Can God do this:

[Neil_Anthony]

It is not even necessary that God would physically interfere and prevent evil deeds. It would be sufficient to have people who have a theoretical concept of evil, but are disinclined to do it.

I bet you can imagine murdering someone, but you would never act on it. Yet, you have free will, you could commit a murder, if you wanted to, but you would never do it. Not because there is a physical limitation imposed on you, rather, because you freely choose not to do it.

Such a world would be much better, don’t you agree?

Hmm, so if I understand you correctly, we would have a natural aversion to doing harm to others? Like most of us have a natural aversion to killing another person, but that would be extended so that we naturally just didn’t like hurting others in any way, shape or form? Like an exagerated altruistic instinct?

That does sound better. I wonder why we aren’t like that?

 

[ateista]

Hmm, so if I understand you correctly, we would have a natural aversion to doing harm to others? Like most of us have a natural aversion to killing another person, but that would be extended so that we naturally just didn’t like hurting others in any way, shape or form? Like an exagerated altruistic instinct?

You understand me perfectly!

That does sound better. I wonder why we aren’t like that?

And that is indeed the question. I have been asking this question over and over again. Never have I received a logical answer.

Mind you, such a setup would not prevent to accidently hurting someone through ignorance, it would only not happen intentionally. And that makes all the difference.

 

[ateista]

We had that. Then we Fell.

No, my friend, we did not have it. The “fall” was an intentional act, not a mistake (at least according to theology). What I said is having a natural aversion to intentionally doing something wrong would not impede of free will.

 

[BlaineTog]

No, my friend, we did not have it. The “fall” was an intentional act, not a mistake (at least according to theology). What I said is having a natural aversion to intentionally doing something wrong would not impede of free will.

Once again, that’s what we had. That aversion was simply not immutable, since that would be akin to putting only one person’s name on the ballot.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

No, my friend, we did not have it. The “fall” was an intentional act, not a mistake (at least according to theology). What I said is having a natural aversion to intentionally doing something wrong would not impede of free will.

I think it’s important for this question to draw a distinction between the initial choice to eat from the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” and the moral choices we face in day to day life.

For our day-to-day moral decisions, the problem could be reduced to biology: why are we ‘wired’ to want to hurt others, when biologically God could have designed us to have a natural dislike for harming others.

The original sin associated with the fall is full of symbolism. Of course the same question can be asked about that sin, why did God make our nature so that we would be tempted to commit that sin? But the symbolism of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil seems to be an attempt to explain to us why we are in this predicament in the first place. To me, it says that humans preferred to face real choices between good and evil rather than just trusting in God to guide us. It means that we chose this unfortunate state that we are in because we wanted to face these moral difficulties on our own.

I guess the problem is still there, but I think the question now is, why did God create us with the original inclination to prefer to enter this battle between good and evil where we face difficult choices and it’s sometimes easier to do the wrong thing than the right thing? I’m not sure of the answer, but do you think this is on the right track?

 

[Harmony1988]

Before even attempting to answer the question, one must think about whether the question itself is valid. The rock question is invalid, because the question itself is flawed.

Can God create a rock He cannot lift? Since an all-powerful being will always be able to accomplish whatever He sets out to do, it is impossible for an all-powerful being to not do something. The above argument is arguing that since God is all-powerful He can do anything - even fail. This is like saying that since God is all-powerful He can be not all-powerful.

So now take the time and think of the question itself and it’s validity before trying to answer it. These ‘can’ questions require an answer of yes/no, if there can be no yes/no answer without admitting to God’s failure in omnipotence, then the question itself is flawed whether you can pick it up immediately or not.

 

[moises3255]

Hello. My name is Moises,

I live in San Pablo CA

I’m going to be honest.

The Bible do teach how to live in God’s law and the way it should be told said and done. easy, right? No, because (1 Corinthians 2:13 And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms.) How do we know the truth? Isaiah 28:13 So the word of the LORD to them will be,
“Order on order, order on order Line on line, line on line, A little here, a little there,” That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive.

