evil God?

[Daedelus76]

You mean, besides the obvious? That is, that a being that is at once good and evil would be completely contradictory?

As somebody else said, I believe Deism is possible. Perhaps the universe was created by a dying God… in one Chinese myth, Pengu hatches from an egg, a bearded cave man type guy, then dies, and his body becomes all of life in the world. That sort of thing reminds me of possibilities about what a Creator could be.

Ok: if we were all under the tyranny of an evil god, one that is not only evil, but also omnipotent, do you think anyone would find existence tolerable? We can’t even comprehend “omnipotent evil.” The combination of the two notions renders them unthinkable! (Try it; really push your imagination to its limit.)

Good point. Maybe this Deist God would not exactly be evil- indifferent would be more likely. I simply don’t see how the loving God Christians claim to worship is real. We don’t live in a universe with an omnipotent, loving God. You’ll have to explain what you mean by “love”, how this “love” can be reconciled with cancer, birth defects, tsunamis, rape, holocausts, murder, and so on… I don’t see how.

More contradictions. For example, you do not believe in a “monotheistic god,” so, you believe in a plurality of gods? Also, how would the universe look without an “omnipotent” power of some sort, probably God, who presumably creates things where there was nothing before

I consider this a possibility: Buddhism has devas, asuras, and so forth, “gods”, seemingly powerful beings who are not omnipotent. They live in the heavens. A Buddhist doesn’t take refuge in them, because they themselves do not always show wisdom and follow the Dharma. Some of these types of beings are even malevolent, profoundly misguided. Buddhists only take refuge in the Buddha and Bodhisattvas, beings that have realized the true nature of existence, no longer clinging to delusions. Even still, a Buddha is not omnipotent because the concepts applied to the Christian concept of God are incoherent in the Buddhist worldview. Some Buddhists would consider something like Jehovah just another deva or asura.

Now, if you want to know, does Buddhism have an ontological ground of being? Yes, in many traditions it is called Dharmakaya, it is just the immanent awareness of ones own mind. It’s not some transcendent, personal being that has loves and prejudices and chooses a tribe of Semites on earth to be jealous about and sends a son into the world to die for broken rules that he himself created and imposed on people. Those ideas are so ridiculously anthropomorphic as to be difficult to reconcile with the Buddhist understanding, which is fundamentally mystical rather than mythical (if you want to know Dharmakaya, rather than reading a holy book or listening to a pope you could just go meditate or even just not meditate, this is Dharmakaya right here).

In Japanese Pure Land Buddhism, Amida Buddha is similar to a panentheistic conceptualization of God, similar to process theology. But Amida is not omnipotent, doesn’t answer prayers in the theistic sense, and did not create the universe. I consider this also a possibility.

WLC’s axiological argument was brought up, just wanted to offer some thoughts on that:

1. If God didn’t exist, then objective moral values wouldn’t exist.
   …

So, the first thing I want to say is if (1) is a material conditional, then many atheists will have to say it’s false, and thereby reject (3). This is because a material conditional is only false…

I don’t care about the objectivity of moral values. They are all subjective in my book. Does that make them absolutely arbitrary? Hardly . Morality is relative to our biology, our creatureliness. I’m not afraid of not having moral absolutes. Buddhism, Taoism, etc., are very OK with not having objective morality. This is beyond just secular humanism or atheism, it is an issue that many monotheistic religions are highly moralistic. To sell you on Allah’s or Jesus mercy as the only way.

And is that the epitome of ‘evil’ for you? I assume you think that the Church is that “authoritarian” rule that says you do not have a “right to your own viewpoint?” Why so?

Look at how Cardinal Ratzinger chased Matthew Fox out of the Catholic Church. Is this intellectual freedom?

let’s look at the big picture. When we die, we either enter a non-carnate existence, or, we are simply recycled, and all of the power (potentiality) that we as rational animals had, is shut off, forever. Like a one-time only light switch. Either way, death is not ‘evil,’ nor is it all that uninviting. Don’t we tend to over-color the unacceptability of death?

Death seems to destroy relationships, that’s the worst part of it for me. I conisder the greater evil though, the culture in which we live that has despiritualized existence to the point that ordinary life doesn’t awaken people to suffering. It seeks to numb it instead.

Thus, to your point of view, all Christians are being duped? By the Church, I presume? The Church passes out candy and we are naively happy?

For most Catholics its all they know. I’m sure its puzzling to many Catholics why non-Catholics don’t embrace it but rarely do people take the outsider perspective of their own beliefs.

 

[Daedelus76]

I am not familiar with process theism. Please note that I know Jesus Christ of Catholicism is God because of the simplicity and incredibly deep wisdom found in the Scripture surrounding the Greatest Commandments, the Beatitudes, and the Content Wisdom regarding the Absolutes of Coming into Existence found in Two Lines of Scripture (John 1:1-2). I would gladly read any information you have to share regarding process theism.

Thoughts?

wikipedia on process theology:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

Process theology is so complicated to talk about … I cannot explain it adequately in brief. It’s based around Alfred North Whitehead’s process metaphysics, which in some ways is similar to Buddhist metaphysics more than Aristotle. Process theism doesn’t have an omnipotent God in the classical sense, and in some cases God also is not necessarily good in the sense of being moralistic. Often the idea of God as a suffering being is emphasized, indeed Whitehead described God as the “fellow sufferer”. It emphasizes aesthetics alot too. But you’ll really have to read about it more to understand it fully. Some Catholic priests and theologians have studied and interacted with process theology. It’s more common in mainline Protestantism, for instance methodist theologian John Cobb is very influential in process thought. Rabbi Harold Kushner is also another example of someone influenced by process theism.

I do not necessarily say I’m a process theist, but I find the ideas more interesting than alot of classical theism.

 

[Perplexity]

danserr:

Good God?

