The Overwatch Problem

[paul_c]

I never said anything remotely close to “goodness” being predicated differently to humans and god.
I said moral duty applies to only to equals, or those under the authority of others. Just because a parents does not have to obey his baby, it has nothing to do with the goodness of the parent…they are different issues.

Also, I already told you that the Christian God promises that evil and goodness will be punished and rewarded accordingly in the next life.

Also it seems, unless I misread you, that you accept that some goods can only be brought through some evils, so there goes another answer to the problem. which is more than atheist theodicies can bring to the table… oh yea, that’s right, atheists have nothing that helps them explain evil.

Let’s face it, Athiests not only can not explain evil, they can’t give any purpose for life. But by the way, I’m not comfortable with your argument that evil is required to bring about some goods. That is like saying two wrongs make a right. Its just not true. God can make bad turn to good, but bad is never required as a prerequisite to goodness. Goodness is the natural state created by God. Evil is a twisting of that good for some purpose other than what was intended.

 

[Neo_Scotist]

Let’s face it, Athiests not only can not explain evil, they can’t give any purpose for life. But by the way, I’m not comfortable with your argument that evil is required to bring about some goods. That is like saying two wrongs make a right. Its just not true. God can make bad turn to good, but bad is never required as a prerequisite to goodness. Goodness is the natural state created by God. Evil is a twisting of that good for some purpose other than what was intended.

Just to clarify, I never said that evil is required to bring some good. I said it before, my position is that god can bring good from bad. I was referencing something the one that began the thread said:
phage00070:

If God can use evil to bring good, and God intends to use evil to bring good, then having that evil not occur would be contrary to God’s design.

To put it another way: If acts of evil are required to bring out the good in people, then if everyone refused to commit evil acts there would be some types of good that God could never bring out in people.

At least phage seems open to the idea that evil might be required to bring some goods.

 

[Phage0070]

Also, I already told you that the Christian God promises that evil and goodness will be punished and rewarded accordingly in the next life.

And I skipped over that because it appears completely irrelevant to the original topic. Were you going somewhere with that?

Also it seems, unless I misread you, that you accept that some goods can only be brought through some evils,

It appears you have misread. I would personally think that omnipotence would allow good to be brought about without the addition of evil, as evidenced by the assertion that God is good and cannot stand evil. If God represents every form of good and no form of evil, then I don’t see any way some good would be predicated on the existence or perpetration of evil.

…which is more than atheist theodicies can bring to the table… oh yea, that’s right, atheists have nothing that helps them explain evil.

The world view of atheists often does not require an explanation for evil. “Sh*t happens,” pretty much covers it.

 

[paul_c]

Just to clarify, I never said that evil is required to bring some good. I said it before, my position is that god can bring good from bad. I was referencing something the one that began the thread said:

At least phage seems open to the idea that evil might be required to bring some goods.

It seems to me that you are inconsistent in your two statements. Which is it? Do you believe that evil is required to bring some goods, or not. I’m fairly sure that the church teaches that evil is not required in any way to bring about good.

 

[Phage0070]

Do you think you are in a better position to decide right from wrong than God is? Don’t you recognize how much more limited your viewpoint is than God’s? If you percieve that God is unjust, isn’t the more likely problem your lack of perception rather than God’s lack of morals?

All of those questions are irrelevant to the topic. If God isn’t to be judged by the same standards of morality as humans, then calling God “good” does not convey your meaning.

And yes, you can’t judge God by the same standards that you judge a man. You are in no position to judge God because you can’t see what he sees nor know what he knows.

According to scripture and dogma, I can know exactly what he sees and knows. Everything. I don’t need to personally know the particulars to conclude that he is aware of everything, or be able to do everything to conclude that he can.

This is why I told you in a previous post, that its a fool’s errand to try to judge God. You are just not in a position to do so.

Then what business have you calling God “good”?

 

[Neo_Scotist]

It seems to me that you are inconsistent in your two statements. Which is it? Do you believe that evil is required to bring some goods, or not. I’m fairly sure that the church teaches that evil is not required in any way to bring about good.