Pardon me, this is what I learn and it’s said and done. I’m not going to take or add to this. And it’s just the beginning.

II Corinthians 6:4-5

Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger;

Ephesians 2:4-5

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

And we should continue to know God. Let us read.

John 6:44

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (KJV)

Continue on what it means…

Colossians 3:15

And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.

You must know the Law of the Lord. There is one Father, one Son. Jesus the Way to the Father.

John 14:9-14

Jesus answered: "Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

I don’t give own thoughts and free form of though because that is not the righteous way of God. God is righteous, not us.

John 10:7,9

7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

What should we do? Enter the body of Christ. Which is the body?

Romans 16:16

Greet one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ greet you.

Acts 20:28

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

who’s blood? Christ’s Blood.

Ephesians 5:25, 23

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Saviour of the body.

I’m a member of the Baptist Church in California. What I said is true? Yes. Because it all came from the Bible. Jesus said he loves his church. He is the head of his church. Just like I have one wife, and Jesus have his one church. Again. I know the truth what is written.

I want to say God Bless to everyone here. Thank you for knowing this little passage. Understand the meaning of true and we should live in God’s ways and his ways only. He comes first and believe our Lord Jesus Christ is our mediator to the Father in Heaven. I believe in true worship, praying, and giving offering.

What is the true church? The Church of Christ. It is written in the Bible, no other book. As a member of a Baptist Church, the name of it, is Not Church of Christ. It’s a different name.

 

[ateista]

I think it’s important for this question to draw a distinction between the initial choice to eat from the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” and the moral choices we face in day to day life.

Ok, let’s do that.

For our day-to-day moral decisions, the problem could be reduced to biology: why are we ‘wired’ to want to hurt others, when biologically God could have designed us to have a natural dislike for harming others.

But we are not really “wired” to do harm, only some people are. Looking at the whole population in general, we can see the Bell-curve. A huge majority of people are decent. A few are exceptionally good. And a few are sociopaths or psychopaths.

The original sin associated with the fall is full of symbolism. Of course the same question can be asked about that sin, why did God make our nature so that we would be tempted to commit that sin? But the symbolism of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil seems to be an attempt to explain to us why we are in this predicament in the first place. To me, it says that humans preferred to face real choices between good and evil rather than just trusting in God to guide us. It means that we chose this unfortunate state that we are in because we wanted to face these moral difficulties on our own.

Let’s contemplate this. Were we “designed” to prefer these moral choices to be real? If we were, then why punish us for following our design parameters?

I guess the problem is still there, but I think the question now is, why did God create us with the original inclination to prefer to enter this battle between good and evil where we face difficult choices and it’s sometimes easier to do the wrong thing than the right thing? I’m not sure of the answer, but do you think this is on the right track?

I am always inclined to look at this question as a design issue. A designer has a “picture” in mind when starting to create something. He has an aim he wants to fulfill. There are certain behavioral patterns he finds desirable, and others he wants to avoid.

A thorough designer will make sure that only the preferred actions will be chosen and the others will be avoided. There are several ways to achieve this.

One would be arranging the physical parameters of the universe where unwanted actions are physically impossible. (We can wish to fly by flapping our hands like wings, but gravity will prevent us.)

Another one would be where the unwanted actions are psychologically impossible. (We would be disinclined to murder… as most of us are.)

The worst possible solution is to allow complete freedom (that is not building any safeguards against unwanted actions), and then “order” the creation to avoid things the creator does not like. That is the sign of laziness. Instead of doing a decent design job, the designer just puts together a semi-working contraption - and declares it “good”.

And then to add insult to injury, when the created ones work in full accordance with their design parameters (over which they had no choice) then coming in and punishing the creation for doing what he allowed them to do. That is inexcusable.

There is of course one other way to look at it. What we are doing is precisely what the designer intended - not just “allowed”. We work according to our design parameters as the creator wanted. This would shed a very strange light on the creator’s intentions. Wanting to see the evil, misery, murders, rapes, wars and other atrocities does not mesh with the alleged love this creator is supposed to feel for us. I see no way out of this dilemma.