I was drawing a distinction you weren’t. i.e., this argument would show that God exists, but wouldn’t inform us of his moral nature. You’re saying that since God is by definition good, his moral nature needn’t be mentioned explicitly, right? I understand why you took me to be dishonest, but hopefully this distinction will clarify the issue.

Counterfactuals:

“There is no really satisfactory semantics for counterfactual conditionals. But for want of a better alternative, most philosophers use the Stalnaker-Lewis semantics.” - Moreland, James Porter, and William Lane. Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003. p. 53

Without a satisfactory semantics it’s difficult to know the truth conditions of counterfactual conditionals, they’re not even truth-functional and can’t work with certain rules of inference like hypothetical syllogism. Which semantics do we accept? This directly effects whether WLC’s argument goes through. Because all we have, currently, is a tentative semantics I don’t feel it’s irrational to suspend judgment on it. I could just as well adopt a semantics which runs afoul for this argument:

“Thus our logic should allow counterfactuals to be contingent statements. Just because a counterfactual is true, it should not follow logically that it is metaphysically necessarily true; and just because a counterfactual is false, it should not follow logically that it is metaphysically necessarily false.” - Sider, Theodore. Logic for Philosophy. Oxford England: Oxford UP, 2010. p. 200.

“The counterfactual conditional should imply the material conditional. We can argue for this contrapositively: if the material conditional p → q is false, then p is true and q is false. But surely a counterfactual with a true antecedent and false consequent is false.” ibid., p. 201

Ted is here describing natural language counterfactual conditionals, and listing those things we desire to see in a semantics, interestingly, the Stalnaker-Lewis semantics agree with this.

Since (1) isn’t contingent, this semantics requires me to reject it. Since (1) is false as a material condition, this semantics requires me to reject it as a counterfactual as well. etc. But, I wouldn’t worry too much. I don’t take it seriously enough.

Objectivity:

I don’t think theists or atheists should accept “objective” as meaning “independent of what human persons think.” What about extraterrestrials or lower forms of moral agents etc? I don’t believe they’d be exempt from moral duties if they’re objective. Christians also believe in angels and demons etc. So, it seems better to just say ‘persons’ without modifying it with humans. It thereby follows that moral values and duties are independent of God. Note, I’m not denying that moral values and duties are grounded in God’s nature. I’m simply saying if they’re objective, then they’re independent of God as well.

My Counter-Argument:

Sorry, you’re right, I hadn’t seen that I’d typoed the second disjunct of (1’). It should read:

1’. Either God exists, or objective moral values don’t exist.

That’s why I was saying (2’) and (3’) followed by disjunction and that (1’) was a rephrasing of (1)

Your defense of (1):

We don’t even know the truth-conditions of (1), but it seems plausible to me that you’ve gotta at least show that no atheistic position can countenance objective moral values and duties. Showing the current dominant atheist position to fail on this, doesn’t really do much for the others. That’s the burden though. However, as I stated earlier, I think objective moral values and duties would exist whether God did or not, so showing that atheism can’t countenance them doesn’t do much for me.

Your defense of (2):

I, like Law, do find (2) initially plausible. However, if WLC’s (1) is true, then I’ll abandon moral objectivism, because of the atheological arguments I find convincing. There’s nothing irrational about this.

 

[Daedelus76]

What do you do, i.e., for a living (you do not have to be specific)?

I don’t work. I’ve applied to jobs but people have generally not been interested in hiring me at interviews. I am bad at interviews, as I have Asperger’s. I have a poor job history. I’m applying for SSI now.

And so, you think that your so-called “happy people” are in a better situation than you? Do you think you are not having an effect - on others - by your dialogue here and now? Do you not think that some so-called “happy people” might not be improved by reading your words? Do you think that your negativity cannot be efficacious?

Right now I view myself as a creative nihilist, wanting to tear down false things. The glossy image of religion is one, as it depends on the just world fallacy to keep itself going. I want to point out the world is fundamentally unjust (and I don’t see how God changes that), make people give up their illusions, so we can find real solutions, or at least live honestly.

Do you think He might have created us so that there would be help for the suffering?

and that lets God off the hook? You don’t understand, suffering it is unjustified in my mind. There is no way to trade a persons suffering for somebody else’s good without diminishing another person’s dignity. And that’s deeply wrong. The baby that never gets to grow up because it starves to death, the child that dies from cancer, the lives of countless gays ruined by holy bigotry, the fiancees widowed from the car accident (I really know one of those), these people are not simply to be told to suffer in silence for the glory of God or the infallible pronouncements of a church. Their lives mattered, and I for one would spend eternity mourning rather than spend a minute glorifying a religion which gains from their suffering…

 

[danserr]

danserr:

Good God?
I was drawing a distinction you weren’t. i.e., this argument would show that God exists, but wouldn’t inform us of his moral nature. You’re saying that since God is by definition good, his moral nature needn’t be mentioned explicitly, right? I understand why you took me to be dishonest, but hopefully this distinction will clarify the issue.

I think we understand each other better now, but no that is not what I am saying. I am saying that the moral argument, so formulated,

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore God exists.

does show that 1. God exists, and 2. God is good.

• So I would say this argument does inform us of God’s moral nature, as Law himself admits. Law admits that a successful argument along these lines would rebut his so called “evil-god challenge.” That is to say that Law recognizes that such an argument would indeed show God to be good.
• If I read you right, you are concerned that this conclusion is not made explicit in the argument. But the claim that God is the basis of objective moral values and duties is implicit in premise 1, and emerges explicitly in response to objections to the argument. Specifically a properly formulated divine command theory of ethics in response to the euthyphro dilemma.