No, Paul. when I said “evil is required to bring some good”, I was quoting Phage.I don’t think evil is necessary to bring some good.

 

[Phage0070]

#1 has God operating in the man-made construct of a timeline. God transcends time so while yes, He is a witness to every evil action ever attempted or will be attempted, I believe it all happens simultaneously along with the results and consequences of those evil actions happening simultaneously.

Ok? The point is that he is aware.

#2 is flawed because the idea of a zero risk decision is ultimately flawed. Even in your example of the magic 100% stop button interferes with the rapists free will (and to some degree the victim’s). Even if there is no harm to either the victim or the rapist, the will and intent of the rapist has been thwarted and not by the rapists own choices or change of heart. Either his(or her) will has been changed, or he(or she) will simply move onto his(or her) next victim.

This is an objection against the first premise in the OP. As I pointed out there, preventing the rapist from physically performing the act does not alter the rapist’s will or intent, only the fulfillment of that intent. The thwarting the fulfillment of free will intent happens constantly, and yet free will remains (presumably).

It is quite possible that such a preventative measure would only cause the rapist to move on to another victim, but what does that matter? Do you think God is going to get tired and unable to repeat the intervention, or make a mistake and miss the next one?

If God were to take away that choice then free will simply ceases to exist. So yes, creating a zero-risk decision will indeed violate not just one person’s free will but everyone’s free will.

You can make a choice without being able to complete the action in the material world, don’t you agree? So that zero-risk decision does not violate the free will of anyone (Every decision is zero-risk for God btw).

 

[Phage0070]

No, Paul. when I said “evil is required to bring some good”, I was quoting Phage.I don’t think evil is necessary to bring some good.

Then I suppose we are all in agreement on that point, given you were quoting an argument I was attempting to preemptively dismiss. None of us think that evil is necessary to bring about any good at all, in any circumstances.

 

[Neo_Scotist]

And I skipped over that because it appears completely irrelevant to the original topic. Were you going somewhere with that?

It means the problem of evil will not have the last word.

I would personally think that omnipotence would allow good to be brought about without the addition of evil, as evidenced by the assertion that God is good and cannot stand evil. If God represents every form of good and no form of evil, then I don’t see any way some good would be predicated on the existence or perpetration of evil.

As to why you cannot derive *ought *from is as far god is concerned, I gave you an answer. God is not under any obligation, furthermore it would be nonsensical for a maximally free being to act under the whims of human beings to stop moral evil.

When you can tell me why god is under any duty to us, write me back.

Oh, and of course we don’t predicate goodness to evil; it has not existence of its own, no positive onthology.

The world view of atheists often does not require an explanation for evil. “Sh*t happens,” pretty much covers it.

Good recipe for some existential despair.

 

[davidv]

Do you think the punishment is different, and why?

Also, why does God need to observe the event?

I don’t know.

Since he absolutely knows that you would have killed someone if he didn’t intervene, what requirement is being filled by letting it actually happen?

What is being fulfilled is the capacity to love, the total self-giving of oneself for the benefit of another. If all evil were prevented no love could exist because one could never experience the effect of choosing not to love.

 

[Phage0070]

As to why you cannot derive *ought *from is as far god is concerned, I gave you an answer. God is not under any obligation, furthermore it would be nonsensical for a maximally free being to act under the whims of human beings to stop moral evil.

I’m not deriving ought from is at all. God may actually not put any stock in stopping moral evil; that is an option in the conclusion where God is not ethical.

Oh, and of course we don’t predicate goodness to evil; it has not existence of its own, no positive onthology.

Do you mean ontology? In that case I would be inclined to agree; in both a materialistic and religious sense morality is defined, not discovered.

Good recipe for some existential despair.

Are you suggesting that we should decide what to believe based on what makes us happiest, or are you arguing atheists are too happy?

 

[Phage0070]

I don’t know.

If you don’t know if the punishment is different, or why God would need to observe the act, then how can you state with any confidence that they are distinguished? I can see you hoping they are different, but there is scriptural support at least for adultery that desire to commit the sin counts as doing it within your heart. Considering that we are judged on our hearts…

What is being fulfilled is the capacity to love, the total self-giving of oneself for the benefit of another. If all evil were prevented no love could exist because one could never experience the effect of choosing not to love.

