Why don't the ends justify the means but God can permit evil to draw out a greater good?

[oldcelt]

It’s not an assumption. But it’s true that I didn’t explain it, so I will explain now.

The world works the way it does ultimately because of the interplay between the laws of physics. It is important to realize that the laws of physics are NOT the laws of logic–they are contingencies. God could change the laws of physics, and thus the workings of the universe, at his whim.

He could make death impossible, bacteria and viruses unnecessary, reproduction painless and voluntary, nutrition optional, the tectonic plates stable at all times, etc. This might seem difficult to arrange for a human, but everything is infinitely simple to an omniscient being.

All true, and we, as mere humans can see it.

 

[mikekle]

There’s a distinct error in that characterization: God didn’t create Lucifer “to constantly tempt and harass” humanity.

This is true, BUT, God DOES ALLOW Satan to do these things, since he knows all that will happen before it does, in a sense, he DID create Satan, knowing full well all that he would do.

God also ALLOWS Satan to retain all of his powers he had as an angel, if not gained some too after the fall, as I dont believe ANY other angel of God has the ability to tempt and influence the number of humans Satan has been able to, this includes Satan sending terrifying images, demons, and other things to scare the pants off people.

I know Ive said it many times, but I find it very odd, Satan did what he did, in rebelling against God, managing to convince 1/3 of the angels he was right versus God,(btw, 1/3 of the angels is likely A WHOLE LOT of angels, possibly millions of them…that is alot of **super intelligent **angels to convince God could be overthrown!) and all Satan got for this was to be kicked out of heaven…thats it!!..he retained nearly all of his powers, all of his intelligence, gained a place to call ‘home’(Hell), as they can obviously come and go, so they are definitely not imprisoned there like human souls are said to be…strange the sin Satan attempted to commit was to the extreme, so extreme, no man could commit such a thing, yet for the small sins we commit, we receive an eternity in hell, but we cannot come and go like satan and the demons, we dont retain anything(that I know of anyway), why would satan get special treatment for committing the worst possible sin any created being could commit?

Being that all this is factual, I tend to think there are details about the afterlife and how humans are ‘dealt’ with, that we do not comprehend or can understand, I dont think its as simple as many suggest…(die in mortal sin=eternity in hell OR die in Gods grace=eternity in heaven)…I dont think its this straight foward.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s not an assumption. But it’s true that I didn’t explain it, so I will explain now.

The world works the way it does ultimately because of the interplay between the laws of physics. It is important to realize that the laws of physics are NOT the laws of logic–they are contingencies. God could change the laws of physics, and thus the workings of the universe, at his whim.

He could make death impossible, bacteria and viruses unnecessary, reproduction painless and voluntary, nutrition optional, the tectonic plates stable at all times, etc. This might seem difficult to arrange for a human, but everything is infinitely simple to an omniscient being.

How could a human who has an infinitely difficult time arranging “all of this” know with any degree of certainty what an omniscient being would do and whether “infinitely simple” is even an appropriate assessment for what may only be a wildly imaginative state of reality?

Furthermore, it is not clear that even if an omnipotent being were to “make death impossible, bacteria and viruses unnecessary, reproduction painless and voluntary, nutrition optional, the tectonic plates stable at all times, etc.” that all these changes would just automatically make all humans morally upright and perfect. In fact, there is every reason to doubt that such would be the case, since not even causing great harm as a result of human action seems compelling enough to make humans act morally. Perhaps this is where “simple” might more adequately be descriptive of your analysis.

One would think that looking at the pained faces of those who are raped, tortured or murdered would “simply” be sufficient to stop perpetuation of evil, since empathy does not require omniscience to feel the pain of others. It would seem an even simpler matter than your “infinitely simple” one for finite humans to treat each other with loving concern, yet that eminently simple matter seems beyond even our “limited” means.

 

[Amandil]

It’s not an assumption. But it’s true that I didn’t explain it, so I will explain now.

The world works the way it does ultimately because of the interplay between the laws of physics. It is important to realize that the laws of physics are NOT the laws of logic–they are contingencies. God could change the laws of physics, and thus the workings of the universe, at his whim.