Counterfactuals:

I don’t see that your semantical concerns give us good reason to doubt the value of the moral argument we are discussing. The argument remains valid, the conclusion follows inevitably from the premises. But supposing you wanted another formulation, one could always formulate the argument as inference to best explanation or using a Bayesian approach. Perhaps something like:

1. the existence of objective moral values and duties is highly improbable on atheism
2. the existence of objective moral values and duties is not highly improbable on theism
3. therefore, the existence of objective moral values and duties confirms theism over atheism.

• I’m just playing with that formulation because I don’t consider it necessary, but other formulations are always an option.

Objectivity:

I don’t think theists or atheists should accept “objective” as meaning “independent of what human persons think.” What about extraterrestrials or lower forms of moral agents etc?

The problem is that you are trying to sneak in the euthyphro dilemma here. ie, if moral values and duties are dependant on God, then they are subjective. But as I have repeatedly told you, even Law admits this does not work against the argument above. Moral values are necessary expressions of God essentially just, loving, impartial etc nature. So there is an obvious distinction between God and human persons (or aliens as you mention).

My Counter-Argument:

Sorry, you’re right, I hadn’t seen that I’d typoed the second disjunct of (1’). It should read:

1’. Either God exists, or objective moral values don’t exist.
2. God does not exist
3. object moral values and duties don’t exist

.

Thanks, that makes more sense. And, I think I addressed it above. I have already granted that this is a valid argument, but then you require very strong support for 2. I am not sure what this could be, the only real candidate is the problem of evil, but various theodicies, and maybe skeptical theism suggest weaken the force of it greatly. On the other hand, Alvin Plantinga recently listed 26 good arguments for the existence of God, so it seems like a very bold claim to say that you are so sure that God does not exist, that you would deny this existence of objective moral values and duties if it would allow you to still deny his existence. This is even worse when you consider the strong plausibility of premise two, that objective moral values and duties do exist.

I think objective moral values and duties would exist whether God did or not, so showing that atheism can’t countenance them doesn’t do much for me.

I may need clarification of the bolded part. Obviously, if atheist cannot support the existence of objective moral values and duties, and they exist, then this should certainly “do something” for you.

• If the primary competing worldview to Christianity cannot support the existence of objective moral values and duties, and they exist, then this is certainly good reason to accept the primary competing worldview (Christianity) to the failed one (evolutionary naturalism).

At this point, I think it fair of me to ask you then to provide a basis for the existence of objective moral values and duties outside of God. Since the euthyphro dilemma fails, and given divine command theory of ethics, we see that God can be the basis of objective morality and there are no good objections to this. If you wish to maintain the existence of objective moral values and duties apart from God, I think it is fair of me to ask you to provide an objective basis for them. So far, you have not, and I have suggested (briefly), at least one problem with this attempt.

 

[Perplexity]

danserr:

I don’t see that your semantical concerns give us good reason to doubt the value of the moral argument we are discussing. The argument remains valid, the conclusion follows inevitably from the premises.

As I suggested, on the semantics WLC wants, I believe (1) is false. So, while the argument is valid it’s not sound. This is because counterfactuals imply material conditionals. (1) expressed as a material conditional is false. Therefore, (1) expressed as a counterfactual is false.

But supposing you wanted another formulation, one could always formulate the argument as inference to best explanation or using a Bayesian approach. Perhaps something like:

1. the existence of objective moral values and duties is highly improbable on atheism
2. the existence of objective moral values and duties is not highly improbable on theism
3. therefore, the existence of objective moral values and duties confirms theism over atheism.

I’m a sucker for Bayesian arguments. However, I’d deny (2). if moral values and duties are objective neither atheism nor theism would lead us to expect them. i.e., where O = objective moral values and duties, T = Theism, and ~T = Atheism:

[P(O|T)≈(x)] → [P(O|~T)≈(x)]

The problem is that you are trying to sneak in the euthyphro dilemma here. ie, if moral values and duties are dependant on God, then they are subjective. But as I have repeatedly told you, even Law admits this does not work against the argument above. Moral values are necessary expressions of God essentially just, loving, impartial etc nature. So there is an obvious distinction between God and human persons (or aliens as you mention).

Granting that Law disagrees with me, I see no reason to think I’m wrong here. I understand “objective” to denote “independent of persons”:

1. Given any (x), if (x) is a person, then moral values and duties are independent of (x).
2. God is a person.
3. Therefore, moral values and duties are independent of (x).

You’ll obviously grant (2). But, I wonder why you’d reject (1)? I don’t see how moral values being necessary expressions of God’s moral character thereby make them objective. In fact, that seems to make them subjective to me. I’ll need an argument to think otherwise.

As far as the problem of evil goes…I find the evidential problem of evil and the argument from divine hiddenness conclusive reasons to think theism is false. I’m familiar with Plantinga’s arguments, although he doesn’t offer theodicies (he thinks they’re presumptuous). But, I don’t want to digress to that. I just brought it up to say that atheists will grant (2’) and upon that basis will infer (3’) instead of (3). i.e., suppose you establish (1), then atheists may just reject (2). It’s tricky.

I may need clarification of the bolded part. Obviously, if atheist cannot support the existence of objective moral values and duties, and they exist, then this should certainly “do something” for you.

Only if we’d expect atheism to be able to do so, given that it’s true. Since I think objective moral values and duties would exist despite atheism and theism (if they exist), I don’t expect atheism to predict these and therefore wouldn’t be surprised if atheism couldn’t countenance them.

• If the primary competing worldview to Christianity cannot support the existence of objective moral values and duties, and they exist, then this is certainly good reason to accept the primary competing worldview (Christianity) to the failed one (evolutionary naturalism).

This assumes that Christianity can account for them. That’s what I’m questioning.

