An argument against God

[STT]

You said the quote yourself, “Oh God, why hath thou forsaken me?”

That isn’t a question of abandonment, but a questioning of his own benevolence on the basis of suffering. Its supposed to mean that suffering is such an intense attribute of life that even God himself would question his own eternal goodness for even a moment if he were put in the same circumstances.

What do you mean? What is the meaning of forsaken?

 

[quaestio45]

What do you mean? What is the meaning of forsaken?

It directly means to leave someone. But of course, God didn’t literally leave anyone. Nor is this an indication that God isn’t Christ. It is, instead, a cry of pain that we all experience under the worst conditions. And more than that, a questioning of the true benevolence of God. After all, what all Good God would leave you in your sorrow? Why wouldn’t he lift you? Christ’s words are an exact mirroring of that sentiment, but what makes it spectacular is that he himself is God the son. What this communicates, therefore, is that the burden of life and suffering and sin, pushed to their furthest extreme, bring all - including God himself - understandably to such a point that we cannot comprehend how it could possibly serve the good.

All that to say, it isn’t a statement of God literally not being present at the cross, but rather a statement of the intensity of sin and evil and suffering to even bring God himself to doubt his own benevolence.

 

[STT]

It directly means to leave someone. But of course, God didn’t literally leave anyone. Nor is this an indication that God isn’t Christ. It is, instead, a cry of pain that we all experience under the worst conditions. And more than that, a questioning of the true benevolence of God. After all, what all Good God would leave you in your sorrow? Why wouldn’t he lift you? Christ’s words are an exact mirroring of that sentiment, but what makes it spectacular is that he himself is God the son. What this communicates, therefore, is that the burden of life and suffering and sin, pushed to their furthest extreme, bring all - including God himself - understandably to such a point that we cannot comprehend how it could possibly serve the good.

All that to say, it isn’t a statement of God literally not being present at the cross, but rather a statement of the intensity of sin and evil and suffering to even bring God himself to doubt his own benevolence.

If the thing that you say was true then Jesus must have said oh God why I should suffer? Instead he said why you forsaken me?

 

[quaestio45]

If the thing that you say was true then Jesus must have said oh God why I should suffer? Instead he said why you forsaken me?

But it was deeper than merely that. His doubt became so extreme due to suffering that it seeped into the idea that a benevolent God is even present. Which of course, is strange considering he is God. But thats a case in point of how horrible evil, sin, and suffering are, not of Christ’s divinity.

 

[STT]

But it was deeper than merely that. His doubt became so extreme due to suffering that it seeped into the idea that a benevolent God is even present. Which of course, is strange considering he is God. But thats a case in point of how horrible evil, sin, and suffering are, not of Christ’s divinity.

That (the bold part) is my problem. How God could be absent to Himself?

 

[quaestio45]

That (the bold part) is my problem. How God could be absent to Himself?

He isn’t. He knows he’s God. But he had a moment of doubt in relation to his benevolence. As such, he represented that by stating that God has left him. Its important to note that at that moment God was a suffering man. As such, to be a suffering man is naturally to doubt the goodness of God.

 

[STT]

He isn’t. He knows he’s God. But he had a moment of doubt in relation to his benevolence. As such, he represented that by stating that God has left him. Its important to note that at that moment God was a suffering man. As such, to be a suffering man is naturally to doubt the goodness of God.

How Jesus could doubt that He is God?

 

[quaestio45]

How Jesus could doubt that He is God?

He didn’t, he simply doubted the benevolence of his all good nature because of his experiencing of sin, evil, and suffering to the extreme.

 

[Raxus]

. For were God to do things beyond himself, like create,

I think you’re boiling the philosophy down way too far. Why is it “beyond God” to create?

 

[Raxus]

He didn’t, he simply doubted the benevolence of his all good nature because of his experiencing of sin, evil, and suffering to the extreme.

Jesus didn’t doubt anything. He went through willingly with everything God had in mind.

 

[Vico]

…
Could you please show me a verse in the Bible which tells that God is simple?

The simplicity of God flows from the Biblical truth that God is spirit. See John 4:24.

 

[quaestio45]

I think you’re boiling the philosophy down way too far. Why is it “beyond God” to create?

Are you a pantheist? If not, then creation is not God. Therefore, God creating is him committing to an action which has external effects to him. Thus, it is beyond the internalities of God. Unless, of course, you’re a pantheist.

Jesus didn’t doubt anything. He went through willingly with everything God had in mind.