Perhaps I spoke too soon; there are apparently some who believe that God requires evil in order to bring about certain types of good. To rephrase an earlier question in this vein, what would happen if everyone decided to do no evil? This is hypothetical of course, but by your view apparently love couldn’t exist. Wouldn’t God’s plan for us then require that some people do evil?

 

[paul_c]

Perhaps I spoke too soon; there are apparently some who believe that God requires evil in order to bring about certain types of good. To rephrase an earlier question in this vein, what would happen if everyone decided to do no evil? This is hypothetical of course, but by your view apparently love couldn’t exist. Wouldn’t God’s plan for us then require that some people do evil?

No, Love can’t exist without free will. If everyone decided to do no evil, we would have perfect love - with everyone doing things for others without expecting anything in return. this is what exists in heaven.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Do you think you are in a better position to decide right from wrong than God is? Don’t you recognize how much more limited your viewpoint is than God’s? If you percieve that God is unjust, isn’t the more likely problem your lack of perception rather than God’s lack of morals?

These questions are absolutely relevant. Let’s be honest, the entire purpose of this intellectual exercise is to try to prove through reason that God is immoral. These questions drive home the fact that God defines what is and isn’t moral - not you. And since he defines morality, how can he be immoral? The fact is, this whole exercise is ridiculous because the most you can prove is that you don’t approve of God’s morality. And in the end, who cares what you approve of?

Originally Posted by paul c
And yes, you can’t judge God by the same standards that you judge a man. You are in no position to judge God because you can’t see what he sees nor know what he knows

Sure, you know that he sees everything. You just don’t know what “everything” entails, so you are in no position to judge.

Originally Posted by paul c
This is why I told you in a previous post, that its a fool’s errand to try to judge God. You are just not in a position to do so.

My definition of Good is that it corresponds with God’s wishes so by definition, God is good. Your problem is that you are not aligned with God’s wishes, so you seek to prove that you are right and he is wrong. Frankly, this won’t happen - can’t you see this?

 

[Phage0070]

What is being fulfilled is the capacity to love, the total self-giving of oneself for the benefit of another. If all evil were prevented no love could exist because one could never experience the effect of choosing not to love.

No, Love can’t exist without free will. If everyone decided to do no evil, we would have perfect love - with everyone doing things for others without expecting anything in return. this is what exists in heaven.

So then love can exist even if all evil is prevented. It seems you have a somewhat inconsistent position on the topic.

 

[Phage0070]

These questions are absolutely relevant. Let’s be honest, the entire purpose of this intellectual exercise is to try to prove through reason that God is immoral.

Or not omnipotent, or not omniscient, or that we don’t have free will, or that we don’t have an ethical imperative to help others in need. Or even that God doesn’t exist.

Perhaps if you stopped cherry-picking your conclusions and rejecting them out of hand you would have more success.

These questions drive home the fact that God defines what is and isn’t moral - not you. And since he defines morality, how can he be immoral?

Easily. God can simply be hypocritical, judging himself by a different standard of morality than humans or not at all. In that case calling God “good” isn’t meaningful considering it means something completely different than it would in any other context. That would in essence be a tacit acceptance of the “God isn’t ethical” conclusion of the argument.

You wouldn’t be the first to take such a position.

The fact is, this whole exercise is ridiculous because the most you can prove is that you don’t approve of God’s morality. And in the end, who cares what you approve of?

For a discussion forum participant this seems a particularly hostile attitude to take. First of all it doesn’t really address my point at all; rather than providing a counter-argument you are simply ignoring the topic completely. Secondly, it undermines the entire point of a discussion forum; if God makes all the rules, in the end who cares what you think about anything?

If you wished to cover your head and yell “I can’t hear you!” until the bad man’s ideas go away, you could have done it much more efficiently without posting.

My definition of Good is that it corresponds with God’s wishes so by definition, God is good.

