Christians, and I also think it takes a little away from the divinity of the bible.
Could a relatively powerful non-omnipotent God have created the Universe? I’m sure it’s conceivable, but in my mind, he would have to be subject to something else, such as the laws of nature or a more powerful god.
I don’t know if this answered any questions or raised any new discussion points. I’ll troll through the comments more carefully and answer what I can.
68.
jmcrist | December 19, 2007 at 12:42 am
OneSmallStep,
You said: “It doesn’t matter that she thought it was good, it was still a sin. And it doesn’t matter that she thought it was good — Eve *knew* that she wasn’t suppose to eat of the tree. She *knew* that disobeyed God, and yet still desired to eat of it after talking with the snake. She knew it wouldn’t be a good thing. And yet she still found the fruit attractive. She still wanted to eat it. That is what sin is. And that’s being justified by the fact that the serpent tricked her. And how this a trick when God says, in no uncertain terms, “Do not eat of the tree.” That’s not a trick, that’s convincing someone to do what s/he already knows is wrong. If it works here, then we can say, in your CD example, that Satan tricks us into thinking it’s good, and thus we can’t be judged by God – we thought it was good.”
I agree with you, it is sin and there is no exception. I’m not saying that the sin is justified, and I apologize because I did not communicate that clearly. Perhaps trick was not the right word, perhaps I should have described Satan as some kind of conman. Regardless, I think you get the drift. My purpose in the above was to illustrate the fallen-ness of man. Most people know that the end result of their evil actions will come back to haunt them in some manner. We know that a thing will hurt us, yet we do it anyways.
My explanation for this strange behavior is that we are deceived for a time - and we somehow let Satan do it. I’m not sure how it worked out in the Garden of Eden exactly. I know that our Fallen Nature is a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. I don’t know the exact nature of their creation, but I do know that we post-Fallen creatures have an inclination for sin or evil that doesn’t seem to be present before. We’re more easily duped and enticed, and sometimes we find it attractive. The apostle Paul says in Romans 7:19 “For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.”
All this is not to say, however, that God created us with an inclination for sin. No! God gave us freewill, and with that the capacity to choose evil over good. Our inclination to do evil was the result of the fall.
You said: “But then you have to want to choose evil – otherwise, there is no “free” choice between the two, you just automatically pick one. Why would I choose something that doesn’t appeal to me? However, this would mean that I wasn’t designed to be consistently good, or consistently loving or any of that.”
What your saying seems true. But the thing is, the sin WAS made appealing to Eve. That’s how it always is. Satan has to dress it up and disguise it to be something it isn’t. No one shoots themselves in the foot! Come on! Think about it.
You said: “I was designed with some sort of flaw. I was certainly not designed to be perfect. If God is perfect, and that perfection means that God lacks the ability to sin, then I was created imperfectly.”
I don’t think Adam and Eve were created to be perfect.
You said: “I actually think the free will defense doesn’t work, because it’s not consistently true. People don’t have free will in every situation: people don’t choose to be murdered or abused.”
Right. People don’t have free will when someone else’s will is imposed on them. God doesn’t impose on our wills that we love Him. He gives us a choice.
You said: “It especially doesn’t work for me if sin entails a desire that goes against God, because you can’t control your desires. I don’t make an active choice to feel jealous or hatred. I have a choice as to how I respond to those feelings. But not starting or stopping those feelings.”
While I agree that sometimes feelings arise that you did not intend, I disagree in that you can’t stop feelings. I think you can, it just takes self-control.
69.
Jersey | December 19, 2007 at 1:06 am
jm: I can’t talk to something that, my idea is, doesn’t exist.
Plus, I tried one time with “all my heart” to ask this God of his existence. Hmmm…Buddha told me he existed, Krishna (or Vishnu if some disagree with who is the true version) did, the Ibrahimic Gods of Islam (at age 14, mind you) and Christianity both said yes…um, either Mara or Satan messed with my mind, or that was all pure disillusion. (And don’t quote the Epistle by James 1:13, I already read it. I need sources as well as the Bible when I do my research.)
70.