If no God - What Meaning ?

Originally posted by sonship

Why would I say that? I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

Let me put a question to you this way.

Supposed Hitler and the Germans had won World War 2. Suppose they were able to thoroughly indoctrinate everyone in every nation that the Holocaust was the just and right thing to do. Suppose today all the world is under the G ...[text shortened]... been morally wrong ?
And if so [b]why was it wrong on your atheist view of the universe ?[/b]

Supposed Hitler and the Germans had won World War 2. Suppose they were able to thoroughly indoctrinate everyone in every nation that the Holocaust was the just and right thing to do. Suppose today all the world is under the German Third Reich educated in their interpretation of history, trained in their ethics, schooled in their methods. We all have been educated to think like the Nazis.

Would then the Holocaust still have been morally wrong ?
And if so why was it wrong on your atheist view of the universe ?

The information that you give in this hypothetical (that the Nazis won; now rule over all; have successfully indoctrinated all; etc; etc) have, on my view, nothing to do with the moral status of the Holocaust. It's like you have just listed a bunch of descriptive hypothetical facts and then asked an unrelated normative question. That's because I am not a moral relativist, so I don't think the moral status of such things are relative to, or depend on, the dominant social attitudes, convictions, etc, etc. In fact, no one I know (including all my atheist friends) takes such a view seriously; as I already mentioned, it is the view that attracts the most laughter and scorn. I already asked you if you had any reasons to think that anyone in this discussion is a relativist, and you have provided exactly none; instead you apparently just continue laboring under the delusion that atheists somehow should be committed to it or otherwise have no other moral programs available. This shows you have virtually no familiarity with secular ethics.

As to the second question, it is not wrong in virtue of my atheist view of the universe (whatever that means); it is wrong in virtue of my moral view, which has something to do with objective features of the world and norms of rationality. My view is objective, in that the moral status of something or the truth value of some moral claim does not depend on what any individual or any group thinks about it. So, that's why your hypothetical sounds so disconnected to me: the background information you give is all pretty much irrelevant to the question that follows.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Perhaps if you can persuade me that these questions are somehow relevant to the current discussion, then I will play along.

Commit yourself to your own family life for 38 years like myself, and then maybe I'll consider your two cents on the subject of how to raise kids.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]Perhaps if you can persuade me that these questions are somehow relevant to the current discussion, then I will play along.

Commit yourself to your own family life for 38 years like myself, and then maybe I'll consider your two cents on the subject of how to raise kids.[/b]

I'm not even 38 years old yet, so that strikes me as a bizarre requirement.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm not even 38 years old yet, so that strikes me as a bizarre requirement.

About as bizarre as you mouthing off like know something about shepherding a human being from a baby to adulthood in these treacherous times.

Originally posted by sonship
About as bizarre as you mouthing off like know something about shepherding a human being from a baby to adulthood in these treacherous times.

If you want to help a child to develop morally and cognitively, then indoctrination with your particular strain of religious beliefs would represent an antithesis of what you want. Perhaps this would be good fuel for a separate thread. I will consider starting such a thread, if I have time.

Originally posted by LemonJello

That's because I am not a moral relativist, so I don't think the moral status of such things are relative to, or depend on, the dominant social attitudes, convictions, etc, etc. In fact, no one I know (including all my atheist friends) takes such a view seriously; as I already mentioned, it is the view that attracts the most laughter and scorn. I already asked you if you had any reasons to think that anyone in this discussion is a relativist, and you have provided exactly none;

I don't believe that any atheist can actually live as a moral relativist.
I believe some atheists or others espoused a moral relativist philosophy which they simply found impossible to practically live according to.

instead you apparently just continue laboring under the delusion that atheists somehow should be committed to it or otherwise have no other moral programs available. This shows you have virtually no familiarity with secular ethics.

I am familiar that many people say " I am glad that you found some truth that works for you." or " I am happy that you believe something that has meaning for you."

I am aware that they cannot practically live as if whatever anyone believes that is "good" for them, or "works" for them is okay.

You are about to show me why what works for Hitler is objectively wrong in the matter of the Holocaust.

As to the second question, it is not wrong in virtue of my atheist view of the universe (whatever that means);

That is not the most encouraging comment for a starter. If you yourself don't even know what your "atheist view of the universe" is ( "whatever that means" ) we seem to be in relativity land already.

