The "Horrific God" Charge

Originally posted by twhitehead
That doesn't bother people who work backwards. In reality he started with experience, gained faith, then later decided there were facts. But his acceptance of the facts is based on faith 🙂

That doesn't bother people who work backwards. In reality he started with experience, gained faith, then later decided there were facts. But his acceptance of the facts is based on faith

No, I started with that fact that I was told that God is a Person who can be known as a Person, personally.

That came from the Bible and from the confessions of other believers.

Now I diverge a bit. I have wondered why God has instituted the way of FAITH in order to experience Him. It does seem perculiar.

I think I have decided that FAITH alone leaves man with nothing to boast about. Perhaps that is why God insists that to touch Him we must have faith.

Faith leaves a man with nothing to brag about in himself. And to traverse the bridge between the finite and the infinite and eternal Being, He may just for now at least, command that no one will touch Him without faith.

FACT - FAITH - EXPERIENCE for sure.

Now there IS a difference seen in the Bible between FAITH and PRESUMPTION.

A number of times God's people failed big time because what they exercised was not true faith but rather PRESUMPTION.

Read the story of the battle of Ai in Joshua. See Joshua 7:1-26. Or read the first few chapters of First Samuel when Israel went into battle with the Ark of the Covenant and were trounced because they acted in presumption and not with the obedience of faith.

Originally posted by jaywill

So which premise of the argument do you deny?

I [b]question that omnipotence has to mean that God can do what is in certain realms of really impossible, like create a round square.

I question that God is held accountable if some suffering does not end in the "good" to the unredeemable rebel who refuses to be reconciled ...[text shortened]... exists that it makes any real difference whether we act horrifically or not.[/b]

Which premise of the argument do you deny, and why?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]If you agree the creatore can do what they will with what the creator makes,
than there is no argument against the creator doing whatever the creator
wants. S/he can make a pot fit for the trash or display it is not the pot but
the creator that sets the standards.

I did not agree there that "the creator can do what they will with what the cre ...[text shortened]... roperly account for the issue of moral status. Are you or RJ going to address this objection?[/b]

You do have the power to beat the next senior citizen you see on the street,
and so do others and some do. Justice on the whole is a standard, and as part
of creation we were given that too as you were the breath you now enjoy. The
standards, laws, moral questions all of us face are quite complex they are not
always very simple. With cause some beatings can be justified, with authority
some commands need to be followed, with God He is the standard for both
authority and justice due to His singluar position as the Creator, that resides
with God and not us. God sets all the rules and laws within His creation, He
has the power to beat anyone yes, but unlike us He is not trying to figure out
what is the proper course of action should be, or wonder what the right thing is.

You want to it seems to me if I'm reading you correctly place God on par with
humanity, so that God shouldn't be able to set the rules in place about life or
death.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Well what do you want from this, that in your opinion you dislike how God
acts so your going to call Him on some of the things, and lable Him 'horrific' ?

What I "want" from this inquiry is to know whether or not the term 'horrific' properly applies to the God in question.[/b]

I believe we owe God the proper due deference and to lay a claim at His feet
as He "horrific" just shows a total lack of respect of God, and a over blown
feeling of self importance that one could mock their Creator with impunity
and justification.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I agree that God due to
His nature will treat you with a great deal of respect and honor, but it will not
be because you are something so special He owes you, but because of God's
nature.

Again, have you read the biblical accounts lately? He does not characteristically treat other sentient beings with respect or honor. And He does not honor ...[text shortened]... He wants with His creation, whatever it may in principle be, then that requires an argument.[/b]

Actually I think He most certainly does treat other beings with respect and
honor, far more than we deserve. As a race you see how we behave, you see
the way we harm others in all manner of action, you see how we allow others
to be harmed, and so on. To the smallest amount of pain and suffering to the
more harmful we are guilty of it all, we justify ourselves by looking at ourselves,
we make the claim we are not as bad as (pick a name) and feel like we are
okay, or good enough. With each thought we have where we do to others as
we will, to those actions we take we have no justification before God on our
own.

Our being was a gift and justice is a reality that has to be done properly for it
to mean anything. Since sinners before an angry God have no standing, God
found a way and its His grace and mercy that gives us much more than we
deserve. It was done not because we were owed by God anything, but due to
His mercy, grace, and love for us.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Yea, read it daily at least two chapters a day. I do call God's actions fair and
just.