 

[ateista]

Once again, that’s what we had. That aversion was simply not immutable, since that would be akin to putting only one person’s name on the ballot.

Having only one name of the ballot still allows you not to vote.

 

[BlaineTog]

Having only one name of the ballot still allows you not to vote.

Which is no different from voting. There’s no choice there.

 

[ateista]

Which is no different from voting. There’s no choice there.

My friend, you obviously did not live in a communist country, where there was only one name on the ballot - the communist party. Many people did not vote. Several people (me included) voted with their feet.

It is a limited choice, for sure. But it is still a choice.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Let’s contemplate this. Were we “designed” to prefer these moral choices to be real? If we were, then why punish us for following our design parameters?

Perhaps the definition of independence and freedom is incompatible with the property of ‘wanting God to make all the decisions for us’. If God’s intent was to create a species of gods in his image (or demi-gods, or mini-gods, but somehow modeled after God), could he make them so that they did not prefer to make their own moral choices? Would they still be ‘in His image’?

As for ‘why punish us’, when I read the fall-of-man myth, I see a God who expresses disappointment that man has chosen a route whose natural consequence requires leaving paradise. I don’t see it as a punishment so much as a natural consequence. And if the natural consequence is due to some rule of logic, it might not be something even God can change.

I am always inclined to look at this question as a design issue. A designer has a “picture” in mind when starting to create something. He has an aim he wants to fulfill. There are certain behavioral patterns he finds desirable, and others he wants to avoid.

A thorough designer will make sure that only the preferred actions will be chosen and the others will be avoided. There are several ways to achieve this.

Are we still talking about free beings here? If the designer is completely sure that only one path will ever be chosen, I suspect there is not complete freedom. When we talked about inclinations earlier, I didn’t realize you meant that they would be so strong that we could not rebel no matter what. Instead I pictured a life where it would be easier to do good, but a person could still choose between following God or following himself. And I suppose your answer is that he can choose, he just never will choose the wrong path. I wonder if there is a analytical way to break down this concept and check it for logical consistency, because I’m just going on hunches now, and your idea strikes me as contradictory, but I can’t prove it.

One would be arranging the physical parameters of the universe where unwanted actions are physically impossible. (We can wish to fly by flapping our hands like wings, but gravity will prevent us.)

Another one would be where the unwanted actions are psychologically impossible. (We would be disinclined to murder… as most of us are.)

The worst possible solution is to allow complete freedom (that is not building any safeguards against unwanted actions), and then “order” the creation to avoid things the creator does not like. That is the sign of laziness. Instead of doing a decent design job, the designer just puts together a semi-working contraption - and declares it “good”.

And then to add insult to injury, when the created ones work in full accordance with their design parameters (over which they had no choice) then coming in and punishing the creation for doing what he allowed them to do. That is inexcusable.

Certainly, punishments are only justified if there is real choice. If, in your system, punishments are immoral, then I would have to say that in your system, the people did not have a choice. If they had freedom, it would not be immoral, by definition. And by definition, without freedom, punishment is immoral. This is causing me to suspect even more that in the scenario we’re looking at, there isn’t really freedom.

How’s this for a logical analytical argument: If there’s real freedom, accountability is justified. If there is not real freedom, accountability is not justified.

There is of course one other way to look at it. What we are doing is precisely what the designer intended - not just “allowed”. We work according to our design parameters as the creator wanted. This would shed a very strange light on the creator’s intentions. Wanting to see the evil, misery, murders, rapes, wars and other atrocities does not mesh with the alleged love this creator is supposed to feel for us. I see no way out of this dilemma.

This sounds like a deterministic / materialistic view of the world, where we are creatures ultimately defined by the laws of physics without any real freedom.

 

[BlaineTog]

My friend, you obviously did not live in a communist country, where there was only one name on the ballot - the communist party. Many people did not vote. Several people (me included) voted with their feet.

It is a limited choice, for sure. But it is still a choice.

False analogy. There is no other place to go. By definition, the world you set up would not have this “vote with your feet” option. Such an option would be sin.

