Is it logically possible that God could lie and send someone to hell even though they were holy

[Aloysium]

. . . I’ve had this fear that maybe God is just taking me for a ride and I’m just a brain in a vat that he is using for an evil prank. He is making an illusion of reality out to be that the Chrisitian faith is the path to salvation and if I follow his commandments (illusions of a man named Jesus, these message boards, the CCC, etc), I will be saved…but in reality he’s going to send me to hell…just because he wants to troll me and gets a kick out of confusing me.

You wonder if you are a brain in a vat, whether a prank is being played on you, whether your understanding is illusion, and whether the confusion you feel is being done to you.
Your thoughts seem to be carrying you away from, rather than connecting you to what is real.
These thoughts are real only in their capacity to confuse.
They do not point you to the truth.
The truth is that you are sitting here reading this.
Let those other thoughts enter and leave your mind.
Consider discussing this with someone sitting within arm’s range.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Very insightful answers.

I’ll ask a follow-up question…

Is it logically possible for the ultimate being (God with a capital ‘G’) to be imperfect? Such as lying, not knowing everything, committing evil, etc.

No. It would not be logically possible to be an ultimate being and have these or any flaws. (If by ultimate you mean the greatest conceivable being). Since, one could imagine a being without these flaws. And, therefore the being with flaws is not the ultimate being. If any greater being can be conceived than this being becomes the ultimate being. The greatest conceivable being therefore must be perfect without flaws. He can not be ignorant of some things since that would mean he was flawed in some way, and thus not the greatest conceivable being.

One could conceive of a god with these flaws. Just as the Romans did. Good and evil represented by different gods. However, these gods are not the greatest conceivable being. They are in fact gods created in man’s image who is flawed. They are not really God but super hereos and villians. A perfect being would not have these flaws if he was truly perfect.

Socrates thought that any being worthy of the title supreme being must be perfect goodness. Since good is better than evil. If he had any evil in him he would not be worthy of the title. Someone who does evil is hardly superior. For in the act of doing evil he brings himself down to something lower than good. And, thus such a being would not be worthy of worship. For how could one participate in loving what is evil? No. In order for us to love God as God he must be all good. Only perfect goodness is worthy of the title God. Anything else running the universe would only lead to despair. Even for the so called god himself.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Well, it depends upon which side of the Euthyphro dilemma you’re on. If whatever God wills is righteous, then the question isn’t applicable. If perfection is solely defined by his authority, then should he will mass genocide, murder, false witness against one’s neighbor, then those things aren’t sinful solely because he willed them. Therefore, he isn’t imperfect by virtue of his authority.

If he is bound by a code though, then no he cannot be imperfect in the sense of transgressing the code. Or maybe he can, sense he might hold the capacity that we do so as to disobey it. But then this calls into question who is of the highest authority, God or the Law above him? The situation seems to indicate the latter, in which case there doesn’t seem to be a need to worship God. This position seems to me to be the most problematic, yet most Christians tend to hold this exact view from my experience without acknowledging the problematic logical conclusions.

As for the not knowing everything, that’s difficult to say. Should we understand omniscience of God as absolute or relative? We cannot possibly know the answer to that question.

The Euthyphro dilemma as I read it is the question that Socrates raised to Euthyphro about the question of holiness. His question was is righteousness defined as anything the gods will, or is righteousness an objective truth apart from the will of the gods? The gods of the Romans were both good and evil. Thus, it would seem to Socrates that righteousness must therefore be an objective thing apart from the will of these gods. He actually rejected these gods. And thought that the true God, which he called “the God”, must be all good.

For us Christians however, the same question can be asked. Is righteousness determined by what God wills or is righteousness an objective standard apart from God? If the first is true than God could will that babies be thrown into the sea for sport and that would have to be considered righteous. If the second is true then that means God has to check the 10 commandments every time he gets up in the morning.

The traditional Christian solution to this problem is that God’s nature and perfect goodness are one. In other words God’s nature is perfect righteousness. Therefore, he acts in accordance with perfect righteousness since he can not go against his own nature. What he wills is perfectly righteous because that is his nature.

 

[Vico]

Very insightful answers.

I’ll ask a follow-up question…

Is it logically possible for the ultimate being (God with a capital ‘G’) to be imperfect? Such as lying, not knowing everything, committing evil, etc.

Not using Judeo-Christian logic:
Deuteronomy 32:4
4 The works of God are perfect, and all his ways are judgments: God is faithful and without any iniquity, he is just and right.

 

[Rohzek]

The Euthyphro dilemma as I read it is the question that Socrates raised to Euthyphro about the question of holiness. His question was is righteousness defined as anything the gods will, or is righteousness an objective truth apart from the will of the gods? The gods of the Romans were both good and evil. Thus, it would seem to Socrates that righteousness must therefore be an objective thing apart from the will of these gods. He actually rejected these gods. And thought that the true God, which he called “the God”, must be all good.

For us Christians however, the same question can be asked. Is righteousness determined by what God wills or is righteousness an objective standard apart from God? If the first is true than God could will that babies be thrown into the sea for sport and that would have to be considered righteous. If the second is true then that means God has to check the 10 commandments every time he gets up in the morning.