Like, for example, where He sanctions genocide? Would you please explain how He was justified in doing so?[/b]

God created us and appointed for us a time to be born and to die. So if that
is the way of it, why would God ending a life be thought of as bad since all
life will end in the creation as it is currently setup?
Kelly

Originally posted by karoly aczel
"...a state of flux."

That seems about right to me.
After all the only thing that remains the same is change.

So too is the nature of "God"

Actually the God I serve does not change, yours might as you do.
Kelly

Originally posted by bbarr
I was going to do this all from scratch, before I remembered that I had already presented a full-dress argument of this sort years ago, right here in these fora. So, for your consideration, here it is. You'll find that I've already addressed below each of the strategies you'll be inclined to employ in your defense of God.


[b]A General Argument from Evil is false. You'll probably want to reject (2). So below is my defense of premise (2).

1) God exists.

2) There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good.

[/b]

For the unrepenting rebel who has spurned all opportunities to be reconciled to God, there may be suffering which did not need to happen.

I see the Bible saying "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (Rom. 8:28)

What I do not see here is a promise that all things work for good to those who hate God and refuse His calling to His eternal purpose.

They seem to be losers, who want nothing to do with God, forever. Perhaps in some sense that is your event E.

3) If God is omnipotent, God could have prevented E from occurring.

This assumes that God created only robots who cannot resist His will.

This is a long debate between free will and predestination which minds more able than ours have not been able to resolve.

As of yet I have not succombed to a theory that there are creations of God which do not have a free will. And neither do I think His FOREKNOWLEDGE of what they will do makes their free will null and void.

So I deny that omnipotence means that God will usurp the free will of man.

4) If God is omniscient, God would have known that E was going to occur.

He may have. I can't fault Him for that.

He hasn't told us many things. His knowing may not at all usurp our freedom of choice to exercise our free will.

5) If God is morally perfect God would have preferred that E not occur, and acted accordingly.

God may have prefered non E. But God may have also not usurped man's freedom of choice to choose deceision fork in which one direction resulted in E.

I am not at all certain that omnipotence means God will coerce the human free will.

I am not at all certain that omniscience means man is not free in his will to choose a path in which E occurs.

6) If (3), (4), and (5), then E could not have occurred.

7) Hence, E did not occur.

8) But, by (2), E did occur.

9) Hence, either one or more premises (1) through (5) are false.

10) Premises (2) through (5) are true.

11) Hence, premise (1) is false; God does not exist.

I'll think about it.

Job suffered greatly in the Bible. God never told Him WHY he suffered. At least in the book of Job the answer Job seeks from God is never given to him. Yet when God appears to him he repents for even questioning whether God knows what He is doing or not.

Satan also suffered greatly.
He suffered envy of God.
He suffered coveting against God.
He suffered being expelled from a place of glory and exultation.
He suffered not being able to destroy God or His plans.
He suffered seeing his most ingenius plots come to nothing and even backfire to put him in even greater defeat.
And he will suffer eternally probably suffering the memory of how happy he was before he decided to be the first creature to revolt against God.

All this suffering may be useless and unnecessary to his well being.

The divine promise I see is that all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose.

Satan decided to hate God and reject His purpose. All things probably will NOT work out for good as far as he is concerned. The non-good is the result of the free choice of his will to withdraw from God totally.

Now, this philosophical argument of yours I will keep my eye on compare with the counter arguments of ethicists more trained in this kind of discipline. I admit my limitations in this kind of philisophical disputation.

Now I in turn ask you. God's eternal plan as stated in Romans is that we be conformed to the image of His Son.

If in the process of maturing INTO that image, gradually, is it at least possible that some actions of God we might not understand and missjudge ?

When Jesus told the disciples that going to Jerusalem would result in Him being betrayed, tortured, shamefully treated, crucified and raised on the third day, they vehemently objected that such should happen. That was suffering, unjust and uncalled for and undeserving.

Latter they understood that His redemptive death and resurrection meant their own eternal salvation and that of sinners in all history who believe into Christ.

In the process of time E may change as our understanding deepens in God's providence and sovereignty and wisdom.

Originally posted by jaywill
No, I started with that fact that I was told that God is a Person who can be known as a Person, personally.