That's pretty much in the realm of a foggy undefined subjectivism not even clear to yourself. But you are going to go on to demonstrate an objective moral yardstick against which the Holocaust does not measure up right ?

Let's commit to what Atheism is. You believe there is no such thing as God. That yardstick does not exist. I want to see what you will replace this with against which you say the Holocaust was objectively evil.

it is wrong in virtue of my moral view, which has something to do with objective features of the world and norms of rationality. My view is objective, in that the moral status of something or the truth value of some moral claim does not depend on what any individual or any group thinks about it.

Now Adolf thought the Final Solution was quite rational. And he adopted this as the "norm" in that society. He thought his moral view had to do with "objective features of the world and norms of rationality." He wrote so in his book.

Why is your view right and his wrong, objectively ?
Is it just a matter of your personal taste over his ?

Originally posted by sonship
Now I would really like to know what difference any kind of life makes if there is no God. I don't know to start a new thread. Maybe, I'll just ask it here.

Now if God does not exist then what difference does it make that anyone lived, anything existed, how we behaved, what we "lived" for ?

Honestly. What difference does it make ?

Originally posted by sonship
Now I would really like to know what difference any kind of life makes if there is no God. I don't know to start a new thread. Maybe, I'll just ask it here.

Now if God does not exist then what difference does it make that anyone lived, anything existed, how we behaved, what we "lived" for ?

Honestly. What difference does it make ?
________________________________________

"Why do atheists hate God?" Editorial by Don Batten

"Recently, I have had a lot of conversations with atheists. Many express a strong hatred of God. I have been at a loss to explain this. How can you hate someone you don’t believe in? Why the hostility? If God does not exist, shouldn’t atheists just relax and seek a good time before they become plant food?

Why should it matter if people believe in God? Nothing matters if atheism is true.

Aldous Huxley (1894–1963), the brother of the atheistic evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley, advocated a drug-fuelled utopia. He gave the reason for his anti-Christian stance: If God does not exist, shouldn’t atheists just relax and seek a good time before they become plant food? Why should it matter if people believe in God? “I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning … the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”

Like Huxley, some people don’t like God because they don’t like moral constraints—you can make up your own rules, or have none at all, if God does not exist. They hate God and Christians because they are actually not confident that God does not exist and seeing Christians may remind them that they are ‘suppressing the truth’. God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness:
"For the wrath of God lis revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." Romans 1:18

What about atheists who had a church/religious upbringing? Some of them hate God because of evil things done to them by teachers in religious schools or by church leaders—people who on the face of it represented God. Antipathy towards God is an understandable reaction, sadly (although illogical).

Some atheists complain of Christian ‘intolerance’ in speaking about hell. But if those who spurn God’s forgiveness will suffer God’s wrath, as the Bible teaches, shouldn’t we Christians be warning everyone about the danger and how they can be saved? How is that ‘intolerant’? Many complain about hell; they are angry at God because of hell. I understand that teachers in certain church-based schools, and parents in some ‘religious’ homes, commonly used the ‘fear of God’ to make children behave. “You are bad; you will burn in hell if you don’t behave.” But such a simplistic works-oriented approach not only trivializes this most serious of subjects, it negates the Gospel of God’s grace. (We are all ‘bad’ in God’s eyes, and ‘behaving properly’ will not save us—only Jesus can.)

A child who is having difficulties may well conclude that there is no way out for them, leading to years of nightmares about suffering in hell. Such a troubled teenager hearing an atheist say that evolution explains how we got here and that God is a myth could find this to be a liberating message, a release from their fears. The Gospel (good news) is missing from all this. The Bible tells us that God is in the business of salvation. Though His wrath regarding sin is all too real (as seen in the Fall and Flood judgments), we need not suffer it. Those who come to Him in repentance and faith will not be turned away:

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

It is strange that people hate God, who loves so much. Some atheists complain of Christian ‘intolerance’ in speaking about hell. But if those who spurn God’s forgiveness will suffer God’s wrath, shouldn’t we Christians be warning everyone about the danger and how they can be saved? How is that ‘intolerant’? It would be extremely unloving not to tell others of this." http://creation.com/atheist-god-hate

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] That's because I am not a moral relativist, so I don't think the moral status of such things are relative to, or depend on, the dominant social attitudes, convictions, etc, etc. In fact, no one I know (including all my atheist friends) takes such a view seriously; as I already mentioned, it is the view that attracts the most laughter and scorn. I al ...[text shortened]... iew right and his wrong, objectively ?
Is it just a matter of your personal taste over his ?