The traditional Christian solution to this problem is that God’s nature and perfect goodness are one. In other words God’s nature is perfect righteousness. Therefore, he acts in accordance with perfect righteousness since he can not go against his own nature. What he wills is perfectly righteous because that is his nature.

There are a number of problems with the traditional solution though. Law or righteousness are simply concepts and have no ontological existence. So to say that God’s nature is righteousness itself presents a paradox, because it claims that God has no ontological existence yet has ontological existence. This position doesn’t seem tenable.

If by perfection in nature we mean simply that he is of the highest authority due to being the creator of all things, then we can avoid that paradox. But this is simply the same as the first solution to the dilemma, which leaves us with God possibly killing babies and it being okay. At which point, the only plausible solution is not limiting God, but rather believing according to the New Covenant that God was being honest and would never command or sanction such a thing. In other words, the best solace we could hope for is God’s word. For me, that’s a sufficient solace, but I think most people would still have a problem with it. All I can say is have a little faith.

 

[fhansen]

I’m not talking about the Roman Catholic interpretation of God.

I am just speaking in general. Can an all powerful, all knowing God who also has the ability to create love as well be logically able to lie about himself?

I’ve had this fear that maybe God is just taking me for a ride and I’m just a brain in a vat that he is using for an evil prank. He is making an illusion of reality out to be that the Chrisitian faith is the path to salvation and if I follow his commandments (illusions of a man named Jesus, these message boards, the CCC, etc), I will be saved…but in reality he’s going to send me to hell…just because he wants to troll me and gets a kick out of confusing me.

If He can do that then heaven won’t be any better than hell anyway.

 

[Bahman]

I’m not talking about the Roman Catholic interpretation of God.

I am just speaking in general. Can an all powerful, all knowing God who also has the ability to create love as well be logically able to lie about himself?

I’ve had this fear that maybe God is just taking me for a ride and I’m just a brain in a vat that he is using for an evil prank. He is making an illusion of reality out to be that the Chrisitian faith is the path to salvation and if I follow his commandments (illusions of a man named Jesus, these message boards, the CCC, etc), I will be saved…but in reality he’s going to send me to hell…just because he wants to troll me and gets a kick out of confusing me.

Yes, that is a very feasible assumption considering the facts that there exist many different religions with Gods with attributes similar or different of Jesus. Just study the history to know about the existence of individuals who claim to be God, Mithra, Hors, etc.

 

[Bahman]

If God did that, He is certainly wasting His time suffering & dying for us and enduring sacrileges & indifferences in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar.

Why he should suffer for us when he is intended to create things for a certain purpose we are not aware of that? How God suffer at all being infinite? What could be any purpose for creation of Christian God if we are supposed to be blind followers considering the fact that he created us as intellectual beings?

 

[oldcelt]

Consider, for just one moment, a creator who is not interested in any of these things. One who creates because it is in its nature to do so. Lies, truth, and so on are not characteristics of that creator, but human notions invented, quite intelligently, to maintain order.

Jphn

 

[fisherman_carl]

There are a number of problems with the traditional solution though. Law or righteousness are simply concepts and have no ontological existence. So to say that God’s nature is righteousness itself presents a paradox, because it claims that God has no ontological existence yet has ontological existence. This position doesn’t seem tenable.

If by perfection in nature we mean simply that he is of the highest authority due to being the creator of all things, then we can avoid that paradox. But this is simply the same as the first solution to the dilemma, which leaves us with God possibly killing babies and it being okay. At which point, the only plausible solution is not limiting God, but rather believing according to the New Covenant that God was being honest and would never command or sanction such a thing. In other words, the best solace we could hope for is God’s word. For me, that’s a sufficient solace, but I think most people would still have a problem with it. All I can say is have a little faith.

What’s interesting is that after I read your answer I wanted to check the book that I had read about this problem in (It is a book by Peter Kreeft about Socrates), and when I opened the book it opened exactly to the page I was looking for. Coincidence?

Anyways, Peter Kreeft in the book says, “The classic solution in both Jewish, Muslim, and Christian theology is to deny Socrates implicit assumption that holiness (or goodness or piety or virtue) and God’s will are different and are related as cause and effect. Instead, both “go all the way up”. God’s will is holiness. Holiness is God’s own eternal nature, and God always wills according to his nature.”

Now, he doesn’t mention anything about what you said in the book. But, what occurs to me when you say that holiness has no existence on it’s own such that it is contradictory to say that Gods’ nature is holiness, is that this language is also used when we say God is love. Does love have an existence on its own or is it a concept? I think when we use language like God is love we are saying something about God’s nature. When we say God is perfect goodness we are also saying something about his nature. It’s like the greatest conceivable being concept. Or when we say God is existence. It speaks of God’s perfect nature as the source of all things. Since God is the source of love, goodness, and existence. These things do not exist apart from him. Nothing does. Yet, because he is perfection of these things as the greatest conceivable being, he does not lack any of them to any degree. But possesses them fully and perfectly.

 

[vz71]

I’m not talking about the Roman Catholic interpretation of God.

Then what god do you want to speculate on?