So what is your explanation of the “why hath thou forsaken me” line?

 

[Raxus]

Are you a pantheist? If not, then creation is not God. Therefore, God creating is him committing to an action which has external effects to him. Thus, it is beyond the internalities of God. Unless, of course, you’re a pantheist.

Except that God exists outside of time, so He already knows what His creations will result in. Therefore, your premise is flawed.

 

[quaestio45]

Except that God exists outside of time, so He already knows what His creations will result in. Therefore, your premise is flawed.

Explanation please, because I don’t see how that fact changes anything, especially since I already take it into account in my spars. And perhaps being specific over which premise is wrong would help as well.

 

[Raxus]

Explanation please, because I don’t see how that fact changes anything, especially since I already take it into account in my spars. And perhaps being specific over which premise is wrong would help as well.

You’re coming at God’s creation in the same way that you’d come at any one of us creating; but God is unique in context, and so His acts of creation are as well.

 

[Raxus]

So what is your explanation of the “why hath thou forsaken me” line?

Fervent, wholesale fear at what was to come. He still didn’t doubt, however. He went through with it.

 

[Raxus]

especially since I already take it into account in my spars.

Who exactly do you think you’re “sparring” with?

 

[quaestio45]

You’re coming at God’s creation in the same way that you’d come at any one of us creating; but God is unique in context, and so His acts of creation are as well.

Hmmm… okay, how about this:

P1) In order for something to be voluntary you must have the ability to be in a commited state of being (where you do the voluntary act) or uncommitted state of being (where you don’t do the voluntary act)
P2) These two states of being must be distinct from one another
P3) God cannot be concieved as being in distinct states of being
C1) Thus, God cannot act by voluntude
P4) What isn’t voluntary is necessary
C2) Thus, God always acts by necessity
P5) God created reality
C3) Thus, reality was created by necessity
P6) God is only necessitated in doing that which directly contributes to his goodness
P7) Nothing external to God can contribute to his goodness
C4) Therefore creation cannot have been made by necessity
C5) reductio ad absurdum

Now, which specific premise do you contend?

Fervent, wholesale fear at what was to come. He still didn’t doubt, however. He went through with it

Yeah… that makes sense. I’ll buy that.

Who exactly do you think you’re “sparring” with?

Mostly Vico to be frank . It ended at an impasse at premise 1, 2, and 3.

 

[Raxus]

Now, which specific premise do you contend?

I don’t even know what you mean by “distinct states of being”. Honestly, I think you’re trying way too hard.

Mostly Vico to be frank . It ended at an impasse at premise 1, 2, and 3.

Eh. Maybe you should try to come at it like conversing instead of sparring. I understand that you’re doing your best to come at it from a thorough point of view, but I think you need to work on how to communicate those views in ways that are easier to understand; I read philosophy a lot, and use it occasionally, but I’m just getting lost in the weeds trying to understand most of your points.

 

[quaestio45]

I don’t even know what you mean by “distinct states of being”

The manner by which one exists.

Honestly, I think you’re trying way too hard.

Not sure what you mean by that. This is an argument needing thorough explanation so I try to be as specific in my articulation as possible.

Eh. Maybe you should try to come at it like conversing instead of sparring.

Thats true. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it was a large opposing back and forth resulting from division in opinion.

I understand that you’re doing your best to come at it from a thorough point of view, but I think you need to work on how to communicate those views in ways that are easier to understand

I try to formulate my speech around Aristotlean and Thomistic language for the sake of greater conversational engagement with people here (as a nice chunk of them are Thomists). That way I can say less and mean more without causing confusion. However, I understand that a good number of people see what I say as giberish which does result in confusion. I’ll attempt working around it without compromising too heavily on information I try to convey.

I read philosophy a lot, and use it occasionally, but I’m just getting lost in the weeds trying to understand most of your points.

To be fair, this specific topic does need a hefty amount of background knowledge in Thomism and classical philosophy to not be lost in weeds. The only way I can make it more reader friendly is if I made it like an article, but that would take too long and I like getting to the point. Further, this question is geared towards Thomistic thinkers who knows their philosophy well enough to defend it. As such, its unnecessary for me to cater language for the lay men, especially if most wouldn’t have the tools to bring forth an answer. Not to discredit lay men as thinkers, of course, as there are several philosophys outside of Thomism I am hardly familiar with which are brilliant I suspect. Nonetheless, its not what the question is for.