That is not the most encouraging comment for a starter. If you yourself don't even know what your "atheist view of the universe" is ( "whatever that means" ) we seem to be in relativity land already.

That's pretty much in the realm of a foggy undefined subjectivism not even clear to yourself. But you are going to go on to demonstrate an objective moral yardstick against which the Holocaust does not measure up right ?

I don't have an "atheist view of the universe", just like you do not have a view of the universe based on your lack of belief in goblins or unicorns.

You may also want to take a step back and ask yourself if you even know what words like 'relativity' and 'subjectivism' are supposed to mean in discussions such as these. It's not clear that you do, based on the way you just sort of toss them around seemingly randomly, albeit pejoratively.

Regarding the rest, do us all a favor and go study some secular ethics. Seriously, you look like a fool when you declaim on topics about which you clearly have little or no familiarity. There are a whole bunch of secular ethical theories that posit objective grounds for morality. Only relativism of its various stripes (you know, the ones that get laughed at) are the ones committed to a relativistic view. So when you imply that atheists can have no objective grounds for morality, you make yourself look so silly and ignorant.

It's hilarious to me that you act like the atheist is committed to a stance whereby morality devolves into a matter of personal taste. Well, I can name one person in this discussion who is committed to that: surprise, it's you. After all, in your moral view, morality is distilled down to simply a matter of God's tastes: moral truths depend constitutively on the mind of God. Well, that's a subjectivist view if ever there was one, and it also makes morals arbitrary (pace the Euthyphro Dilemma). People who live in glass houses....

Would you like an example of a very simple view that provides for objective morality and has nothing to do with God (since you seem intellectually constipated and incapable of imagining such a thing)? One simple example would be the view that there are simply brute moral facts. Moral truths would be moral statements that correspond to these brute moral facts. This is 'objective' under any sane reading of the word. It would follow that things like what went on during the Holocaust were simply objectively morally wrong, and the sorts of information you provided in your hypothetical have nothing to do with it. Now, it's obvious that this view is consistent with atheism. So you tell me: how would an atheist who espouses this be any worse off than you in terms of moral robustness or explanation? You could say, well, this atheist will not be able to explain these facts because they are brute. True, but neither can you explain God; in fact, you often chalk Him up to mystery. You may allege that this atheist will have trouble in moral justification beyond at bottom saying that it is just the way it is. True, but everyone has a moral bedrock somewhere, including you. And at least this atheist's view will not suffer a Euthyphro-type dilemma. Face it: even this atheist, with his explanatorily bankrupt view, is no worse off than you. Now go do your study on all those secular theories that provide for objectivity and provide more explanatory satisfaction that this brute fact view.

Originally posted by LemonJello

That is not the most encouraging comment for a starter. If you yourself don't even know what your "atheist view of the universe" is [b]( "whatever that means" ) we seem to be in relativity land already.

I have a view of the universe based on what I do believe.
You do also. You're getting ready to tell me about it.

I don't have an "atheist view of the universe", just like you do not have a view of the universe based on your lack of belief in goblins or unicorns.

I have a view informed by God's existence.
Though you may not like to admit it you also have a view based on there being no God.

You are getting ready, I think, to tell me about that view.

You may also want to take a step back and ask yourself if you even know what words like 'relativity' and 'subjectivism' are supposed to mean in discussions such as these. It's not clear that you do, based on the way you just sort of toss them around seemingly randomly, albeit pejoratively.

You are going to tell me why you have the rational ground to objectively condemn Adolf Hitler. I don't think you need so many preliminary statements.

Regarding the rest, do us all a favor and go study some secular ethics.

Why again was the Holocaust wrong in an objective sense, a absolute moral sense ? Do you really need to back up and back up that much before you take the jump ?

Seriously, you look like a fool when you declaim on topics about which you clearly have little or no familiarity.