Which violates the law of non-contradiction.

He could make death impossible,

Not without violating human nature.

…bacteria and viruses unnecessary, reproduction painless and voluntary, nutrition optional, the tectonic plates stable at all times, etc.

All those circumstances are the result of Original Sin, not God. God did create what you suggest, humanity perverted it, and thus must “taste the fruits” of that decision as the means of obtaining spiritual maturity.

This might seem difficult to arrange for a human, but everything is infinitely simple to an omniscient being.

It is an unjustifiable assumption because what you call “good” is wholly based on your subjective opinion, not on any objective criteria.

Secondly, because of your atheism, you have no basis to say what “good” is or comparatively what “bad” is because everything is merely the interplay of the “workings of the universe”, thus you must accept anything and everything as merely the effect of that cause and accept them both equally.

 

[Oreoracle]

Which violates the law of non-contradiction.

No, it doesn’t. Other sets of physical laws are conceivable, so they are logically possible. Those laws don’t exist, but that’s not the same as saying they are logically inconsistent.

An analogous situation occurs in math, for example. You can tweak the rules of arithmetic and geometry and still get a consistent axiomatic system.

Not without violating human nature.

So what? If God intervenes in worldly affairs to any extent whatsoever, he’s necessarily violating the nature of something. God made that “nature”, so he should be entitled to unmake it, right? That’s why Christians don’t criticize God’s supposed miracles.

God did create what you suggest, humanity perverted it, and thus must “taste the fruits” of that decision as the means of obtaining spiritual maturity.

But God still created us with full knowledge of the evil we would commit and the suffering caused by his punishments. He still committed evil in that case.

It is an unjustifiable assumption because what you call “good” is wholly based on your subjective opinion, not on any objective criteria.

That’s true for anyone. You weren’t born a Christian. You chose to believe and worship a God because, at some point, you agreed with Christian morality. At some point you had to make a choice, and that choice was based on your subjective opinions.

You can’t say that you chose that morality because it was God’s and God is always right, because the sentiment that God is always correct on moral matters is a tenet of Christian morality. To use that sentiment in your choice to adopt Christian morality would be circular reasoning.

Secondly, because of your atheism, you have no basis to say what “good” is or comparatively what “bad” is because everything is merely the interplay of the “workings of the universe”, thus you must accept anything and everything as merely the effect of that cause and accept them both equally.

Likewise, my attempts to moralize are also a result of the laws of physics. So by the same reasoning, I’m going to carry on with moralizing.

 

[Oreoracle]

How could a human who has an infinitely difficult time arranging “all of this” know with any degree of certainty what an omniscient being would do

We aren’t talking about what would be done, we’re talking about what could be done.

…and whether “infinitely simple” is even an appropriate assessment for what may only be a wildly imaginative state of reality?

Imaginative though it may be, the fact that it can be imagined suggests that it’s logically possible. I would be using my imagination if I envisioned myself as a billionaire, because I’m not. But the fact that I can imagine it suggests that it’s logically possible, and that’s enough for an omnipotent being to work with.

Furthermore, it is not clear that even if an omnipotent being were to “make death impossible, bacteria and viruses unnecessary, reproduction painless and voluntary, nutrition optional, the tectonic plates stable at all times, etc.” that all these changes would just automatically make all humans morally upright and perfect.

Two things: 1) The list was not meant to be exhaustive. 2) The idea is that, by making such changes, God would effectively make evil physically impossible. The inevitable complaint is that this negates free will, but so what? Free will doesn’t seem to be inherently good. Indeed, it’s possible to imagine that our universe is deterministic, so realities in which humans have free will and ones in which they don’t are indistinguishable (by us, at least).

 

[Amandil]

So what? If God intervenes in worldly affairs to any extent whatsoever, he’s necessarily violating the nature of something. God made that “nature”, so he should be entitled to unmake it, right? That’s why Christians don’t criticize God’s supposed miracles.