So in other words there is literally no way in which God could be evil, no matter what his character or behavior. If you held such a belief about Lucifer there would similarly be no possibility of him being evil.

But that is beside the point: The question is if there is a moral imperative for humans to try to prevent evils inflicted on others. The question of if God is subject to that moral imperative is something of a side note. If there is a moral imperative either God is failing to uphold it, or the ethics don’t apply and neither does the terminology of being ethical.

The end result of either position on the subject is the same, so I don’t think it is important to discuss such a tangent in the context of the thread’s topic.

 

[Neo_Scotist]

I’m not deriving ought from is at all.

How odd, I thought that a key aspect of your argument was that in order for god to retain the label of benevolent, he had to act to stop evil. Does it mean that ought to stop evil does not follow from god is good?

God may actually not put any stock in stopping moral evil; that is an option in the conclusion where God is not ethical.

And then you do what you denied doing.
1-god is good and omnipotent.
2- God would stop evil.
3- Evil exists.
4- conclusion; number one is false.

You still leave us hanging on the leap from is to ought; god has no duties towards us. Second, moral merit and demerit with our neighbor follows from us having obligations towards other people, there’s no such parity with god, and so accusing god of being immoral is false. And third, God subjecting his freedom to the will of his creatures is logically inconsistent with his nature.

I would be inclined to agree; in both a materialistic and religious sense morality is defined, not discovered.

If you think evil has no physical reality of its own, evil is subjective to individual opinions of what counts as evil, then in what sense can God to be held accountable for “evil”?

Are you suggesting that we should decide what to believe based on what makes us happiest, or are you arguing atheists are too happy?

Nope to both questions…it appears completely irrelevant to the original topic, so I won’t follow this part of the discussion. Were you going somewhere with that?

 

[Phage0070]

How odd, I thought that a key aspect of your argument was that in order for god to retain the label of benevolent, he had to act to stop evil. Does it mean that ought to stop evil does not follow from god is good?

No; God behaving immorally results in God not being good. It is a separate premise that talks about inaction in stopping evil being immoral. If you disagree with that premise you should address it specifically, rather than applying special pleading to God.

And then you do what you denied doing.
1-god is good and omnipotent.
2- God would stop evil.
3- Evil exists.
4- conclusion; number one is false.

Conclusion: God is not omniscient, not omnipotent, or not completely ethical.

Note: “OR”
Conjunctions are useful and important in reading comprehension.

Furthermore, you misrepresent the structure of the argument. It proceeds more like this:

1. Stopping evil when possible is an ethical imperative.
2. God does not stop evil when possible.
3. God is delinquent in an ethical imperative.

A more complete structure of the argument can be found in (gasp) the OP!

Second, moral merit and demerit with our neighbor follows from us having obligations towards other people, there’s no such parity with god, and so accusing god of being immoral is false.

So God has no obligation to act morally toward us? It seems then that you are conceding the conclusion about God not being ethical.

And third, God subjecting his freedom to the will of his creatures is logically inconsistent with his nature.

That fits within the conclusion of God’s nature not being ethical. I don’t see how this is a problem?

If you think evil has no physical reality of its own, evil is subjective to individual opinions of what counts as evil, then in what sense can God to be held accountable for “evil”?

An interesting question, and equally valid if we consider in what sense can God be held accountable for being “good”?

Nope to both questions…it appears completely irrelevant to the original topic, so I won’t follow this part of the discussion. Were you going somewhere with that?

I was hoping you were making something other than a snide comment, but it appears I was mistaken.

 

[paul_c]

So then love can exist even if all evil is prevented. It seems you have a somewhat inconsistent position on the topic.

You are twisting what I said and arguing against a strawman. Love is chosing to do something for someone without expecting anything in return so love depends on freedom of action. Love can exist without evil if love is freely chosen. Love can not exist in an environment where there are no choices - (i.e, your example of all evil being prevented).

 

[Phage0070]

Love is chosing to do something for someone without expecting anything in return so love depends on freedom of action.

How exactly does choice require the ability to act? It seems you are arguing against the first premise, that free will and action are not the same thing.