How I look is not the point.
You are going to explain why the Holocaust was really wrong as a moral truth independent of any one's private whims. It was really morally wrong in a universal way because __________ ?

There are a whole bunch of secular ethical theories that posit objective grounds for morality. Only relativism of its various stripes (you know, the ones that get laughed at) are the ones committed to a relativistic view. So when you imply that atheists can have no objective grounds for morality, you make yourself look so silly and ignorant.

Forget about the points on relativism. Move on to explain you know the Holocaust was really wrong even if the whole world disagreed with you.

It's hilarious to me that you act like the atheist is committed to a stance whereby morality devolves into a matter of personal taste.

You have had your little laugh, and your second and third chuckle, and your whimsical smile, AND further belly laugh.

Now you are going to tell me why if all society, Hitler, and everyone else disagreed with you why the Holocaust was an evil matter.

Well, I can name one person in this discussion who is committed to that: surprise, it's you. After all, in your moral view, morality is distilled down to simply a matter of God's tastes:

Why don't you take a chance to tell me something about the really really wrongness of Hitler's Final Solution quite apart from God ?

moral truths depend constitutively on the mind of God. Well, that's a subjectivist view if ever there was one, and it also makes morals arbitrary (pace the Euthyphro Dilemma). People who live in glass houses....

Instead of supposedly giving my argument, you should be giving your own.
With no reference to something you do not believe.

I didn't say erect a strawman to knock down.
I asked you to explain your own thought about why the Holocaust is objectively wrong, even if all the world disagreed, even if mankind did not any longer exist.

Would you like an example of a very simple view that provides for objective morality and has nothing to do with God (since you seem intellectually constipated and incapable of imagining such a thing)?

I already have an example which you are unwilling to explain.

One simple example would be the view that there are simply brute moral facts.

Explain "brute". Is that another way of saying that you just will not explain something ?

Its just a "brute" fact that the Holocaust was morally wrong ?

Moral truths would be moral statements that correspond to these brute moral facts. This is 'objective' under any sane reading of the word. It would follow that things like what went on during the Holocaust were simply objectively morally wrong, and the sorts of information you provided in your hypothetical have nothing to do with it. Now, it's obvious that this view is consistent with atheism. So you tell me: how would an atheist who espouses this be any worse off than you in terms of moral robustness or explanation? You could say, well, this atheist will not be able to explain these facts because they are brute. True, but neither can you explain God; in fact, you often chalk Him up to mystery.

You don't know what I am going to say.
But thanks for finally offering something.

It just is that it is that it is - just a brute truth. The Holocaust was wrong - brutely period.

You know that you know that you know it was wrong. And this brute truth is just there.

You may allege that this atheist will have trouble in moral justification beyond at bottom saying that it is just the way it is. True, but everyone has a moral bedrock somewhere, including you.

I do not deny that we all have a moral bedrock somewhere.

Where do you think this moral bedrock comes from ?
Is it genetically passed on from previous progenitors ?
Would you say that instincts are what make things just brutely right or wrong ?

And at least this atheist's view will not suffer a Euthyphro-type dilemma. Face it: even this atheist, with his explanatorily bankrupt view, is no worse off than you. Now go do your study on all those secular theories that provide for objectivity and provide more explanatory satisfaction that this brute fact view.

You said it was explanatorily backrupt. I didn't say that.

Go study Shelly Kagin a moral ethicist at Yale. He would have replied quite to me by now. Right now he's a ethicist I would take a class from any day.

Here he is debating Bill Craig - "Is God Necessary For Morality?"

YouTube

I think you would learn something from him on how a secular moralist athiest might answer. I think he has some good points.

I believe we have a conscience put there by our Creator.
Whether we believe in God or not, that intuitive sense is part of our creation. There is something in us which will not listen to arguments or excuses in certain things. This something just intuitively knows that it knows that something is right or something is wrong.

It cannot be bribed or silenced. It will not let us off the hook. It is a breaking system that God has created in us to keep us from sliding morally down away from God without any "breaks".

I do not believe we invented this "brute" (to use your expression).
I do not believe it is material.
I believe because we are created in the image of God, correspond to God in some inward way, and are ourselves according to His likeness, this conscience reflects His eternal and uncreated nature.

You don't have to believe in God to act morally right.
You are created with that capacity whether or not you acknowledge your Creator or not.