Miracles don’t “violate” the laws of nature-any more than a school principal violates the schedule of classes by cancelling gym for a special assembly. Violations take place whenever someone who has to follow or uphold an established order fails or refuses to do so-e.g. if the gym teacher cancels classes on his own to lead his students in and hour of spontaneous prayer. The principal has done no such thing because what he is doing is within the scope of his authority. Miracles are nothing more than God blessedly altering the schhedule

God has authority over all creation, so its absurd to not accept that God made the miraculous part of the laws of nature but rather that God designed the system of laws in which His intervention was part of the plan.

But God still created us with full knowledge of the evil we would commit and the suffering caused by his punishments. He still committed evil in that case.

Don’t be absurd. If you created a robot and that robot killed people, you would in fact be responsible because you programed the robot to kill.

God did not program people to kill, or to sin at all. People choose to sin by their own free will, they have every opportunity to NOT sin, they still do so contrary to how God created them.

God’s knowledge does not dictate that they sin nor compels or forces them to sin; that’s ultimately their decision.

That’s true for anyone. You weren’t born a Christian. You chose to believe and worship a God because, at some point, you agreed with Christian morality. At some point you had to make a choice, and that choice was based on your subjective opinions.

What is asserted without reason…

You can’t say that you chose that morality because it was God’s and God is always right, because the sentiment that God is always correct on moral matters is a tenet of Christian morality. To use that sentiment in your choice to adopt Christian morality would be circular reasoning.

Quote me where I said that I did. Short of that you’re just simply putting words in my mouth.

Likewise, my attempts to moralize are also a result of the laws of physics. So by the same reasoning, I’m going to carry on with moralizing.

Which means that your violating the laws of physics because the science of physics cannot determine what morality is. Physics is not the science of morality, ethics is.

You’re committing the naturalistic fallacy, deriving more from less.

 

[Peter_Plato]

We aren’t talking about what would be done, we’re talking about what could be done.

Imaginative though it may be, the fact that it can be imagined suggests that it’s logically possible. I would be using my imagination if I envisioned myself as a billionaire, because I’m not. But the fact that I can imagine it suggests that it’s logically possible, and that’s enough for an omnipotent being to work with.

Two things: 1) The list was not meant to be exhaustive. 2) The idea is that, by making such changes, God would effectively make evil physically impossible. The inevitable complaint is that this negates free will, but so what? Free will doesn’t seem to be inherently good. Indeed, it’s possible to imagine that our universe is deterministic, so realities in which humans have free will and ones in which they don’t are indistinguishable (by us, at least).

Conceiving or imagining something to be easy or, even, possible without a realistic accounting for everything necessary to make it so does not provide an adequate explanation for why “imagined” equates to “logically possible.”

For one thing, it would be necessary to show that God COULD simply “program” the will of free moral agents without, thereby, compromising the essential self-identity of those agents.

As far as I can tell, the capacity to originate novel courses of activity in the real world is a necessary aspect of what it means to have personal identity, i.e., to exist as a subjective self. In other words, I would not be ‘who’ I am and you would not be ‘who’ you are without the autonomous capacity to think, intend and act.

This complicates your ‘easy’ solution greatly, in particular, if God wills to create living, thinking, conscious, personal and moral ‘selves’ rather than just rocks, trees and gaseous eruptions.

Now, of course, if you subscribe to eliminative materialism and think (wrongly) that ‘persons’ are nothing more than the chemical off-gassing of neurochemical reagents in the brain, i.e., an emergent property, then, perhaps, you view explanatory sufficiency as merely a trivial matter. If so, then there is nothing I can add which will make you question your willingness to embrace as true whatever illusive fiction it is that ventures into your field of fancies, since, as you say, anything you can conceive must be possible.

 

[Peter_Plato]

At some point you had to make a choice, and that choice was based on your subjective opinions.

This isn’t entirely true because we do not believe ALL our “subjective opinions.” So the choice isn’t based solely on “subjective opinions.” It is in weighing those “subjective opinions” against objective reality that is the crucial element you are ignoring. Otherwise, we would have no means by which to compare merely subjective opinions against “plausible,” “reasonable” or “undeniable” truths.

You wouldn’t claim, for example, that 1+1=2 is merely a subjective opinion, would you?