That came from the Bible and from the confessions of other believers.

Essentially - experience. Yes I know you can play around with words and say your experience was 'factual', but that is still just word games.
It remains a fact, that you started with experience, moved on to faith, and now perceive many things as 'fact' because of your faith not because of any evidentiary value they posses.

What is interesting is how defensive you are about it and how you desperately want to claim your faith is fact based.

Originally posted by jaywill

God the Father is a 20. Jesus the Christ the Person of the Son is a 20. God the Holy Spirit is a 20. Michael the Archangel is a 10? satan the devil is a 1

I agree that the Triune God should be ranked 20 or beyond.

Satan is a [b]negative 20. He could only be the antithesis of all that God is. Satan could only set himself up to be ...[text shortened]... s mind.

They count God and Christ as the enemy. Much else is just shrouded in darkness.[/b]

Sorry I stayed within the lines you defined. I did think that 10 Michael to 1 satan was not enough. satan is a crafty subtle deceptive counterfeit.

Originally posted by jaywill

1) God exists.

2) There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good.

For the unrepenting rebel who has spurned all opportunities to be reconciled to God, there may be suffering which did not need to happen.

...[text shortened]... may change as our understanding deepens in God's providence and sovereignty and wisdom.[/b]

I think your "God may have prefered non E. But God may have also not usurped man's freedom of choice to choose deceision fork in which one direction resulted in E. "

...means that the thing man chose would not be an event defined as E.

Here's why.

bbarr said "2) There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good. "

You see, E, as defined, is not logically necessary for a greater good. But if God allows a person free will, allowing a free will choice is logically necessary for a greater good; the greater good being the existence of free will. The event E that bbarr defined is NOT necessary for the existence of any greater good.

So maybe what you are really saying is that God would not allow any events of type E. All of the events He allows, He is logically committed to allow as a necessary result of allowing free will. Allowing free will is always a greater good than not allowing it, no matter what free will choices we make. This does not mean the choices we make are always good, and does not excuse us. After all, God provided the greater good of free will, it is not something we can take credit for.

So anyway I think you are disagreeing with premise 2.

Originally posted by jaywill

1) God exists.

2) There has occurred at least one event E such that E brought about unnecessary suffering; suffering not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good.

For the unrepenting rebel who has spurned all opportunities to be reconciled to God, there may be suffering which did not need to happen.

may change as our understanding deepens in God's providence and sovereignty and wisdom.[/b]

I’m not sure why you begin with speaking of rebellious people. But, look, the horrific evils I pointed out in the original post, including the murder of children, have little to do with rebellion in any clear sense. The children weren’t unrepentant rebels. So it’s really strange that you’d think my event E refers to the punishment of rebellious people. Look at the examples I gave! Are you denying that those events were evils? Are you denying that the murders of these children were unnecessary? Perhaps their parents were, or perhaps Adam and Eve were rebels; I’m sure you can find some rebels somewhere. But if God either kills or allows children to be murdered because of something those children did not do, then it is horrific. That’s a clear case where the word ‘horrific’ applies. It’s also a clear case where the term ‘unjust’ applies, given that collective punishment of the innocent is unjust. I mean, look at your own God. He killed all the first-born in Egypt, from the highest prince to the son of stable-workers. You think that is OK? You think that all those deaths were necessary for the greater good, or that they were justified? Seriously, if any human person engaged in that sort of behavior towards young children, you would be outraged and morally offended. But something changes when it’s God at issue. You refuse to use clear terms in the same way. So, I guess we really can’t apply moral language to God after all. That’s why I started in the previous thread asking about the application of moral terminology. At the end of the day, you’re just speaking a different language. Which is fine. It just means that we have no reason to take you seriously when you say things like ‘God is loving’ or ‘God is not horrific’. You’re using those terms in some special Christian-decoder-ring sense.