Thats all for now.
The debate that I recommended to you I have watched about four times in the last couple of years. When I really want to understand your point of view, this is a discussion that I return to again to give it some thought.

Originally posted by sonship
[b]

That is not the most encouraging comment for a starter. If you yourself don't even know what your "atheist view of the universe" is [b]( "whatever that means" ) we seem to be in relativity land already.

I have a view of the universe based on what I do believe.
You do also. You're getting ready to tell me about it.
[quote] ...[text shortened]... erstand your point of view, this is a discussion that I return to again to give it some thought.[/b]

'Brute' in this sense means without explanation -- not that there is some explanation that is heretofore unknown, but that there simply is no explanation. You're obviously having some difficulty following the conversation here. I never said that it is my view that it is simply a brute fact that the Holocaust, or aspects thereof, was wrong. That's not my view at all. I presented this "brute fact" view not because it represents my own view, but because I wanted to give you the simplest view I could think of that provides for objectivity and is consistent with atheism, since you seemed intellectually constipated when it comes to considering such things. The brute fact view I outlined is, I think, one that is particularly explanatorily bankrupt; but -- and here was part of my point -- I think it is no more so than your own view.

If you really want to know about my view, I suppose I will play along, off-topic as it is. But, quid pro quo, get ready to also tell me about you own view. I'll also ask for reasons why, on your own view, the Holocaust counts as objectively morally wrong. So get ready to show us your new clothes, Emperor.

I don't have time at the moment to do this justice, though. I'll have to return when I have more time. I'll also probably take a look at the Kagin link you supplied when I have time and give some feedback on that as well.

Originally posted by LemonJello
'Brute' in this sense means without explanation -- not that there is some explanation that is heretofore unknown, but that there simply is no explanation. You're obviously having some difficulty following the conversation here. I never said that it is my view that it is simply a brute fact that the Holocaust, or aspects thereof, was wrong. That's not m ...[text shortened]... e a look at the Kagin link you supplied when I have time and give some feedback on that as well.

Okay, I got the part about my reading comprehension, intellectual constipation, failure in following your points, etc. etc., and all other snippets glaring down your spectacles towards me in all manner of educational superiority.

Your next post can just jump right to the matter at hand. If God does not exist - who is the final judge, objectively, as to what is good and what is evil ?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[quote]That is not the most encouraging comment for a starter. If you yourself don't even know what your "atheist view of the universe" is [b]( "whatever that means" ) we seem to be in relativity land already.

That's pretty much in the realm of a foggy undefined subjectivism not even clear to yourself. But you are going to go on to demonstrate ...[text shortened]... hat provide for objectivity and provide more explanatory satisfaction that this brute fact view.[/b]

I don't want to interrupt the conversation, but I just have to interject on one point.

One simple example would be the view that there are simply brute moral facts. Moral truths would be moral statements that correspond to these brute moral facts.
As someone who spends a considerable amount of time parsing out with laser-like precision what the definition of is is, I gotta imagine that you can see how imprecise, how un-examined the concept of brute moral facts truly is.
You are just as guilty of the 'lack of inquiry' charges leveled at theists who shrug their shoulders when meeting obstacles to their faith, resigning to 'goddunit.'

Originally posted by sonship
Okay, I got the part about my reading comprehension, intellectual constipation, failure in following your points, etc. etc., and all other snippets glaring down your spectacles towards me in all manner of educational superiority.

Your next post can just jump right to the matter at hand. If God does not exist - who is the [b]final judge, objectively, as to what is good and what is evil ?[/b]

If you had some "final judge" who determines moral status (goodness of badness) through some sort of decree or something, then that would not be an objective account of morality. That would, by definition, be meta-ethically subjectivist because moral status would depend on the attitudes of some individual, the "final judge". Perhaps I am not understanding your question?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't want to interrupt the conversation, but I just have to interject on one point.

[b]One simple example would be the view that there are simply brute moral facts. Moral truths would be moral statements that correspond to these brute moral facts.
As someone who spends a considerable amount of time parsing out with laser-like precision what the ...[text shortened]... heists who shrug their shoulders when meeting obstacles to their faith, resigning to 'goddunit.'[/b]

As someone who spends a considerable amount of time parsing out with laser-like precision what the definition of is is, I gotta imagine that you can see how imprecise, how un-examined the concept of brute moral facts truly is.