 

[ateista]

Perhaps the definition of independence and freedom is incompatible with the property of ‘wanting God to make all the decisions for us’. If God’s intent was to create a species of gods in his image (or demi-gods, or mini-gods, but somehow modeled after God), could he make them so that they did not prefer to make their own moral choices? Would they still be ‘in His image’?

Very good question.

It brings up this problem: according to the Christian view, God is unable to choose evil - because it goes against his nature. In other words, God is not a moral agent. (Moreover it is asserted that this limitation does not lessen his omnipotence.) In this sense God is even more limited in his freedom than we are. So why give us freedom which he does not need or have? That would be a logical choice, would it not? Especially if we are modeled after his image.

And here is another question to contemplate, the question of love. Also according to the Christian view God loves us, and wants us to love him - freely. But what kind of love can be between vastly unequal beings?

It certainly cannot come from mutual intellectual respect, which I consider the highest form of love. How could it? Our capabilities are insufficient to understand God. It can only be something akin to the pet’s “love” for his master. And what kind of “satisfaction” can come from a dog’s love for his master? Isn’t a love stemming from mutual understanding much more preferable?

As for ‘why punish us’, when I read the fall-of-man myth, I see a God who expresses disappointment that man has chosen a route whose natural consequence requires leaving paradise. I don’t see it as a punishment so much as a natural consequence. And if the natural consequence is due to some rule of logic, it might not be something even God can change.

Well, this depends on how verbatim do you take it. If you view it somewhat in a literal fashion, then God is angry and curses his creation because of the disobedience. He actively chases humans out of the Garden. It does not look like a “force of nature” to me.

Are we still talking about free beings here? If the designer is completely sure that only one path will ever be chosen, I suspect there is not complete freedom.

But there is never complete freedom. As I said before God has no moral freedom at all.

When we talked about inclinations earlier, I didn’t realize you meant that they would be so strong that we could not rebel no matter what. Instead I pictured a life where it would be easier to do good, but a person could still choose between following God or following himself. And I suppose your answer is that he can choose, he just never will choose the wrong path.

It can be an inclination or it can be an unbreakable barrier. It really does not matter.

Certainly, punishments are only justified if there is real choice. If, in your system, punishments are immoral, then I would have to say that in your system, the people did not have a choice. If they had freedom, it would not be immoral, by definition. And by definition, without freedom, punishment is immoral. This is causing me to suspect even more that in the scenario we’re looking at, there isn’t really freedom.

How’s this for a logical analytical argument: If there’s real freedom, accountability is justified. If there is not real freedom, accountability is not justified.

I agree. Could you elaborate on what do you consider “real” freedom?

This sounds like a deterministic / materialistic view of the world, where we are creatures ultimately defined by the laws of physics without any real freedom.

I don’t want to go into detailed discussion of materialism here, because it would derail this thread. I opened another one “Ask the materialist” where we can talk about it at length. Suffice it to say that materialism does not mean determinism.

Added:

Going back to the designer problem. We are either “malfunctioning” or we work “as intended”. Whichever is the case, the responsibility lies with the designer. If there would be a sign on God’s desk, it should read: “The buck stops here!”.

 

[davidv]

And here is another question to contemplate, the question of love. Also according to the Christian view God loves us, and wants us to love him - freely. But what kind of love can be between vastly unequal beings?

Why would this vast unequalness be a barrier to love? It there not a vast unequalness between a healthy 25 year old mother and her 1 month old child. Does she not love her child?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It brings up this problem: according to the Christian view, God is unable to choose evil - because it goes against his nature. In other words, God is not a moral agent. (Moreover it is asserted that this limitation does not lessen his omnipotence.) In this sense God is even more limited in his freedom than we are. So why give us freedom which he does not need or have? That would be a logical choice, would it not? Especially if we are modeled after his image.

While God would not be God if He did evil, He is still free to do evil. He freely chooses good. So the way you phrase it, that God is unable to do evil is only correct in the trivial sense that God would not be God if He chose evil. But God does have that freedom to do evil, but chooses not to.