At this point, I think it fair of me to ask you then to provide a basis for the existence of objective moral values and duties outside of God. Since the euthyphro dilemma fails, and given divine command theory of ethics, we see that God can be the basis of objective morality and there are no good objections to this. If you wish to maintain the existence of objective moral values and duties apart from God, I think it is fair of me to ask you to provide an objective basis for them. So far, you have not, and I have suggested (briefly), at least one problem with this attempt.

Like I said, if they exist, they’re independent of God, so I don’t feel I should account for them any more than you should. You’ve suggested that I’m employing the euthyphro dilemma and this fails, but haven’t really supported this. I think the euthyphro dilemma is irrelevant though. It’s not concerned with the objectivity of moral values and duties, it’s concerned with the nature of moral values. i.e., what makes something good, good? So you can say that moral values are necessarily grounded in God’s essential moral character and I could still legitimately ask whether those are objective or subjective.

 

[Luke_K]

Being as I don’t really believe in God, I’m curious to know the Catholic arguments for why God, if he exists, cannot be evil. I have heard that Thomist theology has arguments about this, but I’d like someone to explain this to me.

And for what it’s worth, I’m a non-theist, I don’t believe in the monotheistic conception of God. If such a being existed, I doubt he would be omnipotent and I would doubt he would be good.

Because evil requires goodness for its existence, while goodness exists independently of evil. Therefore, if we define God as the self-existing being not dependent on anything else for its existence, God must not be evil in any way. If he were evil, there would be a goodness he depends on to violate in order to do evil.

Examples:
-Lying requires something to be true, which it is a perversion of. Truth, however, can exist without any lie.

-Violating someone’s rights, such as in rape, stealing, or harming another person requires the existence of those rights. Those rights can exist, however, without anyone violating them.

 

[danserr]

danserr:

As I suggested, on the semantics WLC wants, I believe (1) is false. So, while the argument is valid it’s not sound. This is because counterfactuals imply material conditionals. (1) expressed as a material conditional is false. Therefore, (1) expressed as a counterfactual is false.

Frankly, it doesn’t seem reasonable to me to deny the argument simply because of a concern over widely accepted semantics, and premise one seems very defensible, but I don’t know how to argue the point further.

Since we agree other formulations are possible and make the same point, though, for relevant purposes, we can’t reject the argument on semantic concerns. So you suggest

However, I’d deny (2). if moral values and duties are objective neither atheism nor theism would lead us to expect them

The problem is you have not offered much of an argument for denying premise 2, that “the existence of objective moral values and duties is not highly improbable on theism.”
Why should we not expect objective moral values and duties to exist on theism? The euthyphro dilemma is not an option, but this leaves little other support for your skepticism.
On the other hand, if God does exist, greatest conceivable being, a being worthy of worship, it does not seem at all improbable that his nature should be the paradigm of moral goodness (objective moral values) and that he would issue commands that were necessary expressions of that nature (objective moral duties).

I don’t see how moral values being necessary expressions of God’s moral character thereby make them objective. In fact, that seems to make them subjective to me. I’ll need an argument to think otherwise.

But this is just the euthyphro dilemma? So I’ve quoted Law as rejecting this enough, I’ll say a bit about why I think he rejects it as applying to the argument we are discussing. God is by definition a greatest conceivable being (GCB). A being that is the paradigm of moral goodness is greater than a being that merely exemplifies it. The good (moral values) is identified with God’s nature, right and wrong (moral duties) with his commands. These commands are not arbitrary, but are necessary expressions of his nature. So there is an obvious difference between God and human persons that can explain why morality grounded in God can be objective.

So that we don’t get more off track, I guess it’s best we don’t get into the prob of evil and divine hiddeness. Neither seem insurmountable to me though; Rowe himself admitted that his own evidential problem from evil failed (because of skeptical theism), and there are solutions that exist to divine hiddenness (murray’s argument about God making his existence too obvious interfering with free will being especially persuasive). But even if I grant these force, that doesn’t seem like enough to be so certain of atheism (since you would also have to deny the value of any good evidence for God, including the moral argument) that you could deny the existence of objective moral values and duties simply to avoid having to admit God exists. I suppose there is an element of personal opinion to that though.

This assumes that Christianity can account for them. That’s what I’m questioning

Agreed. But I think it can, and as I point out above, a properly formulated divine command theory of ethics seems to answer the only serious challenge to basis objective moral values and duties in God. Given the inability of the atheist to provide a ground for objective moral values and duties, and theism’s ability to, then this seems like a good reason to accept theism on the basis of objective moral values and duties.

 

[cap76]

The biblical tem for moral evil is sin, and one biblical definition of sin is that it is ‘lawlessness’ 1 John 3:4(with regard to the moral Law or the 10 commandments)
These commandments are the rule of love: ‘love God with all your being, and love your neighbor as yourself.’ Matthew 22.36-40. This law manifests God’s goodness.

Therefore, the Law exposes God as the good law-giver and we the evil law-breakers.

Situational evil is the consequence of moral evil. Death, as a punishment for sin, is the fruit of God’s justice and thereby, also manifests His goodness.

You can relate to this. For instance, you believe that God is evil toward you, therefore you treat Him as though He were dead. But this is unjust (evil) on your part because the conscience given to you by your Creator condemns you (and all men) as guilty of breaking the law of love.

Yet God continues to cause His daily blessings to shine upon our unworthy heads.

God is not only good, He is also omnipotent. These two attributes of God will bring a final end to the evil in this world, and will usher real Christians into eternal bliss where there will be no more pain, or tears, or (even better) no more sin against our sublimely good God.

Stop for a moment and consider that the reason it seems like God is evil is because you’re evil. But God is actually so good the He has promised that all who look to Him with contrition for their sin, and desiring to be reconciled to Him, will be received by Him and forgiven for every instance of our failure to appreciate His goodness to us.