 

[Oreoracle]

The principal has done no such thing because what he is doing is within the scope of his authority. Miracles are nothing more than God blessedly altering the schedule

Fine, the principal just “changed” the schedule then. My argument really didn’t hinge on the word “violate”, so it makes little difference to me whether you want to quibble about semantics.

God did not program people to kill, or to sin at all. People choose to sin by their own free will, they have every opportunity to NOT sin, they still do so contrary to how God created them.

Actually they don’t have the opportunity not to sin. Gods knows everything we’ll do, which means all that we do is predetermined. God would have decided everything I’d do in my life the second he made me, for example.

You can have free will, or you can have God’s omniscience and omnibenevolence, but you can’t have both.

God’s knowledge does not dictate that they sin nor compels or forces them to sin; that’s ultimately their decision.

He did something while knowing the consequences beforehand. He is therefore responsible for the consequences.

Which means that your violating the laws of physics because the science of physics cannot determine what morality is. Physics is not the science of morality, ethics is.

That doesn’t make sense. That’s like saying that appreciating poetry violates physics because physics isn’t concerned with aesthetics. There is no contradiction, it’s just that the language of physics isn’t suited to such things.

 

[Oreoracle]

For one thing, it would be necessary to show that God COULD simply “program” the will of free moral agents without, thereby, compromising the essential self-identity of those agents.

But aspects of our identity are not essential. The universe once existed without us. Clearly we aren’t essential or necessary in any sense.

In other words, I would not be ‘who’ I am and you would not be ‘who’ you are without the autonomous capacity to think, intend and act.

I can certainly conceive of a universe is which we can only express our subjective selves in harmless ways, can’t you?

This complicates your ‘easy’ solution greatly, in particular, if God wills to create living, thinking, conscious, personal and moral ‘selves’ rather than just rocks, trees and gaseous eruptions.

If it were indeed the case that God couldn’t create certain things without evil, I’d say the most reasonable solution would be to not create those things. It’s like the old principle “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” except on a cosmic scale.

This isn’t entirely true because we do not believe ALL our “subjective opinions.”

I don’t know what it would mean to have an opinion but not believe it.

You wouldn’t claim, for example, that 1+1=2 is merely a subjective opinion, would you?

I would say that statement is true because it coincides with the axioms that were chosen for arithmetic. This choice of axioms isn’t “objective” however. Other varieties of arithmetic are possible and have been studied.

Likewise, perhaps your morality is self-consistent given the axioms you’ve chosen. But what one cannot do is argue that their choice of axioms is somehow preferable to others. After all, attempting to justify your own axioms with those very axioms would be circular reasoning.

Now of course we don’t call things like “1+1=2” subjective matters in our daily lives because we all agree on axioms of arithmetic as a matter of convention. No such consensus exists for morality, however, so it’s necessary to point out the subjectivity of the choice of axioms in that case.

 

[Gorgias]

This is true, BUT, God DOES ALLOW Satan to do these things, since he knows all that will happen before it does, in a sense, he DID create Satan, knowing full well all that he would do.

You’re arguing that God is the author of evil. Clearly, that’s an error of logic. Let’s suppose you have a son, and in the course of raising your son, you learn a lot about him – you know all his likes and dislikes, his tendencies, what makes him happy or sad or angry – you know him like you know yourself. Let’s further assume that your spouse knows your son… but not quite as well as you do. If he grows up, goes off and commits a crime – one that your spouse might have expected him to commit – does this knowledge mean that your spouse created him to do these things? Does it mean that your spouse caused him to do them? Does this mean that your spouse is responsible for his actions? Of course not. That would be illogical. But what about you? After all, you knew him better! Still, you’re not responsible for his actions. Now, let’s address your assertion: does God – who knows him best – get tagged with the responsibility for his actions? No; for the same reason that you don’t, vis-a-vis your spouse.

all Satan got for this was to be kicked out of heaven…thats it!!..he retained nearly all of his powers, all of his intelligence, gained a place to call ‘home’(Hell), as they can obviously come and go, so they are definitely not imprisoned there like human souls are said to be…strange the sin Satan attempted to commit was to the extreme, so extreme, no man could commit such a thing, yet for the small sins we commit, we receive an eternity in hell, but we cannot come and go like satan and the demons, we dont retain anything(that I know of anyway), why would satan get special treatment for committing the worst possible sin any created being could commit?