Huh?

You are just as guilty of the 'lack of inquiry' charges leveled at theists who shrug their shoulders when meeting obstacles to their faith, resigning to 'goddunit.'

If you are going to jump into the discussion, at least do your homework first, okay? If you had bothered to actually read my posts, I already explicitly stated that the "brute fact" view I outlined is not my view. Try reading my posts again to see if you can understand why I broached the subject in the first place.

You're just playing dumb again, right? Feel free to lay your head back down and go back to sleep.

Originally posted by LemonJello

If you had some "final judge" who determines moral status (goodness of badness) through some sort of decree or something, then that would not be an objective account of morality.

If we recognize evil then we must have in mind good.
We would not know what crooked is unless we had some concept of what straight is.

The Divine and Uncreated Judge's nature defines the ultimate good. That is part of what God is. And we being made in His image and according to His likeness, also have some built in awareness of the absolute moral goodness transcending us.

Now I think you understand the question but want badly to relegate it to the realm of the nonsensical.

That would, by definition, be meta-ethically subjectivist because moral status would depend on the attitudes of some individual, the "final judge". Perhaps I am not understanding your question?

I don't think you are having as much difficulty understanding my question as you convey. Have you lost your frame of reference in wanting to discard God's existence?

I don't think I will ask you again or play further along with your obfuscation.

God is called The Most High among other names. He is also just and righteous. No higher justice then what flows out of God's being exists.

"A God of truth and without iniquity; Just and right is He" (Deut. 32:4)

In disciplining and captivity of Israel the prophet utters - "Howbeit you are just in all that is brought upon us; for you have done right, but we have done wickedly" (Neh. 9:33; Zeph. 3:5)

God is the ultimate Right Being. It is His nature - "The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all his works" (Psalm 145:17)

Even for a number of arguable actions of God in the Old Testament the Person most qualified to pass judgment on the God of the Old Testament never did. Jesus Christ refered to God as "Righteous Father, the world has not known You ..." (John 17:25).

Jesus Christ moral living was the purest ever witnessed on earth, I believe. And to Him God was the Righteous Father.

Revelation 15, in the midst of God's judgments over the world in the end times says "Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty; JUST and TRUE are Your ways You King of the nations." (15:3; 16:5-7; See 2 Thess. 1:5).

" God is righteous and hates evil. As He is the Ruler of all, He is the maker of laws; and these laws have righteous penalties already affixed and published.", which God as Just and True, must execute." R. Govette

"You are not a God which has pleasure in wickedness; neither shall evil dwell with You. The foolish shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity. You shall destroy them that speak lying; the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man." (Psalm 5:4-6)

The Ultimate Governor and King of all existence and the universe is the final Judge whose assessment of each act of man is infallible.

"And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened; and another scroll was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by the things which were written in the scrolls, according to their works." (Revelation 20:12)

This is called the Last Judgment. The record of every man and woman's life is infallibly recorded by the power inherit in God's nature. Nothing will be omitted and no mistakes or miscarriages in justice will occur because the Creator of all is the Most High in goodness.

"All the unjust are an abomination to the Lord" (Deut. 25:13-16)
He cannot but hate evil. God's feelings against the willful transgressors of His laws are therefore those of just displeasure and hatred. There is even a danger of infinite displeasure from God. This is displeasure felt without end by the unforgiven.

I want to write about His love and redemption shown on the cross of Christ. But right now that is not my point. My point here is that there is no higher righteousness than that of God. And being created in His image we have some internal awareness of the righteous, even though we may not want to believe in our Creator.

There should be nothing left obscure in this realization.

"And there is no creature that is not manifest before Him, but all things are naked and laid bare to the eyes of Him to whom we are to give our account." (Hebrews 4:12)

No detail is overlooked by God.
Every motive of inclination, every uttered word, every action is utterly laid bare in its nature before the seeing of God. It is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18). And every "atom" of microscopic nature of our thoughts, words and actions are subject to His perfect judgment. On the day of judgment men will give an account of every careless word they uttered (Matt. 12:36-37) .

Goodness and justice co-exist in God. His eternal love is accompanied by His eternal justice. There should be no obscurity about this.