 

[JDaniel]

As somebody else said, I believe Deism is possible. Perhaps the universe was created by a dying God… in one Chinese myth, Pengu hatches from an egg, a bearded cave man type guy, then dies, and his body becomes all of life in the world. That sort of thing reminds me of possibilities about what a Creator could be.

Daedelus:

The only way one can entertain such myths is to take ones eye off of the incredulous event and feat of Creation. Even if one were to suppose that Creation was causal, it would be such an entirely awesome causal event that one could not honestly say that God is less than maximal, in every conceivable way. Consider: God permeates all things. If you read the thread entitled “Space” (though it’s still developing) you will see that there can be no slack, no let down, no slow down, for God. He is rolling out Creation continuously; He is causing all new creatures while at the same time maintaining all of the rest of reality in being. Any other possibility is woefully insufficient.

Good point. Maybe this Deist God would not exactly be evil- indifferent would be more likely. I simply don’t see how the loving God Christians claim to worship is real. We don’t live in a universe with an omnipotent, loving God. You’ll have to explain what you mean by “love”, how this “love” can be reconciled with cancer, birth defects, tsunamis, rape, holocausts, murder, and so on… I don’t see how.

Question: If you had a cage full of rats that lived and suffered in a less than adequate place, but, you knew that each and every time one of them died s/he became transformed into a human being, with a beautiful house and a bank account with a few million dollars in it, what would be the evil? (A) Life in a cage full of other rats, whose only purposes were to eat seeds and excrete where you stand, or (B) die and become a human being with a house and several million dollars; what would you wish for each rat? Why wouldn’t God wish Heaven for us? Why, then, are “cancer, birth defects, tsunamis, rape, holocausts, murder, and so on” evils? Perhaps it is we who have the limited perspective.

I consider this a possibility: Buddhism has devas, asuras, and so forth, “gods”, seemingly powerful beings who are not omnipotent. They live in the heavens. A Buddhist doesn’t take refuge in them, because they themselves do not always show wisdom and follow the Dharma. Some of these types of beings are even malevolent, profoundly misguided. Buddhists only take refuge in the Buddha and Bodhisattvas, beings that have realized the true nature of existence, no longer clinging to delusions. Even still, a Buddha is not omnipotent because the concepts applied to the Christian concept of God are incoherent in the Buddhist worldview. Some Buddhists would consider something like Jehovah just another deva or asura.

Those do NOT describe a Creator. They describe a man. And such concepts of a man-god are incoherent to Christians. Our thoughest exception is Christ. But, obviously, there’s a huge difference. Our Triune God stayed God, he was not a man in the trappings of a god.

Now, if you want to know, does Buddhism have an ontological ground of being? Yes, in many traditions it is called Dharmakaya, it is just the immanent awareness of ones own mind. It’s not some transcendent, personal being that has loves and prejudices and chooses a tribe of Semites on earth to be jealous about and sends a son into the world to die for broken rules that he himself created and imposed on people. Those ideas are so ridiculously anthropomorphic as to be difficult to reconcile with the Buddhist understanding, which is fundamentally mystical rather than mythical (if you want to know Dharmakaya, rather than reading a holy book or listening to a pope you could just go meditate or even just not meditate, this is Dharmakaya right here).

Consider reality. All things consist of matter that is seemingly solid. So, we tend to see ourselves as possessing some small amount omnipotence ourselves. But, each and every atom that are the core constituents of our bodies are nothing more than atoms that consist of about 98% Space. Space. This body is not all ours. 98% of it belongs to (the) other. Absolute, infinite space belongs to no one except God. Not some man-god; not some far less than omnipotent being who can perform all of this within His thoughts. Consider that: He holds the universe and the world together; He holds all things together; He continuously provides life to all living things; He continuously provides substance to all non-living things; He continuously keeps the universe anthropic; He causes all motion; He is the first Cause of all causes; He is the only unconditioned reality in a universe of conditioned realities; and, He continuously supplies the Good which all beings seek. 24/7/365/limitlessly.

Sorry, but no man-god will do; not for me anyway. For me to understand that I sit here made up of 98% absolute (infinite) space and that it is not me that holds me together, is immensely humbling. (Even though I occasionally wonder, “What was He thinking?”)

God bless,
jd

 

[Perplexity]

danserr:

Frankly, it doesn’t seem reasonable to me to deny the argument simply because of a concern over widely accepted semantics, and premise one seems very defensible, but I don’t know how to argue the point further.

Granting that it is unreasonable, that’s not what my objection was. My objection was that if (1) is false as a material conditional, then it’s false as a counterfactual. A material conditional is false when its antecedent is true and its consequent is false. (1) stated as a material conditional is:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Since I say the antecedent (“God does not exist”) is true and the consequent (“objective moral values and duties do not exist”) is false, I must believe (1) is a false material conditional. It follows by the counterfactual semantics you and WLC want to use that I must believe (1) is a false counterfactual as well.

The problem is you have not offered much of an argument for denying premise 2, that “the existence of objective moral values and duties is not highly improbable on theism.”
Why should we not expect objective moral values and duties to exist on theism? The euthyphro dilemma is not an option, but this leaves little other support for your skepticism.

Per my definition of “objective”, moral values and duties are not objective on the theism you’ve described. i.e., they’re not independent of all persons. Therefore, P(Objective moral values and duties|Theism)=0. Since atheism doesn’t require ~Objective moral values and duties, its likelihood needn’t be very high to be greater than theism’s. It could be 0.5 and swamp theism.

On the other hand, if God does exist, greatest conceivable being, a being worthy of worship, it does not seem at all improbable that his nature should be the paradigm of moral goodness (objective moral values) and that he would issue commands that were necessary expressions of that nature (objective moral duties).

You keep using ‘objective’ in a sense I don’t accept. Remember, I believe a moral value or duty is objective only if it’s independent of persons. So, I have no problem supposing that God is the paradigm of moral goodness and his commands constitute moral duties. This just means they’re subjective.