You go on to claim that “all things work together for the good to those who love God”, but not necessarily for those who hate God. Well, I neither love nor hate God, because I don’t believe in such a creature. But there are a couple basic points of response: First, unnecessary and profound suffering commonly occurs to those who love God. Both Jews and Christians were murdered in the Holocaust. Now you may claim that this brought about some greater good. But that’s not the point, as I made clear in my original post. The question is not whether greater good is brought from suffering. The question is whether such suffering was absolutely logically necessary in order for the greater good, or whether such good could be brought about by God (an omnipotent and omniscient being) in some way that didn’t utilize the suffering. You’ve never answered this charge, though I’ve made it many times. Second, if God is morally perfect, then presumably he’d want to transform those who hate him, not punish them eternally. And he could, given his power. He could easily present them with evidence sufficient to convince them of their error, rather than remain hidden to him. But what about faith? Well, I see no reason that the good of faith (if it is a good; that’s never been established without begging the question) outweighs the suffering on Earth and the eventually eternal suffering of those who reject God. That sounds pretty petulant and self-absorbed of God.

And, no, (3) has little to do with free will. The assumption is not that God could have messed with the will, or the psychologies of people, in order to prevent bad things from happening. The assumption is that God is powerful enough to prevent bad things from happening. Exactly how he would do so is left indeterminate in the argument. But use your imagination. God could have transported all the Jews from Germany prior to the Holocaust. God could have made them invisible, or immune from injury, or… God could have blinded every member of the Nazi party until they repented, or simply appeared and scared the Hell out of them. Look, if I come across an attempted rape, I will do my best to stop it. I will hit and kick and shout. This is no violation of the freedom of the will of the rapist. It is interference in his behavior, and one that you would take to be totally justified and probably strictly obligatory. But, again, all your moral inferences bizarrely change when applied to God. If I allow a rape when I could have prevented it, I’m morally defective. If God allows a rape when he could have prevented it, He’s still morally perfect. That’s insane. Again, we’re not talking about God preventing a rapist from choosing to attempt to rape. We’re talking about God preventing an actual rape. That’s not a violation of free will (anymore than the police violate the freedom of will of criminals). It’s a moral obligation, and it’s what should be expected of any creature that is loving and powerful enough to do something.

And, of course it's possible that I'm completely off-base, that God really is morally perfect, that all the horrors of the world have explanations, etc. But I don't think so, and I don't have the capacity for the type of faith it would require to believe that. I'm just not constructed that way, which is why I'm a philosopher by training.

Originally posted by bbarr
I’m not sure why you begin with speaking of rebellious people. But, look, the horrific evils I pointed out in the original post, including the murder of children, have little to do with rebellion in any clear sense. The children weren’t unrepentant rebels. So it’s really strange that you’d think my event E refers to the punishment of rebellious people. Loo ...[text shortened]... ieve that. I'm just not constructed that way, which is why I'm a philosopher by training.

So since everyone dies no matter what, and they can at any age, you think that
death is something unnatural to reality? If those children had lived to 80 would
they have been any less dead? Is there some claim you can make that requires
God to give you another day of life? Is there any of us that can hold God to
do that? If there isn't than why do you think when God causes His gift of life
to us to be repealed that means God has done something wrong? God isn't
the God of the dead but the living, what does bind to us are our choices, the
ones we own. I'm quite sure that if you think about that one, we all should be
very happy to avoid some of the things we can be held accountable for.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do have the power to beat the next senior citizen you see on the street,
and so do others and some do. Justice on the whole is a standard, and as part
of creation we were given that too as you were the breath you now enjoy. The
standards, laws, moral questions all of us face are quite complex they are not
always very simple. With cause some beatings ...[text shortened]... humanity, so that God shouldn't be able to set the rules in place about life or
death.
Kelly

You want to it seems to me if I'm reading you correctly place God on par with
humanity, so that God shouldn't be able to set the rules in place about life or
death.

I have already told you what I "want" in this context. I want to know whether the term 'horrific' properly applies to the God described in the bible.

It seems clear that you deny that the term 'horrific' properly applies to God, since, as you claim, God is the standard of justice. According to this line of thinking, whatever God does is just by definition, since He simply is the standard of justice. And things that are just are not properly called 'horrific'. So, the term 'horrific' does not apply to God.

Is that your argument in a nutshell?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]You want to it seems to me if I'm reading you correctly place God on par with
humanity, so that God shouldn't be able to set the rules in place about life or
death.

I have already told you what I "want" in this context. I want to know whether the term 'horrific' properly applies to the God described in the bible.

It seems clear that you ...[text shortened]... , the term 'horrific' does not apply to God.

Is that your argument in a nutshell?[/b]

No it does not apply to God in my opinion for reasons I've given.
Kelly