I think this is what humans in heaven will be like. We will be free, but they’re the ones who chose good instead of evil. And we will never choose evil again, probably because in eternity our choices are made once. Here within time we make many choices but in eternity our choices are done once.

Well, this depends on how verbatim do you take it. If you view it somewhat in a literal fashion, then God is angry and curses his creation because of the disobedience. He actively chases humans out of the Garden. It does not look like a “force of nature” to me.

I just read it again, and I see what you mean. God actually seems to want to prevent Adam from becoming God by combining knowledge of good and evil with eternal life. It’s hard to say if God was really jealous and angry… the ancients portrayed God with those emotions but that might have been a reflection of their limited understanding, like when they refer to the earth as if it’s flat.

But there is never complete freedom. As I said before God has no moral freedom at all.
It can be an inclination or it can be an unbreakable barrier. It really does not matter.

I agree. Could you elaborate on what do you consider “real” freedom?

Real freedom (or just ‘freedom’) is the ability to make a choice completely of your own authoring. This decision is not predetermined by the nature you have been given when you were created. It is something you do completely independently. (Why didn’t I mention this earlier? It’s because this conversation is helping me do a lot of reflection and thinking that I haven’t done before - thanks!).

I don’t want to go into detailed discussion of materialism here, because it would derail this thread. I opened another one “Ask the materialist” where we can talk about it at length. Suffice it to say that materialism does not mean determinism.

Going back to the designer problem. We are either “malfunctioning” or we work “as intended”. Whichever is the case, the responsibility lies with the designer. If there would be a sign on God’s desk, it should read: “The buck stops here!”.

Okay, well then this position sounds like determinism. Part of what I believe it is to be human, is that we have this freedom which actually allows us to author decisions independently of any nature that God gave us. So God has actually shared this responsibility/authority with us.

Perhaps the purpose of this life is that, to be in God’s presence for eternity as free beings, we have to freely choose good. If god created all of us to freely choose good, it would not be real freedom. So creating semi-gods in his image may logically require that some will be lost and some will be saved.

 

[ateista]

While God would not be God if He did evil, He is still free to do evil.

There is nothing in the concept of a “supreme being” that would logically compel “goodness”. And the Yahweh in the Old Testament is very evil, and proud of it.

He freely chooses good. So the way you phrase it, that God is unable to do evil is only correct in the trivial sense that God would not be God if He chose evil. But God does have that freedom to do evil, but chooses not to.

You are the first one who ever suggested this, at least to my knowledge. Everyone else categorically asserted that God is unable to commit evil, because it would go against his nature. It was also said that God cannot even tolerate evil.

Of course I always smile when I these assertions. Obviously God “tolerates” evil in the world just fine. And allows evil to flourish, he just subcontracted or outsourced it to Satan so he can wash his hands a la Pilate…

I just read it again, and I see what you mean. God actually seems to want to prevent Adam from becoming God by combining knowledge of good and evil with eternal life. It’s hard to say if God was really jealous and angry… the ancients portrayed God with those emotions but that might have been a reflection of their limited understanding, like when they refer to the earth as if it’s flat.

I really appreciate that you actually read what I say and take the time and effort to understand it. Alas, it happens much too infrequently.

Now, if you consider the Old Testament, the jealousy, anger and vanity are mentioned all the time. One should pretty much “write off” the whole Old Testament to maintain that God is “loving” or “caring”…

Real freedom (or just ‘freedom’) is the ability to make a choice completely of your own authoring. This decision is not predetermined by the nature you have been given when you were created. It is something you do completely independently. (Why didn’t I mention this earlier? It’s because this conversation is helping me do a lot of reflection and thinking that I haven’t done before - thanks!).

Excellent definition, I totally agree. However, many posters alleged that a “small” freedom does not “really” count. Some even went to the extreme, and said that the only “true” freedom is to choose or reject God. They said that if that freedom is denied, we are turned into “robots”.

So creating semi-gods in his image may logically require that some will be lost and some will be saved.