God is by definition a greatest conceivable being (GCB). A being that is the paradigm of moral goodness is greater than a being that merely exemplifies it. The good (moral values) is identified with God’s nature, right and wrong (moral duties) with his commands. These commands are not arbitrary, but are necessary expressions of his nature. So there is an obvious difference between God and human persons that can explain why morality grounded in God can be objective.

But given my (plausible) understanding of ‘objective’, if moral values and duties are not independent of God (as you’re suggesting) then they’re not objective. The key here is what objective means. I’ve shown that your initial suggestion had some deficiencies for both theists and atheists, but I’m not sure how you reformulated it. Whatever understanding you’re working with, that’s what’s allowing you to say if moral values and duties ground in God they’re objective. We’re simply disagreeing over definitions.

So that we don’t get more off track, I guess it’s best we don’t get into the prob of evil and divine hiddeness. Neither seem insurmountable to me though; Rowe himself admitted that his own evidential problem from evil failed (because of skeptical theism), and there are solutions that exist to divine hiddenness (murray’s argument about God making his existence too obvious interfering with free will being especially persuasive). But even if I grant these force, that doesn’t seem like enough to be so certain of atheism (since you would also have to deny the value of any good evidence for God, including the moral argument) that you could deny the existence of objective moral values and duties simply to avoid having to admit God exists. I suppose there is an element of personal opinion to that though.

Ah, I find skeptical theism to be incredibly improbable (I have two powerful arguments against it). But, I think you’re right, this comes down to “personal opinion.” e.g., I don’t see force in the cosmological (kalam, leibnizian, Gale & Pruss’ etc.) arguments, or the teleological arguments (Dembski’s work, Collins’ etc.), or axiological (WLC’s, Adam’s), or historical (the resurrection).

Agreed. But I think it can, and as I point out above, a properly formulated divine command theory of ethics seems to answer the only serious challenge to basis objective moral values and duties in God. Given the inability of the atheist to provide a ground for objective moral values and duties, and theism’s ability to, then this seems like a good reason to accept theism on the basis of objective moral values and duties.

As I stated earlier, my definition of ‘objective’ precludes objective moral values and duties on theism. Seems like a serious problem. I think the next move should be to clarify your understanding of ‘objective.’

 

[Daedelus76]

1 John 3:4(with regard to the moral Law or the 10 commandments)
These commandments are the rule of love: ‘love God with all your being, and love your neighbor as yourself.’ Matthew 22.36-40. This law manifests God’s goodness.

You might as well quote the laws of Hammurabi or Shakespeare’s Sonnets… I don’t consider the Bible divinely inspired. If you want me to believe otherwise you’ll have to prove it to me.

Situational evil is the consequence of moral evil. Death, as a punishment for sin, is the fruit of God’s justice and thereby, also manifests His goodness.

I see little good about death. Maybe your God just has anger and control issues and needs some serious therapy. When somebody wrongs me, I don’t curse them in response and sentence them to death. So why would a good God do that?

But this is unjust (evil) on your part because the conscience given to you by your Creator condemns you (and all men) as guilty of breaking the law of love.

Actually my conscience condemns your crackpot religious ideology.

Daedelus:
The only way one can entertain such myths is to take ones eye off of the incredulous event and feat of Creation… one could not honestly say that God is less than maximal, in every conceivable way. Consider: God permeates all things. If you read the thread entitled “Space” (though it’s still developing) you will see that there can be no slack, no let down, no slow down, for God…

If God is omnipresent, atemporal, while use such ridiculous anthropomorphisms? Surely an atemporal, anthropomorphic being doesn’t think consciously, have feelings, have sensations. I’d venture to say this “god” is completely impersonal. Maybe more like the Hindu concept of Brahman than some kind of God that listens to prayers and loves people and other gushy, sentimental garbage that has no bearing on a reality full of every kind of birth defect, disease, privation and sadness imaginable.

Question: If you had a cage full of rats that lived and suffered in a less than adequate place, but, you knew that each and every time one of them died s/he became transformed into a human being, with a beautiful house and a bank account with a few million dollars in it, what would be the evil?

That’s just it… I have no guarantees that God is has some magical way for me to forget every bit of anger, angst, and hurt directed at Him, his allegedly great plan for the universe, and his cult. I have pain I will potentially take with me forever, unless God somehow has a way for me not to be me anymore, I don’t see how I’m going to be sitting around on cloud with a harp playing music, being happy about being with the being that causes birth defects, blindness, and tsunamis.

According to Christian theology, God doesn't have to do anything for me as he's not a moral agent . Which means I cannot relate to this God outside some kind of phony religious piety that belies the true theology underneath which is about power over relationship, authority over compassion and understanding.  Surrender to God, admit your own life is worthless, your own will worthless, your own hopes worthless, and have a religious hierarchy tell you what you should think, what you should feel... and so on.

And if God COULD do all that, it makes this life absolutely worthless. Illusory. See Robert Price’s book, “The Reason-Driven Life” for a whole chapter about this issue. IF God can fix everything in my life in the next world ,then this life is just a sideshow and is meaningless. I reject these totalizing religious ideologies and metanarratives. We should be the authors of our own meaning in life.

 

[jochoa]

wikipedia on process theology:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

Process theology is so complicated to talk about … I cannot explain it adequately in brief. It’s based around Alfred North Whitehead’s process metaphysics, which in some ways is similar to Buddhist metaphysics more than Aristotle. Process theism doesn’t have an omnipotent God in the classical sense, and in some cases God also is not necessarily good in the sense of being moralistic. Often the idea of God as a suffering being is emphasized, indeed Whitehead described God as the “fellow sufferer”. It emphasizes aesthetics alot too. But you’ll really have to read about it more to understand it fully. Some Catholic priests and theologians have studied and interacted with process theology. It’s more common in mainline Protestantism, for instance methodist theologian John Cobb is very influential in process thought. Rabbi Harold Kushner is also another example of someone influenced by process theism.