You’re missing the forest for the trees: now, prior to the end of the world, Satan has this ‘freedom’; at the second coming of Christ, Satan will get his just desserts. Analogously, humans aren’t punished with eternal damnation now, while they’re alive; once they die, however…

See? The two cases are precisely analogous!

 

[Amandil]

Fine, the principal just “changed” the schedule then. My argument really didn’t hinge on the word “violate”, so it makes little difference to me whether you want to quibble about semantics.

Whatever you say…

Actually they don’t have the opportunity not to sin. Gods knows everything we’ll do, which means all that we do is predetermined. God would have decided everything I’d do in my life the second he made me, for example.

You can have free will, or you can have God’s omniscience and omnibenevolence, but you can’t have both.

False dichotomy.

He did something while knowing the consequences beforehand. He is therefore responsible for the consequences.

Don’t be absurd. Using such divine determinism you sound like a Calvinist instead of an atheist. Secondly, its ridiculous to say that if a son goes out and kills someone that the parents are responsible, whether they knew that the son would do it or not. Their knowledge could never have prevented the son from committing murder. It’s ridiculous to assume that God does a cost-benefit analysis before creating any human being.

The only possible world that God could have created in which evil did not exist would be a world which would be impossible for you to choose to be an atheist.

That doesn’t make sense. That’s like saying that appreciating poetry violates physics because physics isn’t concerned with aesthetics. There is no contradiction, it’s just that the language of physics isn’t suited to such things.

Just as the language, or even the science, of physics isn’t suited to morality or ethics. To base morality or ethics upon physics is to go beyond the purpose of physics, again, deriving more from less(ethics being a higher science than physics).

 

[Oreoracle]

Secondly, its ridiculous to say that if a son goes out and kills someone that the parents are responsible, whether they knew that the son would do it or not. Their knowledge could never have prevented the son from committing murder.

Yes, it could have. If you could know beforehand that your son will be evil, then it’s your obligation not to reproduce.

It’s ridiculous to assume that God does a cost-benefit analysis before creating any human being.

That sounds pretty reckless of him. What’s the point of knowing everything if you’re not going to use the knowledge?

We, as humans, are certainly expected to do cost-benefit analyses of our actions (this is fundamental to all consequence-based moralities), and we only have limited knowledge. Yet God should get away with not considering consequences when he should know them beforehand? This is a radical double-standard.

The only possible world that God could have created in which evil did not exist would be a world which would be impossible for you to choose to be an atheist.

Firstly, I want to say that if you really think being atheist is a choice in the same way that, say, being in a political party is a choice, then you don’t understand the considerations that I and other atheists have gone through. I dearly wanted to believe in a god, for example, but no amount of willpower will convince a critical thinker that 2+2=5, and so it is with religion. Belief all too often is not a matter of choice.

Obviously I disagree with the assessment that atheism is evil, but so be it. I’ll play along. It’s evil, so why should it be allowed? I don’t see why free will receives such high praises. Imagine a world where every human action is determined by the laws of physics, as our brains are physical after all. What observable difference is there between that world and this one? Would the humans of the world lacking free will even know they’re missing anything?

Besides, if God knows what choices I’ll make, in what sense are they free? Again, you can quibble about semantics, but to me they aren’t free if they’re known beforehand. To illustrate, let’s do a thought experiment: Suppose I ask you to count from 1 to 100, and you agree to do so. I will of course know beforehand the numbers you’ll say and the order in which you’ll say them. Here’s where the semantics come in: You could argue that my knowledge of the numbers you’ll utter doesn’t determine the order of the sequence, and in a cause-and-effect sense it doesn’t. But the fact that I can know the order logically implies that the order has been predetermined.

Just as the language, or even the science, of physics isn’t suited to morality or ethics. To base morality or ethics upon physics is to go beyond the purpose of physics, again, deriving more from less(ethics being a higher science than physics).