But that is truly evil. To create some beings for the sole purpose of eternally condeming them to hell is the worst evil I can imagine.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

There is nothing in the concept of a “supreme being” that would logically compel “goodness”. And the Yahweh in the Old Testament is very evil, and proud of it.

I wish I understood more philosophy so that I could comprehend Kurt Godel’s ontological proof for the existence of God. I think it requires that God is good, but I’m really not able to defend that, and it’s probably not that relevant to this discussion anyway.

You are the first one who ever suggested this, at least to my knowledge. Everyone else categorically asserted that God is unable to commit evil, because it would go against his nature. It was also said that God cannot even tolerate evil.

I’ve been doing some research on this in the meantime, and most Christians I’ve found say that God has free will but is unable to do evil… It’s hard to make sense of this unless it just means that God wouldn’t do evil… I don’t know. But we definitely understand God as having free will and volition.
( see christiancourier.com/articles/read/james_113_god_cannot_be_tempted )

I haven’t actually studied theology, this is just something I’m casually interested. As for God not tolerating evil… we know that God allows evil so obviously they don’t mean ‘tolerate’ in the same sense that its normally used. In fact God holds evil beings in existence… but somehow they can not be in His presence.

I really appreciate that you actually read what I say and take the time and effort to understand it. Alas, it happens much too infrequently.

Now, if you consider the Old Testament, the jealousy, anger and vanity are mentioned all the time. One should pretty much “write off” the whole Old Testament to maintain that God is “loving” or “caring”…

Fundamentalists will try really hard to defend God’s actions in the Old testament. Catholics and other more scholarly groups tend to look at the bible as a record of the development of man’s understanding of God. That God slowly revealed himself to people over the centuries. And when things like ethnic cleansing are attributed to God, this is because the hebrews hadn’t learned the lesson yet that God loves other nations as well as them. They first had to learn what it meant for God to love them before they could comprehend this.

Excellent definition, I totally agree. However, many posters alleged that a “small” freedom does not “really” count. Some even went to the extreme, and said that the only “true” freedom is to choose or reject God. They said that if that freedom is denied, we are turned into “robots”.

I agree that a human being without free will is like a robot… or like a machine. Although I guess it would be a machine with consciousness, but still its future would be predetermined so it wouldn’t really be what I think of as a human being.

But that is truly evil. To create some beings for the sole purpose of eternally condeming them to hell is the worst evil I can imagine.

If God created them and predestined them either to heaven or hell, by denying them freedom, then I would agree with you. But I think each person actually decides for himself. I’m not sure if I was able to communicate to you what I mean by free will… that our choices are not predetermined by the natures that God gave us.

I also think that the main punishment of hell is being separated from God, and that since these are the people who chose to rebel against God, there is some justice there. I also think that punishment given out by God has to be proportional to the wrong done, and that the medieval ideas of hell were overdone.

 

[BlaineTog]

There is nothing in the concept of a “supreme being” that would logically compel “goodness”. And the Yahweh in the Old Testament is very evil, and proud of it.

sigh

OT God is not evil, not in the slightest. He orders deaths all over the place, sure, but someone has to decide when people die, and would you rather it be Joe down the street or Mark from three blocks over?

*Now, if you consider the Old Testament, the jealousy, anger and vanity are mentioned all the time. One should pretty much “write off” the whole Old Testament to maintain that God is “loving” or “caring”… *

Not at all. First and foremost, you have to keep in mind that those are all anthropomorphizations. That said, they also have some truth. God is jealous insofar as he doesn’t want his people cheating on him. And why shouldn’t he? He is, by definition, the best they can possibly do, and yet they’re messing around with Baal (who’s so not good for them) and others. He is angry insofar as they are treating him like garbage when they owe their everything to him, when he is infinitely better than they. (And God cannot be vain, since that would mean he thought more of himself than he is, which is impossible).

You’re missing the whole point of the Old Testament, which is spelled out in big black letters all over the place: even though Israel was absolutely faithless, God stuck by them anyway.

But that is truly evil. To create some beings for the sole purpose of eternally condeming them to hell is the worst evil I can imagine.