I do not necessarily say I’m a process theist, but I find the ideas more interesting than alot of classical theism.

Thank you for sharing some major points regarding process theism. I will say that I personally find some of the concepts you present here to be supportive of the Christian God of Catholicism.
For Example:
Since we exist in time, and we have purpose, then the Christian God of Catholicism has a process by which He achieves the goal.
Since God reveals Himself to us over time, there is a process.
Jesus is God, and He suffered. He was not only a “fellow sufferer,” we believe in following His “suffering” to continue His work of spreading the Word.
On the other hand, there are also some concepts which are not descriptive of the Christian God of Catholicism.

Regarding the other topics of that post, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on my other responses.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You keep using ‘objective’ in a sense I don’t accept. Remember, I believe a moral value or duty is objective only if it’s independent of persons. So, I have no problem supposing that God is the paradigm of moral goodness and his commands constitute moral duties. This just means they’re subjective.

That’s the same conclusion I’m coming to in another thread. It seems that “Objective Value” is an idiom for the subjective value of a specific entity (person). I also came across an interesting video (see time marker 11:30) on Youtube about unevaluated value that articulates thoughts on this topic better than I think I ever could.

 

[Perplexity]

That’s the same conclusion I’m coming to in another thread. It seems that “Objective Value” is an idiom for the subjective value of a specific entity (person). I also came across an interesting video (see time marker 11:30) on Youtube about unevaluated value that articulates thoughts on this topic better than I think I ever could.

I enjoyed that video, thanks for the link. He is quite articulate. I like how you put it though: “Objective Value” is an idiom for the subjective value of a specific entity."

 

[JDaniel]

If God is omnipresent, atemporal, while use such ridiculous anthropomorphisms? Surely an atemporal, anthropomorphic being doesn’t think consciously, have feelings, have sensations. I’d venture to say this “god” is completely impersonal. Maybe more like the Hindu concept of Brahman than some kind of God that listens to prayers and loves people and other gushy, sentimental garbage that has no bearing on a reality full of every kind of birth defect, disease, privation and sadness imaginable.

Daedelus:

Thank you for reading my post and responding to it. Your anger is quite understandable. I will say that I don’t think that descriptive words, e.g., “omnipresent and atemporal,” are anthropomorphisms. Aren’t they beyond a grounding in man?

What men (and women) try (and have tried) to do is to answer their normal questions about anything that is beyond their immediate perceptive and dialectic abilities. In God’s case, we naturally tend to “supersize.”

Further, I must insist that not all of us - despite our own deficiencies - are immersed in “unimaginable sadness.” In fact, I think the majority of humans do not share your depth of sadness. But then, not very many have suffered your pain.

That’s just it… I have no guarantees that God is has some magical way for me to forget every bit of anger, angst, and hurt directed at Him, his allegedly great plan for the universe, and his cult.

We only have the guarantees of Christ, and the guarantees of a short lifespan. Either way, none of us will endure this life ad infinitum. (Can you imagine: that idea is supposed to cheer you up. Yikes!)

I have pain I will potentially take with me forever, unless God somehow has a way for me not to be me anymore, I don’t see how I’m going to be sitting around on cloud with a harp playing music, being happy about being with the being that causes birth defects, blindness, and tsunamis.

The long-time Catholic contention is that we die, then we are re-united with our fully healed bodies, at the end of time. In the mean time, as a discarnate spirit, you’ll be able to zip from one end of God’s infinity to the other, faster than the speed of light! Anyway, that’s one alternative look into the future. I think it’s a sound one.

According to Christian theology, God doesn’t have to do anything for me as he’s not a moral agent . Which means I cannot relate to this God outside some kind of phony religious piety that belies the true theology underneath which is about power over relationship, authority over compassion and understanding. Surrender to God, admit your own life is worthless, your own will worthless, your own hopes worthless, and have a religious hierarchy tell you what you should think, what you should feel… and so on.

I think that to some extent what you say is true, or rather, correct. As a being that is infinite and exists in an infinite Now, God would be hard pressed to interact, so to speak, with every being in the universe at the drop of a hat. More than likely, He anticipates our needs and they are worked into the roll-out of Creation some how. But, I don’t know how.

And if God COULD do all that, it makes this life absolutely worthless. Illusory. See Robert Price’s book, “The Reason-Driven Life” for a whole chapter about this issue. IF God can fix everything in my life in the next world ,then this life is just a sideshow and is meaningless. I reject these totalizing religious ideologies and metanarratives. We should be the authors of our own meaning in life.

I cannot respond to your queries as I don’t know how to. Your suffering should assure you that this “life” is far from illusory. A couple of years ago, I met a Priest that had a story similar to yours. He was a nine year old in a family of 20 plus kids, in the Northeast. In his ninth year, he suffered - for whatever reason - a form of meningitis. The disease was crippling, putting him in a coma. On the day he was stricken, a doctor was at the house delivering the 23rd sibling. The doctor examined him and ruled out emergency care as he did not think the kid would live until morning.

Well, the kid survived until morning, so the doctor dispatched an ambulance all the way out to the family house. They took him to a hospital, in the Boston area, where the kid barely survived, putting up a valiant fight, for several months. Then, one day, he came out of the coma only to discover that he was completely blind. So, he was blind and quadriplegic, but he could talk, and eat with help. Over the course of the next year or so, he was at the point that his family wanted him home and the hospital could not continue his upkeep, as the family’s insurance had long since run out.

continued…

 

[JDaniel]

continuation…

His brothers and sisters used to make a conga line, passing him from front to rear by his shoulders, down a long hallway. In time, he learned to walk and use his hands. Then one day, while in his front yard - where the family could see the jets taking off and landing at Logan - he looked up into the sky from his yard, as he was playing with some siblings, and he could see a plane. He yelled to his brothers and sisters that he could see the jet. They believed him and ran to bring his mother outside for this event. She, of course, did not believe him. So, she asked him if he could see any numbers on the plane. He related the precise N-numbers to her. She believed.