We can just agree to disagree on this, as it’s not a relevant topic. I’ll only say that just because the language of physics isn’t suited toward a certain discussion doesn’t mean the subject matter isn’t physical. For instance, biology is just a subset of physics, yet the language of physics isn’t suited for biological discussion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t know what it would mean to have an opinion but not believe it.

That is what I was afraid of. Try applying some of your skepticism to your own opinions and see where you end up. This is one reason the term “free thinker” is often abused. It has come to mean someone with strong opinions about the non-existence of God, not someone with an open mind who is willing to question their own current thinking by looking for the truth even when it puts into question the subjective “confidence” they feel for their cherished belief network.

When you have constructed an entire world view based on a collection of affable subjective beliefs, you are very correct that having an opinion that could be seriously questioned would lead to “confusion” (aka cognitive dissonance.) It would be far less disturbing, emotionally speaking, to deny the offending ideas and rationalize them away BECAUSE too much is at stake, conceptually speaking, when those ideas would require an entire world view overhaul. For this reason, the deep thinking of others is often rationalized away, for example, by claiming, “You are only Catholic because you were brought up in a Catholic culture.” This doesn’t explain conversions, for one.

 

[Oreoracle]

That is what I was afraid of. Try applying some of your skepticism to your own opinions and see where you end up

If I ponder about one of my opinions and then decide to discard it, it doesn’t mean that I didn’t believe in that opinion. It just means I changed my mind; that is, I used to believe it, and then I didn’t believe it. It’s extremely convoluted to argue that I never “truly” believed it to begin with. (It’s reminiscent of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.) What, then, would be your definition of “opinion”?

This is one reason the term “free thinker” is often abused. It has come to mean someone with strong opinions about the non-existence of God, not someone with an open mind who is willing to question their own current thinking by looking for the truth even when it puts into question the subjective “confidence” they feel for their cherished belief network.

And here you’ve expressed several opinions very confidently. Do you consider yourself a free-thinker?

When you have constructed an entire world view based on a collection of affable subjective beliefs, you are very correct that having an opinion that could be seriously questioned would lead to “confusion” (aka cognitive dissonance.)

There’s a difference between questioning a belief and genuinely doubting it. I question myself all the time, but that usually doesn’t lead to actual doubt.

For this reason, the deep thinking of others is often rationalized away, for example, by claiming, “You are only Catholic because you were brought up in a Catholic culture.” This doesn’t explain conversions, for one.

The support for that claim is actually statistical, and not a rationalization. The fact of the matter is that the best predictors of your religion are 1) the religion(s) of your parents, and 2) your nationality. Income is also a good predictor of one’s denomination once their religion is known.

 

[VonRupp]

Yes, it could have. If you could know beforehand that your son will be evil, then it’s your obligation not to reproduce.

So those who live in ghettos where crime rates are high should not reproduce?

 

[Oreoracle]

So those who live in ghettos where crime rates are high should not reproduce?

If I lived in a ghetto, I’d try to avoid having kids, yes. But the point here is that the standards should be more lenient for humans. We aren’t certain of the consequences of our actions, for one thing. But God is supposed to be omniscient, so he has no excuses.

 

[VonRupp]

If I lived in a ghetto, I’d try to avoid having kids, yes. But the point here is that the standards should be more lenient for humans. We aren’t certain of the consequences of our actions, for one thing. But God is supposed to be omniscient, so he has no excuses.

So if we aren’t able to see the consequences of our own actions, how can we claim to have the ability to know the consequences of God’s actions and thus the justification for criticism?

 

[Oreoracle]

So if we aren’t able to see the consequences of our own actions, how can we claim to have the ability to know the consequences of God’s actions and thus the justification for criticism?

Well, God created everything, right? He knew everything we would do the moment he created us. Indeed, he could have made us differently if he didn’t like whatever outcome he foresaw. Since he made everything, every event is a consequence of God’s actions.

There’s really no way that statement could be false with a creator god. In order for an event to not be a consequence of God’s actions, it would have to occur independently of God’s creation. In metaphysical terms, it would have to be another necessary being. But in Christian theology, God is the only necessary being.