And he doesn’t. They all had the ability and opportunity to choose differently and didn’t.

 

[ateista]

I wish I understood more philosophy so that I could comprehend Kurt Godel’s ontological proof for the existence of God. I think it requires that God is good, but I’m really not able to defend that, and it’s probably not that relevant to this discussion anyway.

Don’t worry about it, it is incorrect. The basic problem with it is that it treats “existence” as a property, which it is not. The second problem is that the concept of “greatest conceivable being” is a subjective category. And the third problem is that in his Axiom #3 he actually commits the fallacy of composition.

There is a thread - unfortunately closed - about the Modal Ontological Argument, which talkes about this problem, at length.

I’ve been doing some research on this in the meantime, and most Christians I’ve found say that God has free will but is unable to do evil… It’s hard to make sense of this unless it just means that God wouldn’t do evil… I don’t know. But we definitely understand God as having free will and volition.

You are correct, it makes absolutely no sense at all. If God is able do evil, but chooses not to; then he is a moral agent. If God is unable to do evil, then he is not a moral agent. To say that the phrase “unable” really means “able but unwilling” can and must be qualified as speading intentional confusion.

The basic trouble with Christianity - philosophically speaking - is that Christians want to “make” God so perfect, that they run into contradictions like this, and then they must redefine words in an attempt to avoid the contradiction. Usually this “method” is called the fallacy of the stolen concept.

I haven’t actually studied theology, this is just something I’m casually interested. As for God not tolerating evil… we know that God allows evil so obviously they don’t mean ‘tolerate’ in the same sense that its normally used. In fact God holds evil beings in existence… but somehow they can not be in His presence.

… which is yet another logical contradiction. It contadicts God’s omnipresence. If God is omnipresent, then he is everywhere and everywhen, and therefore he “allows” evil in his presence. This is another example arising from God’s “omnimax” attributes. It leads to glaring logical contradictions, which then are denied by the apologists.

Fundamentalists will try really hard to defend God’s actions in the Old testament. Catholics and other more scholarly groups tend to look at the bible as a record of the development of man’s understanding of God. That God slowly revealed himself to people over the centuries. And when things like ethnic cleansing are attributed to God, this is because the hebrews hadn’t learned the lesson yet that God loves other nations as well as them. They first had to learn what it meant for God to love them before they could comprehend this.

Yes, this method is called “cherry picking”. We decide which parts of the Bible is supposed to be taken verbatim, and which parts are supposed to be talken allegorically. Of course the parts we agree with must be taken literally. The rest is just allegory, or historical description.

One example: most of the Levitican laws are considered to be just ancient Jewish laws, which are not applicable any more. But come to the Levitican prohibition of homosexuality, that part is very much considered applicable. Cherry picking, at its finest.

If God created them and predestined them either to heaven or hell, by denying them freedom, then I would agree with you. But I think each person actually decides for himself. I’m not sure if I was able to communicate to you what I mean by free will… that our choices are not predetermined by the natures that God gave us.

Yes you did a fine job and I agree with your definition.

This is what you said before:
Perhaps the purpose of this life is that, to be in God’s presence for eternity as free beings, we have to freely choose good. If god created all of us to freely choose good, it would not be real freedom. So creating semi-gods in his image may logically require that some will be lost and some will be saved.
It does not matter if God “singled out” some people or allow them to make the “bad choice”. If it is logically necessary that some will make the bad choice, then their existence serves no other purpose than to exist for a while in this existence and then to suffer eternally.

There is another problem with the sentence highlighted in blue. You say that if everyone would be freely choosing God, then it would not be “true” freedom. What you say is that person “A”-s freedom to choose good is contingent upon person “B”-s free choice to do evil. And that really makes no sense at all.

I also think that the main punishment of hell is being separated from God, and that since these are the people who chose to rebel against God, there is some justice there. I also think that punishment given out by God has to be proportional to the wrong done, and that the medieval ideas of hell were overdone.

We can safely leave out the specifics of hell from this dialogue, it is complex enough as it is.