Now, he only had partial sight. He could only see a thin line as if reading a book one letter at a time. Within a couple of years, he asked if he could go back to school. His mom didn’t think that was a good idea and neither did the school - as they were unequipped to handle someone with is immense disability. He talked them into letting him return and would read his text books one letter at a time until he came to a blank space. In this manner he finished, and graduated near the top of his class, from high school.

After high school he wanted to go to college. He worked his way into college and earned a four year degree. After graduating from college, he was reluctantly admitted into a teaching society of Catholic Monks, and taught religious studies. To shorten the story, the society was an all-monk society, no Priests. But, as you can guess, he wanted to be a Priest. Well, he became the first person to be admitted to the Priesthood in that society, after many more years of intense study.

Now he travels about the country, at the behests of Parish Pastors, to hold three-night, three-hour speeches. He serves the Mass, memorizes the Gospel and writes his homilies the nights before, hears hundreds of confessions, and has helped hundreds of parishioners. His theory is that all of this happened to him for a reason. He embraces what happened to him and uses it to the service of others who have suffered disabilities. He’s a fascinating man and an exceptionally gifted Priest. There’s more; but, that’s enough.

God bless,
jd

 

[Daedelus76]

Daedelus:
What men (and women) try (and have tried) to do is to answer their normal questions about anything that is beyond their immediate perceptive and dialectic abilities. In God’s case, we naturally tend to “supersize.”

Why not just be silent over matters that our language or concepts cannot deal with?

Further, I must insist that not all of us - despite our own deficiencies - are immersed in “unimaginable sadness.” In fact, I think the majority of humans do not share your depth of sadness. But then, not very many have suffered your pain.

Life is fun for some people of course, alot of joy and happiness, but why should they get to dictate to me how I think or feel?

We only have the guarantees of Christ, and the guarantees of a short lifespan. Either way, none of us will endure this life ad infinitum. (Can you imagine: that idea is supposed to cheer you up. Yikes!)

The promises of Christ are worthless unless I find out the right church to belong to and have the right faith. It’s all contigent on me, a finite, broken person with limited intellectual and spiritual capacities. It’s a cruel belief. In the end, there are no guarantees being a Catholic, a Lutheran, or a Presbyterian. So I reject it all. A loving God doesn’t demand I jump through those kind of hoops and gymnastics.

The long-time Catholic contention is that we die, then we are re-united with our fully healed bodies, at the end of time. In the mean time, as a discarnate spirit, you’ll be able to zip from one end of God’s infinity to the other, faster than the speed of light! Anyway, that’s one alternative look into the future. I think it’s a sound one.

There’s no marriage in your afterlife, I see no point in going. All I wanted as a little kid was to grow up and be normal, experience a bit of normality for a change. I won’t even get that in your world to come. You see how your paradise doesn’t sound so enticing to me? First, Im told that an ordinary life is denied me now, then in the world to come its also denied. I’ll be a eunuch for all eternity.

All these things in my mind condemn this world and its creator. The Buddha correctly identifies this world as a place of suffering where all the pleasures are torments. My challenge now is to just accept that there’s a part of me that desperately wants to be normal, whole, and healed and accepted, to have the memory and wounds of bullying, indifference, isolation, and decades of sadness erased, and that will never, ever happen to me. And to accept the anger that comes from that, and the judgemental voices of society drummed into my head telling me i’m a wicked, selfish person for feeling a bit of ingratitude. It’s challenging, I have my work cut out for me.

Well, the kid survived until morning, so the doctor dispatched an ambulance all the way out to the family house. They took him to a hospital, in the Boston area, where the kid barely survived, putting up a valiant fight, for several months. … …

He sees a higher purpose in his suffering, that works for him but its ugly when religion uses these stories to rebuke people like me, people who do not meekly accept our place at the back of the bus in life, who shake our fist at the heavens. I’m not a bad person for being angry or upset, I’m not evil or a sinner for it, and I refuse to feel guilty about this matter anymore. I hope that is not your point of view but I’ve already been told once I’m an evil person for being angry. And I don’t believe that about myself any longer. How about people being evil for NOT being angry?

 

[Darran]

Hey there,
I’d like to share a very brief but true quote from St. Thomas Aquinas where he he says that: “God is neither obvious nor provable”. God is not something we can put our finger on because he often works in the most mysterious ways.

As catholics we believe that God created all things good and he is perfect. However opposition to or lack of God constitutes in evil because of the deprivation of the source of all goodness, which is God. For example, we believe that Satan was of the highest ranking angels in heaven, however when he opposed God he became a source of evil. Therefore it is impossible for God to be evil because he is goodness itself.

The world we live in is full of evil as the father of lies (the devil) has corrupted it ever since he tempted our fore-parents to eat the forbidden fruit. So as catholics we believe that the chosen ones do not belong to this world as Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. So it can be thought that God is evil by looking at our evil surroundings, but that is not the work of God my friend.

Hope this helps, God Bless.

Very good answer if I may say.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

… Maybe your God just has anger and control issues and needs some serious therapy. When somebody wrongs me, I don’t curse them in response and sentence them to death. So why would a good God do that?..

This (and a few other things you’ve said) keep bring Valerie Tarico to my mind (psychologist, former fundamentalist, and book author). While her wording was different she’s said things like this before. Are you familiar with her?